I've heard stories about tanks being disabled in the middle of a combat zone, and they heard RPGs hitting them like "thud.... thud" and I recall hearing about one tank crew in a disabled tank taking over 50 RPG and missile hits.
Something ridiculous.
Firstly... is this true?
Secondly, does this mean the only way to kill the crew of a disabled tank is to pile wood under and around the tank, and burn them out?
How horrifying.
>>29986237
If you are crazy enough to try and siege a disabled tank I don't think starting a bonfire around it is going to help.
You know that a tank crew can still move the turret and fire both the coax machinegun and the main gun without power?
Sure loading the main gun is a bitch in manual mode but it can be done.
The Abrams can take an amazing amount of punishment. But most of the stories you hear of one taking dozens of RPG's is from the stupid Haji's not removing the arming pins from the rockets. They just stick them in the launch tube and send it off.
>>29986237
>is this true?
It could be but probably isnt. If the armor is heavy enogh to withstand a RPG then more RPGs wont do anything if they dont hit the exact same spot.
>Secondly, does this mean the only way to kill the crew of a disabled tank is to pile wood under and around the tank, and burn them out?
First of all, most tanks are well protected against fire and can even take a direct hit from a napalm bomb. So that would be stupid. If the tank is disabled then just leave a guard there, they will come out eventually. Or just use a bigger AT weapon.
>>29986263
>sieging a tank
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU ABU
i guess some of them watched at Fury and was really interested in copying the SS
>>29986263
>But most of the stories you hear of one taking dozens of RPG's is from the stupid Haji's not removing the arming pins from the rockets. They just stick them in the launch tube and send it off.
Actually it's more that they're using either antiquated rockets or in numerous cases from what the Brits and US found during Gulf War 2, they use the Anti-personnel round at tanks, which does nothing.
>>29986263
>>29986327
Hmm. Didn't think of that. I recall it being described like hearing a "thud" instead of a "BANG".
I guess those soldiers were lucky.
>>29986276
I'm pretty fucking sure that if a tank was disabled, and around enemies, it wouldn't take much for the enemy to make a bonfire around the tank and cook everything in it.
>>29986237
Yes.
And it was a Bong Challenger 2 who took 72 RPG rounds and a few MILAN AT rounds.
>>29986263
>not removing the arming pins from the rockets. They just stick them in the launch tube and send it off.
Can confirm with webm
>>29986781
You're collating scenarios together, it's separate encounters.
One took 14 RPGs (of varied/unknown types) and a single MILAN-2 missile.
Another took around 70 RPG impacts of varying types across a full day of operations rather than in a single firefight.
There was also a rather amusing one listed by Simon Dunst's book of where an insurgent tried to fire from point blank with an RPG and just got run the fuck over. British Army weren't giving any fucks by that point.
>>29986237
Not all RPGs are made equal.
>>29986301
>every SS soldier has rpg
Anything unrealistic about it?
>>29986933
Damn, any pics of the Challenger that took 70 hits?
>>29986917
I've heard a story about that from a Marine who served in Iraq. They were taking fire and holed up in a hadji mudhut, somebody calls out an incoming RPG, it hits...and nothing happens. So eventually they break contact and come out of the hut, and see the RPG round either embedded in the wall or on the ground, with the pin not pulled.
>>29986263
OP here. I just refreshed my page after a few hours. It never occurred to me this didn't make sense.
>You know that a tank crew can still move the turret and fire both the coax machinegun and the main gun without power?
Please tell me how a tank crew can do anything without power. Electrical power, I assume. Because it literally has to be electrical.
>>29988490
they have hand cranks, and the gunner has a manual fire control.
>>29986933
>where an insurgent tried to fire from point blank with an RPG and just got run the fuck over.
>British Army weren't giving any fucks by that point.
That's just 11/10 right there.
>>29988490
Manual hand cranks for elevation and rotation.
Physically pull the trigger on the coax and there is a hand crank detonator to fire the main gun.
To pull a round from the ready rack without power is a bitch, you need a wrench and a big ass lever, pop the seal, roll the door open, pull the round and load it, close the door, fire the cannon and repeat.
>>29988524
This, its a case of belts and braces. If one thing fails you still have something keeping your pants up.
>>29988490
Mechanical backups.
>>29988490
You know how WWII AA guns and SPGs (not the tank destroyer ones, the infantry ones) has those levers and cranks? Same thing really.
>>29988490
>it literally has to be electrical
Except for how, you know, it literally doesn't.
>>29986380
>it wouldn't take much for the enemy to make a bonfire around the tank and cook everything in it.
It would take huge ammounts of firewood/fuel to create anything that would be a problem for the tank. We had napalm tests against the Strv 103 in the 70s that prooved that it could be hit with a 500kg napalm bomb and sit there until the fire had ended. The temprature inside increased by only a few degrees.
And why would you waste a bunch of soldiers on creating a huge fire when they could do something else, like you know... fighting.
As stated if the weapons is disabled, then just leave a guard, they are pretty much already POWs by now anyway. If the weapons are not disabled, then a bonfire would be stupid as fuck.
>>29986917
where is this from? i want to see more
>>29987954
No but I got a picture of it being hit by one
>>29986327
>abu hajaar I need the rockets for vehicles
>>29988809
Probably this little slice of heaven on earth called Syria
>>29988838
*boink*
how does that little plastic cap thing works?
I'd assume that at the speed in which the rocket hits, it should make really little difference if that thing is present or not
>>29989040
It's the safety cap, so if you fall on the tip of the rocket, no boom. Who has the webcam of the poor fucker in the middle east that fell on his RPG?
>>29989067
you mean Abo Hajar?
>>29989078
No, a real one. Like seriously the dude was running then tripped and the RPG exploded.
>>29989040
>>29989067
>>29989083
Now that i want to see.
>>29989083
>>29989086
>ifunny
>>29989067
show me!
>>29989146
>NRA_4_Life
>>29988911
>The gun tube is over the back deck so the driver can exit through the turret
nice
>>29989083
You see Imran, infidel cannot find you if you are everywhere
>>29988767
>a bonfire couldn't kill a tank
Please, tell me how those tests relate to spending hours under a fucking BONFIRE.
Napalm=/=hours of fire
>>29989083
Is Syria the longest running episode of Road Runner?
>>29988490
hand cranks and a manual fire control.
you can move the ammo doors without power too.
granted, it is a fucking bitch to do, but it can be done.
and you have to do manual gunnery, but the abrams will survive.
>>29990289
except napalm is hotter and will get in more places than sustained fire.
plus not much is gonna change from 40 mins of napalm to 4 hours of bonfire.
