Russian weapons pack v1.0

[deadmoroz 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Miles Teg @ Aug. 09 2002,20:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">0--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (deadmoroz @ Aug. 07 2002,190)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why does RPG-7 so weak?

In reallife It is very powerful antitank weapon(but not only, because it also has deadly fragmentation anâ thermabolic warheads)

I need 6 or 7 rockets to destroy abrams. it is not good <span id='postcolor'>

In real life the RPG-7 will barely scratch the paint of a M1 Abrams tank.  It will not even penetrate the top armor according to some M1 tankers I've talked to.

The rear armor I don't know about, but I suspect that the rear is likewise fairly heavily armored.  

The Iraqi's for example tried all kinds of strategies to try and destroy the M1s including using Reverse slope tactics to hit the rear of the tanks but none were destroyed.  Only a few were disabled.  With an RPG the best you could hope for is to damage optics or blow off the treads or one of the wheels.

You *might* be able to destroy one with a top attack from a building for example if you were able to hit one of the hatches on the top where the armor is thinner.  But the RPG is not known for pinpoint accuracy and firing any rocket from a building is risky if you don't have proper ventilation so it would require a bit of luck to destroy an M1 in that manner.

So if the the RPG-7 was realistic in OFP, you would not be able to destroy an M1 tank at all with it unless you got a lucky hit like on the turret ring.

However against tanks that don't use advanced composite armor the latest generation of RPG-7 rockets are deadly as they have tandem warheads designed to defeat reactive armor.  So they'll destroy T-72 and T-80 tanks.  

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD><span id='postcolor'>

cool

We have here some serious specialists in using RPG-7 against Abrams. Did you shoot RPG-7 in real life? Did you try to destroy Abrams? I guess, NO. But you(not only you, also a lot of others) say that "In real life the RPG-7 will barely scratch the paint of a M1 Abrams tank. It will not even penetrate the top armor according to some M1 tankers I've talked to."

Maybe because RPG-7 is russian weapon and because you think that all russian weapons are shit you said RPG-7 is nothing against abrams. You just dont have a proof. Without a proof I could say everything. Also you have said about some *your* methods about how to destroy M1 with RPG. One question: have you tested that methods by yourself?

[JJonth Cheeky Monkey 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (deadmoroz @ Aug. 10 2002,17:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Only a few were disabled.<span id='postcolor'>

One was disabled, 1 and that was blown up by americans after it was disabled to stop their technology from been stolen

[nyles 11]

A little off-topic:

Anyone happen to know the book "Armored Cavalry" by Tom Clancy? It's a somewhat scientific book about the US cavalry regiments, their equipment and their mission in the gulf for example.

At one part of the book, there is this report about an Abrams who disabled himself in some soft ground during Desert Storm.

While the tank was disabled, 3 iraqi T72 attacked suddenly. Even though, the tanks fired several times at the Abrams, the crew managed to destroy all three tanks. The last one was taken out through a sand dune, the tank hid behind when it wanted to retreat. The Abrams survived almost 100%. Those hits didn't manage to penetrate the thick armour and damage vital mechanisms. When help arrived they wanted to pull the tank out of that soft ground as it couldn't free itself, however they didn't manage to and wanted to destroy it before it falls into the enemies hands. They shot at the tank from another Abrams, but even though the shot penetrated the tank and got the ammo to explode, the tank was still intact. The ammo has a special system which ensures that the blast is direct away from the tank and not towards the crew compartment.

After another tank arrived, they managed to pull out the stranded Abrams and after the fighting, it only got his turret replaced and was declared combat ready as no vital system had been damaged.

[miss_cleo 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe because RPG-7 is russian weapon and because you think that all russian weapons are shit you said RPG-7 is nothing against abrams<span id='postcolor'>

deadmoroz, i dont think any anti russian bias was implied . the rpg-7 was first deployed in the 1960's just like the US LAW rocket. both were good weapons in there time, but neither are considered effective against modern MBTs. thats why the russians and americans have many newer AT rockets.

the rpg-7 is not going to be effective against an Abrams, period. that doesnt mean that all russian weapons are shit, it just means that there have been 30 years of improvements in tank armor technology. i sure as hell wouldnt wanna be in a abrams that gets hit by a russian at-14 kornet.

