the RPG-7

The M1 has a RHAe of over 1200mm on the turret. Have a look at this site:

http://64.26.50.215/armorsite/abrams.htm

During night fighting at Basra a Challenger knocked out another Challenger through the side.

 

Sorry, your point is?

 

Aside from the tragedy of friendly-fire incidents, that is.

 

Sorry GP, I was trying to sum up a few of the earlier pionts without going to lengths. As you said nothing is inpenetrable ever Chobhams. The M1 has frontal areas that a RPG would not touch, upto 1200mm thick if it was steel.

 

Again, I find it very hard to believe that a RPG can knock out an Abrams. Disable it, yes, by a very lucky shot and by a brave, nearly suicidal gunner. The reason, that a few Abrams have been disabled by RPG's, I think, is that it has happen in an urban environment, where the gunners can get quite close to their targets and even engage them from above. The RPG's are easy to use, yes, but it's not that simple hitting targets for untrained personel, since we're talking unguided rocket-grenades here fired from a device with a fairly simple optical sight.

Best regards!

- Mr.Bluenote.

 

What I said was.

Wrong, nothing is inpenetrable. hit something sufficiently and it will give way. I don't know how Chobham works exactly but it uses different technologies to defend against different rounds but nothing is inpenetrable. Also the tops of tanks are not well armoured and a good or lucky shot between the plates could possibly damage a modern tank.


After speaking with the A10 loaders in King Khaled military city, the cannon of a warthog could destroy any tank from the top, which I believe to be true as that is the weakest side.

I aslo stated hit sufficiently, that I stand by, If you hit Chobham armour enough times using a hammer it will give way.

A troop of soldiers crossing bridges should break step, as this can cause the bridge to collapse, even though the weight of all the troops is within the limits of the bridge.

 

Who said they are untrained.

 

Well, unless every single rebel is from the Republican Guard and not some foreign fighter, I'll label them untrained in general. Because you know how the damn thing work, doesn't mean you can use it to full effect and to say you're trained.
I believe the hit chance on a moving target is around fiftt-fifty at about 100 meters and that's by trained personel or people who at least have some idea of wind, weather, elevation and what not.

And while you're quite right, that nothing is truly inpenetrable, then the frontal armour of modern MBA's, especially those equipped with Chobham, is very near that! Eventhough I'm Challenger-fan, I'd feel more safe than damn near anywhere else in an Abrams!

Best regards!

- Mr.Bluenote.

 

Youve got a good point, however disabling a tank is enough. You don't need to penetrate the frontal armour just hit the engine or the tracks, the tanks turns into a sitting duck.

The difficulties to hit exactly there were you want to hit the enemy tank with the rpg-7 can explain why the armour losses are not that high.
I think it doesn't matter how heavy the tank is armoured as long as you can disable it by shooting at the engine or the tracks or even the optics.

Chobham and Era are great stuff; in conventional fighting. Sure explains why Iraqi T-72 had no chance. (although iraqi equipment was already worn out)

 

Why would they be from the Republican guard, there are (I'm sure) more than them trained on the RPG. The second point anyone who tries to take out a tank from the front deserves everything they get.

 

Thank you, Anton, and yes, you're of course right, but only disabling a tank still, most importantly, keep the crew alive, relative secure and able to fight on, well, to a certain degree at least!

Oh, they don't have to be Guards, GP, but considering the level of training the average recruit had in the Iraqi Army, I tend to believe that the Guards would be they only ones with more than rudimentary training using RPGs! As I wrote, because you know how the damn thing work, doesn't mean you can use it to full effect.

Haha, very true!

Regards and all!

- Bluenote.

 

So all the foriegn fighters who have fought agaisnt the old Soviet Union have no training? Are there not thousands of RPG rounds out there in the big bad world?

The arab fighters who fought in the Gulf war of 1991 have no experience?

 

Let's try one more time then, shall we?! To be able to hit anything with any accuracy you need to be very well-trained indeed, which I really don't think that many are, be they Mujahedin or what not! I actually don't regard most of the various professional holy warriors as being very good soldiers as such, most of them are nut-jobs with a cause, which is dangerous enough, though!

Have you actually fired an unguide rocket propelled anything, GP? Very easy to use, yeees, especially the RPG-family, but not that easy to hit with. As I said, my estimated hit chance for a trained gunner is around 50% at about 100 meters if the target moves...
One thing is to read about a weapon or even test it on a range or on an exercise, but in a combat situation your training or lack thereof really show...

Best regards!

- B.

 

But in an urban environment, leaning out of an upstairs window and hitting the top of a tank in the street not-quite-below (if it was immediately below you, blowing it up is a bad idea!) is fairly easy (I would imagine) - especially as it will be moving fairly slowly, if at all. Provided your mates can keep the enemy infantry from killing you.

 

Right, just as I wrote in one of my previous posts!

Urban areas are not good tank country, but it is, however, an indication of American confidence in their Abrams that they actually use them in the cities. One has to remember, though, that Iraqi buildings seldom has multiple storeys, hence the very flat and widespread city-scape.

Best of regards!

- Bluenote.

 

But they do have flat roofs...

In open countryside - surely a better form of defense with RPGs is to wait until the tanks get close, then ambush them with enfilading fire?
Ok, easier said than done (!) but at least it is more effective than blasting away at long range, and does not require very highly-trained personnel (if they can use it reasonably, and can resist the urge to fire until ordered, they're fine).

 

I have fired a 66 anti tank weapon yes, the sighting is primative a series of cross hairs where you aim off depending on wind and speed. Having not seen the sighting system of a RPG I cannot guess as to the ease of aiming but they are cheap and the rounds are in abundance.

 

Right, then you know the difficulty in hitting a target, especially one moving. Add to that the pressure of combat and you'll know how hard it would be to use RPG's, or any other similar weapon, effectively against, fx. Abrams MBTs!
AFAIK the optical sights with two to three times magnification of the newer RPG's are quite good, including both infrared and what not. Some apparently, since those were the ones I've had experience with, only come with their bare open sights!

Best regards!

- Mr.Bluenote.

 

Difficulty at 100 m but closer is not a problem.

 

Haha, then we are close to actually agreing on something, GP!

Best regards and all!

- B.