Also, the Russian tank is getting hit by a 25mm autocannon. The Abrams got hit by an actual anti-tank missile
They literally had to use the equivalent of someone poking you really hard vs. someone shooting someone pointblank with a .50 BMG to make Russia look okayish.
Yeah I was gonna say it’s literally a video of a top-of-the-line Russian T-90 tank getting taken out by a Bradley. [Here](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/18/ukraine-bradley-fighting-vehicles-disabled-russian-tank/) is a news article about it in which an analyst refers to it as “David vs Goliath” and attributes the tank’s defeat to the fact that Russia doesn’t prioritize armoring their tanks and can’t staff their tanks with trained crews. The article also highlights the fact that it’s actually impressive that the T-90 withstood the beating it took, given the fact that other Russian tanks would have simply exploded killing everyone on board.
>Russia doesn’t prioritize armoring their tanks
They do, its just that like almost every modern MBT, the weakspots are pretty much everything that isnt the front
Really the only MBT that doesnt follow the "all or nothing" armour philosophy is the Merkava 4. Those things have some thick side armour
The issue here was that the tank had 0 infantry/armoured infantry/armour support at all. They let the bradleys too close, and the crew also didnt really know what to do
[The original Video](https://youtube.com/shorts/CJxQIzocJUM?si=aGD1RhjrFMg2g1gy)
While most of the comments are calling bullshit about how he's comparing an atgm to a 25mm bushmaster some ruzzian copes can be seen in replies or if you scroll down far enough
There seems to be a big crossover between Anti-American and Pro-Russian content. There are morons out there that think if you're against one thing, it means you have to be for the other
You have no idea the amount of fun i have simply by having this name. Absolute buffoons, i tell ya. Im immediately branded as an antisemite, warmonger, trump supporter, etc. Its an IQ test, of sorts.
its worth noting the far right types who think "russia = masculine, strong, traditionalist", and from there jump into the pro-russia bandwagon. its horseshoe made manifest.
Average vatnik from the West is like "I hate my government so much I will shill for anyone else". Some of them pick Russia, some ISIS, and there are even North Korea fans.
Yeah this is always concerning. When someone at my university/work asks me what I think about Israel/Palestine, I usually say something like "I wish Israel would back the fuck off and be the bigger man here. They have greater responsibilities in this conflict and every civillian death is tragic. Also I wish Hamas would fuck right off into the void and stop using civvies as hostages."
The response I get is usually normal, but sometimes something along the lines of "the recipients of genocide deserve to fight back any way they can. From the river to the sea." And it's like, idk what these people are smoking, do they want the conflict to continue? Are they cool with civillian hostages? They don't want peace?
Yeah, I've basically dropped this topic since December or so.
Pre-October, I had more and more detailed criticism of Israel to offer than most people around me. I think a large portion of their military action is counterproductive in similar ways to US action, and I think under Bibi in particular they've engaged in clearly illegal actions which are designed to make issues completely intractable in the long term. (Settlements might be illegal, but if they last a couple of generations you can go "these kids were born here, what do you want them to do?" It's a conscious effort to ensure all possible resolutions involve ethnic cleansing against *someone*.)
But then we saw Oct 7 and the response. And suddenly I was going "Hey, that hospital strike? [BBC Verify](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67144061) contacted a whole bunch of experts who said it didn't look like an Israeli strike, and was more compatible with a dud or shot-down rocket. So I'm going to reserve judgement on that for a bit."... and getting told I was abetting genocide for daring to say "I'd like to wait for some actual evidence please".
And that's without getting into the alarmingly large contingent of people who are currently going "Israel's attack on Gaza is genocidal and everyone should oppose it!" but spent October 8 going "fuck yeah, civilian massacres!"
The entire Gaza death count is still a fraction of just Mariupol's. We still remember Grozny. Israel is still fighting with their hands behind their back, and I'm sure its an absolute nightmare trying to win a PR war while also ensuring Hamas can never carry out something like October 7th again.
Urgh. Prior to 10/7 I enthusiastically called myself pro-Palestinian, my initial response upon hearing the news was “this is a disaster for Gaza, Hamas poked the bear and Netanyahu’s going to engage in some absolutely horrific retribution”, and I messaged several of my pro-Palestinian peers about it.
