World news thread

User avatar
Markenzwieback
Captain
Posts: 1532
Joined: Tue 27 Oct 2015 17:06
Contact:

Re: World news thread

Postby Markenzwieback » Mon 23 Oct 2017 00:58

Turks driving those Leo 2s might have had significant influence on their performance though.

Edit: And for those talking about ammo storage hits: https://youtu.be/X6nZvDn6gRQ?t=1m42s (The original video of the hit I cannot find anymore, must have been removed from YouTube.)
Last edited by Markenzwieback on Mon 23 Oct 2017 09:04, edited 2 times in total.
Image

User avatar
Frencho
Lieutenant
Posts: 1239
Joined: Thu 13 Aug 2015 19:40
Contact:

Re: World news thread

Postby Frencho » Mon 23 Oct 2017 03:44

holoween wrote:so either the driver had his hatch open and got killed by the blast or the atgm actually penetrated and the rest of the crew got lucky.

also note that all the ammo cook offs have been due to hits from the side or rear to the ammo rack.


I suppose you’re asking about the Emirati Leclerc and not the T-90 on the video I linked (yes the hatch was open to handle the desert heat and Shtora turned off, they shut down the APU to preserve fuel I bet)

In the case of the Leclerc here is the source in French.
So for full disclosure this is a redacted report written by a French Army Lieutenant meant for PR on defence enthusiast circles. It’s based on an actual French Army report, which in turn is based on the United Arab Emirates armed forces feedback from the Yemen Campaign. As you can see, French Army verdict is pretty stern and the Military Academy is not that thrilled about the Leclerc’s performance.

There’s no specific details on were the Leclerc in question was hit, but the most likely scenario is that the ATGM was aimed at the driver’s viewport, which is an obvious weakpoint.

To support this:
A) The driver was killed, most likely by the molten HEAT jet going down from the periscope trough his viewport somehow.
B) The commander sits right behind the driver’s head, and the commander’s legs had to be amputated. The gunner was unscathed.
C) There was little damage to the Leclerc itself, which rules out a Lower Front Plate or upper Front Plate penetration. On top of that the Leclerc in question was easily repaired in Yemen. A broken UFP or LFP means you need decent workshop to repair the tank and in all likelihood those advanced facilities with all the spares and machining are in the UAE.
D) There was no ammunition cook off and the 18-round drum barrel is sitting right next to the driver (another blueprint, including the turret). You pierce the UFP or LFP and the MBT goes boom just like Leopards 2s, which also store ammo in the front of the hull (that’s what Grabbedbythespets was talking about).

Consequently, the ATGM crew had good aim and they hit the driver’s viewport; his head was blown up, then the commander’s legs and seat absorbed the rest of the molten jet.

Xeno426 wrote:
Shrike wrote:https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-h0GqAwMQ4Q8/ ... AAF_6H.jpg
looking at this image reminds me of something along the lines that was said by some german steel fanboy: "is just scuttled, leoaprd 2 still bsest tank evr"

Looks like it was hit with a bomb.


Indeed that looks like the Turkish Air Force or the Coalition bombed the disabled Leo2A4 so the Jihadist could not salvage it.

Fade2Gray wrote:Oh come now Frencho, don't be salty over being called out for pushing baseless information. You made a claim, you didn't have evidence for it, even tried to use a "shift the burden" fallacy on me, and I dismissed your claims that do not even get at what I was worried about. If you really want to be an EdgeLord about it and try to dance around it, well...

nice to see that Trumpets are not the only ones who push fake news. :mrgreen:


I’m not the fallacious one here Fade.
So which one is it?: am I pushing baseless information (insinuating I have no evidence for it), am I fabricating fake news or am I pushing piss poor evidence?

What’s really going on is that I’m arguing something you don’t like and you have nothing to substantiate your retort so you regress to High School bully shenanigans.

I’m showing MBTs being hit by ATGMs because I haven’t found any evidence of MBTs exchanging main gound rounds. Moreover HEAT ATGMs tend to not beat frontal armour as reliably as kinetic penetrators. Yet I’m presenting 65+ ton M1A2s, Leopard 2A4s, Merkava IVs getting frontally damaged by ATGMs while contrasting it with lighter MBTs such as the T-90 and Leclerc handling those frontal shots better to show that more weight = better protection is not a rule nor an absolute fact.

Therefore maybe consider the possibility that 27 years of progress in the field of metallurgy might meant that the armour modules on 2010s MBTs are better yet lighter than the ones from the late 80s and early 90s.

