Pause at 0:18 and look ,the missle obviously didn't even scratch the turret (yet) and blue flames of explosion is taking place under the left track. Clear indication that this was staged event...
Its a tank replica detonated poorly for propaganda purposes the javeling (a good anti tank system no argue there) can never cause such damage to a real tank . This "tank" is basicly a metal box full of remote exposives - pause at 0:19 and seed the premature detonation if you dont belive me (the fire dot in the midle of the tanks tracks ).
@youngdones Yes..they should test all anti-tank weapons on the M1a1 abrams tank b4 they take it to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Abrams tank can be destroyed by land mine or rpg!! Shame..
The T-90 has no ERA coverage on top of the turret. No MBT does. It also has a tandem-heat warhead so it doesn't matter if there is ERA on top of the tank. Top turret armor is very weak on every tank. The Javelin can kill a T-90 just as easily as it can kill a T-72M.
all russian tanks are known to have weak armor, the javeline is very strong, this tank just disappeared after the hit. russian RPG's sucks the donkey dick compared javeline.
@BitnikGr if you don't know tanks don't talk about it, russian tanks armors is very weak and light, thats why they concetrated on developing reactive armors and other counter measures, Afghans with RPG's have blown countless T-72 tanks which is now modernized and called T-90, these tanks make the backbone of the russian land forces.
this is not the 60's or 50's any more, russian weapons in general are decades behind except for few weapons systems such as S-400.
@Tihamah3 Really? Terms like "weak", "light" are not professional ones used by ppl working in field of Armored Fighting Vehicles. I've asked you for numbers. How "weak"? How "light"? In numbers! Otherwise, your claims are pointless and not supported by any evidence. This is just what you want to believe and nothing else.
Have you ever heard about Mass/Internal volume ratio? If you haven't, I suggest you to start from that point. You'll discover that lighter AFV can be more armored than a...
Your following claims just prove that you indeed know shit about anything, not only about tanks.
1) T-72s were never in Afghanistan.
2) Deep modernization of every single sub-system which moves it from one generation to another justifies the change of index. Another example is F-4 2nd generation and F-4 2000 (4th generation). Name is actually irrelevant, possibilities are not...
3) Development of ERA and any other additional protection systems is TOTALLY irrelevant...
@Tihamah3 ... to the main armor of ANY AFV. And very best of modern MBTs like Abrams, Challenger 2, Merkava IV prove it. They all have ERA. Does it mean that their main armor is "light and weak"? All of them have soft-kill and hard-kill systems (like MCD and Trophy)... does it mean that their main armor is "light and weak"?
Regardless how "strong" or "weak" is the main armor, all additional protection is a MUST! Isn't Quick-Kill under development for Abrams?
@BitnikGr you compare orange to apples, what does have abrams armor to do with T-90 or T-72? lol....it is well known that T-72 armor is very light it can't tolerate a hit from an old RPG, Challenger abrams leopards can survive hits from RPG's easily....these are facts, stop been biased just because you are an orthodox and think russians will save you from turks, even the greek army is not using russian weapons.
@Tihamah3 "you compare orange to apples" - No, I compare a MBT armor to MBT armor.
"what does have abrams armor to do with T-90 or T-72" - Well, again, it is a composite armor of main battle tanks.
"it is well known that T-72 armor is very light it can't tolerate a hit from an old RPG" - Will you stop throwing general meaningless words like "well known". Well known to whom? Where are your facts? Photos? Do you want photos of Abrams penetrated by RPG-7?
Dummy, I am not an orthodox, I am atheist. That's why I get mad when I hear bulls like "well known", "very light" and "super strong" without actual numbers and proofs.
And here are proofs. Read carefully. These are numbers and numbers don't lie.
Old RPGs from 60s and 70s, you have mentioned, has penetration power of 260 and 300mm RHA.
Leopard2 (1979), Challenger2 (1998), M1A1/A2 (1980) are tanks of 3rd generation and they have enough protection from those old RPGs only in...
@Tihamah3 ... frontal arc of turret and body frontal armor. No tank in the World has side and rear armor equal to 300mm RHA. Penetration of 260mm is enough for 7 side armors of Abrams placed one after another.
But it easy to neutralize a non-tandem warhead. It is enough to place an ERA or getto-cage or slat-screen armor at 40-50cm away from main armor.
Do you want to look at pictures of M1A1 and A2 in 1991 and in 2003? Why did they placed ARAT ERA on sides and slat armor at sides of body and...
@Tihamah3 ... and back sides of turret, if they are immune to old RPGs, which is the main weapon of insurgents? Can you answer that? Leopard 2 has built-in ERA on sides, Challenger 2 also got ERA on sides at front.
Now let's take a look at T-72. It is a 2nd generation MBT, which started production in 1973. Already in first production model in 1973 frontal body armor had 460mm RHA and frontal turret armor had 405mm. Aren't these numbers higher than 260 and 300?
@Tihamah3 ... version with ERA all around. So, WHAT A FUCK are you talking about by saying "T-72 armor is very light it can't tolerate a hit from an old RPG"?????
In 1985, Soviet T-72 had already all around protection from RPGs from 70s. Abrams got such protection in 2004! TUSK upgrade. Count difference in years!
Even downgraded monkey models of Iraqi Army had at least 380mm RHA equivalent in frontal arc, without any composite armor. So, untill you show us a picture with frontal armor of Iraqi T-72 penetrated by RPG-7, I advise you to stfu and got educated, instead of spreading bullshits and repeating "well known very weak" mantra.
@Tihamah3 "even the greek army is not using russian weapons" - turning a pure technical discussion into political, ethnic and national one is a failure. Your failure.
FIY, Greece has Russian "Zubr" landing ships, TOR-M1, OSA systems, S-300, BMP-1, ZU-23 "Shilka", RPG-18 "Mukha", "Kornet" and "Fagot" ATGMs. Spec Ops units have AK-47 and AK-74. And furthermore we were going to buy 400 BMP-3, not because they are the best for Greece, but because of pure political Russian-Greek interstate...
@BitnikGr it is funny when classify AK47 as weapon of sifinicant while even in the US some people use AK47's lol, greece wouldn't buy BMP-3 because it is not compatible to NATO standards not to greece is bankrupted and germany wont buy russian weapons for you definetly.
so back the topic, russian techonology is retarded it has been proven in battle fields and all over the world, all rich countries don't buy russian weapons with few exceptional good russian systems.
@Tihamah3 I don't classify anything, you moron. I just listed Soviet/Russian equipment in Greek Army, which proved you lying once more, since you said "Greece doesn't use Russian weapons".
Why exactly BMP-3 is not compatible since US company creates 30mm APFSDS rounds for BMP-3 2A72?
35mm isn't a NATO standard for IFV either, but this didn't stop 5 countries from buying CV-90.
Of course Germany didn't wanted Greece to buy BMP-3. Because they want to sell us crappy MardersA1 from 70s, which ...
@Tihamah3 ... with which they couldn't fool Austria and Switzerland and now they have them rusting under open sky and for already more than 10years they are putting pressure on Greek MoD to buy them.
-
Back to the topic, if technology is retarded, then it is impossible to have "few exceptional good systems". So, it is you, who is retarded. Really. I provided you numbers and facts... you continue speaking by propagandistic terms like "weak, retarded, super strong, well known".
@Tihamah3 ... agreement on economical cooperation. Very similar to French-Russian agreement and their purchase of 2 Mistrals. And we lease Russian helicopters for forest fire-fighting.
Not that Soviet/Russian made equipment in service of Hellenic Forces means anything regarding main subject of conversation about armor of main battle tanks vs RPG. But it once more shows how shallow knowledge you have about this subject or about anything actually!
@BitnikGr take off your sun glasses, russia BOUGHT the 2 french ships because it is better than russian made ship with the technology from cold war era, the russian president medvedev told the army to buy weapons from out side russia.....
in all wars russian weapons prooved to be inferior to western weapons (at that time the gap was smaller now it is very big), russians have no high-tech industry, don't try to be more russian the russian president him self who admitted they need to by weapons.
@Tihamah3 "president him self who admitted they need to by weapons" - You can repeat it 1000 times and still I won't buy it, until you show me direct source (link, article, TV news... something). It's a lie. Medvedev haven't said anything like that.
WW II, Vietnam, Korea, Iran-Iraq war - Soviet weapons were always at least equal, and most of times better... In the rest wars after that point of time the West never faced modern Soviet weapons.
@Tihamah3 trust.org - "Page not found (404 error)"
-
Finally I found the article by simply googling for "Medvedev urges army to import weapons", since you are handicaped to provide one working URL.
"If they (domestic arms makers) offer equipment which does not satisfy you, place your orders with other firms, or, ultimately, import them," Medvedev said.
IF my grandma had balls, she would be my grandfather.
If you think this is an order to buy weapons abroad then you don't know English!
@BitnikGr wow it is funny when you claim the links does not exist LOL,
go burry your head in the sands, it is ALL OVER THE NEWS go google
"medvedev urges the army to import weapons"
after thats suck on it as hard as you can, it is funny when you claim russian weapons better when the russian head of state saying some thing else, you are not even russian, just miserable bankrupted greek.
@BitnikGr wow it is funny when you claim the links does not exist LOL,
go burry your head in the sands, it is ALL OVER THE NEWS go google
"medvedev urges the army to import weapons"
after thats suck on it as hard as you can, it is funny when you claim russian weapons better when the russian head of state saying some thing else, you are not even russian, just miserable bankrupted greek.
@Tihamah3 You found new mantra, ha? Continue repeating "miserable bankrupted greek" for 10.000 times and maybe someone will believe that RPG-7 can penetrate frontal armor of T-72 or that RPG-72 can't penetrate side armor of NATO tanks!
-
IF there is ANY relations between these, then statement that "Meteorite will destroy Earth tomorrow, because you are an American" will make same "perfect" sense for you... right? Poor brainless form of life you are :)
@BitnikGr you will still claim the pages does not exist after i send them to you in private message? LOL.
you are really pathetic, just let me tell you some thing, if you deny some thing you wont change the world, your statement wont over shadow reuters and other news agencies reporting what i told you :)
@BitnikGr "You shouldn't buy junk," Medvedev told Defence Minister Anatoly Serdyukov and Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov, who oversees the defence sector for the government, at his residence just outside of Moscow.
son read carefully, get over it and move on, i told you this is not the 50's and 60's any more, russian/soviet junk in general are junk with tech from the cold war era, even russians them selves admitted that and started to get weapons from abroad :)
@BitnikGr to save you all the effort though son just go google "Medvedev urges army to import weapons" you will get thousands of links from news sites.
to make you little sore i will qoute this.
"You shouldn't buy junk," Medvedev told Defence Minister Anatoly Serdyukov and Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov, who oversees the defence sector for the government, at his residence just outside of Moscow.
@BitnikGr next time, do your home work and behave before coming to argue with me about tanks, now you just embarrassed yourself and showed you ignorant and impolite kid you are, you don't even know what the russian president him self said, you are licking russian asses and trying to be more russian the medvedev him self.
look you idiot no one buying russian weapons except poor countries, no rich country buy russian junk because it sucks, it very simple but you are a rude idiot.
@Tihamah3 You think that you are correct only because of one quote (which even doesn't mean what you think) and because of my nationality and country of origin?
Do your homework actually about tanks... I provided you numbers of protection level of each tank and penetration of RPG-7s. You continue jerking about that I am Greek.
Rude is your middle name. Cause you started offending and calling names, believing this will make you "right"...? Pathetic.
French helicopter carriers are not better in any case. It is just 100% pure political interstate agreement. Order on 2 Mistrals + 2 option was placed even without competition. Russian Ship Building Corporation couldn't give an offer, in order to determine which ship would be better or worse.
Just like BMP-3 for Greece. But at least we had competition and winner was a CV-90, but in frame of interstate agreement with Russia Greece decided to buy BMP-3.
@BitnikGr you keep telling me greek use this and that, you listed Ak47 as russian weapons greece using LOL, or tansport helicopters LOL.
when some one talking about the armed forces and saying WEAPONS he means, MBT's, JETS, Destroyers, FRIGATES etc, not a rifle or tansport heli.
greek will never buy any russian weapons, because the weapons greece gets are handouts from NATO and the US, or sold by loans from germany and france.
@Tihamah3 You are continuing behave stupidly right? How many systems I named including landing ships and AA defenses, from Russia? And you catched up with AKs and Fire-Fighting helis. They are small part of that list and not the only ones in that list. Furthermore, why Pentagon buys Russian Heli for Iraq and Afghanistan?
And I didn't mentioned a cargo heli, but fire-fighting ones. Again, why we didn't lease any European or American? Because either there are none, or they are worse!
@BitnikGr first of all i'm not European or American, i don't give thing about who have the best tank, i did not leave AA system out i said the S-400 is a great system very early probably in my second comment on this video, but you are simply biased and some times mis-informed (to be nice to you).
unfortunately all arms experts all over the world agree with me and no with you, i don't want to argue with you any more,
@Tihamah3 "unfortunately all arms experts all over the world agree with me " - Particular names of those "experts" and their publications please. No expert agrees with you. But you agree with "Discovery channel", "Future Weapons" and other alike.
I already gave you numerous examples of "junk technology" and that your claims about RPGs and armor of various tanks were wrong TOTALLY. They are WRONG fundamentally, since you don't know a heck about those tanks you was talking about, except than...
@Tihamah3 ... words "junk" and "great". Neither of these words are in vocabulary of real experts, and real experts speak with numbers and they (most of the time) present a degree of superiority of one system being better than another. Nothing like that was ever provided by you.
And of course you deliberately left out AA Defenses, ATGMs and IFVs... Like they are not important part of Armed Forces. And in those Army branches NATO countries (including Greece) use Russian equipment. And only old Soviet leftovers, but buying new ones too.
So, you can go fuck yourself with your "cold-war minded" approach of everything shining in the West and everything rusting in the East... and keep your racist comments for yourself.
@BitnikGr yeah sure soviet/russian weapons are the best in the world with 1962 technology, thats why only poor third world nations buy russian weapons at "scrap price" LOL.
@BitnikGr finally you showed you real lying gay greece self, you claim medvedev did not say that?huh? now suck on these links it is all over news you shameless lair.
Our apologies, the content you requested cannot be located."
Chinadaily: "Sorry, the page you requested was not found."
I've replaced your slashes, underscores and dots... but still "no page was found".
Learn giving correct URLs, and them come back. Your pussy nature has to involve others nationality or country of origin, thinking that this will make you "right" on subject of discussion?
And at the same time you hide your profile. So, you are noone, just troll
@BitnikGr wow it is funny when you claim the links does not exist LOL,
go burry your head in the sands, it is ALL OVER THE NEWS go google
"medvedev urges the army to import weapons"
after thats suck on it as hard as you can, it is funny when you claim russian weapons better when the russian head of state saying some thing else, you are not even russian, just miserable bankrupted greek.
"this is not the 60's or 50's any more" - exactly. That's why tens of millions of ppl are more brainwashed by aggressive US promotion of Western systems, like "Future Weapons" for example. Even Western documentaries of 50-60s were much more objective than they are now :)
@BitnikGr it is funny how make lame claims when actually the Russian president him self admitted russia's weapon systems is failing, he just asked the army few days ago to buy weapons from out side russia, actually russia just bought two french helicopters carriers (class mistral), it seems you live on another planet, russian techonology is so old the world have moved from the 60's fourty years ago, russian army still have 60's technology.
@Tihamah3 "actually the Russian president him self admitted russia's weapon systems is failing, he just asked the army few days ago to buy weapons from out side russia" - Bauld face lie! Provide link to such claim!
"russia just bought two french helicopters carriers" - that's a pure political decision in French-Russian economical agreement package. In global market there is nothing wrong by buying and selling technologies.
Do you really think that US Abrams is pure American?!
@Tihamah3 "russian techonology is so old" - well, smartass, I can show you several Russian systems, which are in service for 30 years already, and which your pathetic Future Weapons presents as weapons of future and are still under development.
Russian technology is so old, that just 2 days ago they launched a space telescope 10 times sharper than Hubble. Russian technology is so old that it is the only country which has a working prototype of 4th generation tank.
@SphinxTheGeek Its an Iraqi Lion of Babylon tank. Basically a locally produced T-72M. These are much weaker from Warsaw pack T-72's, with thinner armour and lack composite armour. The author made a mistake its no t-80 or a variant.
Неуч! На видео Т-72, а не Т-80 и далеко не факт, что советского производства.
на танке нет ни активной, не активно-реактивной защиты. танк неподвижен, что очень важно.
в общем очень смахивает на показуху, и как сказано ниже сдается впечатление, что танк был еще и набит взрывчаткой.
так как танк не может взорваться таким образом если в нем нет боезапаса. В этом танке боезапаса нет точно, при взрыве боезапаса совсем другой характер разрушений танка.
I don´t know if this is fake or not, but compared with live Javelins being fired against insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan it is a huge difference in explosive power from these clips and this one.
да, макет начиненный взрыфчаткой это круто!!!! но эта пуколка весом в 15 кг в сравнении с РПГ-32(который весит 3 кг), как винтовка с РПГ-7)) стреляет метко, но толку ноль сли на танке будет стоять "арена" или "штора"))) да и по мощности джавелин уступает рпг
This was definitely not a t80. First of all, Yankees have no chance to get T80, cause it can be found in Russia, Ukraine , and, maybe, few more post-soviet reps. T80 was never exported to Iraq, Afghan, or any other country, where US Army could get such tank as a trophy. Besides, even if they would try to buy it, they would fail, cause it is classified. Even comparing T72 with export T72 filled with drill warheads and badly trained crew you`ll get a total misunderstanding of what Soviet tank is.
Pause at 0:18, you can see the spark of the TNT charges inside the tank and beneath the side skirts of the tracks, lol. Don't get me wrong, JAVELIN is powerful, and it's highly effective, but this is just a staged up demonstration.
It's Iraqi t-72. Every tank in that case will get blown up, even amercan M1 Abrams, on which tje Javelin missile was testen in the beginnig. The matter is that T-80 can be easily adjusted with Shtora or Arena systems. The last one is more profitable in such case.
This tank was full of explosives. First of all Tanks does not explode like balloons they are so armed that the worst thing this rocket can do is to leave a huge hole in the tank ( still not sure if it can) at least on new T-90 Tank wich is proven to be best tank on the planet it will not leave any hole. Ive seen testing video when american tank took 6 shots from range 1.5 kilometer into Russian T-90 and it did not made even any holes in the tank. Armor was damaged. Tank remained in good stand.
Not a T-80, or "any" tank for that matter; just a mock-up. Any conventional anti-tank weapon, even in "destroying" the tank, would leave most of the chassis intact. Perhaps the turret and a few panels would be blown out, but most of the vehicle would otherwise be left. The bitter fact is that completely destroying the vehicle is a waste of power/ordnance when you only need to kill the crew - and that is precisely what most such weapons, versus a real tank, are designed to do.
i love how the faggots who think the T-80 is "Great" and superior to western tanks, and i also like how they find all sorts of excuses to make up for the shittyness the that tank actually is!
M1a2 cannot drive off road, it's a self canalised target, the fuel consuption is monstruous, and the logistic behind must me big, and if in war like iraq, the logistic can fallow the tank without danger, in mountain/ forest zone like kosovo, bosnia, serbia, caucasus, well, good luck to truck drivers.
The abrams is totally vunerable to mines, and russia relies a lot on mine fields to canalize/stop tank attack, and beleive me they know their subjects.
@OfficialFearClan No, t90 is not 20 times better than T80U. T80U and T90 are about the same tank in terms of potential. T80U has better ergonomics and space for crew, more powerful (but less economical) motor, better suspension.
T90 early is just a T72BM with eletronics improvement, late t90 have following advantage on T80U : better armor, thanks to : welded turret, thicker armor on hull.
Economic motor and great range.
M1a2 are what more than M1a1HA ? just a better computer,
@OfficialFearClan Slightly more armor on the front (the 5th armor addition since M1 lol, they can't do it once for all ?)
But, the rest of the armor is the same : very weak, the tank is still totaly vulnerable to rpg menaces on all sides and roof and glacis (from top).
The gun and ammo are still the same, still not HE round, only AP, of all kinds, but AP. The weight of a2 is shameful, and handicaps even more the already totaly handicaped abrams.
@OfficialFearClan M1a2 cannot drive off road, it's a self canalised target, the fuel consuption is monstruous, and the logistic behind must me big, and if in war like iraq, the logistic can fallow the tank without danger, in mountain/ forest zone like kosovo, bosnia, serbia, caucasus, well, good luck to truck drivers.
The abrams is totally vunerable to mines, and russia relies a lot on mine fields to canalize/stop tank attack, and beleive me they know their subjects.
@OfficialFearClan And, M1a2 production is not high, they don't plain to produce more from now, they have about 1200. USMC will not receive any A2, as well as at least the half of the army.
Oh, and i forget : M1 tendancy to burn itself, because of the exessive heat of motor exhaust, and highly flammable J8 fuel. While the whole world field disiel non flammable tank, USA is the only to threw armored molotov cocktails on field.
And for the video, it's not a mix up, it's a shitty joke.
@PATRONSKiii Really? Everyone hates on the M1 for it's fuel consumption and hot turbine engine.... but oddly enough, the Russians put a GTD-1250 Gas Turbine in a T-80 before the M1 was even out. So, maybe Russian tank designers were wrong? JP8 is LESS flamable than diesel! That's why we don't use smoke generators anymore, because it won't burn up completely like diesel.
@M2fiftycal T80 consumption is nowhere near of the horrible one of M1. The gas turbine of T80 is better, more economical, and durable.
Americans just copied the russians, as usual, and made something worst. T80U wieghts around 46 tonnes, and the M1a2 is 63 tonnes, of course T80U is better and far more economical, and is equally armoured, and have similar firepower, so who is wrong ?
@PATRONSKiii You are answering your own questions. The T80 uses less fuel because it is lighter. It also has less armor because it is lighter. It's no secret that Russian tanks sacrifice protection for mobility. US tanks sacrifice mobility for protection. We won't know who is wrong until they face eachother.
@M2fiftycal Russian tanks never sacrify protection ! They are absolute masters of armour. Look : T34/85 ; slopped armour, up to 100mm , 35 tonnes. German tank than had such armour where panther, with 47 tonnes, tiger I had no better armour, but weights 56 tonnes. Sherman with 35 tonnes never offered more than 60mm. I continue : JS-2 : around 45 tonnes, up to 155mm armour. Tiger 2 (similar thickness) : 67 tonnes. JS-3 : up to 250mm, 47 tonnes, comparable armour thick for nazi : MAUS 190 tonnes.
@PATRONSKiii Wait a sec, they never sacrifice protection? Masters of armor? In 1973, Israel using western Centurion tanks (heavy armor, low mobility, high fiepower), absolutely smashed the T-54/55 in the Golan heights. The Syrians had 800 tanks against 180 Israeli tanks, and they got smashed. Stop quoting abstract numbers from WW2 and look at actual tank battles. I'll give Russian tanks credit where it is due, but don't argue they have more armor than US tanks, while weighing 20 tons less.
@M2fiftycal I give you prooves, with numbers, abrams SWVZ2HFKDSP SEP is more armored, thats true, but at the time of M60 wich weights more than 50 tons, sorry but it has a maximum of 153mm of steel (cast) on turret, at the time of M60, russian tanks such as T55/62 has already slightly more thickness (with similar capacity), but T64 and T72 were from an other world.
The story of destroyed T55 in 1973 has nothing to do with armour, of course 105mm HVAPDS can pierce 200mm steel.
@PATRONSKiii Ok, you said that Russian tanks never sacrifice armor for mobility. Then you started talking about WW2 tanks, and making historical examples. Now you are saying that the poor performance of the T55 has nothing to do with armor? Are you aware that the T55 is THE most produced tank ever? More T55s were made than any other tank in history, and it means nothing? The frontal turret armor on an M60A3 was actually 254mm in the last version. I agree the T72 was better than the 60.
@M2fiftycal I meant than 1950's T55 armour is not made to stop 1980's 105mm APDS of APFSDS. 200mm of cast armour was nearly impenetrable in early cold war, not few decades after... Yes i kow that T55 is the tank most produced, some say about 100 000 original and copies. But soviet tanks were the most produced : T34: 70 000, T54/55 : 100 000, T62 : 22 000, T64, 13 000, T72, 30 000, T80, 10 000. T64 and T80 are only soviet made products. No copied.
@M2fiftycal Continue : JS-2/3 were much more heavily armoured and armed than UK and US early post war heavy tanks, but lighter ! M26 and centurion were around 120mm armour max. Continue, 1950's : T54 appear, with 200mm front amour, and 36 tonnes! !!!!! It was a medium tank of the T34 class ! NATO equivalence : LOL upgraded shermans, M26/46 pattons. And I could continue all the day, russian tank armour are always a step forward others,
@M2fiftycal 1960's T64 had more than 400mm composite ! on turret front and 200 sloped on glacis ! At the time what was armour of the west .??? Pattons with 150mm (M60 up to 200, but...), Centurions and chieftain with 150-250 STEEL, AMX30 and LEO1 with 70mm steel... Basic T72 has 300mm of steel, late variant have more than 550 composite (all the numbers are real thickness, not RHAe), so please don't say russian have not armoured tanks.
@M2fiftycal The T64 and T72 (not even mention post designs T80), can wisthand a 105mm sabot on front at point blank, only the 120mm could kill them, and with introduction of kontact-5 ERA, it is not sure anymore (however it's sure K5 protect them because test in 1989 defeated all 105 and 120mm sabot of german and US tanks). Today, T72B, T80U and T90 all with K5 are super armoured tanks, the best being T90. All are of 45 tonnes class, and have similar protection than 60 tonnes west tanks.
@PATRONSKiii Similar maybe, but not better. Listen, I'm not downing Russian vehicle design. Russians have come up with some revolutionary models (BMP and T-72 were both fantastic innovations). However, don't fool yourself into thinking you know how far the M829A3 can penetrate. I'm a tank commander on an M1A2 SEP v2, and I don't even know that. If there's a tank out there that can aquire targets and engage as fast as the M1, then it would come down to crew skill. I like my chances in the M1.
@OfficialFearClan And anyway, most of he people don't know what is a T80, for them T72, 80 90 is the same "russian junk", haha, poor of them...
To finnish, do you know why the T90 is the only produced tank in russia ? Not because the T80U is inferior, infact, T80U are superior, and have more future improvement potential (T80UM, T80UM2, only few built)
The reseon is bankrupt of ussr, separation with ukrain that was the place were T80 parts were suplied.
@OfficialFearClan Karkov plant is in ukraine, kirov plant (leningrad) and omsktransmash produced it too, but omsk lost so much funds, and finaly the T80U were considered too expensive to build and maintain for the young russia, T72 plant uraltransmash is a state-plant, so it was keep against omsk. So the logical thing arrived ; T72 became T90 for new russian army, that's it.
T80U is still the best tank of russia, if they have money, they produce it and improve it too, as ukraine with T84.
This is super fake. You need to know that it is almost impossible to blow a tank into pieces with an one shot missile like the Javelin, the TOW, the MILAN, the FAGOT or the KORNET. If the missile hits the turret from the top it destroys it and kill the crew. If it hits the turret on the back it destroys it and kills the crew too. If it hits the engine the tank is junk and it if it hits the tracks they are destroyed.
@ankal77 What are you, tank crew member of the army of France? or maybe tank crew member of some online game? because it is perfectly possible to blow a tank to peices (especially a crappy bartered T-72) with a large handheld missile system. Please dont pretend to be in the army to make your point perfectly valid.
t 80 have a smaller road wheels. Put a 50 kg of explosive in any tank and destroy it with remote control, and you will have this light show. American propaganda, they are born for senseless destructing. watch 24-th second for the wheels.
The sheer size of the explosion makes me doubt the reality of this. Tandem HEAT rounds do not blow the tank to scrap in this manner - not even if the ammo starts to cook off.
This is NOT an T-80. This is an Iraqi made T-72 whics suffers from the same problem as original soviet designs - ammo stored under turrent; because of that stupid solution whole tank has ben blown to pieces.
I think everyone who posts comments on wether the tank is real and how stupid different people can be are all fuckwits, just enjoy the video u retards, thats why u clicked it in the first place isn't it?
@mynameisnotkenneth Don't pin your motives on everyone else. YouTube is full of fake and gay vids made by prats. Would have been nice to have seen one that was trying not to be.
