Destroyed Pak Army tank in Buner

[JK!]

seems a bradley


its too thinly protected .... protection i think is poorer than BMP-2 ICV's too

a flechette round easily passes through and through ....... so you can imagine

It wieghs about 30 tonnes so when compared to say a Pakistani M113 this thing is quite well protected and waaaay better than a BMP2 though a BMP3 could be comaparable.

This particular example was hit by a hellfire missile in Baghdad killing quite a few civilians I recall the controversy of that particular air strike.

 

[JK!]

Tank armour is distributed around the vehicle as it is a forward fighting rather like a man armed with a shield.

The thickest armour is on the front and it is thinnest at the rear.

If the entire tank had equally distributed armour an M1 Abrams would weigh 200 tonnes or so.

This is the reason why M1s were being taken out in Iraq by Insurgents as they hit them in the rear with their RPG7s.

Basically it is possible to take out a $4 million tank with a $200 weapon but not always probable.

 

[Hellfire]

It wieghs about 30 tonnes so when compared to say a Pakistani M113 this thing is quite well protected and waaaay better than a BMP2 though a BMP3 could be comaparable.

This particular example was hit by a hellfire missile in Baghdad killing quite a few civilians I recall the controversy of that particular air strike.

I dont know

IMO armour on both is aluminium based and as such the thickness sported is 25-30 mm in front and 15-20 mm in hull .... so susceptibility is equal ... although ERA protections and other protective measures are available for both.

 

[Hellfire]

Tank armour is distributed around the vehicle as it is a forward fighting rather like a man armed with a shield.

The thickest armour is on the front and it is thinnest at the rear.

If the entire tank had equally distributed armour an M1 Abrams would weigh 200 tonnes or so.

This is the reason why M1s were being taken out in Iraq by Insurgents as they hit them in the rear with their RPG7s.

Basically it is possible to take out a $4 million tank with a $200 weapon but not always probable.

There is NO incident of M1 being knocked out by RPG-7, which is a single shaped warhead. RPG-18, sporting a tandem warhead, may theoretically pierce its armour. M1s being operated in Iraq are DU reinforced armor and as such a single HEAT/HESH warhead is not likely to penetrate the basic CHOBAM type composite on M1s much less the DU reinforced.

There have been incidents of M1 being knocked out by conventional anti-tank mines (being immobilised) or IEDs or combination of both, or some instance of an APFSD but without any lethality.

 

[RescueRanger]

"All u need is a rifle and small arms"... (Rolls Eyes) then counts to ten... Then Counts to ten again... I hate these cynical, ungreatful bastards.

First they say, we dont want Gov Law, We want sharia, then they say we dont want the Sharia law because it is enforced by the Taliban, Then they say the army should help us... Now they say, Look the army is destoying buildings...

It is called Collateral damage, do they forget that the NLC is shipping Food and Non Food Items to safe areas non stop and that cabinet members have donated a months salary and made personal donations equalling to Rs. 200 Million alone for the IDPs of SWAT conflict.

Bilkul nashukrey hain yeh loog.

 

[JK!]

Perhaps I should have been more clear about taken out.

Iraqi infantrymen scored a mobility kill against an Abram by hitting it in the rear armour. As I have mentioned its a matter of probabality I doubt many infanteers could even get close to a tanks rear armour to score a kill on it.

Plenty of IFVs use aluminium armour including the latest BMP3 being fielded by Russia.

Aluminiums more of a naval problem as a fire risk on ships and interestingly the Type 21 destoyers Pakistan has were not deployed to the Falklands by the UK for this reason.

 

[XYON]

i was referring to the taliban/PA battle theatre!i dont think the taliban have A10s or any ATGMs or i have been missing something!

Thanks for clarifying as your original comment projected for it to be the case in general. I agree. Taliban do not have the weaponry to neutralize or counter the heavy weapon systems of the Army being used in the Swat battle theater. This includes the Cobra Gunships, 130mm Chinese Howitzers, Al-Zarrar Tanks etc. One odd lucky hit to disable a tank in a narrow alley does not necessarily project the severely limited capability of the Taliban in this battle.

 

[Penguin]

Aluminiums more of a naval problem as a fire risk on ships and interestingly the Type 21 destoyers Pakistan has were not deployed to the Falklands by the UK for this reason.

All of the class except Amazon (a.k.a. PNS Babur), which was in the Persian Gulf at the time, took part in the Falklands War of 1982 as part of the 4th Frigate Squadron.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_21_frigate#Active_service
http://www.naval-history.net/F19rnships.htm

F170 Antelope: Bombed 23 May 1982 by Argentine A-4 Skyhawks. Sank following day in San Carlos Water. Earlier, its Lynx has destroyed Argentinian transport "RIO CARCARANA".