[JJonth Cheeky Monkey 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (billytran @ Aug. 04 2002,06:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You're probably thinking of the M16A3.  I think it's got a semi/burst/full trigger setting.<span id='postcolor'>

Nope same trigger setting as the A2, safe, semi, burst theres only enough room for 3 settings on the reciever, no the A3 has the 20mm Weaver rail on the top instead of the carry handle, although one can be added, the rail can attach tons of scopes to it including the Advanced Combat Optical Gun Sight or ACOGS

[miles teg 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Miss_Cleo @ Aug. 10 2002,19:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe because RPG-7 is russian weapon and because you think that all russian weapons are shit you said RPG-7 is nothing against abrams<span id='postcolor'>

deadmoroz, i dont think any anti russian bias was implied . the rpg-7 was first deployed in the 1960's just like the US LAW rocket. both were good weapons in there time, but neither are considered effective against modern MBTs. thats why the russians and americans have many newer AT rockets.

the rpg-7 is not going to be effective against an Abrams, period. that doesnt mean that all russian weapons are shit, it just means that there have been 30 years of improvements in tank armor technology. i sure as hell wouldnt wanna be in a abrams that gets hit by a russian at-14 kornet.<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah I'm not sure where he got that I was bashing Russian weapons.  Hell I like the RPG-7.  It's an awesome weapon for what it is.  In general I think that Russian weapons are very innovative and effective overall all.  But like you said, it's an old weapon system and the M1 Abrams is designed to withstand far greater dammage then what an RPG-7 can cause.  If a 125mm sabot or HEAT round from a T-72 can't penetrate a M1 then I don't think an RPG-7 will even with the new tandem warhead rocket.   Although to be fair I heard that the Iraqi's were using SABOT rounds that used cheap iron instead of Tungsten steel otherwise they probably would have penetrated the M1's when they were lucky enough to score a direct hit.  

Likewise I also would not want to be in an M1 if a at-14 kornet missile hit it.  Heavy AGM's like that and the Maverick missle for example would most likely blow a M1 to pieces I imagine.  

Oh...I also should mention to deadmoroz that while I have not fired the RPG-7 I have fired the AT-4 anti-tank rocket and I'm familiar with various types of explosives as a former member of the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers where I recieved training at Ft. Leanordwood, Missouri. So I'm familiar with the various designs of shaped charged warheads in general. But it doesn't take any rocket science to figure out that the RPG-7 is not the best weapon to use against an M1 Abrams. Almost everyone who's experienced operating the M1 will say pretty much the same thing...that it takes a very powerful AT gun or AT missile to destroy an M1. I can not validate these claims with scientific evidence simply because most of the specs of the M1's are classified. However I have never seen any evidence of any hand-held rockets destroying one.

I have however seen photage of a hand held U.S. Marine SMAW rocket destroying a T-72 with a shot to the turret. I'd take a M1 any day over a Russian tank.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[nyles 11]

hehe and I would take a german leopard2 in the latest configuration over an abrams any day

[Eviscerator 0]

and the AT-16 Vikhr missile is much more deadly, the abrams front armor is 720mm and the penetration on the vikhr is 900-1000mm(depending on versions) and a 0.95 chance of a hit

and id take a challenger 2 over a leopard, it has the best armour in nato

[munger 25]

I'm interested in this tank debate, and would like to find out more about the modern tanks and how they fare against each other (specification wise, not in combat ). Can someone tell me where the best place is to find out about this sort of thing? Is it FAS.org?

Thanks.

[Eviscerator 0]

i have this url right at the top of my favourites

and who could forget the master of information

[akm74 1]

...

[STS_SolidSnake 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Nyles @ Aug. 10 2002,22:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">hehe and I would take a german leopard2 in the latest configuration over an abrams any day <span id='postcolor'>

I'd take a Tiger Tank and kick all j0r Leopard & Challenger 2 asses!

[nyles 11]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (STS_SolidSnake @ Aug. 11 2002,05:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

I'd take a Tiger Tank and kick all j0r Leopard & Challenger 2 asses!  

<span id='postcolor'><span id='postcolor'>

hehe, I would make fun of you and your Tiger, by driving circles around you at full speed, hill up and hill down, doesn't matter, and kill you with one well placed shot while moving as the Leo2's superior targeting system would ensure that my 120mm cannon would stay on target no matter how much I move

..then, I would do the same with that challenger!

I WIN

j/k, I couldn't resist..

[Guest]

I think that this topic has outlived its usefulness.

Closing