Now to address your point about main gun rounds, If you cringe at the Type 10s ability to handle a modern Russian round you should equally cringe at am M1A2’s, Leopard 2’s or Challenger 2’s ability to handle that very same round.

I don’t know if the Japanese follow the same procedure as the French, but here a tank's glacis has to be able to withstand a round from its own gun, back in the late 80s to early 90s the test was done with OFL 120 G1 and OFL 120 F1 APFSDS-T rounds fired from the GIAT CN120-26/52 (here is the source if you feel like watching 42 min vintage documentary about the Leclerc, the glacis module is shown shrugging off the round during the trials).
Common sense leads me to believe that the Japanese also tested the Type 10 glacis against it’s own Japan Steel Works 120 mm L55 smoothbore cannon firing JM33 APFSDS and that newer Type 10 exclusive APFSDS round, both rounds should be at a minimum as good as modern Chinese or Russian APFSDS rounds.

See I’m not shifting the burden of proof on you, I’m genuinely curious, you brought up random number, “There's a significant difference in survivability when you start talking about 15-20+ tons of weight difference”. Now I want to know if you have anything to substantiate this. At best I learn something from this exchange, and worst you have nothing compelling to share and I end up wasting time.

So Fade, if you want to dance with me at least learn to follow the tempo.

Or maybe attending College has not yet managed to instill the basics of critical thinking and academic exchange through your middle-aged grunt mindset?

In case he edits it:
Spoiler : :
Image

holoween
Warrant Officer
Posts: 422
Joined: Fri 24 Feb 2012 16:59
Contact:

Re: World news thread

Postby holoween » Mon 23 Oct 2017 05:10

Frencho wrote:
In the case of the Leclerc here is the source in French.




this is what your report sais according to google translate:

On the other hand, a Leclerc would have been definitively neutralized by a direct shot of anti-tank guided missile. The hollow charge would have passed through the front of the tank at the cockpit killing the pilot and injuring the tank commander on the legs. The model of the missile is not known but in the light of the photos of the damage and following the videos posted by the rebels on the fights around ma'rib we can reasonably think that it is not about Kornet but rather AT5 or AT5B Konkurs / Konkurs M. The machine could have been re-engageable after repair because no technical element necessary for the implementation of the weapon system was damaged.


so basically what this report sais is the ufp or lfp got penetrated.
a hit in the ufp or lfp should just cause a fairly small hole which doesnt really affect the tanks usability much. whereas a hit through the drivers viewport would be a bigger issue.
also considering that the tc legs and the driver got hit by the jet means the shot didnt come from high enough elevation to go through the drivers optics. (at least if im not completely off on the geometry)


Frencho wrote: You pierce the UFP or LFP and the MBT goes boom just like Leopards 2s, which also store ammo in the front of the hull (that’s what Grabbedbythespets was talking about).


for it to blow up the actual ammo has to be hit not just the armour penetrated somewhere. and yes the leo 2 shares the same problem

tbh i find it ammusing how any time one western tank gets disabled or destroyed a swarm of posters tries to analyze how they really didnt get blown up.

User avatar
Fade2Gray
General
Posts: 8363
Joined: Wed 1 May 2013 23:30
Location: IED proof in Iraq
Contact:

Re: World news thread

Postby Fade2Gray » Mon 23 Oct 2017 05:25

Frencho wrote:I’m not the fallacious one here Fade.

You used a "shifting the burden" fallacy and yet have the audacity to say this? Curious.

What’s really going on is that I’m arguing something you don’t like and you have nothing to substantiate your retort so you regress to High School bully shenanigans.

Of course I don't like it, I completely and utterly hate claims based on things with faulty or non-existent evidence.

High school shenanigans indeed that you are letting your pride be wounded so easily by a light joke.

Now to address your point about main gun rounds, If you cringe at the Type 10s ability to handle a modern Russian round you should equally cringe at am M1A2’s, Leopard 2’s or Challenger 2’s ability to handle that very same round.

Does the Type 10 use DU inserts?

See I’m not shifting the burden of proof on you...

Now this is just getting childish. You damn near went "Google it yourself" and got called out on it, period. Trying to provide more information later doesn't change the fact, especially when it still doesn't support your original claims. The fact that you are piling on even more fallacies in an attempt at being edgy as this long winded post drags on is even more damning. Even went deflo on me "in case he edits it"... SMH. :roll:

Sorry not sorry that I deeply wounded your fragile pride, reminds me of a certain POTUS we have at this moment.

Now, do you have hard proof of your claims or not?
Image
Image
Think you have what it takes to enlist into the military? You sure about that?

