@graverobber35 You most likely wouldn't feel a thing. Once the warhead hits the tank, the entire crew would be unconscious from the blast and almost instantly cremated depending on how much amo and fuel the tank currently carry.
Oh, look. Another debate in the comments section. No one cares who's tank is better, that's for your country's military to decide. Half of you are pulling facts from Wikipedia. Half of you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. It's a video demonstrating an anti-tank missile. RELAX.
I love when modern anti tank missiles are shooting at 1st or 2nd generation obsolete tanks to prove how lethal they are, someone should try this with modern main battle tank with explosive reactive and composite armor. The results wouldn't be same as in this clip for sure.
@treydaimon Sure, lets get a $4 million dollar Abrams M1 or M2 and blow it up for the purpose of a demonstration video. While we're at it, lets get a $4.5 billion dollar Nimitz class carrier and test out some new MK48 Mod 6 torpedoes on it to see if they will penetrate the hull - then we can post the videos on YouTube because, well - that's where all the experts are. Trust me, they do an awful lot of research and testing on these weapons long before they make demo vids for public viewing.
@BGSlopy The M1A2 hasn't cost that much since '99 when General Dynamics Company took over the redesign basically turning the old M1A1 into the M1A2 with some heavy renovations that saved the government a substantial amount bringing the cost down to a little over $4 million - but I'm not interested in semantics about price - you know exactly what my original comment was saying.
@trichBU2B Atually they already did that test years ago. The M1 and M1A2 was fired upon by different types of heat rounds and other types of anti-tank rounds. The M1 and M1A2 was disabled but the interior was intact.
@quickzilver333 That's a good and interesting point. I knew that but thank you for bringing it up. It makes sense for us to test our weapons against what we perceive to be the best out there. But it's not a good financial decision for Sweden to be testing their weapons against their best tanks for the purpose of a demonstration video, especially when they've seen our tests and they also know that the majority of their enemies tanks are like this Centurion. That was my whole point.
@treydaimon It was designed to be able to take out tanks with explosive reactive armor, the results would be very similar even if they tested it against one of our Leo 2 tanks.
@jimmyn89SWE I wouldnt be so sure, for example russian most modern explosive reactive armor Kontakt-5 can reduces the ability of penetration of HEAT charge even by 70%. And there are also multilayer explosive reactive armors (third generation).
@KristelSitz It is difficult to say. Trophy uses the guiding laser as a trigger, and radar to calculate the attack vector. But the laser and the BILL missile are offset by about three feet and that might confuse the computer. However, the BILLmk 1 is old technology and fairly slow so my guess would be that the trophy would work, but I do not know how well.
@RobotN001 no,the tank is loaded with ammunition. What burns is the gunpowder for the shells. Modern tanks have insulated fireproof shells around each round in storage. Teh Centurion that was hit in the video did not have that.
@barbarotico The HEAT round sets fire to the ammunition inside the tank. What you see is that gunpowder for the shells burning. Thermite would not have pushed open the hatchets. The results from this test showed the need for insulated compartments for the ammunition which the current generation of tanks have. the tank in the test is an older tank that does not have insulation around the shells.
are those uranium shells. saw some documentation over the golf war and it looks like the same. on impact they burn up the inside in milliseconds and melt/eat the steel.
@bebedor1985 No. HEAT warhead. A shaped charge explodes above the tank and a metal slug of copper shoots downward throwing burning shrapnel over the inside of the tank.
look up HEAT, High Explosive Anti Tank. It's the same principle as the AT4 or RPG
@6yka66RUS You have no idea what explosive material was inside, how it was stored, if it was protected by blowout panels etc those are all things that determine how the reaction will occur. No there aint any "Thermate" or even Thermite in the tank.
actually, when not detonated correctly, ie the primer didn't set off the explosive, a deflagration most likely will happen instead of an explosion. In layman's term, it will burn. Not fake. No thermite. Thermite would give you a telltale shower at the bottom of the tank, as the liquified metal ate it's way out that way. That didn't happen here. Instead the tank turret popped, as it would when a lot of gases came out from deflagrating tank rounds. The more you know...
As someone who has seen tanks actually destroyed. That is what it looks like. Sorry to burst your bubble. But it isnt fake. Now, the tank was remote controlled, obviously, as it was a test. Maybe thats what you mean by fake. But it was a full functional, normally loaded tank hit by a production round BILL2.
@6yka66RUS I don't think that means much coming from someone who can use proper grammar or even the slightest bit of patience or manners to accept facts when coming from multiple sources.
@smallpoxer Not that the spectacular fireworks makes any difference, the crew is already dead or at least unconscious and dying from the overpressure alone.
@Logementos No. The ammunition will start to cook (some might initially start to burn, but the majority of the ammo will not). As it cooks, it will start to deflagrate. As more ammo deflagrates, more pressure is built inside the tank, also raising temperature at the same time. As this happens, more ammo will deflagrate, in a faster pace. And that is why it gradually builds in intensity, until the end where it will seem to explode due to the very rapid mass deflagration.
