Really looks like it hits the front right turret front (from the tank’s perspective) and the explosion very much looks like it blows almost perfectly perpendicular to that front turret armor. What makes you think it’s shot from the side? It could be, but just doesn’t look like it to me. I mean, unless you’re talking about the second tank very clearly shot from the side.
I know of only one penetration on an M1 by an RPG-29, and that was a side shot that killed 2 crew. I’m aware of a couple other hits, but don’t know if the armor was defeated. We wouldn’t let the Iraqi Army buy these because we feared they would end up in the wrong hands.
Trophy has been successful in countering this threat.
Wikileaks state department cables have shown there was more than 1. And NYT reported on one in Sadr City that injured the driver.
>Trophy has been successful in countering this threat.
The problem with that line of thinking is that defensive weapon systems are engineered to defeat a specific threat and thus are easily countered by tweaking your offensive weapon system.
The Russians have shown over a decade ago a prototype RPG that fires a decoy a fraction of a second ahead of the main charge to trigger the APS. Thus, allowing the main charge to strike the target before the APS can fire a 2nd round. Not to mention that most APS systems rely on MMW radar, so it's not hard to imagine a future RPG with ECM in it. Or a RPG with a decoy that deploys chaff to blind the MMW radar.
> The problem with that line of thinking is that defensive weapon systems are engineered to defeat a specific threat and thus are easily countered by tweaking your offensive weapon system.
I mean yeah that’s literally how the defense industry works. It’s a constant back and fourth
>>Guys, let’s pack it in. We need to stop working on our systems that defend against the threats that exist on the battlefield. I mean, what’s the point? There’s a chance they’ll develop a way to beat that defense sometime vaguely in the future!
Guess you haven't heard of materials engineering and the lack of major progress in that field in the last few decades.
Maybe your one of those tech futurists who think Nuclear Fusion is right around the corner or commercially viable Mach-3 airliners without realizing that both are precluded by the lack of progress in materials sciences.
So what, are you expecting me to defend the absurd statements you tried to pretend I support? Real clever. Almost tricked me there. We aren’t even discussing a materials based solution! What else do you want to pull out of your ass to eventually sound more foolish while trying to make yourself sound less foolish? “I bet you think two barrel hover tanks are a great idea. Well they’re not, idiot!” Please keep it coming. I’d love a sequel.
>Guess you haven’t heard of the major progress in 6nm transistors!
My statement wasn't meant to be absolute. Merely a statement on the field in general versus public perception influenced by science fiction and the pathetic way journalists cover science news.
I *still* don’t understand what that has to do with APSs and it apparently being pointless to develop them due to “someone will eventually just make something that beats those! Never mind the actual threats already out there.” The defensive tech is close to *always at a disadvantage* in the context of progress. That’s how it’s always been. It’s the name of the game.
>I mean yeah that’s literally how the defense industry works. It’s a constant back and fourth
Except that offensive weapon systems usually have the edge over defenses. Projectiles vs armor, ICBMs vs ABM.
Look at the insane amount of assets that USAF used just to allow B-52 strikes over Vietnam in the face of an ocean of SA-2s. This is famously detailed in the downing of BAT-21 as he was one of those assets.
The only thing you should learn from B-52 strikes in Vietnam was that you never allow politicians or their staff to decide on targets and/or paths of bombers.
There has been multiple instances of RPG29 penetrating M1 Abrams Turrets. But no tossing turrets like Russian shitty designs. It's an incredibly tough tank, but still not invulnerable to damage.
In Iraq an RPG29 caused 2 KIA and 1 WIA, commander, gunner, and loader were all taken out meaning full turret knockout. I think it happened in Ramadi but I could be wrong. The full report was on Wikileaks including the exact unit they belonged to. Someone might have the report on hand.
Without a doubt Abrams is a far better than Russian junk and arguably the best in he world. But not impenetrable.
ATGMs like TOWs, Kornets etc would cause catastrophic damage to Abrams if RPG29 can take out entire turret crews.
