"Moderate" rebel BTFO

>>32424796
it was the same TOW, just shoot with two camera angle

>>32424811
Nope, watch more closely. The first shot had stuffs flying off from the tank, the second shot didn't.

>>32424835
the first shot was filmed with a better camera

why do they use tanks as pill boxes

>>32425208
because they are Arab

>survived

>>32424796
If it can happen to a tank, it's happened to a tank in Syria.

>>32425208
Because they read american field manuals.

File: 1481734933706.png (20KB, 415x472px)

20KB, 415x472px

>Russian weapons work better than advertised

We're going to lose WW3 aren't we?

>>32424796
TOW BTFO
how amerisharts will ever recover?

File: AsadBabil-Dug-in.jpg (110KB, 1586x1138px)

110KB, 1586x1138px

>>32425208
>>32425235

Soviet tank tactic actually. The tank was used in defensive position, either hull down or dug in to give low profile and reduce vulnerability

Arabs (especially the ones trained by soviets) followed this tactics close to their heart even tho it was largely useless against precision anti tank weapon

>>32425646
>we

Try harder, Ivan

>>32425803
Protip: they won't

>>32424796
That thing is really beefy. Most BGM-71 variants offer 900mm RHA pen after ERA.

>>32425954
>Soviet tank tactic actually

its "Any army that has tanks" tactic actually

do you think they dont teach hull down at Fort Benning or something?

>>32425322
>no evidence

File: 2tows1tank.png (1MB, 2628x1081px)

1MB, 2628x1081px

>>32425085
>basically recorded from the same location.
>different explosion/smoke patterns

yeah is same, rus tank regt agen noobs xDDD

>>32425954
Son, that's not hull down.
That's arse out, cheeks spread.

>>32426529

Fatniks BTFO

theres a video of a T-62 getting facefucked by a tow-2 and the crew all manage to bail out

>>32424796
Fuck the TOW. Put a JDAM on the motherfucker and scatter it to the winds. Even a nearby Mark 84-sized weapon can kill the crew without piercing a tank.

>>32427359
>American weapon designed to destroy tanks can't destroy tank
P-put JDAM instead it will work i swear!

>>32427565
The TOW's are due for an upgrade considering we haven't put out a new atgm (bar the Javelin and that one the marines wanted) in decades. If anything we at least have the B version.

>>32427565
Thats not the current model of the TOW, ya dingus.

>>32428016
Thats not the current model of the T72
>1987 rocket can't destroy 1985 tank

>>32424796
>TOW-2 missiles come in many variants, including some that don't even defeat reactive armour
>T-72B comes with many variants of armour, yet it's claimed to be Kontakt-5 on the video
>video shows that the tank didn't blow up, and the crew isn't all fucked

Why would anyone try to claim anyone got 'BTFO' from such videos ? It's as if they haven't heard that anti-tank weapons and tank armour have evolved in parallel countering each other at every step.

>>32425803
Took them long enough to design and produce a vehicle that could withstand it. The tow is not new.

>>32427359
>Even a nearby Mark 84-sized weapon can kill the crew without piercing a tank.
Who says it wouldn't pierce? Fragments from that size weapon can easily have up to 5000fps velocity. It just needs to blow up near the side or rear, or better yet put a DSU-33 on it.

>>32428305
The T-72B obr 1989 is not even new. It is very old.

Why do you even respond to a bait?

>>32428372
While Russian tanks are shit, fragments up to a couple of inches across in artillery shells and bombs can only penetrate ~40mm max at highest attained speeds, the fragments are usually too light and not high enough on sectional density. It's the pressure wave shredding the meatbags inside that is more important

>>32428400
Gives me something to do.

>>32427359
>Fuck the TOW

lol americlaps can't handle the fact that a 40 year old tank can stop their most modern ATGM...twice!

>>32428400
When did Syria get T-72Bs anyway? I thought the T-72AVs were their top tank.

>>32424796

No real way of what's going on

No catastrophic hits, but there's definitely a chance of perforation, which can kill crew and damage internals. They could be repaired, though.

>>32428485
>When did Syria get T-72Bs anyway?

Sometime in the past year. They even got a few BA1s.

>I thought the T-72AVs were their top tank.

They also had some T-72Ms fitted with a TURMS-T FCS and thermal camera. Which is kind of dumb.

>>32426316
Yes, there is no evidence the tank survived.

