I've seen out their armoured vehicles with the botton shaped like a V . That way when a mine/IED goes off under the belly of the vehicle, it deflects the explosive force into two different directions away from the vehicle. Anyone know the vehicle with that sort of belly protection? Is it effective (in theory it is, however when put up to the test it may not be)?

Originally Posted by Alexin_Cobra

according to the story on Wkipedia, the sites were not taken out at the same time. the drivers sites taken out first and the driver backed up the and threw track, the n the other sites got taken out. As soon as they got hit the gunner should have been firing. I have been looking at how many optics sites it has and it only 3 is mentioned. No back up sites mentioned.

Don't you mean sights?

One thing you need to realise, terrs are not idiots, they know the weak spots on any tank including sighting optics and engine compartments. I wasnt at the incident nor was I in the tank, so I dont know if the gunner opened fire, neither do you. Just how many optics do you need? Challenger optics are sufficient for the job. A valuble lesson, never underestimate anyone, you'll come a cropper in the end if you do.

BTW check out who makes the optics for the Bradley, it might surprise you old chap.

As for RPG's being ineffective against Abrams and Bradleys, I suggest you do a proper search and chat to other "tankers" on this forum. I also seem to remember an Abrams knocked out by an RPG fired from a bridge entoute to Baghdad.

http://www.mco.com/iraq/1717992.html
As the sky darkened rapidly and rain began to fall, a column of Abrams tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles from B, or “Bonecrusher,” Troop, of 3rd Squadron, 7th Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Infantry Division (Mechanized), was pushing forward toward a bridge they were supposed to seize.
The column was still two miles from the bridge, and bunched up more tightly than doctrine would usually call for, when incoming tracer rounds heralded the start of another in a series of ambushes the unit had endured. The troopers shrugged it off — they were getting used to being fired at.
But then something happened that none of them had experienced — something, in fact, that no American soldier had ever experienced. And it happened twice in the space of a few seconds.
A projectile, now thought to be a rocket-propelled grenade, hurtled with the force of a freight train into the back of the tank commanded by Sgt. 1st Class Curtis Anderson, 38, of Sacramento, Calif
Almost simultaneously, a similar jolt rocked Small’s tank, 35 yards behind Anderson’s.
“It felt like the tank bounced,” said tank driver Small, 19, of Greensboro, N.C.
The force of the blast knocked out the tank’s loader, Spc. Brian French, 23, of Billings, Mont., who was climbing down into his seat from his turret hatch at the moment of impact.

Thank God the crew survived.

I'm not saying the Challenger is better then the Abrams, what I AM saying, the Challenger is a tank to be reckoned with and gives nothing away to any other tank in the world

RPG 7 and surely RPG 29 are effective against any tank. You need to be lucky and smart but you can hurt any tank with them. Also consider you now have RPG 7 rockets with 700 mm of RHS penetration...That is alot!

thats some false crap. and read the damn storey on Wikipedia. So if the story is false, then you better come up with a more reliable source of information.

Originally Posted by Alexin_Cobra

thats some false crap. and read the damn storey on Wikipedia. So if the story is false, then you better come up with a more reliable source of information.

LOL Its false crap? Which part is false old chap? BTW it is spelled S T O R Y.

the RPG 7 is not affective to many of our bradleys and tanks]
my brigade has come under RPG attacks all the time in 2007 and we have not lost any Bradleys or tanks to an RPG 7. The RPG 29 was not used in the IRaq war. But since you were not there and didn't do anything ,you just speaking off the top of your head. I had to research the RPG 29 and brief my platoon prior to entering Iraq just in case we came in contact with it there. That weapon was only used in war between Hesbula and Israel. It was fire at weak spot on the side of a Merkarva Tank

i'm asking you, you the one arguing with the posted story.

Originally Posted by Alexin_Cobra

the RPG 7 is not affective to many of our bradleys and tanks]
my brigade has come under RPG attacks all the time in 2007 and we have not lost any Bradleys or tanks to an RPG 7. The RPG 29 was not used in the IRaq war. But since you were not there and didn't do anything ,you just speaking off the top of your head. I had to research the RPG 29 and brief my platoon prior to entering Iraq just in case we came in contact with it there. That weapon was only used in war between Hesbula and Israel. It was fire at weak spot on the side of a Merkarva Tank

Tsk Tsk Your getting all het up old chap. Take deep breaths and calm down to a mild panic.l

Of course I wasnt there, neither were you there when the Challenger lost its track.

Now your saying and I quote "the RPG wasn't effective to many of our Bradleys and tanks" unquote. Does that mean they were effective to some of them? It seems your getting confuggled quite a bit.

As Sherman stated "Also consider you now have RPG 7 rockets with 700 mm of RHS penetration...That is alot!" It seems he shot your argument down in flames.

As I said before, never underestimate anyone, you'll come a cropper in the end.

Your asking me? I'm not arguing anything, your the one who's arguing old chap.

Originally Posted by BritinAfrica

Tsk Tsk Your getting all het up old chap. Take deep breaths and calm down to a mild panic.l

Of course I wasnt there, neither were you there when the Challenger lost its track.

Now your saying and I quote "the RPG wasn't effective to many of our Bradleys and tanks" unquote. Does that mean they were effective to some of them? It seems your getting confuggled quite a bit.

As Sherman stated "Also consider you now have RPG 7 rockets with 700 mm of RHS penetration...That is alot!" It seems he shot your argument down in flames.

As I said before, never underestimate anyone, you'll come a cropper in the end.

Your asking me? I'm not arguing anything, your the one who's arguing old chap.

the RPG statment was for Sherman not you. And he did not shoot my statment down because I researched and I was involved with alot of the attacks in Bahgdad and north of it. He stated half truths. The RPG 29 was not tested against american tanks. Also I witnessed the RPG 7 hit our Bradleys and none penetrated the main armor. It just punched through the reactive armor which is easily replaced by hand.

Originally Posted by Alexin_Cobra

the RPG statment was for Sherman not you. He stated half truths.

LOL, now your saying Sherman is a liar?
How to win friends in influence people lol

Originally Posted by Alexin_Cobra

And he did not shoot my statment down because I researched and I was involved with alot of the attacks in Bahgdad and north of it. The RPG 29 was not tested against american tanks. Also I witnessed the RPG 7 hit our Bradleys and none penetrated the main armor. It just punched through the reactive armor which is easily replaced by hand.

Quite frankly, he did shoot your argument down in flames regarding the RPG7.