User avatar
Frencho
Lieutenant
Posts: 1239
Joined: Thu 13 Aug 2015 19:40
Contact:

Re: World news thread

Postby Frencho » Mon 23 Oct 2017 06:51

holoween wrote:this is what your report sais according to google translate:

On the other hand, a Leclerc would have been definitively neutralized by a direct shot of anti-tank guided missile. The hollow charge would have passed through the front of the tank at the cockpit killing the pilot and injuring the tank commander on the legs. The model of the missile is not known but in the light of the photos of the damage and following the videos posted by the rebels on the fights around ma'rib we can reasonably think that it is not about Kornet but rather AT5 or AT5B Konkurs / Konkurs M. The machine could have been re-engageable after repair because no technical element necessary for the implementation of the weapon system was damaged.


so basically what this report sais is the ufp or lfp got penetrated.
a hit in the ufp or lfp should just cause a fairly small hole which doesnt really affect the tanks usability much. whereas a hit through the drivers viewport would be a bigger issue.
also considering that the tc legs and the driver got hit by the jet means the shot didnt come from high enough elevation to go through the drivers optics. (at least if im not completely off on the geometry)

Frencho wrote: You pierce the UFP or LFP and the MBT goes boom just like Leopards 2s, which also store ammo in the front of the hull (that’s what Grabbedbythespets was talking about).


for it to blow up the actual ammo has to be hit not just the armour penetrated somewhere. and yes the leo 2 shares the same problem

tbh i find it ammusing how any time one western tank gets disabled or destroyed a swarm of posters tries to analyze how they really didnt get blown up.


The driver’s viewport sits on top of the UFP.
Viewport consists of two slits, a forward facing one and a second lateral one facing the left side.
Here are some pictures of the driver’s cockpit from the inside of the Leclerc

Spoiler : :
Image
Image
Image
Image


As you can see, the viewport is not really lined up with the drivers face, it is placed to his left, nonetheless it is close enough to driver's head. Also if the ATGM impacted the second lefter-most slit, it looks really lined up/angled towards the TC.
I mean pretty much looks like the viewport exposes the crew compartment to plunging shots aimed at the viewport episcope slits, definitely a weakspot.

Molten HEAT jet, shrapnel and spall getting trapped whitin the viewport slits could bounce it's way out down the episcope and hit the driver's head and upper torso, then ricochet onto the TC legs.
Or the ATGM simply impacted the driver's hatch and pierced through it as it lacks composite armour and the RHA around that area is thinner than on the rest of the UFP (another weakspot on most tanks).

What I presented before is just my own theory of what happened, so I could be wrong.

I’ve read on French forums other theories, such as the Emirates' Leclerc getting
into hull down position and going over a ramp or slope, which exposed the Lower Front Plate to the incoming ATGM (another guy in Armored Warfare english forums thinks it was a belly plate hit). But I don’t see how the jet would travel upwards in the direction of the TC legs in that scenario, plus it would impact on the driver's lower body and seat (much more stuff to absorb the blast).

The article mentions the Houti rebels posting some videos of the Leclerc takedown but I never managed to find those (if anyone finds any please share them), and the mentioned pictures must be classified.

Fade, are you going to keep deflecting?

Here let me turn the tables on you:
Does the M1A2 use Carbon nanotube metal matrix composites inserts?

Quote from that wiki article: Carbon nanotubes are the strongest and stiffest materials yet discovered in terms of tensile strength and elastic modulus respectively.

It beats depleted uranium when it comes to tensile strength, although DU is denser.

Seeing you’re a College student now, open an account and read through this study.

Now are you going to start substantiating anything or just gonna keep deflecting and distracting. Or did I stir you up so much you can’t browse, post and share links refuting my hypothesis.

User avatar
Fade2Gray
General
Posts: 8363
Joined: Wed 1 May 2013 23:30
Location: IED proof in Iraq
Contact:

Re: World news thread

Postby Fade2Gray » Mon 23 Oct 2017 11:48

Frencho wrote:Now are you going to start substantiating anything or just gonna keep deflecting and distracting. Or did I stir you up so much you can’t browse, post and share links refuting my hypothesis.

Wait, let me get this straight...

you've made claims that you failed to back up with hard evidence, got called on that and for using multiple fallacies, and now I ask a question and you are warping it into this? You jumped on one single question to somehow try to twist your way out of being called out for providing bogus claims and no evidence? Yet apparently I am the one deflecting?

Tell me more about how you are not being fallacious when you continue keep using fallacies. :roll:

Are you going to provide hard evidence of these frontal penetrations or not? In case you forgot, here's what triggered you into being so defensive and edgy.