>>32428599

It looks like the tank survived in that it can be repaired if it's damaged.

>>32427565
>47 year old American AT missile system designed to destroy tanks from the 70s cant kill a tank developed in the 90s

Fixed it for you. The TOW is nearly 50 years old and was designed to kill Soviet tanks like the T-55, T-62, and T-72. The T-90 should be able to survive multiple hits by an arguably obsolete AT system.

How a T-90 would take an Israeli Spike missile is another story

>>32428466
>40 year old tank
>T-72B with Kontakt-5
>most modern ATGM
>TOW-2A or even older variant

>>32428466

TOW-2B was designed with Kontackt-5 and similar ERA in mind; there's even official papers out there saying TOW-2A isn't adequate against heavy Russian ERA.

>>32428485
>When did Syria get T-72Bs anyway?
Last year when russia decided to support them for real.

File: T-90 TOW-2A.png (594KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

594KB, 1280x720px

>>32429130

TOW-2A probably can penetrate areas of the frontal aspect of the T-72B3/T-90; it's just that it's not a "certain"

In the picture, there's no reason for the crew to bail out unless there was at least a partial penetration

>>32429637
>there's no reason for the crew to bail out unless there was at least a partial penetration
It seems pretty common for Arab crews to bail out after being hit regardless whether a hit has had any effect or not.
There's footage of an ATGM engaging an M1 tank where one of the M1's crew jumps out of the tank when he sees the ATGM coming.

>>32429689

I haven't seen any actual Syrians bail unless the tank is knocked out in some way, though. Driver dead, tank on fire, and such. They're decent tankers.

The area of the hit was around the gunner, and he was the one that bailed. He does look in pain/cowering to some extent.

File: turms t.jpg (1MB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1536px

>>32429736
I've seen that video, it's impossible to tell if there was penetration or not but seeing as the rebels neglected to include the aftermath in the film I'm guessing the tank survived.

Also, that guy bailed out right after impact without even taking the time to open his hatch. This could suggest that the hatch was open on impact and he has been deafened/wounded without the armour being penetrated.

No wonder the Syrian Army has managed to lost so much of the country to rebels, they're completely incompetent when using tanks.

>>32429637
>In the picture, there's no reason for the crew to bail out unless there was at least a partial penetration

Or you know, they got spooked and panicked, like every Arab tanker, and decided to bolt.

>>32429890
>Also, that guy bailed out right after impact without even taking the time to open his hatch. This could suggest that the hatch was open on impact and he has been deafened/wounded without the armour being penetrated.

That was my impression too. As much as I want to see a T-90A go up in flames to finally put the T-90 meme to bed, it hasn't happened yet.

>>32425615
I highly doubt that American field manuals recommend that they put individual tanks out in some exposed area, sitting there, waiting to be flanked and ATGM'd

>>32424796
Survived? define survived,because the crew in that tank is dead. If the tank had "survived" after a the first TOW shot it would have either moved or returned fire. A TOW only puts a fist sized puncture in the armor. It does not obliterate the tank. The lack of a jack-in-the-box effect(caused by sympathetic detonation of ordinance and/or fuel) does not indicate a that the tank was not penetrated or destroyed.

>>32430044
On the other hand, the rebels are also terrible at fighting.

>>32432682
I also want to add that the fate of the crew and extent of the damage to the tank are hyperbolic and meant to match the tone of the discussion in this thread. With out a proper BDA there is no way to accurately assess the actual damage to the tank. However, the lack of response from the crew (which is shown manning the tank before the first engagement) would support the theory that they and their vehicle survived without injury.

>>32432947
they and their vehicle *did not* survive without injury

File: ItsAnotherNakba.png (410KB, 543x352px) Image search: [Google]

410KB, 543x352px

Invincible T-90 in FSA hands

>>32430459
They don't. This is why assad has lost literally over 1,000 tanks in the last few years

>>32432967
SAA lost 3 T-90 in one year of active operation

Turkey lost 10 Leopard 2A4 in 2 week

are you that retard who claim SAA lost all of their T-90?

>>32432967
commanders periscope looks like it's broken. Anyone can confirm?