Not a real tank. It's just a mock up to test our anti-tank missiles. And that looks like either an Asad Babil tank, or just a T-72. A T-80 looks different. But the reality is, the weakest part of a tank is the top, so if a Javelin strikes a T-80, it's just as dead as fake-tank up there.
Russians are fucking stupid, forever and ever until the end of time. I would also like to thank them for committing the 2nd worst genocide in history and the Chinese for the 1st.
Actually that isn't T-80, look on it's track rollers. And in addition, you should watch some video from Iraq to see how battle tank detonates in real world. But, may be, here was a special TNT transport. xD Looks ridiculous!
It *is* an anti-tank missile after all. Considering how much it costs per shot I think it's a reasonable amount of damage to expect. Tanks aren't usually very thickly armoured on the roof, so Javelin exploits this. It's a good missile and T-80 is a good tank, so what's with the description?
First of all, guy who gave description is arse. This is not T-80, and anyone who can notice that by simply look on a tank's hull and road wheels.
Second, this is typical holywood-style video, where tank's turret is filled with explosive, just to create effect like this, who have nothing in common with reality.
Wow, great, you blown another stationary target with no reactive armor, filled with explosive.... amateurs.
For starters that is a t72m, which is the export model, and it has thinner armor, and a smaller turret.
Also Russian tanks rely on their ERA and KAZ systems, which are by far the most advanced in the world, which are not on this tank.
An actual Russian service tank is impervious to 120mm ammo fired by NATO tanks, whereas M1A2, and Javelin rockets, which are inferior to that of a SA-18.
Well since thats what you have issue with why don't you sit in an M1A2 and let it be hit by one of these. Oh thats right these weapons fuck up all tanks.
No tank will take a javelin or similar in the roof and stay operational. Every country in the world can take out any tank in the world with their AT.missiles. The problem is getting a shot.
Fuck, even the Merkava (safest tank) is shot to pieces by old russian shit they gave to the Hizbollah.
Actually works damn good when you are trying to knock out a reinforced position outside effectice small arms range. A reason they give the Javelin a 'direct attack' option.
russia has a similar weapon to the javelin that is capable of destroying t90s and abrams tanks as well, or else the weapons would not be produced if they could not destroy Modern MBTs, they would be useless
any RPG with a moderate sized warhead can penetrate MBT armor if coming down at an almost 90 degree angle
to those unwilling to believe, an rpg 22 can gut an abrams and t-90 with ERA tank if it hits at the right angle
This is a T-72 tank with K5 ERA applied to the FRONT (not the top) of the turret. You can tell by the size of the road wheels. Probably an ex-Iraqi Asad Babil T-72 or an East German T-72M1.
Автар ты Т-80 то хоть раз видел? Запомни, это фанерный макет Т-72 набитый для зрелищности взрывчаткой! Javelin - это переносной ПТУР, а не 250-ти килограммовая авиабомба. А если вычесть размеры маршевого двигателя и ГСН то на боевую часть в ракете остаётся хрен да маленько.
you can blow up any tank. it's the balance between protection, maneuvrebility and firepower that makes the tank great.
topperheartramada 3 days ago
stupid usa monkeys
Roofius2 4 days ago
that's a export version of T-72M1 loaded with explosives!
Bullshit video
tlbarcellos 6 days ago
Эм, ребят, вы со взрывчаткой переборщили ;)
VovanSG 1 month ago
thats a t-72. you guys are retarded.
halostudios12 2 months ago
This is so FAKE and GAY!
Pause at 0:18 and look ,the missle obviously didn't even scratch the turret (yet) and blue flames of explosion is taking place under the left track. Clear indication that this was staged event...
What a fail...
MeskovicZ 3 months ago
shit
carbon0HUN 4 months ago
Thats a T-72 wihich was loaded with a lot of TNT. An Tank would NEVER explode that way xDDD
JazzJaRa 5 months ago 8
POPWELLMAN lol
wah4uh 5 months ago
Yes! See on the 0:18 better the fire wich is blue cames from the tracks.
Mig15F 5 months ago
Its a tank replica detonated poorly for propaganda purposes the javeling (a good anti tank system no argue there) can never cause such damage to a real tank . This "tank" is basicly a metal box full of remote exposives - pause at 0:19 and seed the premature detonation if you dont belive me (the fire dot in the midle of the tanks tracks ).
BGSlopy 5 months ago 5
it's Т-72M1
Mr1L1dan 6 months ago
Can the Javelin missile destroy an M1A1 Abrahms
youngdones 7 months ago
@youngdones Yes..they should test all anti-tank weapons on the M1a1 abrams tank b4 they take it to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Abrams tank can be destroyed by land mine or rpg!! Shame..
TheMrbeanmsia 4 months ago
I think this is a t-72 ?
PavleAligator 7 months ago
Seems like videos like this tricks the American masses, but fails to prove anything to people with the ability to think.
An anti-armor Javelin Missile makes metal blow up like napalm. Oh wait, it was an replica stuffed with explosives.
Ravensteinzh 8 months ago
Обратите внимание, на 0:19 отчетливо видно что взрыв начинается не у БЧ ракеты, а в центре танка.
abrg100 9 months ago
The T-90 has no ERA coverage on top of the turret. No MBT does. It also has a tandem-heat warhead so it doesn't matter if there is ERA on top of the tank. Top turret armor is very weak on every tank. The Javelin can kill a T-90 just as easily as it can kill a T-72M.
ringoffire02 9 months ago
@ringoffire02 T-90 does have part of turret top covered by ERA, but you are right, it doesn't matter.
The only ways to be protected from top attack are (infrared like Javelin and optical like Spike):
a) reduction of infrared signature with systems like "Nakidka", placing a smoke screen above the tank (only Koreans work on such system)
b) all around hard-kill system, like Trophy
c) infrared imitators carried behind a tank at 50meters (very less effective countermeasure, from 60s)
...
BitnikGr 7 months ago
@ringoffire02 ...
... as easily it can kill Abrams, Challenger, Leopard, you name it... (without 360dgr hard kill)
BitnikGr 7 months ago
This video is fake - don't you know about that?
So many idiots still believing in this video.
101cyberdyne 9 months ago
bull
lastochka101 9 months ago
all russian tanks are known to have weak armor, the javeline is very strong, this tank just disappeared after the hit. russian RPG's sucks the donkey dick compared javeline.
Tihamah3 9 months ago
@Tihamah3 Are known to whom?
How strong? In numbers...
Comparing of RPG with Javelin is like comparing apples with orange, which just show how objective and professional your opinion is.
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@BitnikGr if you don't know tanks don't talk about it, russian tanks armors is very weak and light, thats why they concetrated on developing reactive armors and other counter measures, Afghans with RPG's have blown countless T-72 tanks which is now modernized and called T-90, these tanks make the backbone of the russian land forces.
this is not the 60's or 50's any more, russian weapons in general are decades behind except for few weapons systems such as S-400.
Tihamah3 8 months ago
@Tihamah3 Really? Terms like "weak", "light" are not professional ones used by ppl working in field of Armored Fighting Vehicles. I've asked you for numbers. How "weak"? How "light"? In numbers! Otherwise, your claims are pointless and not supported by any evidence. This is just what you want to believe and nothing else.
Have you ever heard about Mass/Internal volume ratio? If you haven't, I suggest you to start from that point. You'll discover that lighter AFV can be more armored than a...
BitnikGr 7 months ago
@Tihamah3 ... heavy one.
Your following claims just prove that you indeed know shit about anything, not only about tanks.
1) T-72s were never in Afghanistan.
2) Deep modernization of every single sub-system which moves it from one generation to another justifies the change of index. Another example is F-4 2nd generation and F-4 2000 (4th generation). Name is actually irrelevant, possibilities are not...
3) Development of ERA and any other additional protection systems is TOTALLY irrelevant...
BitnikGr 7 months ago
@Tihamah3 ... to the main armor of ANY AFV. And very best of modern MBTs like Abrams, Challenger 2, Merkava IV prove it. They all have ERA. Does it mean that their main armor is "light and weak"? All of them have soft-kill and hard-kill systems (like MCD and Trophy)... does it mean that their main armor is "light and weak"?
Regardless how "strong" or "weak" is the main armor, all additional protection is a MUST! Isn't Quick-Kill under development for Abrams?
BitnikGr 7 months ago
@BitnikGr you compare orange to apples, what does have abrams armor to do with T-90 or T-72? lol....it is well known that T-72 armor is very light it can't tolerate a hit from an old RPG, Challenger abrams leopards can survive hits from RPG's easily....these are facts, stop been biased just because you are an orthodox and think russians will save you from turks, even the greek army is not using russian weapons.
Tihamah3 7 months ago
@Tihamah3 "you compare orange to apples" - No, I compare a MBT armor to MBT armor.
"what does have abrams armor to do with T-90 or T-72" - Well, again, it is a composite armor of main battle tanks.
"it is well known that T-72 armor is very light it can't tolerate a hit from an old RPG" - Will you stop throwing general meaningless words like "well known". Well known to whom? Where are your facts? Photos? Do you want photos of Abrams penetrated by RPG-7?
...
BitnikGr 7 months ago
@Tihamah3 ...
Dummy, I am not an orthodox, I am atheist. That's why I get mad when I hear bulls like "well known", "very light" and "super strong" without actual numbers and proofs.
And here are proofs. Read carefully. These are numbers and numbers don't lie.
Old RPGs from 60s and 70s, you have mentioned, has penetration power of 260 and 300mm RHA.
Leopard2 (1979), Challenger2 (1998), M1A1/A2 (1980) are tanks of 3rd generation and they have enough protection from those old RPGs only in...