Frencho wrote:
Fade2Gray wrote:
Frencho wrote:Fast Forward 2015, M1A2s, Leopard 2A4s, T-90s and Merkava IVs (2006 Lebanon) are literally getting blown up by Soviet era ATGMs. Many suffering catastrophic damage with ammunition cook offs, turret pops and all. Yet a Leclerc could take a frontal Kornet ATGM hit with no structural damage and was quickly repaired, driver was killed though.

This is a really bad comparison. Taking a hit from the front is rarely as bad as getting hit from the side, which has happened many times with M1s and Leo2s with the fight against ISIS. Your analysis is flawed.


There's a video of a Saudi M1A2 taking a front ATGM hit with ammunition cook off...

To which I replied with...

Fade2Gray wrote:Please tell me you have more than one case to reference for this, because otherwise I'm going to outright dismiss it. Also, exactly where was it hit?

Of course it all went downhill from there, resulting in you pretty much saying "Google it" in response. Do you have anything to back this up at all, or are you going to try to shift the burden of proof onto me again or Darth Lampshade your way out of this as you have been? Come on Frencho, I'm just a dumb American grunt who doesn't know any better, shouldn't be too hard to bust out the Crayons for me.

I could get into a discussion on DU, as personally I think DU is still king for sabot protection (far less likely to shatter, thus you can use it as a catch plate, plus supposedly it is a lot cheaper than newer materials), but I'm just going to patiently await the evidence I want or for you to just admit you are wrong and messed up.
Image
Image
Think you have what it takes to enlist into the military? You sure about that?

User avatar
Doinize
Lieutenant
Posts: 1316
Joined: Tue 30 Jul 2013 13:14
Contact:

Re: World news thread

Postby Doinize » Wed 25 Oct 2017 09:28

Happy 100th birthday to the bolshevik revolution owo
Image

User avatar
Xeno426
Carbon 13
Posts: 11914
Joined: Tue 13 Mar 2012 21:27
Location: Acheron, Hadley's Hope
Contact:

Re: World news thread

Postby Xeno426 » Wed 25 Oct 2017 14:10

Fade, you might have use of this in the future.
Image
Image
CloakandDagger wrote:And you're one of the people with the shiny colored name. No wonder the game is in the state it's in.

User avatar
Frencho
Lieutenant
Posts: 1239
Joined: Thu 13 Aug 2015 19:40
Contact:

Re: World news thread

Postby Frencho » Wed 25 Oct 2017 18:59

So you conveniently cut my other replies after I posted the videos. Not fishy at all right :mrgreen:

I showed you evidence, then you go on about I need to show more, burden of proof fallacy etc...
You also don’t even bother to read the links I shared.
In the previously shared "below the turret ring" post about the Merkava’s it shows an M1A1HA's turret front pierced by a maverick…

Yeah... So I bust out the crayons for you, now I also need to hold your hand and read you aloud the articles?!

I previously posted one video illustrating my point quite well, showing multiple MBTs being hit by ATGMs; 2 Western Heavys and 1 lighter eastern MBT (T-90) from the same generation.
One of the M1A2 Abrams was hit on the turret’s frontal arc. One of the crewmembers is shown abandoning the MBT, unclear if the 3 others died or just remained shellshocked inside.
The exact same thing happened to the T-90, one of the crewmembers abandoned the MBT, unclear if the 2 others died or just remained shellshocked inside. (hey I though that being 17ish tons lighter it shouldn't handle hits as well as the Abrams :lol: )

Apparently that’s not hard evidence of a frontal hit disabling an M1A2 Abrams.

Shall I remind how all this started? You promoted the notion that a lighter 48 ton MBT can’t handle Russian modern main gun rounds.

So I just showed a heavy MBT (60 tons or more) not being able to handle ATGMs (which tend to have less penetration than kinetic rounds).
So your rule is false, you can outright dismiss the incident I showed as you declared before, still won't change the fact that your rule is false.
I just need one example, one case, just one instance of evidence to shut down your premise.
If you say all swans are white and show you a naturally black swan in the wild, then not all swans are white and your rule is bogus.

Gota grant it yo you Fade, you went to great lengths to distract forum readers from your poor grasp of the relation between weight and volume.

Your premise that 15 to 20 extra tons makes a tank better protected is wrong period. And I proved it.

A Type 10 is a 3-man crew MBT with an autoloader, it’s slightly larger than a type 74.

Therefore it’s roughly 20 % smaller than a 4-man crew, manual loader MBTs from the 80s. Consequently the Type 10 Is inherently lighter than larger western MBTs even if you kept the same armour composition and thickness.