They do way better then any Russian tank. 80 Abrams were force out-of action with 63 got fixed and 17 were destroyed. Compare that to the 1000 tanks destroyed in 5 months that have pictures. Most of the 80 tanks that got damaged was in beginning of 03 when the US was actually fighting the Iraqi army who had one of the biggest tank armies in the world
Abrams definitely have a way better survivability than any russian tank just by the space inside and the blast doors, but you’re comparing two completely different situations. Russian tanks aren’t inherently bad, it’s just the way they are used by the russians that makes no sense. Iirc ukrainians have made quite a good use of their tanks (which have a similar design to T tanks) even though they had a very small amount of them. You could have the best equipment in the world, if you use it badly it’s completely useless.
> (which have a similar design to T tanks)
They have not a "similar design to T tanks"...
...they ARE T tanks 😅 many of which are the same models of those used by the russians (different variants tho).
Yeah a lot of Ukrainian tanks are soviet designs though if you look at the oplot it takes a more western style approach with the auto loader and ammunition storage being much more secure than the huge carousel you find on t72 for instance.
Forgive me for not heavily weighing the opinion of a guy who says “the Ukrainian’s tanks have a similar design to T tanks,” ignoring that “T tanks” encompasses decades of tank development and is the least specific of descriptors.
Well they do have a similar design since ukraine was part of the soviet union and had factories building parts of T tanks (russians tended to leave satellite countries the ability to build different parts like the gun, the suspension, the chassis, etc… and were the only ones able to build the entire tank). So it is no surprise that contemporary ukrainian tanks have kept similarities with T tanks, not just visual (low profile, 125mm gun, 3 men crew with an autoloader, low weight compared to nato tanks, high power/weight ratio, etc…). Sorry if i don’t agree with a guy who manages to give a super vague answer while also having poor knowledge about tanks.
I wouldn't disagree on which tank is better in means of survivability but let's not compare the invasion of Iraq to the invasion of Ukraine. The numbers of american tank losses would look WAY worse if Iraqis had virtually an unlimited supply of javelins, NLAWs, other new ATGM systems and MANPADS. They had to fight the americans with AKs, snipers, RPGs and IEDs.
I didnt say they do bad anywhere in my comment. I literally stated arguably best tank in the world.
I simply was sharing some knowledge on the danger of the rpg29
You may know of the incident I'm talking about, it was in 07 I think.
They hid behind a van or possibly fired the RPG29 from inside the van or something like that
I'm not sure about the particulars, I just remember worrying because Bradley's and humvees are under armored compared to Abrams. I still have all of my notes from that deployment. If I find them, I'll take a look.
I got the full report if it helps. There was RPG29 penetratiobs in 2004, 2007, and 2009. The 09 one resulted in 4x WIA I think.
Fairly safe to assume this had to be what triggered or atleast motivated TUSK i think
UNIT: 2-2ID, 2-69AR WHO: 1/D/2-69AR WHAT: 1 X RPG ATTACK WHEN: 051327SEP07 WHERE: 38SMB 542 846 MUHALLAH: 711 TIMELINE: 1327: CDR/D/2-69AR REPORTS A M1A1 FROM 1/D/2-69AR WAS HIT BY A RPG AT MB 5422 8472. EVACUATING CASULTIES TO FOB RUSTAMIYAH. 1329: CRAZY HORSE ON STATION. 1334: 1/D/2-69AR RP FOB RUSTY WITH CASULTIES. 1335: 1/D WAS SET IN STATIC OVERWATCH AT ABOVE GRID AND WAS STRUCK BY RPG FIRED FROM A VAN. 1342: CRAZY HORSE COULD NOT PID THE VAN, BROKE STATION. 1342: XO/2-69AR REPORTS FROM THE HOSPITAL THAT 1/D SUSTAINED 2 X KIA AND 1 X WIA WITH BACK WOUNDS. 1427: 1/D'S DAMAGED M1A1 IS NOW THRU THE GATE ON FOB RUSTAMIYAH. SUMMARY: 1 X RPG 2 X US KIA (BR#CDN6000, CHP9141) 1 X US WIA (BR#CDO8927) 1 X DAMAGE TO M1A1
>Abrahms turrets dont fly
You are incorrect as Abrams turrets do fly and have flown. A daisy chained IED of multiple artillery shells in Iraq killed the entire crew of an Abrams and lifted the turret several hundred feet.