BitnikGr 7 months ago
@Tihamah3 ... frontal arc of turret and body frontal armor. No tank in the World has side and rear armor equal to 300mm RHA. Penetration of 260mm is enough for 7 side armors of Abrams placed one after another.
But it easy to neutralize a non-tandem warhead. It is enough to place an ERA or getto-cage or slat-screen armor at 40-50cm away from main armor.
Do you want to look at pictures of M1A1 and A2 in 1991 and in 2003? Why did they placed ARAT ERA on sides and slat armor at sides of body and...
BitnikGr 7 months ago
@Tihamah3 ... and back sides of turret, if they are immune to old RPGs, which is the main weapon of insurgents? Can you answer that? Leopard 2 has built-in ERA on sides, Challenger 2 also got ERA on sides at front.
Now let's take a look at T-72. It is a 2nd generation MBT, which started production in 1973. Already in first production model in 1973 frontal body armor had 460mm RHA and frontal turret armor had 405mm. Aren't these numbers higher than 260 and 300?
And in 1985 they got T-72AV...
BitnikGr 7 months ago
@Tihamah3 ... version with ERA all around. So, WHAT A FUCK are you talking about by saying "T-72 armor is very light it can't tolerate a hit from an old RPG"?????
In 1985, Soviet T-72 had already all around protection from RPGs from 70s. Abrams got such protection in 2004! TUSK upgrade. Count difference in years!
....
BitnikGr 7 months ago
@Tihamah3 ...
Even downgraded monkey models of Iraqi Army had at least 380mm RHA equivalent in frontal arc, without any composite armor. So, untill you show us a picture with frontal armor of Iraqi T-72 penetrated by RPG-7, I advise you to stfu and got educated, instead of spreading bullshits and repeating "well known very weak" mantra.
BitnikGr 7 months ago
@Tihamah3 "even the greek army is not using russian weapons" - turning a pure technical discussion into political, ethnic and national one is a failure. Your failure.
FIY, Greece has Russian "Zubr" landing ships, TOR-M1, OSA systems, S-300, BMP-1, ZU-23 "Shilka", RPG-18 "Mukha", "Kornet" and "Fagot" ATGMs. Spec Ops units have AK-47 and AK-74. And furthermore we were going to buy 400 BMP-3, not because they are the best for Greece, but because of pure political Russian-Greek interstate...
BitnikGr 7 months ago
@BitnikGr it is funny when classify AK47 as weapon of sifinicant while even in the US some people use AK47's lol, greece wouldn't buy BMP-3 because it is not compatible to NATO standards not to greece is bankrupted and germany wont buy russian weapons for you definetly.
so back the topic, russian techonology is retarded it has been proven in battle fields and all over the world, all rich countries don't buy russian weapons with few exceptional good russian systems.
Tihamah3 7 months ago
@Tihamah3 I don't classify anything, you moron. I just listed Soviet/Russian equipment in Greek Army, which proved you lying once more, since you said "Greece doesn't use Russian weapons".
Why exactly BMP-3 is not compatible since US company creates 30mm APFSDS rounds for BMP-3 2A72?
35mm isn't a NATO standard for IFV either, but this didn't stop 5 countries from buying CV-90.
Of course Germany didn't wanted Greece to buy BMP-3. Because they want to sell us crappy MardersA1 from 70s, which ...
BitnikGr 7 months ago
@Tihamah3 ... with which they couldn't fool Austria and Switzerland and now they have them rusting under open sky and for already more than 10years they are putting pressure on Greek MoD to buy them.
-
Back to the topic, if technology is retarded, then it is impossible to have "few exceptional good systems". So, it is you, who is retarded. Really. I provided you numbers and facts... you continue speaking by propagandistic terms like "weak, retarded, super strong, well known".
BitnikGr 7 months ago
@BitnikGr again i tell you put this in google.
"Medvedev urges army to import weapons"
go read it carefully before coming here claiming, no he did not say that, just making a jerk of yourself.
Tihamah3 7 months ago
@Tihamah3 ... agreement on economical cooperation. Very similar to French-Russian agreement and their purchase of 2 Mistrals. And we lease Russian helicopters for forest fire-fighting.
Not that Soviet/Russian made equipment in service of Hellenic Forces means anything regarding main subject of conversation about armor of main battle tanks vs RPG. But it once more shows how shallow knowledge you have about this subject or about anything actually!
Stop watching TV, start reading!!!
BitnikGr 7 months ago
@BitnikGr take off your sun glasses, russia BOUGHT the 2 french ships because it is better than russian made ship with the technology from cold war era, the russian president medvedev told the army to buy weapons from out side russia.....
in all wars russian weapons prooved to be inferior to western weapons (at that time the gap was smaller now it is very big), russians have no high-tech industry, don't try to be more russian the russian president him self who admitted they need to by weapons.
Tihamah3 7 months ago
@Tihamah3 "president him self who admitted they need to by weapons" - You can repeat it 1000 times and still I won't buy it, until you show me direct source (link, article, TV news... something). It's a lie. Medvedev haven't said anything like that.
WW II, Vietnam, Korea, Iran-Iraq war - Soviet weapons were always at least equal, and most of times better... In the rest wars after that point of time the West never faced modern Soviet weapons.
---
BitnikGr 7 months ago
@BitnikGr suck on this too real hard
m(dot)trust(dot)org(slash)trustlaw(slash)news(slash)russias(dash)medvedev(dash)urges(dash)army(dash)to(dash)import(dash)weapons
article(dot)wn(dot)com(slash)view(slash)2011(slash)07(slash)13(slash)Medvedev(underscore)urges(underscore)army(underscore)to(underscore)import(underscore)weapons(underscore)Europe(underscore)chinadailycomcn
Tihamah3 7 months ago
@Tihamah3 trust.org - "Page not found (404 error)"
-
Finally I found the article by simply googling for "Medvedev urges army to import weapons", since you are handicaped to provide one working URL.
"If they (domestic arms makers) offer equipment which does not satisfy you, place your orders with other firms, or, ultimately, import them," Medvedev said.
IF my grandma had balls, she would be my grandfather.
If you think this is an order to buy weapons abroad then you don't know English!
BitnikGr 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BitnikGr wow it is funny when you claim the links does not exist LOL,
go burry your head in the sands, it is ALL OVER THE NEWS go google
"medvedev urges the army to import weapons"
after thats suck on it as hard as you can, it is funny when you claim russian weapons better when the russian head of state saying some thing else, you are not even russian, just miserable bankrupted greek.
Tihamah3 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BitnikGr wow it is funny when you claim the links does not exist LOL,
go burry your head in the sands, it is ALL OVER THE NEWS go google
"medvedev urges the army to import weapons"
after thats suck on it as hard as you can, it is funny when you claim russian weapons better when the russian head of state saying some thing else, you are not even russian, just miserable bankrupted greek.
Tihamah3 7 months ago
@Tihamah3 You found new mantra, ha? Continue repeating "miserable bankrupted greek" for 10.000 times and maybe someone will believe that RPG-7 can penetrate frontal armor of T-72 or that RPG-72 can't penetrate side armor of NATO tanks!
-
IF there is ANY relations between these, then statement that "Meteorite will destroy Earth tomorrow, because you are an American" will make same "perfect" sense for you... right? Poor brainless form of life you are :)
BitnikGr 7 months ago
@BitnikGr you will still claim the pages does not exist after i send them to you in private message? LOL.
you are really pathetic, just let me tell you some thing, if you deny some thing you wont change the world, your statement wont over shadow reuters and other news agencies reporting what i told you :)
Tihamah3 7 months ago
@BitnikGr "You shouldn't buy junk," Medvedev told Defence Minister Anatoly Serdyukov and Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov, who oversees the defence sector for the government, at his residence just outside of Moscow.
son read carefully, get over it and move on, i told you this is not the 50's and 60's any more, russian/soviet junk in general are junk with tech from the cold war era, even russians them selves admitted that and started to get weapons from abroad :)
Tihamah3 7 months ago
@Tihamah3 I did google it before you send me those links in PM. It is not my fault if you can't give proper links here, and I got that info by my own.
-
And again... it is your mind which is a rusty junk :) Really.
I already proved to you multiple times, that your claims about armor of T-72 and RPG-7 are not correct.
BitnikGr 7 months ago
@BitnikGr to save you all the effort though son just go google "Medvedev urges army to import weapons" you will get thousands of links from news sites.
to make you little sore i will qoute this.
"You shouldn't buy junk," Medvedev told Defence Minister Anatoly Serdyukov and Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov, who oversees the defence sector for the government, at his residence just outside of Moscow.
no wonder greece is bankrupt with jerks like you.
Tihamah3 7 months ago
@BitnikGr next time, do your home work and behave before coming to argue with me about tanks, now you just embarrassed yourself and showed you ignorant and impolite kid you are, you don't even know what the russian president him self said, you are licking russian asses and trying to be more russian the medvedev him self.
look you idiot no one buying russian weapons except poor countries, no rich country buy russian junk because it sucks, it very simple but you are a rude idiot.
Tihamah3 7 months ago
@Tihamah3 You think that you are correct only because of one quote (which even doesn't mean what you think) and because of my nationality and country of origin?
Do your homework actually about tanks... I provided you numbers of protection level of each tank and penetration of RPG-7s. You continue jerking about that I am Greek.
Rude is your middle name. Cause you started offending and calling names, believing this will make you "right"...? Pathetic.
BitnikGr 7 months ago
@Tihamah3 ---
French helicopter carriers are not better in any case. It is just 100% pure political interstate agreement. Order on 2 Mistrals + 2 option was placed even without competition. Russian Ship Building Corporation couldn't give an offer, in order to determine which ship would be better or worse.