Especially so when its using modern lightweight armour packages.

But sure, go on about being triggered by the mere thought that a 48 or 55 ton 2010s Asian MBT can boast similar armour rating as a 60 to 70-ton Western MBT…

Look there's more, here is a 60-ton M60T Sabra being frontally hit by a Kornet.



Oh wait I thought that being 12 tons heavier than a T-90 it should withstand the ATGM better?! :lol:

So do you have any data or sources to shoot some holes in my hypothesis?
Let me remind it to you, seeing you have shown so much bad faith throughout the entire exchange:

2000s to 2010s Asian MBT designs, benefiting from 27 years of progress in the field of metallurgy are more compact, lighter and as well protected as larger western MBT designs from the late 80s.

So get to the deed instead of grandstanding with "muh, muh, show me even more Abrams being shot frontally!". :roll:

User avatar
Fade2Gray
General
Posts: 8363
Joined: Wed 1 May 2013 23:30
Location: IED proof in Iraq
Contact:

Re: World news thread

Postby Fade2Gray » Wed 25 Oct 2017 22:16

Xeno426 wrote:Fade, you might have use of this in the future.
Image

Now I want to reinstall that game, sneak around, and shock everyone.

*skims Frencho's post*

Frencho, you seem hung up on denying your use of fallacies.

Frencho wrote:
Fade2Gray wrote:Please tell me you have more than one case to reference for this, because otherwise I'm going to outright dismiss it. Also, exactly where was it hit?


Correction, the one suffering an ammunition cook off was hit on the turret bustle from upper ground. There's two other Abrams being hit on this video, I'm positive at least one was hit on the turrets frontal arc resulting in a mission kill (second one in the vid dug in position).



There ware GIFs of other Saudi M1A2s being hit by ATGMs (They've lost about 20), you can try googling them or read through SteelBeast or Armored Warfare threads if you have the time to find them.

another505 wrote:AESA radar, for air/ground detection, APS and firing solution


All these features were already present on the K2 Black Panther, which was officially introduced in 2013, so before Armata... South East Asians are on the top of their game ATM when it comes to MBT tech!

And here it is, highlighted for you. This is a "shifting the burden of proof" fallacy. Don't worry, I took a screencap of it as well in case you edit it in the future. :mrgreen: There's more fallacies you have used as well, but feel free to deny them all you want.

Frencho wrote:Your premise that 15 to 20 extra tons makes a tank better protected is wrong period. And I proved it.

You are assuming what I'm getting at. When I'm thinking of the Type 10 being able to take a hit from a main gun round, I'm not comparing it to a Leopard 2A4, or a M60T (LOL), I'm comparing it to something like the latest M1s. To compare the Type 10's armor to a much older generation tank is a fallacious comparison...

which is what you are doing, repeatedly. Not fishy or suspect, at all.

But sure, go on about being triggered by the mere thought that a 48 or 55 ton 2010s Asian MBT can boast similar armour rating as a 60 to 70-ton Western MBT…

Yes, I'm the one who is triggered here. :roll:

2000s to 2010s Asian MBT designs, benefiting from 27 years of progress in the field of metallurgy are more compact, lighter and as well protected as larger western MBT designs from the late 80s.

So get to the deed instead of grandstanding with "muh, muh, show me even more Abrams being shot frontally!". :roll:

Here it is, in order to justify your fallacies, you have to put words into my mouth.

Frencho wrote:So you conveniently cut my other replies after I posted the videos. Not fishy at all right :mrgreen:

You assume much. Seems like the more you bury yourself, the more edgy you get.

I showed you evidence, then you go on about I need to show more, burden of proof fallacy etc...
You also don’t even bother to read the links I shared.
In the previously shared "below the turret ring" post about the Merkava’s it shows an M1A1HA's turret front pierced by a maverick…

You realize what kind of fallacy this is, right? Do I need to explain it to you?

I'm talking about taking a hit from a modern Russian sabot round, and you reference to an American ATGM with a monster of a warhead instead? If I was in any tank in existence right now and I knew a Maverick was shot at me, I'd just kiss my ass goodbye. Off to partake of the pasta with the Flying Spaghetti Monster I go! I mean, which fallacy should I reference this to? Appeal to extremes? Shifting goalposts? I don't even know, the sheer volume of your fallacies is catching me off guard here.

Frencho, you have literally buried yourself in a variety of fallacies. When you feel like owning up to them instead of trying to outdo Donald Trump in their use, feel free to come back and discuss things with me again.
Image
Image
Think you have what it takes to enlist into the military? You sure about that?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests