|
Talking about tanks and APC's getting hit by things... Syrian BMP hit by Free Syrian ArmyTagged it because holy gently caress, also Liveleak. Looks like maybe an EFP-type IED? In any case, I don't think I've ever seen an armored vehicle go up like that.
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2012 12:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 08:10 |
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Talking about tanks and APC's getting hit by things... Well the clearly hit the top of the turret, with what I don't know, I'm guessing an RPG. And then the ammo and/or fuel cooked off. I'm an idiot who can't watch videos. There's clearly an explosion down by the tracks. You're probably right about the EFP. Beardless fucked around with this message at 12:43 on Jun 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2012 12:39
|
|
|
It looks to me like it gets hit in the side, and the explosion forces out through the top hatch, cooking the magazine in the process. e- well it might be an RPG or similar weapon, I don't know really. Seizure Meat fucked around with this message at 12:44 on Jun 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2012 12:42
|
|
|
Do the Free Syrian folks generally run around shouting Allahu Ackbar after they blow something up? I'm asking because I've heard rumors that various shithead islamist groups are getting in on the action out there in an attempt to steer it towards being an islamist revolution rather than a secular one, and that seems like the sort of thing I'm more used to seeing from videos taken by jihadists in Iraq and the like.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2012 14:39
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Do the Free Syrian folks generally run around shouting Allahu Ackbar after they blow something up? It wouldn't surprise me at all if they shout out Allahu Ackbar regularly when poo poo is going down. In Bahrain, amongst some rather secularized, possibly apostate Muslims, there was a big-rear end car crash right across the way which certainly killed a couple people. In addition to shouting out English obscenities, their response was yelling Allahu Ackbar over and over while dialing medical services. But to actually answer, I've no loving idea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2012 14:44
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Do the Free Syrian folks generally run around shouting Allahu Ackbar after they blow something up? "Allahu Akbar" is like me exclaiming "Jesus Christ!" or "oh God!" You really can't tell anything about my beliefs (let alone connect me to very specific religious beliefs) from it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2012 15:33
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:"Allahu Akbar" is like me exclaiming "Jesus Christ!" or "oh God!" You really can't tell anything about my beliefs (let alone connect me to very specific religious beliefs) from it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2012 15:44
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Talking about tanks and APC's getting hit by things...  That is an explosion. The window was... I dunno, 75-100 yards away and 4 stories up? Those guys still got showered with debris. It must have sounded hellish.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2012 15:47
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Do the Free Syrian folks generally run around shouting Allahu Ackbar after they blow something up? quote:I'm asking because I've heard rumors that various shithead islamist groups are getting in on the action out there in an attempt to steer it towards being an islamist revolution rather than a secular one, and that seems like the sort of thing I'm more used to seeing from videos taken by jihadists in Iraq and the like. In the grand scheme of things Cyrano you could probably quote a million examples of this score-settling massacre throughout Euro history (former Yugo, French Revolutions come to mind), it's just weird to watch it in real-time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2012 16:07
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:It looks to me like it gets hit in the side, and the explosion forces out through the top hatch, cooking the magazine in the process. Seems like this is a known vulnerability of the BMP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMP-1#Protection_issues
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2012 16:15
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Like others said, it's the thing you say over there, cool guys say it in TV and videos when poo poo blows up, so guys say it in real life to feel cool, it doesn't require you to be a fanatic. It's like how drat near everyone says as-salaam alaikum and insh'allah. The other aspect of this is that Islamism has real appeal as a fairer, more progressive system that what is currently in place. One of the central ideas of Sharia law is that it claims jurisdiction over all, and is intended to be universally and fairly applied. That is to say, none are supposed to be above the law. As a theory of law, it does have extreme drawbacks in terms of having archaic, immutable, and sometimes cruel proscriptions. However, it is still a step up from systems that are or recently were de facto (Syria, Libya, Egypt) or de jure (Saudi Arabia, Bahrain) organized on the principle of L'État, c'est moi.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2012 17:09
|
|
|
Jesus loving Christ I guess the best thing you can say is at least it was over quickly for the crew. That is some intense poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2012 17:12
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Talking about tanks and APC's getting hit by things... Certain types of RPGs utilize a shaped charge(i.e. an EFP), as do most man portable anti-armor weapons.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2012 18:52