Just like BMP-3 for Greece. But at least we had competition and winner was a CV-90, but in frame of interstate agreement with Russia Greece decided to buy BMP-3.
BitnikGr 7 months ago
@BitnikGr you keep telling me greek use this and that, you listed Ak47 as russian weapons greece using LOL, or tansport helicopters LOL.
when some one talking about the armed forces and saying WEAPONS he means, MBT's, JETS, Destroyers, FRIGATES etc, not a rifle or tansport heli.
greek will never buy any russian weapons, because the weapons greece gets are handouts from NATO and the US, or sold by loans from germany and france.
Tihamah3 7 months ago
@Tihamah3 You are continuing behave stupidly right? How many systems I named including landing ships and AA defenses, from Russia? And you catched up with AKs and Fire-Fighting helis. They are small part of that list and not the only ones in that list. Furthermore, why Pentagon buys Russian Heli for Iraq and Afghanistan?
And I didn't mentioned a cargo heli, but fire-fighting ones. Again, why we didn't lease any European or American? Because either there are none, or they are worse!
...
BitnikGr 7 months ago
Comment removed
Tihamah3 7 months ago
@BitnikGr first of all i'm not European or American, i don't give thing about who have the best tank, i did not leave AA system out i said the S-400 is a great system very early probably in my second comment on this video, but you are simply biased and some times mis-informed (to be nice to you).
unfortunately all arms experts all over the world agree with me and no with you, i don't want to argue with you any more,
so suit your self and learn to behave next time.
Ciao
Tihamah3 7 months ago
@Tihamah3 "unfortunately all arms experts all over the world agree with me " - Particular names of those "experts" and their publications please. No expert agrees with you. But you agree with "Discovery channel", "Future Weapons" and other alike.
I already gave you numerous examples of "junk technology" and that your claims about RPGs and armor of various tanks were wrong TOTALLY. They are WRONG fundamentally, since you don't know a heck about those tanks you was talking about, except than...
BitnikGr 7 months ago
Comment removed
Tihamah3 7 months ago
@Tihamah3 ... words "junk" and "great". Neither of these words are in vocabulary of real experts, and real experts speak with numbers and they (most of the time) present a degree of superiority of one system being better than another. Nothing like that was ever provided by you.
Ya sou!
BitnikGr 7 months ago
@Tihamah3 ...
And of course you deliberately left out AA Defenses, ATGMs and IFVs... Like they are not important part of Armed Forces. And in those Army branches NATO countries (including Greece) use Russian equipment. And only old Soviet leftovers, but buying new ones too.
So, you can go fuck yourself with your "cold-war minded" approach of everything shining in the West and everything rusting in the East... and keep your racist comments for yourself.
BitnikGr 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BitnikGr yeah sure soviet/russian weapons are the best in the world with 1962 technology, thats why only poor third world nations buy russian weapons at "scrap price" LOL.
Tihamah3 7 months ago
@BitnikGr finally you showed you real lying gay greece self, you claim medvedev did not say that?huh? now suck on these links it is all over news you shameless lair.
chinadaily(dot)com.cn(slash)world(slash)2011-07(slash)13/content(underscore)12889743(dot)htm
reuters(dot)com(slash)article(slash)2011(slash)07(slash)12(slash)russia(dash)medvedev(dash)arms(dash)idUSLDE76B1FI20110712
Tihamah3 7 months ago
@Tihamah3 Reuters: "Page Not Found
Our apologies, the content you requested cannot be located."
Chinadaily: "Sorry, the page you requested was not found."
I've replaced your slashes, underscores and dots... but still "no page was found".
Learn giving correct URLs, and them come back. Your pussy nature has to involve others nationality or country of origin, thinking that this will make you "right" on subject of discussion?
And at the same time you hide your profile. So, you are noone, just troll
BitnikGr 7 months ago
@BitnikGr wow it is funny when you claim the links does not exist LOL,
go burry your head in the sands, it is ALL OVER THE NEWS go google
"medvedev urges the army to import weapons"
after thats suck on it as hard as you can, it is funny when you claim russian weapons better when the russian head of state saying some thing else, you are not even russian, just miserable bankrupted greek.
Tihamah3 7 months ago
@Tihamah3 ...
"this is not the 60's or 50's any more" - exactly. That's why tens of millions of ppl are more brainwashed by aggressive US promotion of Western systems, like "Future Weapons" for example. Even Western documentaries of 50-60s were much more objective than they are now :)
BitnikGr 7 months ago
@BitnikGr it is funny how make lame claims when actually the Russian president him self admitted russia's weapon systems is failing, he just asked the army few days ago to buy weapons from out side russia, actually russia just bought two french helicopters carriers (class mistral), it seems you live on another planet, russian techonology is so old the world have moved from the 60's fourty years ago, russian army still have 60's technology.
Tihamah3 7 months ago
@Tihamah3 "actually the Russian president him self admitted russia's weapon systems is failing, he just asked the army few days ago to buy weapons from out side russia" - Bauld face lie! Provide link to such claim!
"russia just bought two french helicopters carriers" - that's a pure political decision in French-Russian economical agreement package. In global market there is nothing wrong by buying and selling technologies.
Do you really think that US Abrams is pure American?!
...
BitnikGr 7 months ago
@Tihamah3 "russian techonology is so old" - well, smartass, I can show you several Russian systems, which are in service for 30 years already, and which your pathetic Future Weapons presents as weapons of future and are still under development.
Russian technology is so old, that just 2 days ago they launched a space telescope 10 times sharper than Hubble. Russian technology is so old that it is the only country which has a working prototype of 4th generation tank.
Who lives on another planet? :)
BitnikGr 7 months ago
Aren't tank rounds explosive (HEAT rounds)so is fuel. That is what would be in a T-72 in battle so it would still blow up.
leaf742 10 months ago
@SphinxTheGeek Its an Iraqi Lion of Babylon tank. Basically a locally produced T-72M. These are much weaker from Warsaw pack T-72's, with thinner armour and lack composite armour. The author made a mistake its no t-80 or a variant.
randomusernamemygod 10 months ago
wow the tank is gone :O
MuffinGames 10 months ago
Sad Americans sad.
Screwdriver1991 11 months ago
Неуч! На видео Т-72, а не Т-80 и далеко не факт, что советского производства.
на танке нет ни активной, не активно-реактивной защиты. танк неподвижен, что очень важно.
в общем очень смахивает на показуху, и как сказано ниже сдается впечатление, что танк был еще и набит взрывчаткой.
так как танк не может взорваться таким образом если в нем нет боезапаса. В этом танке боезапаса нет точно, при взрыве боезапаса совсем другой характер разрушений танка.
В танке также полностью отсутствует ГСМ
TMichman 11 months ago
I don´t know if this is fake or not, but compared with live Javelins being fired against insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan it is a huge difference in explosive power from these clips and this one.
swertinge07 11 months ago
@swertinge07 Good observation. This tank has nearly a hundred pounds of explosives planted in it.
ppitm 10 months ago
AT4CS is a better choice then. Or the AT12... Javelin is better, no doubt, but then compare price tag... ;)
swertinge07 11 months ago
easily fake ! you think that we are fucken morangs!!
TheKifinas 11 months ago
FAIL..Its fake
999cheetos999 11 months ago 2
fake...
Javelins can't do that and it looks like more of t-54 or t-60
8900609 1 year ago
@8900609 This is old soviet T-72. There is a tnt inside the tank.
GAYAN89 11 months ago
@GAYAN89 FACT! that vid is fake mate!
8900609 11 months ago
Press 7
1GLENNW1 1 year ago
да, макет начиненный взрыфчаткой это круто!!!! но эта пуколка весом в 15 кг в сравнении с РПГ-32(который весит 3 кг), как винтовка с РПГ-7)) стреляет метко, но толку ноль сли на танке будет стоять "арена" или "штора"))) да и по мощности джавелин уступает рпг
dimon2303 1 year ago
This was definitely not a t80. First of all, Yankees have no chance to get T80, cause it can be found in Russia, Ukraine , and, maybe, few more post-soviet reps. T80 was never exported to Iraq, Afghan, or any other country, where US Army could get such tank as a trophy. Besides, even if they would try to buy it, they would fail, cause it is classified. Even comparing T72 with export T72 filled with drill warheads and badly trained crew you`ll get a total misunderstanding of what Soviet tank is.
Doktorschmurge 1 year ago
Pause at 0:18, you can see the spark of the TNT charges inside the tank and beneath the side skirts of the tracks, lol. Don't get me wrong, JAVELIN is powerful, and it's highly effective, but this is just a staged up demonstration.
alexei456 1 year ago 2
@alexei456 i think you are right !!!!
TheKifinas 11 months ago
nice fake ^_^
VertebrumPreyer 1 year ago
It's Iraqi t-72. Every tank in that case will get blown up, even amercan M1 Abrams, on which tje Javelin missile was testen in the beginnig. The matter is that T-80 can be easily adjusted with Shtora or Arena systems. The last one is more profitable in such case.
