Like to rate videos and let people know what you think?
Automatically share your ratings, favorites, and more on Facebook, Twitter, and Google Reader with YouTube Autoshare.
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
Like to share videos with friends?
Automatically share your ratings, favorites, and more on Facebook, Twitter, and Google Reader with YouTube Autoshare.
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
How come you can talk about how M1 being destroyed by IED but when it penetrates Challenger2 all the sudden oh that's just a fluke there's no dorchester under the tank...lol
@OlderG0ds yep, I checked it out you are correct. An RPG-9 hit the Frontal armour and the driver lost a foot. Albeit it was a British newspaper report and they are known for exaggerating stories. I' would wait until more info comes out.
The incident I was talking about was an IED which did hit a none Dorchester protected area underneath the tank.
I don't see point in comparing IED attacks either. They're all different. No tank could survive many of them. M1 has been destroyed almost exclusively by IED attacks.
So now we're comparing hundreds of IED attack on Abrams to 1 on Challenger 2. How do you know those which hit Abrams weren't a protected area under the tank? This is why it's silly. Challenger can make excuses but not Abrams, even when Abrams has been through worse.
And you're the self proclaimed presenter of logic and facts?
You do know that the frontal hull armor of a tank is the strongest right?
And that no M1 has ever been penetrated in frontal armor right? And that M1 doesn't use chobham there either right? And that M1 has been hit by anti-tank weapons much much more powerful than an RPG-9?
@OlderG0ds First of all RPG-9 was a typo it was an RPG-29.
Secondly the frontal armour on a Challanger 2 is Chobham mk1 which is the same reactive armour used on the M1. Dorchester is mostly used on the turret as it weighs so much.
Dorchester is not in use nor has ever been in use on any other tank apart from British Challanger 2's. It is still classified.
You are so hung up on "dorchester". Why? Did I say dorchester was penetrated by mistake? What good is your indestructible armor if the freaking frontal hull which is the strongest part of the tank (stronger than the turret even with your dorchester) can be penetrated by an RPG?
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
How come you can talk about how M1 being destroyed by IED but when it penetrates Challenger2 all the sudden oh that's just a fluke there's no dorchester under the tank...lol
The incident I was talking about was an IED which did hit a none Dorchester protected area underneath the tank.
So now we're comparing hundreds of IED attack on Abrams to 1 on Challenger 2. How do you know those which hit Abrams weren't a protected area under the tank? This is why it's silly. Challenger can make excuses but not Abrams, even when Abrams has been through worse.
I digress.
Maybe Challenger 2 has a square inch of dorchester protection, so every time it's penetrated you can just say "wait no dorchester!"
You do know that the frontal hull armor of a tank is the strongest right?
And that no M1 has ever been penetrated in frontal armor right? And that M1 doesn't use chobham there either right? And that M1 has been hit by anti-tank weapons much much more powerful than an RPG-9?
Rest my case.
Secondly the frontal armour on a Challanger 2 is Chobham mk1 which is the same reactive armour used on the M1. Dorchester is mostly used on the turret as it weighs so much.
Dorchester is not in use nor has ever been in use on any other tank apart from British Challanger 2's. It is still classified.
Rest your brain.
You got an excuse for everything.
You are so hung up on "dorchester". Why?
Did I say dorchester was penetrated by mistake? What good is your indestructible armor if the freaking frontal hull which is the strongest part of the tank (stronger than the turret even with your dorchester) can be penetrated by an RPG?
Fix your brain.