|
|
|
Veins McGee posted:Certain types of RPGs utilize a shaped charge(i.e. an EFP), as do most man portable anti-armor weapons. Yeah I knew a lot of shoulder fired weapons have shaped charges, but it's hard to see what actually hits the BMP. It almost looks like there's a primary explosion a bit to the side of it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2012 19:30
|
|
|
With the direction and angle the initial penetration comes from, if it's an RPG/shoulder fired weapon that dude has big brass ones because he waited until the BMP was almost on top of him before firing...which makes me think it was an emplaced mine/IED with a shaped charge warhead.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2012 00:31
|
|
|
At 0:02 it looks like a T-72 with its turret traversed backwards, note the diagonal glacis outlined over the mudguards. It doesn't have an APC/IFV profile anyway. Around 0:04 you can also see a barrel with what looks like smoke coming out of it. The cook-off looks looks pretty heavy too, lots of propellant, which I don't see happening with an autocannon armed vehicle. Ammo carousel hit by spall, typical T-72 kill I guess. Then there's this pic with the same building in the background: 
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2012 01:49
|
|
|
Oh wow I didn't even notice the smoke out of the barrel until you pointed that out, nice catch. That's definitely a tank.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2012 02:52
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:With the direction and angle the initial penetration comes from, if it's an RPG/shoulder fired weapon that dude has big brass ones because he waited until the BMP was almost on top of him before firing...which makes me think it was an emplaced mine/IED with a shaped charge warhead. Going from the sound, it seems more like an RPG. There's about a tenth-second delay between the video and audio due to distance. Taking that into account, there is a definite "Whoosh-Bang...WHOOOOSHBANG!" with the initial bang being the detonation of whatever penetrated the tank's armour. Also, inexperience and being caught by surprise with a target at short range can be easily mistaken for big brass ones. It also seems like the shot came from the side, so the shooter could have been waiting for the tank to cross his line of fire.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2012 04:53
|
|
|
I'd be surprised if the gunner was even alive afterwards. Also gently caress being inside armour anywhere anytime. If you're not breaching the ice above a black, icy lake in Northern Norway you're being smeared out against a steel surface somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2012 08:29
|
|
|
It's definitely one of the bmp models, look at the high angle of the front of the hull, t-72s don't have that kind of angle.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2012 14:39
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:With the direction and angle the initial penetration comes from, if it's an RPG/shoulder fired weapon that dude has big brass ones because he waited until the BMP was almost on top of him before firing...which makes me think it was an emplaced mine/IED with a shaped charge warhead. Don't most RPG's have a minimum distance flown before the warhead is armed?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2012 16:41
|
|
daskrolator posted:It's definitely one of the bmp models, look at the high angle of the front of the hull, t-72s don't have that kind of angle. Assuming that thick plume of greyish smoke that jets out as the vehicle picks up speed is exhaust, it's on the wrong side to be from a BMP. T-72s exhaust on the left rear. BMPs exhaust from right center.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2012 17:25
|
|
|
Veins McGee posted:Assuming that thick plume of greyish smoke that jets out as the vehicle picks up speed is exhaust, it's on the wrong side to be from a BMP. T-72s exhaust on the left rear. BMPs exhaust from right center. I don't think that's exhaust, looks more like smoke from the primary and secondary effects of being penetrated by the warhead.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2012 17:54
|
|
|
It is coming out of the penetration made by the initial explosion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2012 18:10
|
|
|
daskrolator posted:It's definitely one of the bmp models, look at the high angle of the front of the hull, t-72s don't have that kind of angle. Look at the drive wheel size compared to the road wheels, they're practically the same size on BMPs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2012 20:13
|
|
Koesj posted:Look at the drive wheel size compared to the road wheels, they're practically the same size on BMPs. Also, the size of the turret compared to the body. BMP-1s/BMP-2s have a small dome shaped turret. BMP-3s have a totally different profile than the vehicle in the picture. Compare the size of the roadwheels to the overall height of the vehicle. BMP-1/2 have much smaller roadwheels relative to their hull than a T-72 daskrolator posted:I don't think that's exhaust, looks more like smoke from the primary and secondary effects of being penetrated by the warhead. mikerock posted:It is coming out of the penetration made by the initial explosion. The smoke appears to be coming from high on the hull and to the rear. The strike, whether IED or AT rocket/missile, appeared to hit approx mid hull beneath the turret. The smoke plume also coincides with the vehicle picking up speed.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2012 22:11
|
|
|