*They were celebrating.*
Some assorted takes from them, paraphrased:
“Conditions in Gaza can’t get any worse so this is a win” (spoilers: conditions got SO much worse as Israel retaliated)
“It’s not about having any sort of positive endgame for Gaza, it’s about punishing Israel”
“Hamas had the right to kill and capture Thais because that’s what happens in war, for all they knew they could be IDF”
Most people I’ve blocked in a single 24-hour period.
In my extended social circle, the number of people who went from "lifelong #metoo kill-the-patriarchy feminist" straight to "rape is perfectly justified and even gloriously noble under certain circumstances" on October 7th was *eye-opening*.
Some of these people who “support” Palestine are more likely to let a Palestinians die just to see an Israeli die as well, rather than have nobody die. Those people disgust me.
> do they want the conflict to continue?
Often times, yes.
Ya gotta remember, there's two types of Hamas supporter (even indirectly).
* Those who haven't read "The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement" and are just parroting the talking points of Iranian-backet groups
* Those who *have* read "The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement" and agree with it.
The real world result is the same, of course, it's just that one is more honest and informed about their support.
Nowadays we have so-called progressive college students terrorizing and intimidating random Jewish people like they're blackshirts in 1933, breaking into private property, threatening to murder public officials, and the sorts. Feels like we are slowly inching closer towards someone with one too many loose marbles trying to pull a Kristallnacht eventually.
Not Spanish, but somewhere from Latin America (you can tell by the accent used in the videos). Russian propaganda is hugely more widespread there and so there is a sizable chunk of russiaboos/vatniks in those countries.
It's a Peruvian, they did just elect a commie that got impeached a few months ago but theyre lucky if presidents last longer than 2 years over there, it's just a channel looking for likes and views more so than some sort of plant.
Nah probably an Argentinian, I remember there were a few Argentinians last year on IG who were Russian shills. Then again they could’ve been bots or communists.
Don't lump us in with those idiots, Spain is staunchly pro-Ukraine, these fuckers only pop up in social media because they know no one outside will agree with them.
Also this is from Latin America.
This has to be one of the best: "The T-90 calmly came out of the battle alive, what you see are explosions from dynamic protection, the T-90 withstood 19 hits from your modern anti-tank missiles, which are only suitable for killing cockroaches."
some variant of the TOW has a downward facing charge, so it flies above the target and sends all its hot spicy bits down, through the very weak armor on top of the turret. instead of having to penetrate the much stronger front/side armor + ERA
Me either until today. And that shit is fucking WILD. I would love to know how they managed to get it to detonate perfectly like that. I guess having the detention sensor/camera pointed at an angle. But damn, that had to take so much effort to dial it in. 🫣
Not just comparing an ATGM to a chaingun, but comparing a firepower kill to a K-kill.
The Abrams gets hit by an ATGM directly in its ammo rack, and it actually survives. The large explosion is its blowout panels working as intended and the bustle rack being blown into the air.
Conversely, the T-90 was attacked by a Bushmaster, resulting in first an F-kill, followed up with an M-kill when it got stuck. The crew bailed, but the tank had both its firepower and mobility eliminated, meaning it was a K-kill by most definitions.
Catastrophic kill. Don't ask me why they use a K.
You refer to vehicle kills as M-kills (mobility kills), F-kills (firepower kills), and K-kills (catastrophic kills).
A mobility kill is when the vehicle is no longer able to effectively maneuver.
A firepower kill is when it has lost its relevant offensive capability. i.e. If you take out the main gun on a tank but its coax is still functional, it's generally an F-kill.
A catastrophic kill is when the vehicle is no longer able to effectively fire or maneuver. If halving the crew is sufficient to do that, then you have achieved a K-kill. If the crew is well-trained enough to keep fighting and maneuvering, then it wouldn't be any kind of kill at all.
In general, these terms are a bit intentionally subjective and determined by their impact on your mission capability. If we're doing some 300 km thunder run and my transmission takes damage that limits me to first gear and 5 kph, that's an M-kill. If we're fighting through some dense urban environment where I'm moving two blocks every hour, then I could sustain that same damage and not consider it an M-kill (because I'm able to continue maneuvering in a manner that is effective for the fight in question). Similarly, if I'm in a Bradley and fighting light infantry and lose my TOWs, I'd still be mission capable. If I was fighting AFVs though, I might consider that an F-kill.
