Iarmor Posted January 28, 2018 Share Posted January 28, 2018 Merkava mk 4 crew training company 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grenny Posted February 3, 2018 Share Posted February 3, 2018 Cold war training video Best part starts at rough 06:00...mit cute RC tanks 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rad Posted February 3, 2018 Share Posted February 3, 2018 (edited) Edited February 3, 2018 by Rad 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matsimus Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TankHunter Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 Reportedly a Leopard 2 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grenny Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 IED?? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpow66m Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 ATGM,You can hear it fired. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSe419E Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 There is a higher res version on youtude that is posted on tanknet. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grenny Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 25 minutes ago, TSe419E said: There is a higher res version on youtude that is posted on tanknet. Didn't have it running with sound for fear of high snackbar levels. Ok, its YPG, so not much snackbaring... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furia Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 Do we know what type of tank and with type of ATGM was that? I do not find the hi-Ress version of the video so I cannot identify the tank. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rad Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted February 5, 2018 Members Share Posted February 5, 2018 Even the high-res version that I saw only suggests a square/angular turret front; given that Turkey is known to employ Leopard 2A4s in the region right now it at least appears plausible. Likewise, the Kurds received Milan ATGMs from Germany in support of their fight against ISIS; all that the video shows is a red tracer, so it's hard to make a statement that would hold up to critical questions. It is quite possible that they sourced other ATGMs; the time of flight of the missile in the video is about 16 seconds. The delay between explosion and Boom sound is about 10 seconds. This suggests a distance to target of about 3300m (far beyond the Milan's range of 1800m), so it's rather likely that something entirely different was used. At the end of the day, even older ATGMs that manage to perforate into the hull ammo storage compartment are capable of defeating Leopard 2s. The fundamental problem is the employment of tanks in static, fortified positions, denying them the third tactical component aside from armor protection and firepower - mobility. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lavictoireestlavie Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Ssnake said: Even the high-res version that I saw only suggests a square/angular turret front; given that Turkey is known to employ Leopard 2A4s in the region right now it at least appears plausible. Likewise, the Kurds received Milan ATGMs from Germany in support of their fight against ISIS; all that the video shows is a red tracer, so it's hard to make a statement that would hold up to critical questions. It is quite possible that they sourced other ATGMs; the time of flight of the missile in the video is about 16 seconds. The delay between explosion and Boom sound is about 10 seconds. This suggests a distance to target of about 3300m (far beyond the Milan's range of 1800m), so it's rather likely that something entirely different was used. At the end of the day, even older ATGMs that manage to perforate into the hull ammo storage compartment are capable of defeating Leopard 2s. The fundamental problem is the employment of tanks in static, fortified positions, denying them the third tactical component aside from armor protection and firepower - mobility. Edited February 5, 2018 by lavictoireestlavie 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furia Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 The ATGM of the second video appears to be either an AT-4 or an AT-5 but shows a similar flight pattern and tracer of the missile. The really interesting thing for me is the absolute inmediate catastrofic explosion on the 2A4. That surprised me. Also the initial fireball looks like more "fuel" or napaln than the tipical penetration and later ammo and fuel exploding. We have seen many videos of actual tanks exploding upon receving ATG or tank rounds but such hollywood fuel explsion I have never seen before one milisecond after impact. Not even with tanks hit by heavy maverik missiles. But I am surely not an expert and I am probably wrong Does this explosion one milisecond after impact looks normal to you guys specially considering this could be a 2A4? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Assassin 7 Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 (edited) IMO it’s looks like a direct hit to the hull ammo from the side of the hull. I think the rounds are cooked off immediately which caused the major explosions. Maybe fuel too, I could be wrong though Edited February 5, 2018 by Assassin 7 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Assassin 7 Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 (edited) Here is the one with the ammo cook off: also is not equivalent to the M1A2 SEPV3. The V2’s and V3’s have a completely different electronics and Armor package. Edited February 5, 2018 by Assassin 7 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted February 5, 2018 Members Share Posted February 5, 2018 A direct hit to the hull ammo stowage will do this. Steel Beasts has predicted that outcome since version 1.0, 17 years ago; it shouldn't really surprise anyone here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grenny Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 9 hours ago, Ssnake said: Even the high-res version that I saw only suggests a square/angular turret front; given that Turkey is known to employ Leopard 2A4s in the region right now it at least appears plausible. Likewise, the Kurds received Milan ATGMs from Germany in support of their fight against ISIS; all that the video shows is a red tracer, so it's hard to make a statement that would hold up to critical questions. It is quite possible that they sourced other ATGMs; the time of flight of the missile in the video is about 16 seconds. The delay between explosion and Boom sound is about 10 seconds. This suggests a distance to target of about 3300m (far beyond the Milan's range of 1800m), so it's rather likely that something entirely different was used. At the end of the day, even older ATGMs that manage to perforate into the hull ammo storage compartment are capable of defeating Leopard 2s. The fundamental problem is the employment of tanks in static, fortified positions, denying them the third tactical component aside from armor protection and firepower - mobility. The problem is that in this type of conflict, you have to act "medieval like"...establish strong points ("castles") from which to expand zones of control. The tank may not be the best suited for the main role in this kind of warfare in the first place. There are better designs for this purpose from the aspect of protection against AGTM (mainly with APS like Merkava and T-90) or with crew surviability like the M1A2. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted February 5, 2018 Members Share Posted February 5, 2018 Well, sure. Also, agreed that a tank with an APS would handle this better - but you take what you got, and they don't have an APS yet. So I wonder if you wouldn't be better off keeping the tanks in defilade until you actually need the gun, and rather use manned outposts. Which are also vulnerable to ATGMs, but offer less reward to the attacker. Immobilizing tanks/making their location predictable offers the enemy considerably more freedom to set up his attack, to stake out firing positions well in advance, ... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matsimus Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furia Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lavictoireestlavie Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 (edited) Edited February 7, 2018 by lavictoireestlavie 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lavictoireestlavie Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rad Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lavictoireestlavie Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 BM Oplot in 2015 during tank trials in Pakistan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mA3ajSvC2g 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.