Other > Off-topic discussions
OSAMA BIN LADEN DEAD
Nice_Boat:
--- Quote from: Y0ssarian on May 05, 2011, 04:27:51 PM ---Citations, bro? Source? Hardly feasible.
--- End quote ---
I'm not going to dig into tanknet archives or 8000+ page long "Jane's Armour and Artillery" to prove a troll wrong. That doesn't mean there's no other sources though. So - incoming, take cover.
--- Quote from: Y0ssarian on May 05, 2011, 04:27:51 PM ---If you believe a 120mm round cannot penetrate soviet armor at any slope, angle or distance... well, you might as well spend that excess penetration power by lining up 2 T90s and calling it a day. Metamorphically speaking without any patriotic fanaticism... a very large knife through butter. Balls down (lol) or not. Shitty slopped design, shitty soviet armor. Couldn't prove me wrong otherwise even twisting my words. Care to quote? But anyways in regard to DU ammunition, it's pretty much overkill. Literally. But we're going on a tangent from this initial thread's nature and I no longer wish to discuss with a fail troll that had the nerve to ask for "citations" while giving out wikipedia links. Major dead giveaway. At the university level (lol forums), using wikipedia = perma ban from campus. Troll harder, kid, troll harder.
--- End quote ---
No, it can't even penetrate a Kontakt-5 equipped T-Effin-Seventy-Two, not to mention more resilient designs like T-80U or T-90:
--- Quote from: Jane's ---Speaking at a conference on Future Armoured Warfare in London in May, IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness explained that US tests involved firing trials of Russian-built T-72 tanks fitted with Kontakt 5 explosive reactive armor (ERA). In contrast to the original, or `light', type of ERA which is effective only against shaped charge jets, the `heavy' Kontakt 5 ERA is also effective against the long-rod penetrators of APFSDS (armor-piercing, fin-stabilized, discarding sabot) tank gun projectiles. When fitted to T-72 tanks, the `heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU penetrators of M829 APFSDS, fired by the 120mm guns of US M1 Abrams tanks, which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles.
--- End quote ---
Source:
http://articles.janes.com/articles/International-Defence-Review-97/IMPENETRABLE-RUSSIAN-TANK-ARMOR-STANDS-UP-TO-EXAMINATION.html
I think it's enough to establish that you're wrong and a bad troll on top of that, so please stop posting now.
--- Quote from: Y0ssarian on May 05, 2011, 04:27:51 PM ---I can be an anal retentive douchebag, too! Look, this would make be right about two things. Contradicting what you wrote earlier. Fail!
--- End quote ---
How does that make me wrong? The BMP-1s front armor is very sharply sloped and thicker than side or rear, so it can't be penetrated even by repeated .50 cal hits and yes, it can barely be penetrated by autocannons. On the sides and the rear it's not sloped at all, so repeated .50 cal hits could result in a penetration. Shilka's armor isn't as effective on any side. Since I was discussing front armor from the beginning, you're quoting out of context which, sadly, yet again proves you as a bad troll.
--- Quote from: Y0ssarian on May 05, 2011, 04:27:51 PM ---Author of "The Tin Drum" would say otherwise. Polish soldiers mounting horses agianst tanks. Although being a novel of very satire nature... might as well be a comic fallacy over truth.
--- End quote ---
I don't care about the author of "The Tin Drum", I care about historical facts. Polish cavalry was equipped with ATGs, learn to read ToE. Besides - you made the claim, it's on your shoulders to prove it. As far as I know the charge at Krojanty is the only instance of an incident involving Polish cavalry and German tanks where the cavalry was presented as charging the tanks with melee weapons, but it was later proven to be a fraud.
--- Quote from: Y0ssarian on May 05, 2011, 04:27:51 PM ---Whatever the hell you're smoking please share!. Opting out from DU munitions would hardly "defang" our militaries, but Poland already does pretty good job of that on it's own accord. =}
--- End quote ---
Opting out from DU munitions would result in using underperforming munitions, which in turn would defang our militaries, yes. Polish military, despite its shortcomings, is still the most capable ex-WP military in the region.
--- Quote from: Y0ssarian on May 05, 2011, 04:27:51 PM ---P.S I take back everything I said about shitty Soviet tank designs with shitty slopped armor. They are wonderful. Soviet tanks were causing more harm to the crews than any enemy ever could. I never seen such a lackluster effort in protecting tank crews. How's your loaders' limbs feeling today? Wasn't aware tanks can be operated without crews.
--- End quote ---
Yeah, they're uncomfortable. Yeah, they have crappy ammo storage that causes unnecessary crew casualties when the vehicle is taken out of action. And yes, tanks can be operated without a loader, machine autoloaders are pretty much standard in Soviet and some Asian designs.
Y0ssarian:
"This is of course, provided that the round strikes the ERA, which only covers 60% of the frontal aspect of the T-72 series tank mounted with it."
Also perhaps a more recent article would be relative to this discussion.