@6yka66RUS The actual blowing up and burning isnt even necessary to knock a tank out so theres no reason to fake it and even if they did which I doubt its probably only for the visual effect.
this tank was loaded with explosives to enhance the effect, this isnt really what an AT hit looks, unless its a direct hit in the munitions of a russian tank
@IDFArmor That's an old Centurion and they don't have blast panels either. I can easily see the tandem top-firing warhead from a BILL-2 going right into the ammo storage and cooking off the ready load.
First set of brew-ups is the propellant cooking off, second's the HE igniting.
several experienced tankers who served on centurions informed me that this video has extra explosives, they've seen the real deal and i trust them, this seems too grandiose
@IDFArmor The "extra explosives" are the regular ammunition stored in the tank.this is set on fire by the HEAT. The Israeli version of Centurion, the Sho't, had an improved fire extinguish system to prevent this.
The BILL 2 Missile uses a SACLOS or semi-automatic command to line-of-sight guidance system, and is controlled via wire. The BILL 2 warhead has an optical and magnetic sensor.
I post explosive stuff YOU can do in your back yard at tommilkybarkid so if u like fiery shit, you'll probably like my videos inluding how to make explosive air rifle pellets :)
@FOXnewsAlien You can easily watch the ammo cook off. It is not thermite. The centurion is such an old tank, it has little armour for the ammo box. It is an expected reaction. Not going to happen like that on a modern tank though.
@HeildemKrieg aahah u know those "proection" are more propeanda huuh? ok like this In off all tanks in us army or anny westerd army how manny uses those???? like none. and ok it can take out 1 or 2 u shoot 3. thers allways a way, no weapon are perfect.
This is so cool. When we humans used tanks for the first time in First World War, the armor was maybe 10mm! or less! Then the Germans invented K-bullet and AT-rifles. Later on... World War II, every country had heavy cannons with heavy projectiles to defeat steel armor... wow I always thought that steel can't be beaten ;)
I think that the future belongs to tanks, and AT weapons are going to be less effective against tanks. Imagine, a tank which have a protective system like T-90. (Shtora and Arena) but much much more effective. I think, in about 10 years, we've developed a new kind of system to the tank, so you don't need to rely on heavy armor. Systems that tracks the incoming missile and makes the missiles warhead explode far away so they can't harm the tank. Thats the future.. missiles have no future.
Don't fight boys ... Full scale introduction of active protection systems like Russians "Drozd" and "Arena" and like Israeli "Iron Fist" will render all AT weapons useless .
"Soft Kill" (jamming) is relatively easy to avoid , but what you gonna do against "Hard Kill" (physical destruction) ? Armour the missiles ?
@Scurck regardless of missle technology, the single most effecive means to defeat armour is the old fashioned principle of kinetic penetrators. And nothing will withstand a 120mm depleted uranium projectile. (Well, they haven't figured out how to bolt 15 feet of concrete to a tank yet)
@Scurck Add 30mm Depleded Uranium rounds out of the GAU-8, M172 "Copperhead" 155mm arty round, M982 "Excalibuer", the 120mm XM395 Precision Guided Mortar Munition, and basically any CBU-97+ varient or a nice beam rider. There is always a work around to any advanced defensive system. I'd like to go with a directed microwave array and cook the occupants =).
@Scurck actually the same explosive reactive armor we use against modern anti-tank missiles works just as wel. just hang a bunch of small bombs in armored boxes all over the tank. If a missile hits a bombbox, it blows effectively countering the charge with an equal counterblast. The main armor may be a bit dinged up, but at least there is no penetration.
@Scurck If you think you have all the answers then get a job in the defense industry. There is always a new defense and a new way of defeating it. That's why they call it an arms race. It's what I used to do. There are ideas for weapons that were put on hold because they were thought to be too terrible. The silver bullet of today is the old junk of tomorrow. As an example, modern western tanks will survive a series of RPG 7s without significant damage.
@Scurck You are correct. Google RPG-30 and you will find a recoiless rifle with decoy. You can also either use a decoy in the final stage of an ATGM or use double separate war heads (if you can manage the increase weigh, but on the positive side both warheads have to be defeated in order for the tank to survive). You might even be able to connect two AGTM with a cable or radio waves and have them launch at exactly the same time.
@Scurck Russia has an RPG that fires a .50 cal round just before the rocket, it's supposed to set off the APS before the rocket hits the tank, the system then won't have enough time to destroy it...
Its existing a missle wich initiade a charge at 100-150 meter range from the target and the velocity raze up to mach 5 speed. Its very effective its called 9K119 Refleks V Tandem HEAT. Its prototype but it have the idea what you meant.
