![]() |
![]() |
||
|
Quote:
|
![]() |
||
![]() |
Quote:
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
||
|
Quote:
As to the pictures the first one indeed fell off the cliff and the second picture is the result of a massive IED explosion directly beneath the tank, there was an article about it on CNN i believe, there was a pile of mortar shells, aerial bombs and god knows what else all wired to blow. |
![]() |
||
![]() |
Quote:
You don't have a valid argument old chap, you lost what little credibility you had by accusing British tankers of cowardice by your “With the crew cowering inside”, then stated that Sherman was telling lies, with half truths THEN your "false crap" statement. Were you there when the Challenger was stranded? No you wasn't, neither was I. I'm not claiming I was anywhere, yet you claim by your outlandish statements that you know everything there is to know about anti tank weaponry and armour. Your highly obnoxious attitude that everything you say is 100% correct is ludicrous in the extreme. As for your “aguing” with children, I have heard five year olds who were a lot more informative, concise and lucid then you are. Your expertise and command of the English language and spelling is atrocious to say the least, doesn't your computer have a spell checker? If it has, then I suggest that you learn how to use it. Be my myth buster? LOL I'd take anything you say with a huge pinch of salt and demand a second opinion. In conclusion, you don't have anything to teach Challenger crews, myself or anyone else for that matter. Whats the matter, don't you like the fact that American tanks as well as just about every tank built including the Challenger2 is not 100% impervious to attack? I thought you were an intelligent chap, able to get into an informative and civil discussion. It seems I was somewhat mistaken. |
![]() |
|||
![]() |
Quote:
RPG 7 and RPG 29 are both capable anti tank weapons. These weapons can penetrate any tank in the world, given they are fired at the correct angle, at the right place on the tank. Im not saying this as a theory, Im saying this as a fact. Think over every part of the M1A2, Leopard 2A6, Merkava MK4, let alone the Bradly and other IFV. If you can honestly tell me every area is protected to 700mm RHS, tell me Im wrong. If not, which you cant, apologize for calling me a child. Quote:
Ah, thats on another thread... |
![]() |
|
|
[quote=SHERMAN;468896
RPG 7 and RPG 29 are both capable anti tank weapons. These weapons can penetrate any tank in the world, given they are fired at the correct angle, at the right place on the tank. Im not saying this as a theory, Im saying this as a fact. Think over every part of the M1A2, Leopard 2A6, Merkava MK4, let alone the Bradly and other IFV. If you can honestly tell me every area is protected to 700mm RHS, tell me Im wrong. If not, which you cant, apologize for calling me a child. [/quote] As a fact neither RPG 7 nor RPG 29 are capable of hull penetration in regards to the latest tanks, not the sides, not the rear. There's pictures out there of Merkavas who had virtually every external system rpged off rendered immobile and having the mg mount blown off but the hull proper was left intact and thats regardless of the angle. I am aware of Russians giving specific penetration values but given that there was not one incident where an israeli Merkava had an rpg missile penetrate into its interior i'm inclined to put these values in the same place as so many more russian claims of technical capacity, on a propaganda b******t shelf. (Mind you there were Merkavas blown open using AT missiles but not RPG 7s or 29s. ) |
![]() |
||
![]() |
Quote:
|
![]() |
||
|
Quote:
The discussion is moot though since you can still render a tank useless if you put out the optics or tracks and that can be done even with a WW2 Bazooka ( of course its easier said than done ). |
![]() |