Check of the story of US Special forces in the opening days of Gulf War 2, fighting in the north behind enemy lines though they where less than a battalion of men in light vehicles like humvees, they took out a whole column of Iraqi tanks with nothing but these missiles.
Soviet tanks have the weakness of having live rounds open inside the cabin, about a 90% chance they ignite and the the entire tank explodes sending the turret dramatically spinning up 100 feet. It was a common sight in Desert Storm.
Western tanks "may" be salvageable but normally so damaged they are scuttled with thermite and high explosives to prevent the enemy getting any valuable components.
part of the reason for uranium tipped tank rounds, aside from the obvious straight up piercing capability, is the radiological after effects. ask a gulf war tankman about em lol
Well I have asked specialists in biochemistry and they call it DEPLETED uranium for a reason, its radiological effects are extremely slight, more dangerous for its chemical properties.
It's a heavy metal like mercury so it is dangerous in that way but impossible for it to kill someone from acute radioactivity alone.
Gulf war veterans have lived with DU shrapnel in them for almost 2 decades now yet no significant increase in cancers or organ failures have been found within this group (IAEA)
"The phasing out of depleted uranium rounds, which are used because of their armour piercing qualities, will please critics of the munition, including veterans of both the 1991 Gulf war and the Kosovo campaign.
They have long argued that the shells can be directly linked to leukemia, kidney damage and lung cancer and is also one of the causes of Gulf war syndrome. "
I cant remember the documentary but the crew of an abrams tank warned against salvaging the iraqi damaged tanks for this reason
You should be wary of conclusions made by soldiers as though brave and skilled they lack the scientific background to make such assertions.
Consider during WWII, hundreds of thousands of Marines died of malaria to spite ample amounts of effective drugs being distributed as false rumours spread around that the pills caused impotence/infertility, so they were discarded.
So many died as rumour was valued over scientific rigour.
Rumour could have a healthy limb amputated because of DU shrapnel!
i think your giving this little discussion too much weight, no one is going to amputate anyone's arm over a youtube comment lol.
but seriously, im just saying it was hazardous and intended to cause harm even after the tank was destroyed. the rumor of the DU's after effects are an addition to the weapon's power of control over an enemy if only psychological. This is a little different than WWII's malaria ignorance, we're talking about a poisonous element that is used to facilitate killing people
Well this discussion is a reflection of a greater ignorance of scientific investigation and analysis that stems from how most people so fundamentally don't understand radiation.
Doctors and medics, especially in the chaos of a war-zone are vulnerable to rumours like these.
The poisonous effects of DU have never been depended on or even factored by any battlefield tacticians. Only its kinetic effects.
On the other hand, being wary of soldiers conclusions could cost you your life, take WW1 as an example, where a Canadian soldier disovered that, if you urinate on a rag, and breathe through it, mustard gas was rendered ineffective as the urine neutralized it
This guy was definitly brave, and surely not a scientist, but he managed to figure this out, perhaps he had enough knowledge to know what pH level piss and mustard gas had, and said the hell with it, im going to die anyway right?
In fact back then in WWI with the urine soaked rag, the govt scientists DID listen to the soldiers but applied scientific method that proved it worked and so the modern gas mask was invented.
Scientists depend on anecdotes to start an investigation but if it does not stand up to scientific rigour then you cannot then just ignore the results and go back to depending on the original rumours.
The risk of DU has been investigated and been found to have insignificant risk.
Cancer rates are VERY considerable, not among US tank men, but among Iraqi children. It's called Depleated because it's supposed to be the U238 left over from the extraction of U235,
One mole of U238 emits 3 million alpha particles per second, and it has a half life of 4.46 billion years. Alpha particles can be stopped by dead skin
In lumps it can do you little harm, but any of the dust, if ingested, WILL cause cancer. The lethal dose is 1/80,000gm.