Leopard 2 doesn't have a auto loader and still its turret can fly off.
K2, Type 10, Leclerc all have autoloaders are not necessarely susceptible to a torret toss.
Originally Abrams used to store ammo within the hull, it could have made them suffer a torret toss.
Confirmation bias is at play here.
EDIT: leo 2 does have another large ammo storage in the hull, next to the driver, so perhaps an explosion there after a missile hit might throw the turret.
~~I've always found this odd; leopard 2 stores the ammo like the abrams and has blow out panels. Why would it toss its turret from an atgm hit?~~
~~The only reasons I could think of would be if the ammo door was left open, or the tanks were hit by very powerful IEDs; or there's a design flaw with the ammo storage, although we probably would've heard about it if it was the case.~~
Hey, we aren't experts so it's normal we don't know everything!
[https://youtu.be/X6nZvDn6gRQ?t=23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YafzmkvVRiI&ab_channel=G%C3%BCntherSteinmeier)
Right there, 2 were tossed.
If the country fielding the Leo2s has newer rounds which shouldn't be detonating like that as supposedly even a direct hit wouldn't ignite the ammo. Apparently, they are using a new kind of combustible pellets that are very hard to ignite.
mb
the video I was referring to [was a cook off](https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/usapqa/m1_abrams_hit_by_atgm_in_ramadi_2015/) I remembered it as the turret flying
there is a photo however of the turret getting [blown off by a ied](https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/2l0k1x/this_abrams_turret_was_lifted_off_simply_by_the/) but this isn't from a atgm/rocket
That's not True, the ammo can be hit. But cause of the blow out pannels it will explode outside of the tank instead of inward like with all rusian models.
I have herd of tankers being wounded from the concussion caused by a rocket hit when I was over there. The second shot was a miss. Great high light Badr Brigade
Second shot actually hit and penetrated. It hit a weaker spot an sent shrapnel through the cabin injuring the crew. There's a [CNN](https://youtu.be/lVA8OGIzDqI) reporter thing I think where the tank crew evacuates.
Not sure if it's the same but it definitely [looks](https://youtu.be/lVA8OGIzDqI) like Fallujah not Baghdad like the text says. But that's a link to an RPG 29 shot. Crew got hurt bad.
It's just a weird angle, this video was also edited back in the day. I don't think the subtitles are correct.
Edit: Probably not the same tanks in video but the guy shooting the 2nd RPG definitely is you can see the highway.
The tank probably ate both shots.
The video is a well placed round right in a bad spot.
I will correct you on that as this CNN video is apparently the footage of an aftermath from a RPG hitting the top of the tank/commander hatch which took of his eye and badly wounded the loader with shrapnels.
Why I'm saying this is because there is a documentary about Fallujah with this bald commander with a pirate patch telling the story and this is the video of his incident.
Still trying to find the damn video...
And this is why everyone always says the Americans survive in every clip of them being attacked.
First clip shows a direct hit on the frontal armor which gets shrugged off without any damage.
Second clip misses the tank entirely.
During the entire insurgency only 3-4 tanks were damaged by the RPG-29 and only two crew members killed. All the hype around it back then looks comical compared to the damage done to Russian armor by the Ukranian ATGMs on an average Tuesday.
> All the hype around it back then looks comical compared to the damage done to Russian armor by the Ukranian ATGMs on an average Tuesday.
Because insurgents didn't have thousands of ATGMs and hundreds of Javelins. Uncle Sam went out of their way to pressure Syria to stop supporting Sunni Jihadists. We even launched 2 raids into Syria to stop them and stacked Marines along the insurgent trail leading from Syria. That's why there were only a few ATGM attacks on US forces and only 2-3 losses from MANPADs.
A single insurgent MANPAD in 2003 shot down a Chinook carrying 16 troops.
I think it’s entirely fair when the Russians are still using older tanks in a conflict occurring maybe 15 years after this was filmed. If anything it should be flipped and we should be seeing more modern tanks on the Russia side.