--- Quote from: Nice_Boat on May 05, 2011, 06:54:58 PM ---How does that make me wrong? The BMP-1s front armor is very sharply sloped and thicker than side or rear, so it can't be penetrated even by repeated .50 cal hits and yes, it can barely be penetrated by autocannons. On the sides and the rear it's not sloped at all, so repeated .50 cal hits could result in a penetration. Shilka's armor isn't as effective on any side. Since I was discussing front armor from the beginning, you're quoting out of context which, sadly, yet again proves you as a bad troll.
--- End quote ---
Entirely wrong! I was mocking you on a point from which you, yourself took out of context. Anyways, it only reinforces my past argument on the subject. You're simply agreeing with the stance I made by using the BMP as a tangent. Although I have to admit my original argument was of a moot point. Why are we discussing .50 ammunitions? By you defining me as a troll, did you per se, take the troll bait?
edit: I'd like to keep your country out of this and perhaps our discussions all-together in the form of PMs. But hey, w/e is w/e.
Eternauta:
Lizard, did you really expect a thread like this not to end up in a flame-ish discussion about the USA? I was just participating in a discussion started by my non-offtopic post but that had been done mostly by Cogliostro and Nice_Boat. They both gave their opinions, their discussion kept on and nobody told them to gtfo, so why can't I give my opinions?
Slaver Snipe: Who brought the debt to my country? The neoliberals. Who want to pay the debt? The current government. And you even say we make other countries suffer when the USA invades or destroys the economy in other countries? Now I do believe in balance.
And I why did you need to call us "fuck ups"? Don't put so much rage in your post, it makes you look childish.
Dark Angel:
OSAMA STILL LIVE IN MOUTAINS :>
Nice_Boat:
--- Quote from: Y0ssarian on May 05, 2011, 07:27:26 PM ---"This is of course, provided that the round strikes the ERA, which only covers 60% of the frontal aspect of the T-72 series tank mounted with it."
--- End quote ---
So you're saying gunners would have to aim at the remaining 40%, eh? And that it wouldn't affect their performance on the battlefield? Come on, you know that's a ridiculous claim, especially since when it comes to the turret you'd basically have to hit the gun mantle which is a very small target.
--- Quote from: Y0ssarian on May 05, 2011, 04:27:51 PM ---Also perhaps a more recent article would be relative to this discussion.
--- End quote ---
Even the first generation DU M829 performs comparably to the newest Tungsten counterparts fired from 120mm/L-44 (maybe with the exception of stuff like DM-53), yet it failed to penetrate Kontakt-5 fitted T-72. You were saying DU munitions are an overkill and Tungsten APFSDS rounds are enough. I was saying they're barely enough or, in some cases, might prove less effective than desirable. Heck, even the most modern DU rounds like M829A3 are far from being an overkill and may not guarantee a kill on hit as nowadays the proverbial armor and the spear are pretty evenly matched, so basically there's no such thing as "enough penetration" unless you're shooting at T-55s or export T-72s with no ERA. Basically, I proved you wrong. I proved you "your claim was so ridiculously overblown it was definitely retarded" wrong on the "pierce a hole through 2 T-90s with a 120mm DU APFSDS" part. What more do you want? Let's just leave it at that.
--- Quote from: Y0ssarian on May 05, 2011, 04:27:51 PM ---Entirely wrong! I was mocking you on a point from which you, yourself took out of context. Anyways, it only reinforces my past argument on the subject. You're simply agreeing with the stance I made by using the BMP as a tangent. Although I have to admit my original argument was of a moot point. Why are we discussing .50 ammunitions? By you defining me as a troll, did you per se, take the troll bait?
--- End quote ---
Let's recapitulate. I was saying 25mm autocannon launched M919 is barely enough to consistently (meaning not on 40% of hits, not on 60% of hits, not on 80% of hits but on 99,99% of hits because as we probably both know miracles do happen) penetrate BMP-1s front armor. You said it was bullshit because a .50 cal round can penetrate a Shilka. I said Shilka is not relevant to the discussion because it's nowhere near as resilient as BMP-1. That's basically it - and yeah, sorry for taking the troll bait and beginning to discuss .50 cal in the first place. And let's keep in mind that BMP-1 is a ridiculously outdated IFV - Bradleys and probably BMP-3s (I admit I don't know much about the latter, so I'll take a wild guess here) are significantly better armored, so they'd be a bad target for an autocannon at long ranges even when using DU penetrators. That's precisely why modern IFVs have ATGMs to engage hard targets - the autocannon is for taking out stuff like APCs, cars and for providing suppressive fire due to high ROF. And please, let's keep the helicopters and ground attack planes out of this, there's been enough bullshit comparisons in this thread already.
--- Quote from: Y0ssarian on May 05, 2011, 04:27:51 PM ---edit: I'd like to keep your country out of this and perhaps our discussions all-together in the form of PMs. But hey, w/e is w/e.
--- End quote ---
I'm glad, especially since I haven't said a single word about your country - and if I'm right and you're Russian, there'd be a lot to criticize when it comes to how your army has been faring lately when compared to what you've had 30 years ago.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version