RPG Vs. M2A2
- Thread starter ZhangKe
- Start date
1) There is no such thing as an M2A2
2) Those shots are not M1A1's or M1A2's
2) Those shots are not M1A1's or M1A2's
Actually GF there is M2A2.
M2/M3 A2 Variant
M2A3 Variant
See it for yourself
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/bradley/index.html
M2/M3 A2 Variant
M2A3 Variant
See it for yourself
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/bradley/index.html
My mistake, I made an assumption that he'd typo'd on an Abrams :eek
Hey, I got at least 50% of my response right! They aren't the insides of an Abrams.ZhangKe said:Faint~~~~
: My excuse is that I spent the last 3 days dealing with armoured vehicles and the effects of RPG's on them. - So I had MBT's on the brain. :eek
Not sure what you mean - have you added up how many abrams have ever been committed to combat - and how many have been lost to direct contact?ZhangKe said:Hey mate, have u check last week's TIME?
Here is r "grilled" Abrams~~~~
IIRC its less than 10 all up in 15 years of direct combat. Thats out of a total fleet of 7000 tanks.
I've seen T-72's, T-62's and a T-80 that was hit by ATM's and none of them have survived. OTOH there is documented proof of a challenger 2 being hit by 7 RPG's in succession - and not been mobility killed - let alone contact killed.
Armour wise, the M1A2 is rated just below the Chally 2, so I'm not sure what your point is. China is still trying to use ERA to protect her tanks as she hasn't been able to develop a Chobham or Dorchester equivalent.
The Type-99's armor was based on T-80U demonstrated to PLA in mid 1990's. But from the T-80U's performance in Chechnya, I doubt the Type-99 is much better.
type-99 is totally different from the t-80u, especially from it's armour design. and i also don't think that there have been many (if any) t-80u in chechnya. russian guys used mainly older ones up to t-80bv or t-72bm.
regards
axl
www.kampfpanzer.de
regards
axl
www.kampfpanzer.de