Soviet tank crew survival. - Page 8

kevineduguay1 · #71 October 6th, 2005, 10:08 PM

bison24,

Got proof?

Listy · #72 October 6th, 2005, 11:46 PM

I'm with Bison on this, the explosion seems a tad too vigorous.

Take for example a T-72 hit by a Fin round during the 91 gulf war. Most lost their turrets to the internal explosion. But the hull didn't tear it's self apart like that.

kevineduguay1 · #73 October 7th, 2005, 12:08 AM

Listy,

The T-72 in the test was FULLY loaded with ammo and fuel. This no doubt had an effect on the test and the total destruction of the vehicle. It would serve no purpose to load the tank up with explosives just for shlts and giggles.

Go to my Javelin post and click on the strategy page web site. The article explains a little about how the tests were done.

Backis · #74 October 7th, 2005, 06:30 AM

Quote:

kevineduguay1 said:
Listy,

The T-72 in the test was FULLY loaded with ammo and fuel. This no doubt had an effect on the test and the total destruction of the vehicle. It would serve no purpose to load the tank up with explosives just for shlts and giggles.

No reason?

How about impressing US politicians who know squat about armaments with a flashy display to ensure project survival?

Do you have any proof about how that test was set up, and that it wasn't tampered with?

I've seen test videos covering "sim-loaded" T-72M hit by rbs56, and the effect is nowhere similar. Loaded T-72 hit under actual combat doesn't disintegrate like that.

The Jav video is the anomaly, and then it becomes your responsibility to support your claim that there was no doctoring of this test.

Sorry, a line of text from "cut and paste" Strategypage doesn't cut it...

Quote:

kevineduguay1 said:
Go to my Javelin post and click on the strategy page web site. The article explains a little about how the tests were done.

I've read that exact same post, with slightly different wording, made by a half-dozen other know-nothings on at least three different boards already... and let me tell you you're not bringing anything new to the table at all.

A propellant conflagration is not that violent, look at photos of KK T-72 by HEAT or APFSDS from actual wars, the hull stays at least relatively intact even if they pop their turrets.

Get a clue dude. Its no crime being no expert, but pretending to know wtf you're talking about when you're not won't win you any respect.

JaM · #75 October 7th, 2005, 11:10 AM

I read somewhere that they didnt use T-72 loaded with ammo, but they loaded it with explosives whole tank, so it made such a boom...

Marcello · #76 October 7th, 2005, 11:27 AM

I tend to agree.The level of destruction is suspicious.
I have seen plenty of pictures of T-72s, M84s etc destroyed by high end western weapons.I doubt that they were all down to the last round of ammunition and liter of fuel when they were hit.They had maybe lost the turret, they were burned down but disintegrated like that? No way.

Marek_Tucan · #77 October 7th, 2005, 12:19 PM

For me the pictures also looked like a "too big bang"... Our Army Technical Magasine presented several pictures of T-55's and -72's destroyed in Iraq by various weapons (many of them were in an article about Hellfires), but even had the turret been torn apart and blown off, the hull was keeping its shape.

Sewter · #78 October 7th, 2005, 02:24 PM

You must recall that there are inconsistencies with this video. The boom heard is instant, not delayed, which would happen at such a far range. Watch the video frame by frame and there is a suspicious detonation prior to the missile hitting the mighty T-72.

Also, attached is a photo of the mighty Maverick, with its powerful warhead killing a M113. Note the size of the explosion. There is a considerable difference. And I do not think that diesel fuel blows up like that, unless it was contained and pressurized. I mean a whole lot of pressurized diesel, too. Furthermore, why would they load a tank with munitions and blow it up? The resulting secondary explosions, unexploded munitions, would create a very hazardous test sight.

Sorry, but this video is a bit too questionable. And you should watch your language, for one who swears is one who does not know the devil is in the details, my Javelin friend.

kevineduguay1 · #79 October 7th, 2005, 10:35 PM

Sewter,

So far your response has made the most sence. What I'm talking about is you mention of the use of live munitions on the target vehicle.
You have a valid point! Maybe they did use high explosives to simulate the ammo load of the T-72 target vehicle. This would only make sence for safety reasons as you mentioned. Did this make the vehicle explode more violently then it should have? I would have to say that it could.

But mention was made that the little blue flame between the bogies on the target vehicle were caused by an already planted explosive device. Thats just not true. That little flash was caused by the first charge of the duel warhead pennetrating the bottom hull of the vehicle.

See pic attached. This is of a Predator Light ATGM (US) hitting a target M48/M60 (Not sure which). Notice flash under vehicle.

P.S. I did not swear, it was only a minor expletive!!

Marcello · #80 October 8th, 2005, 02:56 PM

We are speaking about a warhead rated at 600mm against an armor thickness which should not be more than 40mm.That the jet would go throught the bottom should be expected.
The first charge however is typically only a small precursor charge meant to detonate ERA bricks, it should not have the energy to do that.Unless the Javelin has a different internal arrangement,that should be the result of the main charge.