@Mifodiy35 the bill2 is wire guided, it can't be "jammed" unless you cut the wire, which you only have about 3/4 of a second it realise and do at 2km , it travels that fast, the only draw back to this is that you have to have a line of sight target, but only slightly
I never said it can be jammed , i just pointed that APS (active protection system) can destroy any incoming missile ,without jamming it . Unless you have top-attack profile missile , like "Javelin" , but new Israeli APS "Trophy" can destroy it as well .
Of course , implementation of APS calls for completely different tactics . For example Israeli Merkava can carry 7 infantrymen inside armor therefore APS friendly fire is not an issue for it . You could think of dozens different scenarios that allows to use tank effectively and not exposing infantry in the same time .
@paltcoma The blast from the warhead and the burning / exploding tank would be likely to injure those soldiers anyway. Everybody's better off with APS.
@Mifodiy35 Well thats a rather blatant statment if I ever saw one. Reguardless there is no defense against a well placed sabot round not matter the armorment. Reactive armor will not defend against it not will anything else.
Wrong . Sabot (i think you mean APFSDS or KEP)only effective when it hits within correct angle parameters (90degrees +-5degrees), therefore changing it trajectory would be enough to cancel out almost all penetrative capabilities of the the round .
Not sure about Arena and Drozd, but Iron Fist is capable of doing just that ,changing the trajectory of the round, which makes it effective against all kinds of Kinetic Energy Penetrators including DU rounds .
APS doesn't give a shit about missile's size or weight (i mean we not talking about ballistic missile) . Bigger warhead means bigger boom , but still outside the tank .
BTW Iron Fist is undergoing combat testing on Gaza border and already proved it's effectiveness against RPG . We will have to see how it will couple with ATGM , but it will happen only when Hamas start shooting ATGMs against it's intended targets and not school buses .
ERA can only stop explosive rockets ERA will not stop forged energy pemertrator or Sabot rounds. many top attack missiles use a forged energy penertrator.
And that is what a dying/killed tank should look like in every videogame, not that same stupid crap we've been seeing for the past 10 years. Man more artists need to neter the game design/animation field and study real-life vids.
@Delev87 no. it explodes on impact. The copper cone inverts and turns into a super hot liquid projectile which propels at several thousand feet per second, defeating almost any armor. Spalling occurs inside the tank which probably ignited the ammunition inside the tank.
If a shape charge hit a tank with no explosives or flammables inside, it would simply punch a thumb sized hole in it. Direct hits and Spalling do the damage.
Best way to defend against that attack is totally counterintuitive... THIN top and bottom armor, so the damn thing blows in and out, and expends its energy under the ground below the tank. Of course, that's a pretty specific requirement for a tank, since it renders it vulnerable to any helicopter with a 20mm vulcan...
@Scurck Possibly. an SM2 leaves our ship so fact it hardly scorches the paint on the launcher. At certain velocities, things actually get simpler. :) I'd have to see a ballistic test to know for sure.
crap
DisgorgeKILLusa4 14 hours ago
PERFECT man KILLING!!! How many persons can be killed at one time?
TERROR!!!!
gsfhg 3 months ago
wouldn't it suck to be inside there?!
graverobber35 3 months ago
@graverobber35 You most likely wouldn't feel a thing. Once the warhead hits the tank, the entire crew would be unconscious from the blast and almost instantly cremated depending on how much amo and fuel the tank currently carry.
Dreez76 1 week ago
Oh, look. Another debate in the comments section. No one cares who's tank is better, that's for your country's military to decide. Half of you are pulling facts from Wikipedia. Half of you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. It's a video demonstrating an anti-tank missile. RELAX.
Roland9x 3 months ago 10
-- Suit your self if you come to Sweden in a tank :-) ---
SgtDrDeath 3 months ago
I love when modern anti tank missiles are shooting at 1st or 2nd generation obsolete tanks to prove how lethal they are, someone should try this with modern main battle tank with explosive reactive and composite armor. The results wouldn't be same as in this clip for sure.
treydaimon 4 months ago
@treydaimon Sure, lets get a $4 million dollar Abrams M1 or M2 and blow it up for the purpose of a demonstration video. While we're at it, lets get a $4.5 billion dollar Nimitz class carrier and test out some new MK48 Mod 6 torpedoes on it to see if they will penetrate the hull - then we can post the videos on YouTube because, well - that's where all the experts are. Trust me, they do an awful lot of research and testing on these weapons long before they make demo vids for public viewing.
trichBU2B 4 months ago
@trichBU2B A little corection - an M1A2 cost over 6 milion.
