Explain this. Is Abrams really this shitty? https://www.yo

>>31802930
Global rule #6, mods?

>>31802930
muh monkey model

>>31802930
>direct hit from rear on bustle ammo storage
>can actually see the blowout panels working as intended as they fly off
>ammo cookoff energy directed up and away from vital components and machinery

You notice how the video cuts off before the crew, which is still completely intact, abandons or the tank drives off.

That tank requires a little maintenance, replacement blowout panels, a full reload, some new paint and a new set of underwear for the crew. That's it.

>>31802930
No MBT alive will take a hit from an ATGM square to the rear of the turret and shake it off.

The important thing is that it didn't throw it's turret and fry the whole crew like a Russian tank would've.

>>31802930
>Comment section

How can people be this retarded? I understand that half are shill accounts but that doesn't explain the other half.

>>31802930

>Tank takes hit to the rear where armor is deliberately thinnest and is destroyed
>Big fucking shock

Pick one.

>>31802930
>direct hit to the rear of the turret ring
nice fucking shot. the crew is fucking roasted for sure. no tank could survive that.

File: m1a1_25_of_71.jpg (835KB, 2304x1728px) Image search: [Google]

835KB, 2304x1728px

>>31804795
>nice fucking shot. the crew is fucking roasted for sure. no tank could survive that.
Take five seconds, open a google tab and search "blowout panels". Pic related.

Maybe next time you won't look so fucking retarded.

>>31802930
1. M1 Abrams, almost 4 decades old
2. Hit in the ammorack
3. Still didn't explode and pop its top like a russian tank

>>31802930
The tanks we gave to iraq don't have reactive armor. They would sell them to the russians and then they'd have our secret recipe.

>>31805111
>muh 11 herbs

>>31805111
>reactive armor
depleted uranium
and the "secret sauce" is chobham not DU, or reactive armor.

>>31805111
The armor package the tank has is irrelevant, no tank has heavy armor on the rear of the turret.

>>31805279
Abrams have never used Chobham armor.

File: you'rearetard.jpg (30KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 480x360px

>>31802965

>>31802930
>Is Abrams really this shitty?

no, Iraqi tank crews are just retards that think they're invincible

>>31805659
That complete lack of argument.

>>31805739
Why argue with the retarded? Even when you're right they don't understand.

>>31805973
Because then you fail to convince/educate the people that don't know better, but are interested in learning.

>>31802930
>damage control feature working as intended
>vatniks too retarded to understand
Business as usual.

>>31802930
>rt

You tell me.

>>31803913
Holy crap, I wish I hadn't looked.
>crew are all dead, if not they dead from radiation burns (?)
>even if this is export model all American tanks will blow up like this

It must suck to live in a country where the media is censored

File: 1343119111923.jpg (15KB, 300x171px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 300x171px

>>31805516
>Abrams have never used Chobham armor.
The only people that used it was the UK but they it had a few draw backs.

First that the armor is only highly effective against HEAT attacks. This was the go to threat of the 70s and everyone was terrified of how HEAT rounds and missile would make heavy armor nonviable.

But smart guys came up with an expensive ceramic composite armor that worked great against HEAT. Less motivated designers just put a gap in the armor so their was void spaces that would disrupt the cutting jet and kept making layered steel.

The spaced armor not only defeated HEAT munitions it also helped greatly with KE attacks from sabot darts. Something that ceramic composite armor does only fair job at.

The second problem with the Chobham-shire-crest UK magic armor is that it undergoes oxidization and cation corrosion. When they came up with the armor this was raised as a major issue, requiring new armor every 7 to 10 years to keep it functional. The Ministry of Defense reported this but the government at the time said splendid that's jobs for hard working voters!

They then never followed up with the armor cycling program because it was bloody expensive.

So now all the Challenger IIs have armor that shatters when struck soundly (as the British would say). Which is of highly questionable value anymore.

Sorta sad. They picked the wrong armor for the wrong weapon, and then picked on one that required replacement and never replaced it. Against HEAT attacks Choby-wobby armor is the best per unit of weight around.... other than void spaces.

>>31806349
I was reading about the latest ceramics recently, they have new ones with crystals formed in the nanometer range. Supposedly they no longer shatter vs AP, the advertisement was claiming it could exceed RHA performance vs KE for less than 1/3 the mass.

It would be interesting to know how the Abrams armor compares to the latest tech. I'm not sure if the DU-titanium alloy is such a big advantagel now.

>RT
>Blows up

the definition of blows up needs to be clarified

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63ehKu7tYlY

File: 11954620_10153648369608606_7254174928015055183_n.jpg (43KB, 640x380px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 640x380px

>>31802965
Second. 19k here. Your TC or Loader might have got roasted or knocked around, but survival is possible.
Driver compartment was untouched.

The interior doors are only opened when the loader is pulling rounds, 6 are kept in ready storage, but they may have to pull a different type from the bustle rack, however the door is only open long enough to pull the round, it's a knee switch, move, and that door CLOSES, you'll lose a hand

>>31802930
Anon, any tank taking an ATGM to the rear of the turret is getting blown.