Koesj posted:At 0:02 it looks like a T-72 with its turret traversed backwards, note the diagonal glacis outlined over the mudguards. It doesn't have an APC/IFV profile anyway. Around 0:04 you can also see a barrel with what looks like smoke coming out of it. The cook-off looks looks pretty heavy too, lots of propellant, which I don't see happening with an autocannon armed vehicle. Ammo carousel hit by spall, typical T-72 kill I guess. Slightly on Topic question: is the T-72 autoloader flawed? I've read about how the T-72 was first developed, and everybody makes a point about how it has a cheaper, slower autoloading system than the T-62 and the T-80. Was it a good system when it was first made, and just aged badly?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2012 22:21
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Slightly on Topic question: is the T-72 autoloader flawed? I've read about how the T-72 was first developed, and everybody makes a point about how it has a cheaper, slower autoloading system than the T-62 and the T-80. Was it a good system when it was first made, and just aged badly? I don't know about that, but I do seem to remember reading something about how export models of the T72 lack some kind of armored ring or somesuch around the round that's held ready in the loader, which is why you see so many dramatic cookoffs of them. With basically all soviet armor the export models are pretty crappy compared to what the Soviets/Russians used. The explanation for this I heard was that it was equal parts them not wanting to sell their best tech to other people and using foreign contract models to develop techniques and shop-floor expertise for making the vehicles much quicker, simpler, and cheaper with an eye towards cranking those out en mass for domestic consumption in a WW3 situation. Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 22:25 on Jun 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2012 22:23
|
|
|
Shamelessly stolen from tanknet: I'm not sure about the exhaust but the smoke's a different kind of color what's than coming out of the turret. It might just be the smoke generator btw, a useful T-XX feature for when you're under attack. The thingy that looks like a barrel might just be anything with the quality of this video but what gives it away for me is the puff of smoke that spurts out of it under some pressure. The flash fire seems to be on the left side of the turret, that's on the commander's position ie. the guy who's most likely to ride hatch open. As Veins already pointed out the roadwheels compared to overall silhouette are pretty obvious it away but little things like what looks like a rear turret stowage box and the diagonal glacis silhouette over the mudguards pan out too. Simple angles can be quite deceiving in a shaky, low quality vid like this, it's the big picture that makes me believe this is probably a T-72 driving forward with its turret traversed 180 degrees. Nebakenezzer posted:Slightly on Topic question: is the T-72 autoloader flawed? I've read about how the T-72 was first developed, and everybody makes a point about how it has a cheaper, slower autoloading system than the T-62 and the T-80. Was it a good system when it was first made, and just aged badly? That'd be T-64 and T-80, which is more like a family of tanks (same goes for the T-72 and T-90). It wasn't even the best system when introduced since the -64 came out some years before. The -72 was a second line vehicle all the way, it spruced up the numbers and was a great sell to their closest (but, in the Soviet view, inherently untrustworthy) allies like the GDR, Poland and Czechoslovakia all down to African hellholes. I believe the GSFG never had any -72s in their TO&E, it was all T-64 and upwards. Koesj fucked around with this message at 22:36 on Jun 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2012 22:28
|
|
|
Sorry for derail, but I know we were talking about games a little while ago. Bought Naval War: Arctic Circle while it was on sale this weekend...it's got a pretty awful narrative (horribly broken English that sounds like something I would have written as a 12-year old who just read Red Storm Rising), but gameplay is at least somewhat entertaining. The UI is clunky, but I'm still having fun ordering units around and playing commander. I really wouldn't pay more than $10 for this (which is what I paid). Hopefully some good custom missions come out soon. Learning a lot about NATO sea hardware (most of the missions so far are using European vessels/equipment coupled with American-derived air equipment). Anyone else try playing it yet?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2012 22:46
|
|
|
There's a whole thread about it in Games. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3479034 I didn't like the demo so I didn't buy it, but they keep patching it, so maybe it'll get better over time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2012 22:51
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12m58k1NDn4 "Hey LT, why the gently caress are you driving your convertible on the flight line?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2012 23:01
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I don't know about that, but I do seem to remember reading something about how export models of the T72 lack some kind of armored ring or somesuch around the round that's held ready in the loader, which is why you see so many dramatic cookoffs of them. Yeah, what I've heard is that the T-62-63-64 was everything the Soviets wanted (and the first tank to be called an MBT, the first to mount a smoothbore gun etc.) But it was both "too expensive" (a somewhat tricky statement with Communists) and contained too much advanced technology. So they made the T-72, a modern MBT built to a price. You'd think they would forego building knock down T-72s for export when the tank was designed for export in the first place...