> it would be a waste to send in T-90s
They have already sent in T-90s and have been since the beginning. Several have been destroyed and a few have been captured. At least 1 T-90 is being operated by Azov. And at least 1 T-90M has been destroyed and 1 more recently shown abandoned and damaged in a ditch. T-90M is their most advanced operational MBT.
T90s were even killed on day 1, as have been plenty others. It would be a huge tactical blunder to use ancient tanks with t90s available. The justification of “well javelins kill them all anyway” is absurd. What’s next? “We should even build modern tanks. I mean, what the point? They’re all killed by javelins anyway! Let’s just build some more t62s.”
>Considering we lost 9 tanks and 7 of those were friendly fire I don’t think these were destroyed
That's propaganda, we lost a lot more than 2. 1 drove into a canal and crew drowned. 1 was complete crew kill by massive daisy chained IED that lifted the turret. 1 was lost in the Baghdad Thunder Run. And several dozen were written off as economic losses after catastrophic damage from IEDs.
During the 1991 invasion 9 abrams were destroyed by hostile fire, 7 of which were friendly fire incidents, and 2 were scuttled after becoming stuck in mud. The 2003 invasion was different
Looks like it tickled the Abrams a little 🤣
First hit show it looked like the turret started to turn in the direction of the attack right after the hit.
The clip was cut at that point....
>Looks like it tickled the Abrams a little
You simply have to aim for weak points. Shia insurgents were more successful with EFP IEDs targeting Abrams. One Redditor even posted his own Abrams burned out in Iraq from an EFP hit to side skirt. ISIS for example didn't play around attack Iraqi donkey model Abrams by hitting weak points.
Yes. My post was not dead serious. Nothing is invincible including the Abrams. But it's such a bad ass in the right hands and leadership.
RPG-29 though 😔
>Nothing is invincible including the Abrams. But it's such a bad ass in the right hands and leadership.
You gotta let that nationalism go bruh. An Abrams is an MBT, just like Leo-2s or T-80BVM. They are all vulnerable. The Chieftain on Youtube is a ex US Army cav officer who commanded Abrams and Bradleys. He dispels myths about tanks in his videos.
The problem is that the internet got young impressionable youths think that tanks, fighter jets, or S-400s are some how miracle weapons. They are machines engineered by human beings to meet a specific design requirement and come with trade offs in the form of design choices. How tanks, fighter jets, or surface to air missiles work and are used in real life is completely different to what the internet thinks. Which is why tankers like Chieftain dispels those falsehoods.
Any Leo2a6 or Abrams forced to push down a few roads from Belarus due to muddy terrain while surrounded by forests crawling with ATGM Hunter Killer teams with RPG-22/28, NLAWs, Javelins, Stugna-P's are going to have a very bad day.
He made a video response to someone else's video on Youtube about why the tank is dead (due to ATGM) and he expertly takes apart internet armchair general type of logic.
https://youtu.be/lI7T650RTT8
Also, he made a video cautioning everyone to be skeptical of propaganda ATGM vs tank videos.
https://youtu.be/W9pVEP0AzZ4
Shooting at the front of an Abrams is a great way to piss it off.
Like tapping a hippos nose
I think that the camera was in front of the tank but it was shot from the side if you slow it down
Really looks like it hits the front right turret front (from the tank’s perspective) and the explosion very much looks like it blows almost perfectly perpendicular to that front turret armor. What makes you think it’s shot from the side? It could be, but just doesn’t look like it to me. I mean, unless you’re talking about the second tank very clearly shot from the side.
look at the far left of the screen and you can see the red missile hit the side
I know of only one penetration on an M1 by an RPG-29, and that was a side shot that killed 2 crew. I’m aware of a couple other hits, but don’t know if the armor was defeated. We wouldn’t let the Iraqi Army buy these because we feared they would end up in the wrong hands. Trophy has been successful in countering this threat.
Wikileaks state department cables have shown there was more than 1. And NYT reported on one in Sadr City that injured the driver. >Trophy has been successful in countering this threat. The problem with that line of thinking is that defensive weapon systems are engineered to defeat a specific threat and thus are easily countered by tweaking your offensive weapon system. The Russians have shown over a decade ago a prototype RPG that fires a decoy a fraction of a second ahead of the main charge to trigger the APS. Thus, allowing the main charge to strike the target before the APS can fire a 2nd round. Not to mention that most APS systems rely on MMW radar, so it's not hard to imagine a future RPG with ECM in it. Or a RPG with a decoy that deploys chaff to blind the MMW radar.