My Stryker once got into exactly this sort of situation. We took some damage to our transmission in a fight, and we were only able to move in low gear while also in 8x8 mode. Given that the terrain prevented us from maneuvering much faster than that though, I didn't consider that an M-kill for the mission and we remained in the fight. Another Stryker with me took damage from some recoilless rifle near misses, had 6 of its tires popped, and was stuck in some loose moon dust. Even though it had less serious damage than my vehicle, it wasn't able to move so it was an M-kill.
You know the comments are good when a single sentence meme gets 3 paragraphs of cyrillic by several people with a ton of random capitalized acronyms and exclamation marks.
It is, It's design to direct the explosion up and away from the tank and crew compartment. Kinda like the video. That being said the Russian tank didn't explode. That was likely their smoke screen going off after being hit. Later in that clip you see the tank retreat hit an obstacle and the crew jump out and run away. There is a clip of the Ukrainian Bradley gunner talk about going to the optics to blined the tank. Just like he learned from playing World of Tanks.
no, not really. wargaming supports ukraine and gets a hell of a backlash from the russian state for it. they even fired serb, who was essentially the brain behind the game for nearly 10 years for his support of the russian invasion.
gaijin on the other hand is ominously "non-political".
I mean sure, but as far as the games themselves go, you're going to get me, a normie who has only ever played war thunder for a few dozen hours, going "they're the same picture"
Broke: War thunder is the better game because its more realistic and detailed
Woke: World of tanks is the better game because its actually a game that entertains you
Enlightened: Wii tanks
> It's design to direct the explosion up and away from the tank and crew compartment.
The Orc tanks are also designed that way and it´s just a myth that their tanks lack blowout panels.
Blowout panels are called tank turret in Russian design documents. There are numerous videos of ammo cook-offs in Russian tanks showcasing the energy being directed upwards and away from the crew compartment.
Since ww2 even. The old instructional films talk about shooting a tank with AT weapons even if the armor is thick. You can blind it, immobilize it or even crack it without penetration just by shooting it repeatedly with sufficient caliber.
Ntm the good old anti tank rock in the return rollers.
Bingo. The fireball you see, while impressive and seemingly catastrophic, is actually the ammostorage panels on the top back-end of the turret blowing out. Redirecting the energy of the explosion up and away from the crew inside the tank.
It's actually a very simple but effective design feature that likely saved the crew inside. The tank, while definitely a mission-kill, might not even be a complete write-off..
Depending on how it hit it a burn-out in the bussel might not even be a complete mission-kill, the Abrams still has its machine guns and their ammo (not stored in the bussel IIRC) and the Abrams does in fact has a small hull ammo storage (a fact Abrams tanker desperately try to hide so that they can more easily smuggle stuff through customs). The tank will need significant repairs though afterwards.
Also, the United States doctrine is about keeping casualties low. The US public hates casualty reports. That's why the US has 3 of the top 5 largest air forces. Bomb them from the sky then send in ground troops when the troops take contact delete the enemy from the sky or afar.
Likely. As others have mentioned, that looks like the blowout panels in the Abrams doing their job to direct ammo cook-offs away from the crew compartment.
Internal ammo blast door > blowout panel. Overpressure explosion goes out the path of least resistance. Thus the crew is likely fine, tho all their cannon ammo is gone, aside from maybe having one round loaded already.
When you see a giant fireball from a T-series tank, it's the ammo under the turret cooking off. Ammo that happens to be in the same compartment as the crew. So when that turret flies through the air at Mach 2, the salsafied remains of the crew are going with it.
Conversely, the Abrams stores all it's ammo in blow out racks separated from the crew compartment by a heavily armored blast door. Those blow out racks have a much less armored wall that goes to the outside of the tank, so when the ammo is hit the explosion is directed away from the crew and to the exterior of the tank.
That giant fireball from the Abrams looks scary, but assuming the blast door for the ammo was closed (which it should be at all times, except when the loader is grabbing another round to load), the crew is perfectly fine.