Obelix87 1 year ago
At first this is T 72 Which has become outdated in 1980
in the second Best russiantank is T -90u Which will tear an ass to yours Abrams
And in the third shot of javeling Will not sustain even Leopard 2
LeoN47AKM 1 year ago
This tank was full of explosives. First of all Tanks does not explode like balloons they are so armed that the worst thing this rocket can do is to leave a huge hole in the tank ( still not sure if it can) at least on new T-90 Tank wich is proven to be best tank on the planet it will not leave any hole. Ive seen testing video when american tank took 6 shots from range 1.5 kilometer into Russian T-90 and it did not made even any holes in the tank. Armor was damaged. Tank remained in good stand.
xEmberstrife 1 year ago
This tank are just full of TNT
Scoutrussp7 1 year ago
Not a T-80, or "any" tank for that matter; just a mock-up. Any conventional anti-tank weapon, even in "destroying" the tank, would leave most of the chassis intact. Perhaps the turret and a few panels would be blown out, but most of the vehicle would otherwise be left. The bitter fact is that completely destroying the vehicle is a waste of power/ordnance when you only need to kill the crew - and that is precisely what most such weapons, versus a real tank, are designed to do.
Factinator 1 year ago
i love how the faggots who think the T-80 is "Great" and superior to western tanks, and i also like how they find all sorts of excuses to make up for the shittyness the that tank actually is!
*cough* *cough* the guy below me! *cough* *cough*
deltaenforcer93 1 year ago
@SphinxTheGeek Not TNT, but some sort a accellerant.
I have hit enough targets myself to know this video is rigged.
All those firey flames give it away. In the day light all you see is a bunch of white smoke, and maybe metal flying around.
Adding things like gasoline make it more exciting looking.
GeekBoy03 1 year ago
M1a2 cannot drive off road, it's a self canalised target, the fuel consuption is monstruous, and the logistic behind must me big, and if in war like iraq, the logistic can fallow the tank without danger, in mountain/ forest zone like kosovo, bosnia, serbia, caucasus, well, good luck to truck drivers.
The abrams is totally vunerable to mines, and russia relies a lot on mine fields to canalize/stop tank attack, and beleive me they know their subjects.
PATRONSKiii 1 year ago
So complexed and jalous capitalists try to fool people haha, well if this is a T-80, i'm 165yeas old.
This is a T72 assad babyl or, T72M, used or produced by iraq, variant of T72 with poor armour, between elses fails.
And yes T80 is a great tank, and will kick the ass of M1 abrams anyday
PATRONSKiii 1 year ago
@PATRONSKiii Not trying to say you are completely wrong, but ill just clear up a few of your statements
-The T-80 is a good tank, but the T-90 (google it) is 20x better.
-The americans field more M1A2`s than M1`s now.
-You are right about the model mix up though.
OfficialFearClan 1 year ago
@OfficialFearClan No, t90 is not 20 times better than T80U. T80U and T90 are about the same tank in terms of potential. T80U has better ergonomics and space for crew, more powerful (but less economical) motor, better suspension.
T90 early is just a T72BM with eletronics improvement, late t90 have following advantage on T80U : better armor, thanks to : welded turret, thicker armor on hull.
Economic motor and great range.
M1a2 are what more than M1a1HA ? just a better computer,
PATRONSKiii 1 year ago
@OfficialFearClan Slightly more armor on the front (the 5th armor addition since M1 lol, they can't do it once for all ?)
But, the rest of the armor is the same : very weak, the tank is still totaly vulnerable to rpg menaces on all sides and roof and glacis (from top).
The gun and ammo are still the same, still not HE round, only AP, of all kinds, but AP. The weight of a2 is shameful, and handicaps even more the already totaly handicaped abrams.
PATRONSKiii 1 year ago
@OfficialFearClan M1a2 cannot drive off road, it's a self canalised target, the fuel consuption is monstruous, and the logistic behind must me big, and if in war like iraq, the logistic can fallow the tank without danger, in mountain/ forest zone like kosovo, bosnia, serbia, caucasus, well, good luck to truck drivers.
The abrams is totally vunerable to mines, and russia relies a lot on mine fields to canalize/stop tank attack, and beleive me they know their subjects.
PATRONSKiii 1 year ago
@OfficialFearClan And, M1a2 production is not high, they don't plain to produce more from now, they have about 1200. USMC will not receive any A2, as well as at least the half of the army.
Oh, and i forget : M1 tendancy to burn itself, because of the exessive heat of motor exhaust, and highly flammable J8 fuel. While the whole world field disiel non flammable tank, USA is the only to threw armored molotov cocktails on field.
And for the video, it's not a mix up, it's a shitty joke.
PATRONSKiii 1 year ago
@PATRONSKiii Really? Everyone hates on the M1 for it's fuel consumption and hot turbine engine.... but oddly enough, the Russians put a GTD-1250 Gas Turbine in a T-80 before the M1 was even out. So, maybe Russian tank designers were wrong? JP8 is LESS flamable than diesel! That's why we don't use smoke generators anymore, because it won't burn up completely like diesel.
M2fiftycal 1 year ago
@M2fiftycal T80 consumption is nowhere near of the horrible one of M1. The gas turbine of T80 is better, more economical, and durable.
Americans just copied the russians, as usual, and made something worst. T80U wieghts around 46 tonnes, and the M1a2 is 63 tonnes, of course T80U is better and far more economical, and is equally armoured, and have similar firepower, so who is wrong ?
PATRONSKiii 1 year ago
@PATRONSKiii You are answering your own questions. The T80 uses less fuel because it is lighter. It also has less armor because it is lighter. It's no secret that Russian tanks sacrifice protection for mobility. US tanks sacrifice mobility for protection. We won't know who is wrong until they face eachother.
M2fiftycal 1 year ago
@M2fiftycal Russian tanks never sacrify protection ! They are absolute masters of armour. Look : T34/85 ; slopped armour, up to 100mm , 35 tonnes. German tank than had such armour where panther, with 47 tonnes, tiger I had no better armour, but weights 56 tonnes. Sherman with 35 tonnes never offered more than 60mm. I continue : JS-2 : around 45 tonnes, up to 155mm armour. Tiger 2 (similar thickness) : 67 tonnes. JS-3 : up to 250mm, 47 tonnes, comparable armour thick for nazi : MAUS 190 tonnes.
PATRONSKiii 1 year ago
@PATRONSKiii Wait a sec, they never sacrifice protection? Masters of armor? In 1973, Israel using western Centurion tanks (heavy armor, low mobility, high fiepower), absolutely smashed the T-54/55 in the Golan heights. The Syrians had 800 tanks against 180 Israeli tanks, and they got smashed. Stop quoting abstract numbers from WW2 and look at actual tank battles. I'll give Russian tanks credit where it is due, but don't argue they have more armor than US tanks, while weighing 20 tons less.
M2fiftycal 1 year ago
@M2fiftycal I give you prooves, with numbers, abrams SWVZ2HFKDSP SEP is more armored, thats true, but at the time of M60 wich weights more than 50 tons, sorry but it has a maximum of 153mm of steel (cast) on turret, at the time of M60, russian tanks such as T55/62 has already slightly more thickness (with similar capacity), but T64 and T72 were from an other world.
The story of destroyed T55 in 1973 has nothing to do with armour, of course 105mm HVAPDS can pierce 200mm steel.
PATRONSKiii 1 year ago
@PATRONSKiii Ok, you said that Russian tanks never sacrifice armor for mobility. Then you started talking about WW2 tanks, and making historical examples. Now you are saying that the poor performance of the T55 has nothing to do with armor? Are you aware that the T55 is THE most produced tank ever? More T55s were made than any other tank in history, and it means nothing? The frontal turret armor on an M60A3 was actually 254mm in the last version. I agree the T72 was better than the 60.
M2fiftycal 1 year ago
@M2fiftycal I meant than 1950's T55 armour is not made to stop 1980's 105mm APDS of APFSDS. 200mm of cast armour was nearly impenetrable in early cold war, not few decades after... Yes i kow that T55 is the tank most produced, some say about 100 000 original and copies. But soviet tanks were the most produced : T34: 70 000, T54/55 : 100 000, T62 : 22 000, T64, 13 000, T72, 30 000, T80, 10 000. T64 and T80 are only soviet made products. No copied.
PATRONSKiii 1 year ago
@M2fiftycal Continue : JS-2/3 were much more heavily armoured and armed than UK and US early post war heavy tanks, but lighter ! M26 and centurion were around 120mm armour max. Continue, 1950's : T54 appear, with 200mm front amour, and 36 tonnes! !!!!! It was a medium tank of the T34 class ! NATO equivalence : LOL upgraded shermans, M26/46 pattons. And I could continue all the day, russian tank armour are always a step forward others,
PATRONSKiii 1 year ago
@M2fiftycal 1960's T64 had more than 400mm composite ! on turret front and 200 sloped on glacis ! At the time what was armour of the west .??? Pattons with 150mm (M60 up to 200, but...), Centurions and chieftain with 150-250 STEEL, AMX30 and LEO1 with 70mm steel... Basic T72 has 300mm of steel, late variant have more than 550 composite (all the numbers are real thickness, not RHAe), so please don't say russian have not armoured tanks.
PATRONSKiii 1 year ago
@M2fiftycal The T64 and T72 (not even mention post designs T80), can wisthand a 105mm sabot on front at point blank, only the 120mm could kill them, and with introduction of kontact-5 ERA, it is not sure anymore (however it's sure K5 protect them because test in 1989 defeated all 105 and 120mm sabot of german and US tanks). Today, T72B, T80U and T90 all with K5 are super armoured tanks, the best being T90. All are of 45 tonnes class, and have similar protection than 60 tonnes west tanks.
PATRONSKiii 1 year ago
@PATRONSKiii Similar maybe, but not better. Listen, I'm not downing Russian vehicle design. Russians have come up with some revolutionary models (BMP and T-72 were both fantastic innovations). However, don't fool yourself into thinking you know how far the M829A3 can penetrate. I'm a tank commander on an M1A2 SEP v2, and I don't even know that. If there's a tank out there that can aquire targets and engage as fast as the M1, then it would come down to crew skill. I like my chances in the M1.