BGSlopy 4 months ago
Comment removed
trichBU2B 4 months ago
@BGSlopy The M1A2 hasn't cost that much since '99 when General Dynamics Company took over the redesign basically turning the old M1A1 into the M1A2 with some heavy renovations that saved the government a substantial amount bringing the cost down to a little over $4 million - but I'm not interested in semantics about price - you know exactly what my original comment was saying.
trichBU2B 4 months ago
@trichBU2B Atually they already did that test years ago. The M1 and M1A2 was fired upon by different types of heat rounds and other types of anti-tank rounds. The M1 and M1A2 was disabled but the interior was intact.
quickzilver333 4 months ago
@quickzilver333 That's a good and interesting point. I knew that but thank you for bringing it up. It makes sense for us to test our weapons against what we perceive to be the best out there. But it's not a good financial decision for Sweden to be testing their weapons against their best tanks for the purpose of a demonstration video, especially when they've seen our tests and they also know that the majority of their enemies tanks are like this Centurion. That was my whole point.
trichBU2B 3 months ago
@treydaimon It was designed to be able to take out tanks with explosive reactive armor, the results would be very similar even if they tested it against one of our Leo 2 tanks.
jimmyn89SWE 3 months ago
Comment removed
treydaimon 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jimmyn89SWE I wouldnt be so sure, for example russian most modern explosive reactive armor Kontakt-5 can reduces the ability of penetration of HEAT charge even by 70%. And there are also multilayer explosive reactive armors (third generation).
treydaimon 3 months ago
Very hot there. I hope they have AC in there.
Hypernl 4 months ago
do you know what's the name of the documentary;
dreamwisperer 5 months ago
Does it help against Trophy?
KristelSitz 5 months ago
@KristelSitz
If it's programmed to identify 'top attack' rockets like this one, maby?
Wiromax3 5 months ago
@KristelSitz It is difficult to say. Trophy uses the guiding laser as a trigger, and radar to calculate the attack vector. But the laser and the BILL missile are offset by about three feet and that might confuse the computer. However, the BILLmk 1 is old technology and fairly slow so my guess would be that the trophy would work, but I do not know how well.
lindahl01 4 months ago
Nice shot
Gregiorp 5 months ago
i want one of those
TONY45066 5 months ago
I was waiting for the turret to fly off.
Noneofyourbusiness0 5 months ago
Comment removed
HKH73 6 months ago
new technology of deception. the tank filled termit.
RobotN001 6 months ago
@RobotN001 no,the tank is loaded with ammunition. What burns is the gunpowder for the shells. Modern tanks have insulated fireproof shells around each round in storage. Teh Centurion that was hit in the video did not have that.
lindahl01 4 months ago
Does that roket is nuclear or what?
that tank must be filled with some thermite bags to do that spectacle.
Obviously this video is made to inflict fear to the enemy or is part of a propaganda to sell these rockets.
barbarotico 6 months ago
@barbarotico The HEAT round sets fire to the ammunition inside the tank. What you see is that gunpowder for the shells burning. Thermite would not have pushed open the hatchets. The results from this test showed the need for insulated compartments for the ammunition which the current generation of tanks have. the tank in the test is an older tank that does not have insulation around the shells.
lindahl01 4 months ago
that missle is pretty unsettling. i would much prefer to be out and about than stuck in a metal taxi with those bad boys zipping down the range!!!
pottsy40 7 months ago
Пиздешь и провокация!
sla165 7 months ago
Still looks drivable to me. It could take another hit.
XionYazuka 7 months ago
@XionYazuka >>> Yea and its so much cooler driving with the "top down"
SwedishDylan 6 months ago
I thought this was a left 4 dead video.
lol
Stormfail 7 months ago
are those uranium shells. saw some documentation over the golf war and it looks like the same. on impact they burn up the inside in milliseconds and melt/eat the steel.
bebedor1985 7 months ago
@bebedor1985 No. HEAT warhead. A shaped charge explodes above the tank and a metal slug of copper shoots downward throwing burning shrapnel over the inside of the tank.
look up HEAT, High Explosive Anti Tank. It's the same principle as the AT4 or RPG
lindahl01 6 months ago
@lindahl01 thanks.
bebedor1985 6 months ago
Comment removed
lindahl01 4 months ago
It must be so nice to be inside !
franzy099 7 months ago
I think we're ok..uh...uh...oh god!
srb8522 7 months ago
The cup of tea will at least be hot.... CHEERS
SgtDrDeath 8 months ago
Swedish made, like the mbt law (nlaw)...
nofreedomofspeech 8 months ago 19
@nofreedomofspeech ..Sweden have got hardon for tanks :D
hackerisslv 4 months ago
@nofreedomofspeech "Buy two and get a Nobel prize for free"...
BigAndTall666 2 months ago
@BigAndTall666 Haha, or maybe buy two and TAKE the nobel prize? ;)
nofreedomofspeech 2 months ago
0:18 ohh that succkkssssss
GModPlaya 8 months ago
Such a bullshit LMAO. Reminds me of 9\11. Thermate inside this tank.. Tank proejctiles inside DO NOT burn this way they explode..
6yka66RUS 8 months ago
@6yka66RUS What are you talking about?