That's a nice amateur opinion you have there but the professional medical opinion is that there is no significant risk from Depleted Uranium beyond that of similar dense metals like tungsten or lead.
You are clearly exaggerating from an uneducated position with hyperbolic statements like: ingested dust "WILL cause cancer".
I'm not making an argument, there is nothing to argue over, I am merely stating the fact that medical professionals have found the risk to be insignificant.
If there is any argument then it is with the experts in those fields in a proper forum, but till then you can either choose to follow the scientific facts or stick your fingers in your ears and go "La la la la" and just make up your own fantasies.
Philosophy like "first principle consiquence" (as you struggle to spell) is irrelevant here.
By forum I mean medical journals like The Lancet, which you seem to have a vested interest in ignoring.
You also gave me irrelevant and spurious facts without considerate analysis. For example there are higher cancer rates in Iraq yet not amongst the dozens of other large sample groups exposed to VERY high levels of depleted uranium. Iraq cancer rates are mostly linked to how the country was a chemical waste-ground from Saddam Hussein's poor running of the country, not DU.
Chemical waste ground? You appear to believe that any insult will go unchallenged because it's Saddam.
We both know who was spreading toxins.
Talk to the special clean up teams who were working on the DU hit tanks, if you can find any still alive. Curious, isn't it, that shaped charge and squish head hit tanks required no 'Special Clean Up' teams.
How can I possibly discuss with someone who's so wilfully ignorant and confused? It's like trying to explain evolution to a creationist, you have an idea stuck in your head and it just will not budge.
I have better things to do with my time, actually anything is a better use of my time than trying to tangle with your rambling thought processes, massive leaps in logic and endless irrelevant tangents.
I've said my peace, anyone dumb enough to believe your baseless claims, more fool on them.
DU dust doesn't cause cancer, birth defects, or any major health problems. That also applies to fragment in the body. Look it up in the World Health Organization.
I agree with you. I think that there should be more worries about such things as halovalent chromium, and several other heavy industrial chemicals which were widely dispersed in Iraq. The halovalen chromium is very, very poisonous!
WHO do not investigate radiation issues, since 1954, when it became the responsibility of the IAEA, who, incidentally only use modeling of radiation risk of sources outside the body.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
thats what i was saying you retarded fuck XD LOL THIS video shows the REAL results... while the other video where a Javi. supposedly blows up a T-72 (even though they arent REAL T-72s) shows the tank exploding into a missile tiny pieces is complete bullshit...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
LOLOLOLOL americans must LOVE shooting themselves in the foot!
not only does this vid prove that the Javalin vid where it hits a [supposed] T-72 is fake and that the tank was obviously filled with explosives to yet again brain wash the ignorant american masses, but it also proves that the javalins not a main-stay weapon its far to expensive and heavy to be used in mass... the US will stick with the AT-4 <-- which is better AT missile anyway... however Kornet-E kicks both their ass's! XD LOL
If this is in reference to the other footage of a T-72 being blown to pieces then, yes, that probably was faked. I've seen photos of T-55 that were knocked out and were more whole. A lot of "tests" are actually done for display. The real test footage won't be as impressive but much more informative.
My bro's FIL is SO proud to have been part of the ifrared camera team for the Javelin. He has some sort of a medal an Army General gave him, and he treasures it.
the javelin has a two stage warhead design, the first stage goes through the reactive armor and the second, larger warhead penetrates the original armor. the javelin is a fire and forget system, so once a good lock is achieved, the target is tracked by an imaging infrared 'eye'.
I think the large hole in the armour and the smoke pouring from the turret hatch indicates penetration. I dont think that any tank, T-90, leopard 2A6, M1A2, Merkava 4, could avoid a penetration if struck on the turret roof, just not enough armour and too much warhead. Nor would ARENA be much help, as its mission profile would not allow it to engage a steeply diving target. That said, this particular shot might not have killed the above mentioned tanks as it hit the fender.
theres no sound in the video, but if i remember the episode right the narrator said that sensors showed that temperatures were over 1200 degrees inside the tank. any soldiers inside would have been cooked.
Heh, the Javelin CLU actually makes up most of the price (And it isn't disposable, or isn't supposed to be), the missile itself isn't all to expensive. And yes, it is a very big missile. You wouldn't want to see one coming at you.
Meh, Trophy is better. Arena is essentially a massive shotgun. Which, although effective, generally takes out your infantry support. Trophy just knocks the war head off the missile with a single-couple kinetic interceptor (Sorta like the Missile Shield except micro sized)
Also, a normal tank generally costs $500,000, so $80,000 vs $500,000.....yay.
Well, a tank does more then your normal AT Missile. So, 80,000 vs 80,000. Now, we take what comes with it, Tank needs Ammo, Gas, and crew. "Javelin" AT Missile needs missile and person to shoot it. So, when the AT Missile kills the Tank, the side using the tank took a bigger blow then the side who just fired the missile. And the main cost is the Javelin Controller unit too, not the missile.
Heh by "Nomral Tank" I mean the types people with Javelins generally face, Example: T-72 and T-80s, which are around in huge numbers, and cost around 500,000 a piece. NOT Leopard 2s (Oh yeah, congrats on the loader job, the Leopard 2 is epic) There aren't even very MANY T-90s to begin with. And yes, I know the T-90 would have to cost more then 1/2 a million dollars.
T-90 my ass. That looks no more recent than a T-64. Score one; American weapons. Next they should build time machines, to go back 40 years with this amazing technology.
oh yeah! Because your Brits or w/e the hell you are don't test their weapons the same way we do... you should take more interest into what your half ass army does. We saved your ass in WWII and beat your ass the times before now stfu u panzy ass bacon obsessed prick.
oh yeah, and guess who you bought those javelins from assholes? Lets talk quality here. Just cuz you're all royal and shit doesnt mean you can beat a good ol' fashion
Harris, you are always saying????? what makes you the expert you gun nerd!!! you proberbly read soilders of fortune on the toilet to break up the day at the office!
Hah!!))) Each one cost 80000$... In new russian tanks they use "ARENA"-active anti missle sistem... So, there is no point in use this thing... In Iraq maby...LOL)))
lol that tank looks pretty outdated. a javelin dont do squat against a modern tank unless it is immobilized. tanks have pretty advanced defencesystems these days.
IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW MUCH ARMOR THE TANK HAS! It hits it on the roof hatch. (Just a note for those of the stupid people out there, armor on the roof hatch=weight, weight on the roof hatch= no way in or out.
Even if it hits the tank's front armor, it still has two tandem shaped charges that can penetrate over 1,000mm of steel plate.
I believe Iran has pretty good tanks, besides America is heading for a conflict with China and Russia.
Besides russian kornets did a number on the very modern merkava's. They might not be as effective against abrams, but they will still do the job given a few hits from the side or back.
No way man, those tanks are too expensive to waste on a firing range. And plus, no enemies of America or other Western forces posses tanks equipped with those high-tech armour anyway.
Фуфло!
RusAndrey1 1 year ago
this missile can destroy turret gun OFF from the tank
bestamerica 2 years ago
No sound! :(
TuAFFalcon 2 years ago
wtf? metal disappear 0:36 wtf?
qwerty9567 2 years ago
I wonder if turret roof ERA could at least "reduce" the damage done by Javelin ..........
hatakashi1900 2 years ago
The Modern Russian Kontact-5 ERA armour can stop a javelin.
dinokitty 2 years ago
The JAV has counters ERA
gordopark13 2 years ago
with this missile, iraqi armor will be useless
archery75689 3 years ago 7
Check of the story of US Special forces in the opening days of Gulf War 2, fighting in the north behind enemy lines though they where less than a battalion of men in light vehicles like humvees, they took out a whole column of Iraqi tanks with nothing but these missiles.
It was very much a repeat of the "Toyota War".
Treblaine 2 years ago
I thought there was no such thing..?
TheCrazyFinn 3 years ago
tanks are useless for now
LouisX2328 3 years ago
tank looks fine to me...
Puma688 3 years ago
Thats cause you weren't a crewman inside who would have been hit with molten steel and fragements, and then cooked and blown sky-high by secondaries.
Wilmot1846 3 years ago
well... on second thoughts it might seem that the people inside would be fucked... but would any of the equipment still be functional?
Puma688 3 years ago
Soviet tanks have the weakness of having live rounds open inside the cabin, about a 90% chance they ignite and the the entire tank explodes sending the turret dramatically spinning up 100 feet. It was a common sight in Desert Storm.
Western tanks "may" be salvageable but normally so damaged they are scuttled with thermite and high explosives to prevent the enemy getting any valuable components.
Treblaine 3 years ago
part of the reason for uranium tipped tank rounds, aside from the obvious straight up piercing capability, is the radiological after effects. ask a gulf war tankman about em lol
Farflonger 3 years ago
Well I have asked specialists in biochemistry and they call it DEPLETED uranium for a reason, its radiological effects are extremely slight, more dangerous for its chemical properties.
It's a heavy metal like mercury so it is dangerous in that way but impossible for it to kill someone from acute radioactivity alone.
Gulf war veterans have lived with DU shrapnel in them for almost 2 decades now yet no significant increase in cancers or organ failures have been found within this group (IAEA)
Treblaine 3 years ago
Comment removed
Farflonger 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The phasing out of depleted uranium rounds, which are used because of their armour piercing qualities, will please critics of the munition, including veterans of both the 1991 Gulf war and the Kosovo campaign.
They have long argued that the shells can be directly linked to leukemia, kidney damage and lung cancer and is also one of the causes of Gulf war syndrome. "
I cant remember the documentary but the crew of an abrams tank warned against salvaging the iraqi damaged tanks for this reason
Farflonger 3 years ago
You should be wary of conclusions made by soldiers as though brave and skilled they lack the scientific background to make such assertions.
Consider during WWII, hundreds of thousands of Marines died of malaria to spite ample amounts of effective drugs being distributed as false rumours spread around that the pills caused impotence/infertility, so they were discarded.
So many died as rumour was valued over scientific rigour.
Rumour could have a healthy limb amputated because of DU shrapnel!
Treblaine 3 years ago
i think your giving this little discussion too much weight, no one is going to amputate anyone's arm over a youtube comment lol.
but seriously, im just saying it was hazardous and intended to cause harm even after the tank was destroyed. the rumor of the DU's after effects are an addition to the weapon's power of control over an enemy if only psychological. This is a little different than WWII's malaria ignorance, we're talking about a poisonous element that is used to facilitate killing people
Farflonger 3 years ago
Well this discussion is a reflection of a greater ignorance of scientific investigation and analysis that stems from how most people so fundamentally don't understand radiation.
Doctors and medics, especially in the chaos of a war-zone are vulnerable to rumours like these.
The poisonous effects of DU have never been depended on or even factored by any battlefield tacticians. Only its kinetic effects.
Treblaine 3 years ago
On the other hand, being wary of soldiers conclusions could cost you your life, take WW1 as an example, where a Canadian soldier disovered that, if you urinate on a rag, and breathe through it, mustard gas was rendered ineffective as the urine neutralized it
This guy was definitly brave, and surely not a scientist, but he managed to figure this out, perhaps he had enough knowledge to know what pH level piss and mustard gas had, and said the hell with it, im going to die anyway right?
mattmatt115 2 years ago
In fact back then in WWI with the urine soaked rag, the govt scientists DID listen to the soldiers but applied scientific method that proved it worked and so the modern gas mask was invented.
Scientists depend on anecdotes to start an investigation but if it does not stand up to scientific rigour then you cannot then just ignore the results and go back to depending on the original rumours.
The risk of DU has been investigated and been found to have insignificant risk.
Treblaine 2 years ago
Cancer rates are VERY considerable, not among US tank men, but among Iraqi children. It's called Depleated because it's supposed to be the U238 left over from the extraction of U235,
One mole of U238 emits 3 million alpha particles per second, and it has a half life of 4.46 billion years. Alpha particles can be stopped by dead skin
In lumps it can do you little harm, but any of the dust, if ingested, WILL cause cancer. The lethal dose is 1/80,000gm.
The stuff is evil.
gamesbok 2 years ago
That's a nice amateur opinion you have there but the professional medical opinion is that there is no significant risk from Depleted Uranium beyond that of similar dense metals like tungsten or lead.
You are clearly exaggerating from an uneducated position with hyperbolic statements like: ingested dust "WILL cause cancer".
The stuff is not evil. You are just ignorant.
Treblaine 2 years ago 2
This isn't an opinion, it's first principle consiquence.
When you have an arguement get back to me.
gamesbok 2 years ago
I'm not making an argument, there is nothing to argue over, I am merely stating the fact that medical professionals have found the risk to be insignificant.
If there is any argument then it is with the experts in those fields in a proper forum, but till then you can either choose to follow the scientific facts or stick your fingers in your ears and go "La la la la" and just make up your own fantasies.
Philosophy like "first principle consiquence" (as you struggle to spell) is irrelevant here.
Treblaine 2 years ago
I gave you the facts.
When you find this 'forum' let me know, because it seems to me that vested interests have been surpressing the creation of one.
gamesbok 2 years ago
By forum I mean medical journals like The Lancet, which you seem to have a vested interest in ignoring.
You also gave me irrelevant and spurious facts without considerate analysis. For example there are higher cancer rates in Iraq yet not amongst the dozens of other large sample groups exposed to VERY high levels of depleted uranium. Iraq cancer rates are mostly linked to how the country was a chemical waste-ground from Saddam Hussein's poor running of the country, not DU.
Treblaine 2 years ago
Chemical waste ground? You appear to believe that any insult will go unchallenged because it's Saddam.
We both know who was spreading toxins.
Talk to the special clean up teams who were working on the DU hit tanks, if you can find any still alive. Curious, isn't it, that shaped charge and squish head hit tanks required no 'Special Clean Up' teams.
gamesbok 2 years ago
How can I possibly discuss with someone who's so wilfully ignorant and confused? It's like trying to explain evolution to a creationist, you have an idea stuck in your head and it just will not budge.
I have better things to do with my time, actually anything is a better use of my time than trying to tangle with your rambling thought processes, massive leaps in logic and endless irrelevant tangents.
I've said my peace, anyone dumb enough to believe your baseless claims, more fool on them.
Treblaine 2 years ago
i lol @ ur youtube bs.
spriggan969 2 years ago
DU dust doesn't cause cancer, birth defects, or any major health problems. That also applies to fragment in the body. Look it up in the World Health Organization.
dinokitty 2 years ago
I agree with you. I think that there should be more worries about such things as halovalent chromium, and several other heavy industrial chemicals which were widely dispersed in Iraq. The halovalen chromium is very, very poisonous!
sakoshooter48 2 years ago
WHO do not investigate radiation issues, since 1954, when it became the responsibility of the IAEA, who, incidentally only use modeling of radiation risk of sources outside the body.
gamesbok 2 years ago
Theres no guaranty it will cause cancer. Great for killing tanks though ;)
spriggan969 2 years ago
it scares me...
pabel18 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
thats what i was saying you retarded fuck XD LOL THIS video shows the REAL results... while the other video where a Javi. supposedly blows up a T-72 (even though they arent REAL T-72s) shows the tank exploding into a missile tiny pieces is complete bullshit...
bittemeinrammstein 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
LOLOLOLOL americans must LOVE shooting themselves in the foot!
not only does this vid prove that the Javalin vid where it hits a [supposed] T-72 is fake and that the tank was obviously filled with explosives to yet again brain wash the ignorant american masses, but it also proves that the javalins not a main-stay weapon its far to expensive and heavy to be used in mass... the US will stick with the AT-4 <-- which is better AT missile anyway... however Kornet-E kicks both their ass's! XD LOL
bittemeinrammstein 3 years ago
If this is in reference to the other footage of a T-72 being blown to pieces then, yes, that probably was faked. I've seen photos of T-55 that were knocked out and were more whole. A lot of "tests" are actually done for display. The real test footage won't be as impressive but much more informative.
colddrake80 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
LMAO what an ignorant retard XD LOLOLOLOL
search Kornet-E, or At-16 LMFAO you will eat your stupid ass words fucker XD
BTW old ass RPG has claimed over 2,000 american lives in iraq fag-head XD <--- LMAO SUCK IT!
bittemeinrammstein 3 years ago
My bro's FIL is SO proud to have been part of the ifrared camera team for the Javelin. He has some sort of a medal an Army General gave him, and he treasures it.
FlavorD 3 years ago
I met the soldier who fired that particular javelin, met him at a fair today. goofy kind of guy though
death55546 3 years ago
well the mute sux
thatsmrV 3 years ago
you brits do know that the u.s is ranked 1st in the world when the U.K is ranked 16th in milititary power
enfernox 3 years ago
Just luk at the british police compared to the yanks, fuckin laff at the yanks.
UUTez2k7UU 3 years ago
So? Was it penetrate or not?
By the way, that was T55, more then 50 years old tank. So, how about T90 with ARENA?
ZoryaDanis 3 years ago
the javelin has a two stage warhead design, the first stage goes through the reactive armor and the second, larger warhead penetrates the original armor. the javelin is a fire and forget system, so once a good lock is achieved, the target is tracked by an imaging infrared 'eye'.
draggone164 3 years ago
I think the large hole in the armour and the smoke pouring from the turret hatch indicates penetration. I dont think that any tank, T-90, leopard 2A6, M1A2, Merkava 4, could avoid a penetration if struck on the turret roof, just not enough armour and too much warhead. Nor would ARENA be much help, as its mission profile would not allow it to engage a steeply diving target. That said, this particular shot might not have killed the above mentioned tanks as it hit the fender.
brvsrrbn 3 years ago
As we can see... We can see nothing!
Look, the rocket hit tank not directly in the turret roof.
Javelin destroyed fuel tank or box with tools, tracks, damaged turret and side armor but was penetration or not? Maybe not.
By the way.... Russians maintained active armor on the top of turret.
ZoryaDanis 3 years ago
fucking admit it people. Javelin + Tank = No javelin and tank in flames.
we're not talking RPG here its always going to hit from above. and its always going to do more damage that way. Period. End of Discussion.
sharki9876 3 years ago
Ok, Javelin is awesome! Tank is in flame.
ZoryaDanis 3 years ago
Lol Zoryadanis why dont we fire that into your asshole.
managrey 3 years ago
it has been proven to kick fucking ass no matter what, how about ur house with hedges?
elvishboyman 3 years ago
yeah..
avsti 3 years ago
...couldn't agree more. if they'd at least slap some extra armor onto it, it'd be worth of a YouTube video, lol
avsti 3 years ago
holy crap. wow.
avsti 3 years ago
Doesn't prove the tank was destroyed or out of action.
blogologist 4 years ago
theres no sound in the video, but if i remember the episode right the narrator said that sensors showed that temperatures were over 1200 degrees inside the tank. any soldiers inside would have been cooked.
Bleezz 4 years ago
taxpayers money
marktimmer2212 4 years ago
we are fighting 1960s and 1970s tanks. just like the one in the video.
avsti 4 years ago
HOLY CRAP!!!! DID YOU SEE HOW IT DESTROYED THAT 1950's TANK!!! OMFG!!! AMERICA NEEDS TO MAKE MORE OF THESE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
avsti 4 years ago
lol it's an asome weapon but it isnt $80000000.00 4 1 round wuesten is right 80000
scotty92994 4 years ago
O.o
Toasty789 4 years ago
i thought it said 20,000
ollyollie 4 years ago
na dudes your both wrong. 80,000$
vomitismyname 4 years ago
right 80,000$ is correct
1wuestenfuxxx 4 years ago 2
Heh, the Javelin CLU actually makes up most of the price (And it isn't disposable, or isn't supposed to be), the missile itself isn't all to expensive. And yes, it is a very big missile. You wouldn't want to see one coming at you.
Octopi1 4 years ago
no.. 80,000.00$ heh, mybad
xaberas 4 years ago
Meh, Trophy is better. Arena is essentially a massive shotgun. Which, although effective, generally takes out your infantry support. Trophy just knocks the war head off the missile with a single-couple kinetic interceptor (Sorta like the Missile Shield except micro sized)
Also, a normal tank generally costs $500,000, so $80,000 vs $500,000.....yay.
Octopi1 4 years ago
"Also, a normal tank generally costs $500,000, so $80,000 vs $500,000.....yay."
Dont write if you dont know. Abrams costs almost 4,5million and T-90 about 3 million. Of course some junk tanks like T-55 costs about 80.000$
MokomaSusi 4 years ago 2
Well, a tank does more then your normal AT Missile. So, 80,000 vs 80,000. Now, we take what comes with it, Tank needs Ammo, Gas, and crew. "Javelin" AT Missile needs missile and person to shoot it. So, when the AT Missile kills the Tank, the side using the tank took a bigger blow then the side who just fired the missile. And the main cost is the Javelin Controller unit too, not the missile.
Octopi1 4 years ago
Dont write me like that. I was loader of Leopard 2 A4 in FDF.
I certainly dont need little kid to tell me about tanks and AT-missiles.
"So, 80,000 vs 80,000."
Normal tank like T-90 does not cost 80.000 it's far more expensive.
"the side using the tank took a bigger blow then the side who just fired the missile."
No need to tell this to me.
MokomaSusi 4 years ago
Heh by "Nomral Tank" I mean the types people with Javelins generally face, Example: T-72 and T-80s, which are around in huge numbers, and cost around 500,000 a piece. NOT Leopard 2s (Oh yeah, congrats on the loader job, the Leopard 2 is epic) There aren't even very MANY T-90s to begin with. And yes, I know the T-90 would have to cost more then 1/2 a million dollars.
Octopi1 4 years ago
IIRC T-90 that have been sold to India have been around 1.5 million and AFAIK those don't have IR systems that western tanks have.
sjumppanen 4 years ago
"normal tank like t90" stfu.
avsti 4 years ago
t-90 is like half the price of a normal m1abrams
hamisharn 4 years ago
T-90 my ass. That looks no more recent than a T-64. Score one; American weapons. Next they should build time machines, to go back 40 years with this amazing technology.
avsti 4 years ago
so... they just spent $80,000 to put a hole through an $80,000 tank. epic win.
avsti 4 years ago 6
oh yeah! Because your Brits or w/e the hell you are don't test their weapons the same way we do... you should take more interest into what your half ass army does. We saved your ass in WWII and beat your ass the times before now stfu u panzy ass bacon obsessed prick.
2Sp3cKo 3 years ago
Actually, my country won WWII. I just had to laugh at a video displaying a state-of-the art US weapon destroying an old Soviet tank.
avsti 3 years ago
You do realise that the British army is the best trained in the world?
You merely outnumber us, dont think your better just cause your bigger :)
And even if America was alone in WW2 you guys wouldnt stand a chance against the German Army back then..
Be gone you Yankee twat.
JJZSS 3 years ago
HAAHAH
i dident know u fuckers were comedians too
HAHAHHA
atmercado93 3 years ago
lol, best trained in the war? Why dont you visit the world first and let them fuck you in the ass first before you say that.
managrey 3 years ago
oh yeah, and guess who you bought those javelins from assholes? Lets talk quality here. Just cuz you're all royal and shit doesnt mean you can beat a good ol' fashion
M16. Stick with your longbow.
sharki9876 3 years ago
@avsti That tank's probably more like half a million or more.
phantom9498 1 year ago
@phantom9498 Yeah exactly, it's looks to be a T55 maybe which is a total peice of trash now.
Henckles 1 year ago
@phantom9498 google the cost of a T-55 tank. one website said as low as €40,000 = $48,968
avsti 1 year ago
@avsti Usually, the tanks of nowadays are 1 million $ +
FranciscoSRO2 1 year ago
@FranciscoSRO2 I'm not arguing against it - just pointing out that in this BA Javelin video, the tank was a POS by today's standards.
avsti 1 year ago
@avsti this weapon dont just shoot 1 time, it will finish atleast 3-4 tanks before the soldiers fall back.
leereturn2006 8 months ago
That is a rather large missile
hockeyrules1212 4 years ago
Harris, you are always saying????? what makes you the expert you gun nerd!!! you proberbly read soilders of fortune on the toilet to break up the day at the office!
BALDSTUD76 4 years ago
Hah!!))) Each one cost 80000$... In new russian tanks they use "ARENA"-active anti missle sistem... So, there is no point in use this thing... In Iraq maby...LOL)))
comrad777 4 years ago
i figured that javelin missiles are 80.000$ when i died in cod4 . it said "a single javelin missile costs $80.000"
xaberas 4 years ago
E!!! That's right... They made fantastic game!!! but how terrorists could buy or theft nukes??? Unbeliaveble story... but i like it)))
comrad777 4 years ago
hmm steal lol
xaberas 4 years ago
plus i saw this episode of Future Weapons and that was a fake round. If it was a live around it would be off this earth.
tancs80v2 4 years ago
yep. just like every enemy america faces.............
avsti 3 years ago
lol that tank looks pretty outdated. a javelin dont do squat against a modern tank unless it is immobilized. tanks have pretty advanced defencesystems these days.
kappahl 4 years ago
OWNED.
MartinRPGMaster 4 years ago
sucks to be the crew inside a tank that gets hit by a javelin
omnislashvr13 4 years ago
RPG is not even close to having the same power....
fissegeneral 4 years ago
IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW MUCH ARMOR THE TANK HAS! It hits it on the roof hatch. (Just a note for those of the stupid people out there, armor on the roof hatch=weight, weight on the roof hatch= no way in or out.
Even if it hits the tank's front armor, it still has two tandem shaped charges that can penetrate over 1,000mm of steel plate.
CS139 4 years ago
instead of saying 1000mm, why not say 39.37in.?
this way, the americans with their unsurpassed technological advancements may understand.
avsti 4 years ago
I believe Iran has pretty good tanks, besides America is heading for a conflict with China and Russia.
Besides russian kornets did a number on the very modern merkava's. They might not be as effective against abrams, but they will still do the job given a few hits from the side or back.
gosciu555 4 years ago
No way man, those tanks are too expensive to waste on a firing range. And plus, no enemies of America or other Western forces posses tanks equipped with those high-tech armour anyway.
XxMusashiYamatoxX 4 years ago
No. no enemies at all. we are the only ones with armor. yep. keep churnin' out them javelins.
avsti 4 years ago
bad it dont have sound...
BarcelPL 4 years ago
love that show! i am the only person who rated? How sad...
acepilot246 4 years ago
ooooooooo wea letal
elblitz 4 years ago