First Photos of Destroyed Leopard and Bradley’s, confirmed
- Thread starter aziqbal
- Start date
Those Bradleys and Leopard 2 must really worry you.
aziqbal
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2010
- Messages
- 7,403
- Reaction score
- -10
- Country
- Location
to be fair the Bradley actually is a very good IFV probably the best In the World, in Iraq War it destroyed more Iraqi armour than the M1 Abrams and they lost only 3 units
just shy of 30 tons and with speeds of over 40mph this is a basically a taxi tank which can TOW tanks from range
it has tried to be replaced 2 times and US Army wouldn't have any other vehicle
working along with the Leopard 2A6 which has speed and manoeuvrability the combination of Leopard + Bradley = 2 very fast very heavily armoured vehicles
working in a 2:1 ratio they are ideal to perform armoured thrusts deep into enemy territory
however what West didnt realise is that Russia is not Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen
Russia is a top standing World power and has shown that overrated overpriced over engineered Western equipment is totally inadequate for a armoured warfare against a level foe
and as if that was not enough they are being destroyed in large numbers by Lancet drones costing $35,000
Russias must be laughing all the way to the bank, Bradley cost is $6 million Leopard $8 million
I wonder what the visually confirmed russian loses of +2.100 MBT and +900 IFV cost Russia.
”Armoured warfare against a level foe” .. You were just praising the Lancet.. Please do tell us where this armoured warfare actually took place in Ukraine. I think I have seen 2-3 examples of a couple of tanks in a battle.
jhungary
MILITARY PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2012
- Messages
- 19,295
- Reaction score
- 387
- Country
- Location
We actually know how low the terrain is, because you can see the base of that turret there, with the turret in a Turret out position, you can see the base of that turret. So unless the chassis itself is very deep and tall, or the platform is floating on air, we know how low the ground is.
On the other hand, I am a commander of a Bradley, I spend 6 months training with one and spend another year in Iraq deployed with one and fought with one, I know the silhouette or the profile of a Bradley when I see one as you need to because you need to be able to PID your own and your enemy vehicle. The normal identifying feature of the Bradley is the round turret with the boxed TOW missile in the turret, because this would make the profile asymmetrical, also you can identify the Bradley by its thermal sight (the rectangular box) on top of the turret, I can't see neither of those feature here.
May I ask, what make you think this is a Bradley
aziqbal
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2010
- Messages
- 7,403
- Reaction score
- -10
- Country
- Location
now we know why Americans didn’t want to send M1 into the front line even although they have over 3,500 in storage and only 31 sent to Ukraine which are held in reserve
They want to retain their Hollywood style reputation of killing only civilians and it would be a total PR disaster and it would under mine American equipment
Germans were fooled
They want to retain their Hollywood style reputation of killing only civilians and it would be a total PR disaster and it would under mine American equipment
Germans were fooled
Russian drones need better optics. This could be any tank, going in reverse like sovjet equipment - and no aftermath.
aziqbal
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2010
- Messages
- 7,403
- Reaction score
- -10
- Country
- Location
Russia launches 20-30 lancets per day
They hit 2-3 vehicles per day
Russia production has reached 1,000 lancets per month which matches the daily usage
Production will soon reach 3,000 lancets per month which means 100 launches and 10 vehicles destroyed per day
Ukraine doesn’t have enough vehicles so now Russia is using lancet for counter battery and even trench’s
Lancet is $35,000 and price is coming down
Yes the part of the story where Russian war production kicks in to overdrive and overwhelms the enemy
I’ve seen this story before and I know how it ends
They hit 2-3 vehicles per day
Russia production has reached 1,000 lancets per month which matches the daily usage
Production will soon reach 3,000 lancets per month which means 100 launches and 10 vehicles destroyed per day
Ukraine doesn’t have enough vehicles so now Russia is using lancet for counter battery and even trench’s
Lancet is $35,000 and price is coming down
Yes the part of the story where Russian war production kicks in to overdrive and overwhelms the enemy
I’ve seen this story before and I know how it ends
I previously saw the aftermath of a Lancet striking towed artillery. A flat tire was all that happend to it.
aziqbal
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2010
- Messages
- 7,403
- Reaction score
- -10
- Country
- Location
The Lancet is not meant to destroy towed artillery. Only success would be targetting personel or ammunition.
jhungary
MILITARY PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2012
- Messages
- 19,295
- Reaction score
- 387
- Country
- Location
Lancet have a 6kg payload and usually loaded with 3KG HE warhead, it will not be enough for any armoured target. It would have a destructive power between a 81mm and 60mm mortar, it could probably deal with softskin or unarmoured vehicle (like truck) but it would not be enough to kill unarmored vehicle, it will probably not able to kill an up-armoured Humvee
ZALA Lancet - Wikipedia
aziqbal
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2010
- Messages
- 7,403
- Reaction score
- -10
- Country
- Location
Lancet have a 6kg payload and usually loaded with 3KG HE warhead, it will not be enough for any armoured target. It would have a destructive power between a 81mm and 60mm mortar, it could probably deal with softskin or unarmoured vehicle (like truck) but it would not be enough to kill unarmored vehicle, it will probably not able to kill an up-armoured Humvee
ZALA Lancet - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Well in that case you need to go through the videos in this thread, which leads me to think you don’t watch them you just troll
jhungary
MILITARY PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2012
- Messages
- 19,295
- Reaction score
- 387
- Country
- Location
Having an explosion DOES NOT EQUATE to the thing is destroy
Again, it's OPEN KNOWLEDGE that the payload for a Lancet is just 6 Kgs (that's warhead + component + fuel) and the warhead alone is just 3KG.
a M888 60 mm mortar warhead is 2kg, 40mm grenade have a warhead of 2Kg, M821 81mm mortar round have a warhead of 4.1 kg HE/PETN. All of those cannot destroy an armour target, you are saying somehow Russian explosive are more powerful than the west.
Bear in mind, tradition armour piercing AT missile have twice or three times the size of Lancet warhead. Older AGM-114 have an 8KG warhead, and TOW2 have a 6.14kg warhead that can penetrate 900mm ERA.
But yes, I am trolling, and Russian explosive is 3 times more effective than Western Warhead.