Nukefuzion 7 months ago
@Nukefuzion
About fakeass weapon demonstration
6yka66RUS 7 months ago
@6yka66RUS You have no idea what explosive material was inside, how it was stored, if it was protected by blowout panels etc those are all things that determine how the reaction will occur. No there aint any "Thermate" or even Thermite in the tank.
tomte47 7 months ago
@tomte47
its a showoff. fake
6yka66RUS 7 months ago
@6yka66RUS
actually, when not detonated correctly, ie the primer didn't set off the explosive, a deflagration most likely will happen instead of an explosion. In layman's term, it will burn. Not fake. No thermite. Thermite would give you a telltale shower at the bottom of the tank, as the liquified metal ate it's way out that way. That didn't happen here. Instead the tank turret popped, as it would when a lot of gases came out from deflagrating tank rounds. The more you know...
smallpoxer 7 months ago
@smallpoxer
fake
6yka66RUS 7 months ago
@6yka66RUS
As someone who has seen tanks actually destroyed. That is what it looks like. Sorry to burst your bubble. But it isnt fake. Now, the tank was remote controlled, obviously, as it was a test. Maybe thats what you mean by fake. But it was a full functional, normally loaded tank hit by a production round BILL2.
smallpoxer 7 months ago 10
@smallpoxer
bla-bla
fake
6yka66RUS 7 months ago
@6yka66RUS you're as dumb as a bag of rocks.....
JamaicanBoy41 7 months ago
@JamaicanBoy41
them im still smarter then you
6yka66RUS 7 months ago
@6yka66RUS I don't think that means much coming from someone who can use proper grammar or even the slightest bit of patience or manners to accept facts when coming from multiple sources.
JamaicanBoy41 7 months ago
@JamaicanBoy41
qq kid, qq
6yka66RUS 7 months ago
@smallpoxer Not that the spectacular fireworks makes any difference, the crew is already dead or at least unconscious and dying from the overpressure alone.
meanmanturbo 4 months ago
@smallpoxer it seems that the fireworks inside the tank were too radio controlled for the promotion!
omerta410 3 months ago
@smallpoxer The ammunition stored in the tank that is hit immediately catches fire, right?
Logementos 3 weeks ago
@Logementos No. The ammunition will start to cook (some might initially start to burn, but the majority of the ammo will not). As it cooks, it will start to deflagrate. As more ammo deflagrates, more pressure is built inside the tank, also raising temperature at the same time. As this happens, more ammo will deflagrate, in a faster pace. And that is why it gradually builds in intensity, until the end where it will seem to explode due to the very rapid mass deflagration.
smallpoxer 3 weeks ago
@smallpoxer Most Centurions don't carry 60 rounds of WP
Leathlord 5 days ago
@6yka66RUS The actual blowing up and burning isnt even necessary to knock a tank out so theres no reason to fake it and even if they did which I doubt its probably only for the visual effect.
Lillie1986 7 months ago
@Lillie1986
no shit sherlock
6yka66RUS 7 months ago
@6yka66RUS Then why the bullshit?
Lillie1986 7 months ago
@Lillie1986
get back to the kitchen bitch
6yka66RUS 7 months ago
QPR from WW2 can also penetrade 50 mm at its longest range
tommybui 8 months ago
so beautifull
VNpilot 8 months ago
just hope the driver was wearing a seat belt
naybobdenod 9 months ago 35
@naybobdenod
And a flame suit.
joezilla29 7 months ago
Thats what happens when Chuck Norris spits and hits a tank.
ohara77 9 months ago
lol at 0:10
1994spin 9 months ago
this tank was loaded with explosives to enhance the effect, this isnt really what an
AT hit looks, unless its a direct hit in the munitions of a russian tank
IDFArmor 9 months ago
this tank was loaded with explosives to enhance the effect, this isnt really what an AT hit looks, unless its a direct hit in the munitions of a russian tank
IDFArmor 9 months ago
@IDFArmor That's an old Centurion and they don't have blast panels either. I can easily see the tandem top-firing warhead from a BILL-2 going right into the ammo storage and cooking off the ready load.
First set of brew-ups is the propellant cooking off, second's the HE igniting.
EntropicMisanthropic 9 months ago
@EntropicMisanthropic
several experienced tankers who served on centurions informed me that this video has extra explosives, they've seen the real deal and i trust them, this seems too grandiose
IDFArmor 9 months ago
@IDFArmor The "extra explosives" are the regular ammunition stored in the tank.this is set on fire by the HEAT. The Israeli version of Centurion, the Sho't, had an improved fire extinguish system to prevent this.
lindahl01 4 months ago
the rebels of libya need some real shit like that one to kick some gadafi's tanks asses .hhh
hamzasat 9 months ago
@hamzasat skot a zamel hhh
CracheLaHaine 9 months ago
little duckt tape should fix it no problem.
dodoslovensko 10 months ago
Dear Santa......
Prometheus3052 10 months ago
The BILL 2 Missile uses a SACLOS or semi-automatic command to line-of-sight guidance system, and is controlled via wire. The BILL 2 warhead has an optical and magnetic sensor.
cannasnagler 10 months ago
looks like the rocket changes its course is that right?
RenaultR5Gte 10 months ago
laser them, like they do with the plane to destroy missles in air ? make them explode before they hit the tank
modwebby 11 months ago
Christ, it's like watching a li-poly battery explode.
redmunkee 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I post explosive stuff YOU can do in your back yard at tommilkybarkid so if u like fiery shit, you'll probably like my videos inluding how to make explosive air rifle pellets :)
tommilkybarkid 1 year ago
@FOXnewsAlien You can easily watch the ammo cook off. It is not thermite. The centurion is such an old tank, it has little armour for the ammo box. It is an expected reaction. Not going to happen like that on a modern tank though.
stalkingalizee 1 year ago
that warhead must have thermite by the looks of it
leaveit2keeler 1 year ago
@leaveit2keeler No, just ignited whatever combustible materials were inside the tank.
redmunkee 1 year ago
Wtf it looks like they put a bunch of fireworks into that Tank
TheExploit91 1 year ago
@TheExploit91 Ammunition cook-off probably, if the tank was unmanned and being used for target practice.
NukeSocks 1 year ago
I think he got'em.
dowmein 1 year ago
daaaaamn!
kepplerh 1 year ago
@HeildemKrieg aahah u know those "proection" are more propeanda huuh? ok like this In off all tanks in us army or anny westerd army how manny uses those???? like none. and ok it can take out 1 or 2 u shoot 3. thers allways a way, no weapon are perfect.
SweStuff94 1 year ago
LOL They must have told this tank driver they weren't using a live round. BBQ anyone?
EscapistGaming 1 year ago
OMG, what a horrible death!
SrNutritivo 1 year ago
who is driving the tank ...lol
supercrank85 1 year ago
@supercrank85 Trained chimps.
jimmyn89SWE 1 year ago
i'd hate to be the loader!
JustTrollingAround 1 year ago
that's hell for tank especially for the tank crews i'm sure they would become like a barbeque once they hit that kind of missle!
6digit 1 year ago
Comment removed
KoSoVaAnGeL 1 year ago
Sucks to be the melting tank-crew
defmanz 1 year ago 19
@defmanz I was thinking the same thing: "What a f@#$@#ing horrific way to die..."
trinitymike 10 months ago
This is so cool. When we humans used tanks for the first time in First World War, the armor was maybe 10mm! or less! Then the Germans invented K-bullet and AT-rifles. Later on... World War II, every country had heavy cannons with heavy projectiles to defeat steel armor... wow I always thought that steel can't be beaten ;)
pROTPANDA 1 year ago
I think that the future belongs to tanks, and AT weapons are going to be less effective against tanks. Imagine, a tank which have a protective system like T-90. (Shtora and Arena) but much much more effective. I think, in about 10 years, we've developed a new kind of system to the tank, so you don't need to rely on heavy armor. Systems that tracks the incoming missile and makes the missiles warhead explode far away so they can't harm the tank. Thats the future.. missiles have no future.
pROTPANDA 1 year ago
Ahh, the never-ending battle between better armor plating and weapons designed to defeat them.
Breakerchase 1 year ago
le méchant truc qu'il lui a mis dans la gueule.
GauthierStation 1 year ago
Don't fight boys ... Full scale introduction of active protection systems like Russians "Drozd" and "Arena" and like Israeli "Iron Fist" will render all AT weapons useless .
"Soft Kill" (jamming) is relatively easy to avoid , but what you gonna do against "Hard Kill" (physical destruction) ? Armour the missiles ?
Mifodiy35 1 year ago
@Mifodiy35
A few solution i came up with just now without much effort:
How about a smaller decoy rocket flying a bit faster then the main missile?
How about the missile flying 10 meter above the tank instead of 1 meter above it?
How about the missile carrying its own jammer, blinding the protection systems detectors?
How about a hypervelocity missile going at mach 4+ speed?
How about adapting the BONUS sub-munition for man-portable single-fire use?
Scurck 1 year ago 31
@Scurck
It's not a solutions , it's ideas . But let's talk about them .
Who said the APS are single shot ? Decoy or no decoy it will only cost extra anti AT projectile .
You mean you want to defeat tank with explosion only ? Without KP ? Good luck , you will need a nuke .
Jammer ? Are we talking about man portable missile or a ballistic one ?
What it has to do with speed ? Iron fist already can shoot KPs flying mach 3+ I don't think extra mach will do a difference .
Mifodiy35 1 year ago
@Scurck Bonus , Archer and other self guided artillery shells will not help ether . Why you so sure that top-attack profile is unbeatable ?