F184 Ardent : Bombed 21 May 1982 by Argentine A-4 Skyhawks in San Carlos Water. Sank following day in Grantham Sound
http://www.naval-history.net/F19rnships.htm. Ardent was credited with a (cooperative) kill of an Argentinian Skyhawk.

Pics here (scroll down page): Warship Vulnerability

F173 Arrow, a.k.a. PNS Khaibar, and sistership F174 Alacrity, a.k.a. PNS Badr were slightly damaged 1 May 1982 by cannon fire from an Argentine Air Force Dassault Mirage 5 (IAI Nesher/Dagger/Finger). Arrow and Alacrity were reportedly fired upon by the Argentine submarine, ARA San Luis, which fired two torpedoes but luckily for the British missed the ships. Alacrity sunk the Argentinian fleet transport "ISLA DE LOS ESTADOS" on

F185 Avenger, a.k.a. PNS Tippu Sultan, survived an attack by an Exocet missile, which was shot down with the 4.5 inch mark 8 gun on the fo'c's'le of the ship.

http://www.naval-history.net/F19rnships.htm
http://www.naval-history.net/F41argaircraft.htm
http://www.naval-history.net/F42britsuccesses.htm
http://www.naval-history.net/F62brshipslost.htm

 

[JK!]

Hmmm I have a book on the Royal Navy that stated otherwise specifically mentioning the aluminium structure as being a fire risk.

But thanks for the correction.

 

[Hellfire]

Hmmm I have a book on the Royal Navy that stated otherwise specifically mentioning the aluminium structure as being a fire risk.

But thanks for the correction.

actually that should not be the problem ..... but IVCs in general both soviet-russian and US have aluminium hulls and as such are equally susceptible.

thanks for clarification of the M1 issue .... definitely its engine is more prone to getting damaged ...

 

[zraver]

There is NO incident of M1 being knocked out by RPG-7, which is a single shaped warhead. RPG-18, sporting a tandem warhead, may theoretically pierce its armour. M1s being operated in Iraq are DU reinforced armor and as such a single HEAT/HESH warhead is not likely to penetrate the basic CHOBAM type composite on M1s much less the DU reinforced.

There have been incidents of M1 being knocked out by conventional anti-tank mines (being immobilised) or IEDs or combination of both, or some instance of an APFSD but without any lethality.

There have been M1 Abrams knocked out by RPG-7VR warheads in Iraq. It was enough of a problem that the US Army added ERA as part of the TUSK package. Some RPG rounds have even penetrated the crew compartment, although the most likely penetration was in the engine or rear turret area. If your crazy enough to do it and can hit at an angle that will set off the fure, an old RPG-7 fired from a roof top or balconey will punch the top of an Abrams.

 

[Penguin]

Hmmm I have a book on the Royal Navy that stated otherwise specifically mentioning the aluminium structure as being a fire risk.

But thanks for the correction.

My response was about the Amazon's (not) being sent to the Falklands, not about the properties of aluminium used on board naval ships.

HOwever ....

Each year hundreds of thousands of tonnes of aluminium scrap are fed into remelt furnaces and heated up to and beyond the melting point. The aluminium melts when the temperature exceeds the melting point, it does not burn. If it did, the recycling of aluminium would not be possible!
While aluminum does not burn, it does begin to lose its structural strength at 500 degrees and melts at 1,500 degrees. Steel does not even begin to soften until it reaches 1,800 to 2,000 degrees. That's one difference. Another issue is cracking. Aluminum cracks at a much lower stress than steel does.

 

[Hellfire]

There have been M1 Abrams knocked out by RPG-7VR warheads in Iraq. It was enough of a problem that the US Army added ERA as part of the TUSK package. Some RPG rounds have even penetrated the crew compartment, although the most likely penetration was in the engine or rear turret area. If your crazy enough to do it and can hit at an angle that will set off the fure, an old RPG-7 fired from a roof top or balconey will punch the top of an Abrams.

Zraver

I somehow was under a very strong impression in addition from inputs obtained from various sources that the DU reinforces versions have been able wthstand hits from RPG-7 with single shaped warhead.

Certainly the properties of M1 engine will definitely make it more susceptible in case of desperate measures taken to immobilise it.

Thanks for the update.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

Couple of question about al-zarar

-Is the turret encased?
-where are ammunistions kept? in the turret or .....

 

[blain2]

I agree

it does not seem to be a T-59 as claimed .... had seen the footage first on BBC NEWS world service yesterday .... was trying to find out if it was so .........

Al-Zarrar is an upgraded T-59.