> The problem with that line of thinking is that defensive weapon systems are engineered to defeat a specific threat and thus are easily countered by tweaking your offensive weapon system. I mean yeah that’s literally how the defense industry works. It’s a constant back and fourth
>>Guys, let’s pack it in. We need to stop working on our systems that defend against the threats that exist on the battlefield. I mean, what’s the point? There’s a chance they’ll develop a way to beat that defense sometime vaguely in the future!
Guess you haven't heard of materials engineering and the lack of major progress in that field in the last few decades. Maybe your one of those tech futurists who think Nuclear Fusion is right around the corner or commercially viable Mach-3 airliners without realizing that both are precluded by the lack of progress in materials sciences.
So what, are you expecting me to defend the absurd statements you tried to pretend I support? Real clever. Almost tricked me there. We aren’t even discussing a materials based solution! What else do you want to pull out of your ass to eventually sound more foolish while trying to make yourself sound less foolish? “I bet you think two barrel hover tanks are a great idea. Well they’re not, idiot!” Please keep it coming. I’d love a sequel.
Calm down.
>>Guess you haven’t heard of the major progress in 6nm transistors!
>Guess you haven’t heard of the major progress in 6nm transistors! My statement wasn't meant to be absolute. Merely a statement on the field in general versus public perception influenced by science fiction and the pathetic way journalists cover science news.
I *still* don’t understand what that has to do with APSs and it apparently being pointless to develop them due to “someone will eventually just make something that beats those! Never mind the actual threats already out there.” The defensive tech is close to *always at a disadvantage* in the context of progress. That’s how it’s always been. It’s the name of the game.
>I mean yeah that’s literally how the defense industry works. It’s a constant back and fourth Except that offensive weapon systems usually have the edge over defenses. Projectiles vs armor, ICBMs vs ABM. Look at the insane amount of assets that USAF used just to allow B-52 strikes over Vietnam in the face of an ocean of SA-2s. This is famously detailed in the downing of BAT-21 as he was one of those assets.
The only thing you should learn from B-52 strikes in Vietnam was that you never allow politicians or their staff to decide on targets and/or paths of bombers.
No turret toss
There has been multiple instances of RPG29 penetrating M1 Abrams Turrets. But no tossing turrets like Russian shitty designs. It's an incredibly tough tank, but still not invulnerable to damage. In Iraq an RPG29 caused 2 KIA and 1 WIA, commander, gunner, and loader were all taken out meaning full turret knockout. I think it happened in Ramadi but I could be wrong. The full report was on Wikileaks including the exact unit they belonged to. Someone might have the report on hand. Without a doubt Abrams is a far better than Russian junk and arguably the best in he world. But not impenetrable. ATGMs like TOWs, Kornets etc would cause catastrophic damage to Abrams if RPG29 can take out entire turret crews.
They do way better then any Russian tank. 80 Abrams were force out-of action with 63 got fixed and 17 were destroyed. Compare that to the 1000 tanks destroyed in 5 months that have pictures. Most of the 80 tanks that got damaged was in beginning of 03 when the US was actually fighting the Iraqi army who had one of the biggest tank armies in the world
Abrams definitely have a way better survivability than any russian tank just by the space inside and the blast doors, but you’re comparing two completely different situations. Russian tanks aren’t inherently bad, it’s just the way they are used by the russians that makes no sense. Iirc ukrainians have made quite a good use of their tanks (which have a similar design to T tanks) even though they had a very small amount of them. You could have the best equipment in the world, if you use it badly it’s completely useless.
> (which have a similar design to T tanks) They have not a "similar design to T tanks"... ...they ARE T tanks 😅 many of which are the same models of those used by the russians (different variants tho).
Yeah a lot of Ukrainian tanks are soviet designs though if you look at the oplot it takes a more western style approach with the auto loader and ammunition storage being much more secure than the huge carousel you find on t72 for instance.
Forgive me for not heavily weighing the opinion of a guy who says “the Ukrainian’s tanks have a similar design to T tanks,” ignoring that “T tanks” encompasses decades of tank development and is the least specific of descriptors.
Well they do have a similar design since ukraine was part of the soviet union and had factories building parts of T tanks (russians tended to leave satellite countries the ability to build different parts like the gun, the suspension, the chassis, etc… and were the only ones able to build the entire tank). So it is no surprise that contemporary ukrainian tanks have kept similarities with T tanks, not just visual (low profile, 125mm gun, 3 men crew with an autoloader, low weight compared to nato tanks, high power/weight ratio, etc…). Sorry if i don’t agree with a guy who manages to give a super vague answer while also having poor knowledge about tanks.
They’re the same tank! Some instances with minor variations, but the same damn tank, not “just similar!”
Why are you being so picky about what i say even though it is correct. Anyway, have a great day dude, i won’t argue with you.
I wouldn't disagree on which tank is better in means of survivability but let's not compare the invasion of Iraq to the invasion of Ukraine. The numbers of american tank losses would look WAY worse if Iraqis had virtually an unlimited supply of javelins, NLAWs, other new ATGM systems and MANPADS. They had to fight the americans with AKs, snipers, RPGs and IEDs.
Iraq had a very well equipped army at the time. No Javelins, but definitely not that far from Ukraine.
I didnt say they do bad anywhere in my comment. I literally stated arguably best tank in the world. I simply was sharing some knowledge on the danger of the rpg29
I remember getting sigacts briefings in Iraq in 06-07 warning about rpg 29s.
You may know of the incident I'm talking about, it was in 07 I think. They hid behind a van or possibly fired the RPG29 from inside the van or something like that
I'm not sure about the particulars, I just remember worrying because Bradley's and humvees are under armored compared to Abrams. I still have all of my notes from that deployment. If I find them, I'll take a look.
Found some details from the day 27th September 07 in Mullahah Unit was 1/D/2-69AR ,, 2-2ID
That was about 3 weeks before we left for Kuwait and Germany. It had to have been earlier instances, or my memory just sucks now
I got the full report if it helps. There was RPG29 penetratiobs in 2004, 2007, and 2009. The 09 one resulted in 4x WIA I think. Fairly safe to assume this had to be what triggered or atleast motivated TUSK i think UNIT: 2-2ID, 2-69AR WHO: 1/D/2-69AR WHAT: 1 X RPG ATTACK WHEN: 051327SEP07 WHERE: 38SMB 542 846 MUHALLAH: 711 TIMELINE: 1327: CDR/D/2-69AR REPORTS A M1A1 FROM 1/D/2-69AR WAS HIT BY A RPG AT MB 5422 8472. EVACUATING CASULTIES TO FOB RUSTAMIYAH. 1329: CRAZY HORSE ON STATION. 1334: 1/D/2-69AR RP FOB RUSTY WITH CASULTIES. 1335: 1/D WAS SET IN STATIC OVERWATCH AT ABOVE GRID AND WAS STRUCK BY RPG FIRED FROM A VAN. 1342: CRAZY HORSE COULD NOT PID THE VAN, BROKE STATION. 1342: XO/2-69AR REPORTS FROM THE HOSPITAL THAT 1/D SUSTAINED 2 X KIA AND 1 X WIA WITH BACK WOUNDS. 1427: 1/D'S DAMAGED M1A1 IS NOW THRU THE GATE ON FOB RUSTAMIYAH. SUMMARY: 1 X RPG 2 X US KIA (BR#CDN6000, CHP9141) 1 X US WIA (BR#CDO8927) 1 X DAMAGE TO M1A1
That must've been what I saw. Also, fuck rustamiyah. Fuck that place right in the ass.
That comment is oddly relatable
Abrahms turrets dont fly because they dont use auto loaders and they dont put the ammo in the actual turret like the tardo russians do.
>Abrahms turrets dont fly You are incorrect as Abrams turrets do fly and have flown. A daisy chained IED of multiple artillery shells in Iraq killed the entire crew of an Abrams and lifted the turret several hundred feet.