Mifodiy35 1 year ago
@Scurck regardless of missle technology, the single most effecive means to defeat armour is the old fashioned principle of kinetic penetrators. And nothing will withstand a 120mm depleted uranium projectile. (Well, they haven't figured out how to bolt 15 feet of concrete to a tank yet)
rabmcnab1 1 year ago
@Scurck Add 30mm Depleded Uranium rounds out of the GAU-8, M172 "Copperhead" 155mm arty round, M982 "Excalibuer", the 120mm XM395 Precision Guided Mortar Munition, and basically any CBU-97+ varient or a nice beam rider. There is always a work around to any advanced defensive system. I'd like to go with a directed microwave array and cook the occupants =).
ruger2275 1 year ago
@Scurck actually the same explosive reactive armor we use against modern anti-tank missiles works just as wel. just hang a bunch of small bombs in armored boxes all over the tank. If a missile hits a bombbox, it blows effectively countering the charge with an equal counterblast. The main armor may be a bit dinged up, but at least there is no penetration.
Painrunner 1 year ago
@Scurck
Its an 'arms race' in terms of the AT/Anti-AT techs.
If you know you're enemy has 5 AT weps, you load 10 Anti-AT into your system, faster AT, faster Anti-AT, etc.
Just one more level to add to the informational complexity of war.
Lollocide 1 year ago
@Scurck yet these make ATGM"s even bigger and bigger and bigger
It wouldnt surprise me if they go back to recoilles rifles one day
F4Wildcat 1 year ago
@Scurck
I complete agree with you.
Plus
How about stealth design of missile?
How about sticky deflectors or large net which disperse on tank sensors from missile before main projectile and blind them?
Vladek385 1 year ago
@Scurck If you think you have all the answers then get a job in the defense industry. There is always a new defense and a new way of defeating it. That's why they call it an arms race. It's what I used to do. There are ideas for weapons that were put on hold because they were thought to be too terrible. The silver bullet of today is the old junk of tomorrow. As an example, modern western tanks will survive a series of RPG 7s without significant damage.
cageordie 1 year ago
@Scurck NO
MrSanya1989 1 year ago
@Scurck You are correct. Google RPG-30 and you will find a recoiless rifle with decoy. You can also either use a decoy in the final stage of an ATGM or use double separate war heads (if you can manage the increase weigh, but on the positive side both warheads have to be defeated in order for the tank to survive). You might even be able to connect two AGTM with a cable or radio waves and have them launch at exactly the same time.
SuperRegisteredUser 11 months ago
@Scurck Russia has an RPG that fires a .50 cal round just before the rocket, it's supposed to set off the APS before the rocket hits the tank, the system then won't have enough time to destroy it...
Also, you forgot to mention railguns ;-)
AKAtheA 10 months ago
@Scurck -decoy missiles would basically just be telling you where the main one was going.
-10 meters is within more air-defense radar ranges, making it highly visible
-Missiles attempting to jam invite "home on jam" passive antimissiles.
-Hypervelocity missiles aren't faster than electronics, but produce one BITCHIN' heat signature to shoot at
-...Dunno what the BONUS ammo is, so someone else will have to give me a heads-up.
Seravat7 10 months ago
@Scurck
none of these seem too viable, if iron fist can stop a kinetic round then it doesnt matter how fast your missile is.
the solution is probably several AT weapons fired simultaneously
IDFArmor 9 months ago
@Scurck
Its existing a missle wich initiade a charge at 100-150 meter range from the target and the velocity raze up to mach 5 speed. Its very effective its called 9K119 Refleks V Tandem HEAT. Its prototype but it have the idea what you meant.
Talshet 8 months ago
@Scurck How about the already existing top-down missiles?
TheCrazyFinn 8 months ago
@Scurck
I'd say the railgun will make the tank obsolete...
insajdswe 8 months ago
@Mifodiy35 the bill2 is wire guided, it can't be "jammed" unless you cut the wire, which you only have about 3/4 of a second it realise and do at 2km , it travels that fast, the only draw back to this is that you have to have a line of sight target, but only slightly
KiwiTomCrawford 1 year ago
@KiwiTomCrawford
I never said it can be jammed , i just pointed that APS (active protection system) can destroy any incoming missile ,without jamming it . Unless you have top-attack profile missile , like "Javelin" , but new Israeli APS "Trophy" can destroy it as well .
Mifodiy35 1 year ago
@Mifodiy35
But there is one problem with active protective systems, When using the tank as soldier cover.
I would feel safer not beeing near the tank.
paltcoma 1 year ago
@paltcoma
Of course , implementation of APS calls for completely different tactics . For example Israeli Merkava can carry 7 infantrymen inside armor therefore APS friendly fire is not an issue for it . You could think of dozens different scenarios that allows to use tank effectively and not exposing infantry in the same time .
Mifodiy35 1 year ago
@paltcoma The blast from the warhead and the burning / exploding tank would be likely to injure those soldiers anyway. Everybody's better off with APS.
SAsgarters 9 months ago
@Mifodiy35 Well thats a rather blatant statment if I ever saw one. Reguardless there is no defense against a well placed sabot round not matter the armorment. Reactive armor will not defend against it not will anything else.