>>32432978

I doubt you can compare it all

Turks would have lost 10 T-90s in one week just the same

>>32432947

You're correct

There's no way to tell what happened inside the tank

I go with crew bailing, like the first T-90 hit, to be a sign of something happening, but you can even dispute that

Fucking Russian bias

>>32430282

One went up in flames from a side hit with an AT-5

But, that's not saying much

File: CzjXIRFXcAAgiir.jpg (99KB, 1024x576px)

99KB, 1024x576px

>>32433016
T-90 got soft kill APS
that make a huge different

with laser sensor the T-90 crew have better situational awareness

every SAA T-90 lost, the missile hit the front of their tank

every Turkey Leopard lost, the missile hit the side of the tank.

File: T-90 AT-5.png (671KB, 1280x720px)

671KB, 1280x720px

>>32433041

>T-90s soft APS

No, it's not going to do anything against Kornet, and we see that it doesn't work against TOW/AT-5 (probably because you can't leave it running 24/7).

One T-90 was killed by an AT-5 in the side

File: 289544.jpg (220KB, 800x696px)

220KB, 800x696px

>>32433048
>No, it's not going to do anything against Kornet, and we see that it doesn't work against TOW/AT-5 (probably because you can't leave it running 24/7).
my point is the 4 set of laser sensor, part of the Shtora-1 soft kill APS

those sensor( picrelated) , T-90 crew got better situational awareness. SACLOS ATGM use laser range finder. the Sensor pic up the range finder laser and warm the crew about possible threat

Leopard 2A4 don't have such system

>One T-90 was killed by an AT-5 in the side

that footage is front pro Assad media, i doubt that the tank in that pic is a T-90. if it is, then i don't think it is a ATGM kill footage

>>32433076

>I doubt that's ATGM kill footage

I've got the video of it. It's hit in the rear or side with an AT-5, and it's shown burning afterwards.

Laser warning can come in handy, yes, but I doubt it's going to matter all that much considering the flight time of Kornet.

And it won't work against TOW/AT-5/AT-13 anyway.

>>32433110
>And it won't work against TOW/AT-5/AT-13 anyway
those system got laser range finder

the sensor will pick up the laser, warm the crew, they rotate the tank toward laser soure, placing the thick armor toward the source, pop some grenade smoke.

File: Aftermath.jpg (154KB, 800x599px)

154KB, 800x599px

>>32429890

Aftermath of the hit; they recovered it.

Hit matches the video (left side of turret), so it's probably the right one.

>>32433146

No, there's no laser on those 3.

>>32433076
>SACLOS ATGM use laser range finder.
This is not common. At least Fagot, Konkurs, Metis, TOW does not. Well, there is ITAS launcher with embedded rangefinder, but it was never seen in Syria. Anyway this LRF used just to ensure that target inside maximum range, so it may be not used.
Basically the only ATGM in Syria that can be detected with IR sensors is Kornet, and even this is controversial.

>>32433157
>>32433168
ok, you guy are right

though T-90 still got better survivability than tank that not equipped with IR sensor like T-72B3 or Leopard 2A4
statistic from Ukraine and Syria prove this

>>32433041
>every Turkey Leopard lost, the missile hit the side of the tank.
no they weren't. stop lying

>>32433188
True, but its the same with any modern tank in those conditions. I.e. abrams wouldn't fare worse.

It's just relatively modern softkill APS vs old-ass AT guided weapons.

>>32433168
The LRF on a ITAS/SABER is rarely used to ensure targets are within maximum range. The LRF is pretty much only used to get a 10 digit grid or azimuth on targets.

>>32428286
>yet it's claimed to be Kontakt-5 on the video
It's very much visible that this is indeed Kontakt-5.

>>32426025
>>32425646
>>32425803
>>32425615
>>32427565
>>32428466

I'm offended that they only put forth this much effort for us.

>>32425208
But western tanks are pillboxes.

>>32425208
Dude, what is this argument? Do you think they get shot always during engagement? Yes there are cases when they were being used as pillboxes but most of the time it's just unaware personnel thinking they're safe.

Do you think US army constantly keeps tanks running even when they're not engaging the enemy? No, they don't. They also park around, their crew also sleep, they also get shot unexpectedly.

People really underestimate the range of ATGMs and difficulty of spotting ATGM crews. The only reason we don't see US operated tanks getting ATGM shots is because before Syria no asymmetrical warfare has seen ATGMs utilized to this extent. While US definitely has a much better organization, and wouldn't probably lose as many, I'm pretty sure they would lose some, they would also lose equipment. The hubris here is similar to "US has billion superbowl wins, rest of the world are so inferior", it's just because US never faced this.

Additionally, do you believe it's possible to engage the enemy 24/7?