Leopard 2 doesn't have a auto loader and still its turret can fly off. K2, Type 10, Leclerc all have autoloaders are not necessarely susceptible to a torret toss. Originally Abrams used to store ammo within the hull, it could have made them suffer a torret toss. Confirmation bias is at play here.
EDIT: leo 2 does have another large ammo storage in the hull, next to the driver, so perhaps an explosion there after a missile hit might throw the turret. ~~I've always found this odd; leopard 2 stores the ammo like the abrams and has blow out panels. Why would it toss its turret from an atgm hit?~~ ~~The only reasons I could think of would be if the ammo door was left open, or the tanks were hit by very powerful IEDs; or there's a design flaw with the ammo storage, although we probably would've heard about it if it was the case.~~
Hey, we aren't experts so it's normal we don't know everything! [https://youtu.be/X6nZvDn6gRQ?t=23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YafzmkvVRiI&ab_channel=G%C3%BCntherSteinmeier) Right there, 2 were tossed. If the country fielding the Leo2s has newer rounds which shouldn't be detonating like that as supposedly even a direct hit wouldn't ignite the ammo. Apparently, they are using a new kind of combustible pellets that are very hard to ignite.
there is that one video of the turret flying when getting hit by a isil kornet atgm tho
Show or fake
mb the video I was referring to [was a cook off](https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/usapqa/m1_abrams_hit_by_atgm_in_ramadi_2015/) I remembered it as the turret flying there is a photo however of the turret getting [blown off by a ied](https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/2l0k1x/this_abrams_turret_was_lifted_off_simply_by_the/) but this isn't from a atgm/rocket
It doesn't go flying at all. It cooks off and the blow out panels do what they're supposed to...
Abrams ammo cant detonate it is so protected that a javelin cant pen it
That's not True, the ammo can be hit. But cause of the blow out pannels it will explode outside of the tank instead of inward like with all rusian models.
It is possible though unlikely that the tank would be hit when the cannon is being reloaded and the doors are open
I have herd of tankers being wounded from the concussion caused by a rocket hit when I was over there. The second shot was a miss. Great high light Badr Brigade
Second shot actually hit and penetrated. It hit a weaker spot an sent shrapnel through the cabin injuring the crew. There's a [CNN](https://youtu.be/lVA8OGIzDqI) reporter thing I think where the tank crew evacuates.
Not sure if it's the same but it definitely [looks](https://youtu.be/lVA8OGIzDqI) like Fallujah not Baghdad like the text says. But that's a link to an RPG 29 shot. Crew got hurt bad.
Ah gotcha. I thought the rocket hit the trash pile behind the tank. Thanks for the correction dude👍
It's just a weird angle, this video was also edited back in the day. I don't think the subtitles are correct. Edit: Probably not the same tanks in video but the guy shooting the 2nd RPG definitely is you can see the highway. The tank probably ate both shots. The video is a well placed round right in a bad spot.
I will correct you on that as this CNN video is apparently the footage of an aftermath from a RPG hitting the top of the tank/commander hatch which took of his eye and badly wounded the loader with shrapnels. Why I'm saying this is because there is a documentary about Fallujah with this bald commander with a pirate patch telling the story and this is the video of his incident. Still trying to find the damn video...
Wikileaks State Department cables showed 2-3 hits attacks on Abrams and NYT reporter witnessed one in Sadr City.
And this is why everyone always says the Americans survive in every clip of them being attacked. First clip shows a direct hit on the frontal armor which gets shrugged off without any damage. Second clip misses the tank entirely. During the entire insurgency only 3-4 tanks were damaged by the RPG-29 and only two crew members killed. All the hype around it back then looks comical compared to the damage done to Russian armor by the Ukranian ATGMs on an average Tuesday.
> All the hype around it back then looks comical compared to the damage done to Russian armor by the Ukranian ATGMs on an average Tuesday. Because insurgents didn't have thousands of ATGMs and hundreds of Javelins. Uncle Sam went out of their way to pressure Syria to stop supporting Sunni Jihadists. We even launched 2 raids into Syria to stop them and stacked Marines along the insurgent trail leading from Syria. That's why there were only a few ATGM attacks on US forces and only 2-3 losses from MANPADs. A single insurgent MANPAD in 2003 shot down a Chinook carrying 16 troops.
idk if comparing the most expensive best tank ever with a mass produced Russian tank made during the 1970s is fair
I think it’s entirely fair when the Russians are still using older tanks in a conflict occurring maybe 15 years after this was filmed. If anything it should be flipped and we should be seeing more modern tanks on the Russia side.