Minotaursoldier 1 year ago
@Minotaursoldier
Wrong . Sabot (i think you mean APFSDS or KEP)only effective when it hits within correct angle parameters (90degrees +-5degrees), therefore changing it trajectory would be enough to cancel out almost all penetrative capabilities of the the round .
Not sure about Arena and Drozd, but Iron Fist is capable of doing just that ,changing the trajectory of the round, which makes it effective against all kinds of Kinetic Energy Penetrators including DU rounds .
Mifodiy35 1 year ago
@Mifodiy35 Anti-tank laser.
killytbe6 10 months ago
@killytbe6
I think you could penetrate tank with laser , but who interested in portable AT weapon that comes with nuclear power plant?
Mifodiy35 10 months ago
@Mifodiy35 If someone does manage to Ill be the first to report them for hacking.
Minotaursoldier 10 months ago
@Mifodiy35 use a bigger missle :P
500kgs of HE will blow the shit out of each tank, no matter the armor :p
GehakteMolen 10 months ago
@GehakteMolen
APS doesn't give a shit about missile's size or weight (i mean we not talking about ballistic missile) . Bigger warhead means bigger boom , but still outside the tank .
BTW Iron Fist is undergoing combat testing on Gaza border and already proved it's effectiveness against RPG . We will have to see how it will couple with ATGM , but it will happen only when Hamas start shooting ATGMs against it's intended targets and not school buses .
Mifodiy35 10 months ago
ERA can only stop explosive rockets ERA will not stop forged energy pemertrator or Sabot rounds. many top attack missiles use a forged energy penertrator.
NielsShoe 1 year ago
Does the warhead cause the implosion of it?
sportsportsport 1 year ago
Tank Pwned!
MW2guideVideos 1 year ago
Sneaky Swedes, It is like the AGA burner :-)
SgtDrDeath 1 year ago
And that is what a dying/killed tank should look like in every videogame, not that same stupid crap we've been seeing for the past 10 years. Man more artists need to neter the game design/animation field and study real-life vids.
wilde1 1 year ago
Cool tank is like winter tree
AVATAR15Park 1 year ago
what show is this?
HeavyStorm4 1 year ago
@xNexus65x
Yep, it's like the 1980s all over again!
Breakerchase 1 year ago
Good swedish anti-tank weapon! :-)
heffaklumpen1319x2 1 year ago
look at it waver around like that, crazy
snelpiller 1 year ago
very interesting! but who drives the tank?
HerrHoIIe 1 year ago
@HerrHoIIe Hopefully no one.
onlypeaceindeath 1 year ago
@onlypeaceindeath maybe the tank is remote-controlled
HerrHoIIe 1 year ago
@HerrHoIIe I think it's the most obvious thing. It's either that or the tank is driven by trained monkeys.
onlypeaceindeath 1 year ago
@onlypeaceindeath monkeys :D > but i don´t think that they film the death of a human.
HerrHoIIe 1 year ago
@HerrHoIIe Its a drone tank fortunately. Anyone in there in real life would be burned alive.
samolet900 1 year ago
omg, I'm never getting in a tank
paronfisk 1 year ago
So it basically penetrates inside and it explodes in there making everybody to have a really bad day?
Delev87 1 year ago
@Delev87 no. it explodes on impact. The copper cone inverts and turns into a super hot liquid projectile which propels at several thousand feet per second, defeating almost any armor. Spalling occurs inside the tank which probably ignited the ammunition inside the tank.
If a shape charge hit a tank with no explosives or flammables inside, it would simply punch a thumb sized hole in it. Direct hits and Spalling do the damage.
fusionstar916 1 year ago
holy fuck.i need my shades!
dexwiggle 1 year ago
fake, there was bomb inside tank.
gardenofarcane 1 year ago
@gardenofarcane Nope, it's just fuel and ammo.
jimmyn89SWE 1 year ago
@gardenofarcane Aren't there always explosive shells inside tanks?
panzerfaust777 1 year ago
Ah, this lightens my old pv-robot soul :D
meanmanturbo 1 year ago
impessiv shit
venom000001 1 year ago
а что это за танк? центурион?
BalticaBeer 1 year ago
ha ha fireworks
muthu161 1 year ago
I think Kontakt-5 would pwn this warhead. ;-)
pROTPANDA 1 year ago
Best way to defend against that attack is totally counterintuitive... THIN top and bottom armor, so the damn thing blows in and out, and expends its energy under the ground below the tank. Of course, that's a pretty specific requirement for a tank, since it renders it vulnerable to any helicopter with a 20mm vulcan...
Seravat7 1 year ago
@Seravat7
It might save the "tank" but the crew would still get barbecued.
Scurck 1 year ago 28
@Scurck Possibly. an SM2 leaves our ship so fact it hardly scorches the paint on the launcher. At certain velocities, things actually get simpler. :) I'd have to see a ballistic test to know for sure.
Seravat7 1 year ago