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 01:17
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Yeah, what I've heard is that the T-62-63-64 was everything the Soviets wanted (and the first tank to be called an MBT, the first to mount a smoothbore gun etc.) But it was both "too expensive" (a somewhat tricky statement with Communists) and contained too much advanced technology. So they made the T-72, a modern MBT built to a price. You'd think they would forego building knock down T-72s for export when the tank was designed for export in the first place... 1)Even in a communist/socialist society, you still run into issues of scarcity. 2)The T-72 wasn't strictly an 'export tank'. It was designed to be used in motor rifle units as a general purpose/infantry support tank while the T-64 was designed to fight other MBTs in independent tank units.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 01:43
|
|
|
Late developments in this thread has taught me how little I know about tanks other than the strv-122. The extent of what I was taught about Russian armor was pretty much "here's what they look like, shoot them until they burn". IIRC the leo2 can pack 45 rounds with an average propellant weight of maybe 20 kilograms, I forget these things. Assuming a T-72 carries something similar it's about a ton of gunpowder burning in a confined space 
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 08:15
|
|
|
movax posted:Sorry for derail, but I know we were talking about games a little while ago. Bought Naval War: Arctic Circle davecrazy posted:There's a whole thread about it in Games. I wrote that OP when I was still pretty excited about the game, so to be honest it's more praiseworthy than it probably should be. I still love the idea and feel of the game, but some things, especially air combat, get really frustrating pretty quickly. I haven't actually played it for a while though so patches might have made it better. They seem to be patching a lot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 10:47
|
|
|
How did Soviet units earn the "Guards" designation. Also, who wants to do a PbP game of Twilight:2000?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 11:47
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:How did Soviet units earn the "Guards" designation. Guards units are elite units and formations in the armed forces of the former Soviet Union, Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine. These units were awarded Guards status after distinguishing themselves in service, and are considered to have elite status. The Guards designation originated during the Eastern Front (World War II) of 1941–45, its name coming from the Tsarist Imperial Guard.[1] Belarusian: Гвардыя, Hvardyya, Russian: Гвардия, Gvardіya, Ukrainian: Гвардія, Hvardiya. [edit] History The title of the Soviet Guards was first introduced on September 18, 1941 in accordance with the decision of the Headquarters of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief (Stavka Verkhovnogo Glavnokomanduyuschego) and by the order №308 of the People's Commissar of Defense for the distinguished services during the Yelnya Offensive. The 100th, 127th, 153rd and 161st Rifle Divisions were renamed into the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Guards Divisions, respectively. The Soviet 316th Rifle Division was renamed to the 8th Guards Rifle Division on November 18, 1941, following the actions of the panfilovtsy and was given the Panfilovskaya title in honor of its late commander Ivan Panfilov. By December 31, 1941 the 107th, 120th, 64th, 316th, 78th, and 52nd Rifle Divisions had become the 5th through 10th Guards Rifle Divisions.[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guards_unit
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 14:38
|
|
|
baupdeth posted:Guards units are elite units and formations in the armed forces of the former Soviet Union, Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine. These units were awarded Guards status after distinguishing themselves in service, and are considered to have elite status. The Guards designation originated during the Eastern Front (World War II) of 1941–45, its name coming from the Tsarist Imperial Guard.[1] Belarusian: Гвардыя, Hvardyya, Russian: Гвардия, Gvardіya, Ukrainian: Гвардія, Hvardiya. Did Guards units get better material than other units?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 14:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 08:10 |
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Yeah, what I've heard is that the T-62-63-64 was everything the Soviets wanted (and the first tank to be called an MBT, the first to mount a smoothbore gun etc.) But it was both "too expensive" (a somewhat tricky statement with Communists) and contained too much advanced technology. So they made the T-72, a modern MBT built to a price. You'd think they would forego building knock down T-72s for export when the tank was designed for export in the first place... Actually, the evolution goes a bit like this  They started off with the T-54/55 which was considered to be sufficent for a bit, but with the Patton and other such tanks started being deployed they got concerned with the T-55's firepower and armor. Enter stage left the T-62 which was basically a bigger T-55 with a 115mm smooth-bore gun. The problem is that once it started being introduced, they had just developed new ammo for the 100mm on the T-55 which gave it comparable penetration to the T-62. Which is a problem when the T-62 is more expensive and only has marginally better armor protection. (this is why none of the other WP nations every bought the T-62.) Enter stage left the T-64 which had the new 125mm smooth-bore 2A46 which was small, fast, well armored and as mentioned carried a big stick with an auto-loader and even a stabilizer (holy poo poo!). Problem was that it was kinda fuckin' expensive and as such nobody but USSR tank units would get them. They needed a tank to flesh out the ranks. The T-72. Which was a tank taking the new innovations of the T-64 but also trying to make them drat cheaper. Same gun, similar protection, worse auto-loader and stabilizer. For both of these tanks, much modernization was done with them such as ERA, better sights, ammo and stabilizers. However, not wanting to sit on their laurels, the T-80 was made from the "line" of the T-64 to bring about much needed armor improvements to the base hull. However, then the glorious people's republics fell apart, and that left Russia's main T-64/80 factories in the now independent Ukraine. Ooops. Combining this with some boneheaded and retarded use of T-80's in Grozny, they decided to Phase out the T-80 and replace them with a very much modernized T-72: the T-90. The T-90 was intended to both be cheap and carry next gen equipment like anti-missile systems. Meanwhile, the Ukraine has been going nutso keeping the T-64/80 up to date, including the "T-84 Oplot", mostly with export in mind. Now that I've finished uni, I might make a big effort post about it.. Edit: Gaurds units did get favorable logistics and picks of replacements. However being in a Gaurds unit did not make you a guardsman by default! You first had to survive a battle before you got that sweet sweet payrise and title to pick up Dami's with 
Xerxes17 fucked around with this message at 14:56 on Jun 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 14:53
|
|