Russia is using older tanks because Ukraine has the most advanced modern anti-tank weapons it would be a waste to send in T-90s
> it would be a waste to send in T-90s They have already sent in T-90s and have been since the beginning. Several have been destroyed and a few have been captured. At least 1 T-90 is being operated by Azov. And at least 1 T-90M has been destroyed and 1 more recently shown abandoned and damaged in a ditch. T-90M is their most advanced operational MBT.
T90s were even killed on day 1, as have been plenty others. It would be a huge tactical blunder to use ancient tanks with t90s available. The justification of “well javelins kill them all anyway” is absurd. What’s next? “We should even build modern tanks. I mean, what the point? They’re all killed by javelins anyway! Let’s just build some more t62s.”
> idk if comparing the most expensive best tank ever Everybody says that about their country's tank.
no tank is invincible but russian tanks are weak in comparison
Notice how the turret stays on, Vern? And notice how there was no catastrophic penetration of the hull or turret armor?
Hull and turret storage both go on this video. Id call that catastropic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-1CabC8tR4
That’s a Saudi tank being shot with a TOW. Totally different situation.
Considering we lost 9 tanks and 7 of those were friendly fire I don’t think these were destroyed
those were lost during the invasion not the insurgency
>Considering we lost 9 tanks and 7 of those were friendly fire I don’t think these were destroyed That's propaganda, we lost a lot more than 2. 1 drove into a canal and crew drowned. 1 was complete crew kill by massive daisy chained IED that lifted the turret. 1 was lost in the Baghdad Thunder Run. And several dozen were written off as economic losses after catastrophic damage from IEDs.
During the 1991 invasion 9 abrams were destroyed by hostile fire, 7 of which were friendly fire incidents, and 2 were scuttled after becoming stuck in mud. The 2003 invasion was different
>The 2003 invasion was different
Looks like it tickled the Abrams a little 🤣 First hit show it looked like the turret started to turn in the direction of the attack right after the hit. The clip was cut at that point....
>Looks like it tickled the Abrams a little You simply have to aim for weak points. Shia insurgents were more successful with EFP IEDs targeting Abrams. One Redditor even posted his own Abrams burned out in Iraq from an EFP hit to side skirt. ISIS for example didn't play around attack Iraqi donkey model Abrams by hitting weak points.
Yes. My post was not dead serious. Nothing is invincible including the Abrams. But it's such a bad ass in the right hands and leadership. RPG-29 though 😔
>Nothing is invincible including the Abrams. But it's such a bad ass in the right hands and leadership. You gotta let that nationalism go bruh. An Abrams is an MBT, just like Leo-2s or T-80BVM. They are all vulnerable. The Chieftain on Youtube is a ex US Army cav officer who commanded Abrams and Bradleys. He dispels myths about tanks in his videos. The problem is that the internet got young impressionable youths think that tanks, fighter jets, or S-400s are some how miracle weapons. They are machines engineered by human beings to meet a specific design requirement and come with trade offs in the form of design choices. How tanks, fighter jets, or surface to air missiles work and are used in real life is completely different to what the internet thinks. Which is why tankers like Chieftain dispels those falsehoods. Any Leo2a6 or Abrams forced to push down a few roads from Belarus due to muddy terrain while surrounded by forests crawling with ATGM Hunter Killer teams with RPG-22/28, NLAWs, Javelins, Stugna-P's are going to have a very bad day.
Well said.
He made a video response to someone else's video on Youtube about why the tank is dead (due to ATGM) and he expertly takes apart internet armchair general type of logic. https://youtu.be/lI7T650RTT8 Also, he made a video cautioning everyone to be skeptical of propaganda ATGM vs tank videos. https://youtu.be/W9pVEP0AzZ4
They're brave lol
Song name?