Soviet tank crew survival.

[Alpha]

it seems some ppl. here really don´t like iraqie tank crews and want them all to die

[kevineduguay1]

Not all, just most!

[kevineduguay1]

This is what happened to a test target, fully combat loaded T-72 vs a Javelin ATGM. See attachments.

A link to this site can be found on my post about the Javelin ATGM.

P.S. The engine was found 65 meters from the vehicle. Would this count as "splash" against infantry?

[bison24]

The T-72 fired on by the ajvelin was rigged with explosives for the advertisement. Nice propaganda though.

[kevineduguay1]

bison24,

Got proof?

[Listy]

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]

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]

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...

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.

[Sewter]

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.