M2fiftycal 1 year ago
@OfficialFearClan And anyway, most of he people don't know what is a T80, for them T72, 80 90 is the same "russian junk", haha, poor of them...
To finnish, do you know why the T90 is the only produced tank in russia ? Not because the T80U is inferior, infact, T80U are superior, and have more future improvement potential (T80UM, T80UM2, only few built)
The reseon is bankrupt of ussr, separation with ukrain that was the place were T80 parts were suplied.
PATRONSKiii 1 year ago
@OfficialFearClan Karkov plant is in ukraine, kirov plant (leningrad) and omsktransmash produced it too, but omsk lost so much funds, and finaly the T80U were considered too expensive to build and maintain for the young russia, T72 plant uraltransmash is a state-plant, so it was keep against omsk. So the logical thing arrived ; T72 became T90 for new russian army, that's it.
T80U is still the best tank of russia, if they have money, they produce it and improve it too, as ukraine with T84.
PATRONSKiii 1 year ago
@PATRONSKiii Ah, ok thanks for clearing that up.
OfficialFearClan 1 year ago
This is super fake. You need to know that it is almost impossible to blow a tank into pieces with an one shot missile like the Javelin, the TOW, the MILAN, the FAGOT or the KORNET. If the missile hits the turret from the top it destroys it and kill the crew. If it hits the turret on the back it destroys it and kills the crew too. If it hits the engine the tank is junk and it if it hits the tracks they are destroyed.
Believe me as a tank crew member I know better.
ankal77 1 year ago
@ankal77 What are you, tank crew member of the army of France? or maybe tank crew member of some online game? because it is perfectly possible to blow a tank to peices (especially a crappy bartered T-72) with a large handheld missile system. Please dont pretend to be in the army to make your point perfectly valid.
P.s Saying "super fake" was a dead giveaway.
OfficialFearClan 1 year ago
@OfficialFearClan Actually, after reading photoshop93`s comment, i take back my accusations at you saying this video is fake. Sorry.
OfficialFearClan 1 year ago
Wtf? On one video after Javelin hit there is small hole but here entire tank blows up?
ArmAFan 1 year ago
t 80 have a smaller road wheels. Put a 50 kg of explosive in any tank and destroy it with remote control, and you will have this light show. American propaganda, they are born for senseless destructing. watch 24-th second for the wheels.
dmitriydonskoy1380 1 year ago
ANtitank rocket cant blow up the T-80 with all armour equipment. Also if T-80 have Arena system, tank will not have even a scratch!
maxmiztejm 1 year ago
The sheer size of the explosion makes me doubt the reality of this. Tandem HEAT rounds do not blow the tank to scrap in this manner - not even if the ammo starts to cook off.
smthssarmour 1 year ago
An explosion is false (typical American propaganda) because the pieces of T-72 are too few!
marcocomunista 1 year ago
This is NOT an T-80. This is an Iraqi made T-72 whics suffers from the same problem as original soviet designs - ammo stored under turrent; because of that stupid solution whole tank has ben blown to pieces.
brox114 1 year ago
I think everyone who posts comments on wether the tank is real and how stupid different people can be are all fuckwits, just enjoy the video u retards, thats why u clicked it in the first place isn't it?
mynameisnotkenneth 1 year ago
@mynameisnotkenneth Don't pin your motives on everyone else. YouTube is full of fake and gay vids made by prats. Would have been nice to have seen one that was trying not to be.
smthssarmour 1 year ago
@smthssarmour it's an opinion, a motive defines an action denoting a hidden agenda.
mynameisnotkenneth 1 year ago
its not real tank how stupid are same people fuck you who making vidios
mrvancouver2020 1 year ago
quickie
Altair554 1 year ago
подделка это - обсирают нашу технику суки
Altair554 1 year ago
russian tank? fuck u its not real tank
germany2010ful 1 year ago
Not a real tank. It's just a mock up to test our anti-tank missiles. And that looks like either an Asad Babil tank, or just a T-72. A T-80 looks different. But the reality is, the weakest part of a tank is the top, so if a Javelin strikes a T-80, it's just as dead as fake-tank up there.
Don113 1 year ago
Russians are fucking stupid, forever and ever until the end of time. I would also like to thank them for committing the 2nd worst genocide in history and the Chinese for the 1st.
It's a Javelin with a prototype warhead.
johnnyrckt 1 year ago
Actually that isn't T-80, look on it's track rollers. And in addition, you should watch some video from Iraq to see how battle tank detonates in real world. But, may be, here was a special TNT transport. xD Looks ridiculous!
RaptorGP 1 year ago
It *is* an anti-tank missile after all. Considering how much it costs per shot I think it's a reasonable amount of damage to expect. Tanks aren't usually very thickly armoured on the roof, so Javelin exploits this. It's a good missile and T-80 is a good tank, so what's with the description?
UberWazuSoldier 1 year ago
@UberWazuSoldier an anti tank missile dosent blow up the tank. it blows through the armour and blows up on the inside.
blacksoilder10 1 year ago
m1a1,m1a2>t80
airsoftstealth 1 year ago
First of all, guy who gave description is arse. This is not T-80, and anyone who can notice that by simply look on a tank's hull and road wheels.
Second, this is typical holywood-style video, where tank's turret is filled with explosive, just to create effect like this, who have nothing in common with reality.
Wow, great, you blown another stationary target with no reactive armor, filled with explosive.... amateurs.
GvardiyaBY 1 year ago 9
i guess in a war a tank wont be filled with ammo or fuel.
steamingpoopfart 1 year ago
its wooden model of t72 filled with explosives...
aleksandarfriscic 1 year ago
Opps, sorry POPWELL... this is a T-72M export model piece of crap fitting with no defence systems or external armour.
Nice try though with the prapaganda title.))
This video shows nothing but a missile that misfires more often than not hitting an export model shit stack from Poland, packed with explosives.
Great video for a cheap laugh though.)))
bittemeinrammstein 2 years ago
For starters that is a t72m, which is the export model, and it has thinner armor, and a smaller turret.
Also Russian tanks rely on their ERA and KAZ systems, which are by far the most advanced in the world, which are not on this tank.
An actual Russian service tank is impervious to 120mm ammo fired by NATO tanks, whereas M1A2, and Javelin rockets, which are inferior to that of a SA-18.
RFXCGZZ 2 years ago
An SA-18 is not an Anti tank weapon.
And since your just so confident - I would like to volunteer you to sit in a Russian T-72 as it gets hit by an APFSDS round from an Abrams tank.
Please, ladies first.
em88888 2 years ago
@em88888
Well since thats what you have issue with why don't you sit in an M1A2 and let it be hit by one of these. Oh thats right these weapons fuck up all tanks.
om3ga123 2 years ago
@RFXCGZZ That's not even probably the "monkey model" T-72M. An ex-Iraqi Asad Babil - an inferior copy of a Polish T-72 copy, most likely.
purpleravenstar 2 years ago
Indeed... all anyone has to do here is look up the tests done by Germany and US on Ukrainian T-72B's a few years back.
None of the US's most advanced tank rounds, or ATGM's were able to penitrate the T-72B.
bittemeinrammstein 2 years ago
@bittemeinrammstein Then tell me how almost ALL of the tanks destroyed in the gulf were destroyed by the Abrams 1 -2 SHOTS?
clericboy289 2 years ago
are u joking the russian tank force consists of 78% old t-72s first day of iraq 1300 t-72s in dug in positions faced 300 abrams with no losses
steamingpoopfart 1 year ago
No tank will take a javelin or similar in the roof and stay operational. Every country in the world can take out any tank in the world with their AT.missiles. The problem is getting a shot.
Fuck, even the Merkava (safest tank) is shot to pieces by old russian shit they gave to the Hizbollah.
profanum88 2 years ago 2
first of all, the shown tank is a t72 and second of all would that have happend to any known tank today. This vid shows fuck all
Phunker1 2 years ago
пиздаболы накидали взрывчатки
TaTaPuH555 2 years ago
no disrespect to the boys serving over there, i just wanna ask you if that javelin has helped you in Iraq and Afghanistan?
russianlegionary87 2 years ago
Actually works damn good when you are trying to knock out a reinforced position outside effectice small arms range. A reason they give the Javelin a 'direct attack' option.
MorganKeyes 2 years ago
of the way the warhead is shaped.
russia has a similar weapon to the javelin that is capable of destroying t90s and abrams tanks as well, or else the weapons would not be produced if they could not destroy Modern MBTs, they would be useless
any RPG with a moderate sized warhead can penetrate MBT armor if coming down at an almost 90 degree angle
to those unwilling to believe, an rpg 22 can gut an abrams and t-90 with ERA tank if it hits at the right angle
i was a demolitions expert at fort hood
controlusplease 2 years ago
Comment removed
controlusplease 2 years ago
This is a T-72 tank with K5 ERA applied to the FRONT (not the top) of the turret. You can tell by the size of the road wheels. Probably an ex-Iraqi Asad Babil T-72 or an East German T-72M1.
Rangerpl1322 2 years ago
T80 an ass!!!!!!!!!! That is an old T72 without ERA, not even an T72B.
stalingradComando 2 years ago
That missile cost $50,000. No joke.
ppitm 2 years ago
Автар ты Т-80 то хоть раз видел? Запомни, это фанерный макет Т-72 набитый для зрелищности взрывчаткой! Javelin - это переносной ПТУР, а не 250-ти килограммовая авиабомба. А если вычесть размеры маршевого двигателя и ГСН то на боевую часть в ракете остаётся хрен да маленько.
photoshop93 2 years ago 39