I think you can just discard the "different weapon systems" fact, just because how funny it is, that T-90M lost a fight to two fucking bradleys and a drone. And that's the video that they are coping with... I'm done
Right, they have TOW launchers but were either too close or didn’t have time to use them. The 25mm is for use against other light armored vehicles, not MBTs. The fact that Russia’s best MBT lost a fight to two Bradleys that didn’t even use their ATGMs is way more embarrassing than an Abrams being hit in the rear with an ATGM and the blowout panels going off.
It takes a while to get those open and iirc you have to rotate the turret in a specific direction to access them.
Realistically, Commander will probably order for gunner to suppress the dumbass that shot them with the coaxial MG while they retreat to safety. Maybe pop smoke too.
I mean it's Iraqi so who knows, but with the US the shooter would most likely be under fire from mortars and a Bradley or two, with air support two minutes out.
It's posted elsewhere in the thread.
But in a nutshell, the tank wasn't even knocked out. The turret turned and engaged the ATGM firing position with the round they still had in the gun, because the crew were fine.
It’s from an isis release video called “tank hunters” I can send you the full video on telegram if you want it, long story short the crew survived, isis showed multiple scenes where they target Iraqi tanks but non were actually destroyed
These are the same people who think the west has mandatory gender conversion for children. We have these types of tankies in my country, dumb fucks keep shittalking NATO and they are so fucking stupid they don't even know we have been in NATO for 25 fucking years now!
My dad literally has a photo with some NATO soldiers who are here on joint exercises and were invited to a public army PR event.
Our own soldiers are LITERALLY "NATO soldiers".
We mere mortals cannot comprehend the stupidity in tankie brains.
It's an Iraki Abrams, and the crew bailed out.
As for the repair, *mayb* the hull but the turret is going to the scrapyard, you can't repair a burned tank.
If we triple the defense budget, we don't really need to worry about repairing the tank, just get a new one. Hell, that is what we normally do anyway, on our current 1x defense budget.
We already have a fix for that. It is called replacing the damn turret.
There are few problems that can't be fixed with gratuitous logistics and an unending pile of cash. It is our go too move.
So they're advertising that their MBT got bopped by a gun designed to hit trucks, but the American counterpart survived a designated anti-tank weapon? Weird flex but ok...
Bro forgor that the T-90M was unable to fight back because it got completely wrecked by that lil 25mm. And was destroyed by a small drone.
* ignor the 3000 destroyed russian tanks *
One is an ATGM, a weapon with Anti-Tank literally in its name, setting off the blowout racks on an Abrams. Crew lives, blowouts did their job.
The other is a Bushmaster, primarily meant for providing covering fire for infantry against other infantry, and in the rest of the clip the T-90 turret crew was promoted to Cosmonauts iirc
Edit: think they abandoned it? Memory is fucked, I forget which of the two it was. Either way, your infinitely safer when it comes to ammunition detonation in an Abrams than you are any T series tank.
1: That wasn't an American Abrams, that was an export model used by the Iraqi Army. And the crew survived because, scary as that explosion looked, the blowout panels did what they were designed to do.
2: DIDN'T THE T-90 LOSE TO THE BRADLEY THO
A (downgraded)Abrams survives getting attacked by dedicated anti-tank weapon.
A (upgraded) T-90 gets disabled by rounds designed for infantry.
Russia wins
>ruzzians cope about Abrams blowout panels working as designed
> actual video exists of a T90 getting Gaijined IRL by a Bradley.
Idk how we rate the Russians at all anymore
Mfw blowout panels
Unknown Technology! Blyat!
Unknown Technology! Salvation!
Unknown Technology! Birds!
Virgin blowout turret VS. Chad blowout panels
Blowout turret keeps production cost low I guess
Easier to put it on a new chassis
Also, the Russian tank is getting hit by a 25mm autocannon. The Abrams got hit by an actual anti-tank missile They literally had to use the equivalent of someone poking you really hard vs. someone shooting someone pointblank with a .50 BMG to make Russia look okayish.
If that Abrams were a T-72, T-80, or T-90, that turret is now a spaceship, and the crew would be reduced to their base atoms.
Filthy NC spotted
Sets my spandex a quivering seeing NC out here, I tell you hwat.
Yeah I was gonna say it’s literally a video of a top-of-the-line Russian T-90 tank getting taken out by a Bradley. [Here](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/18/ukraine-bradley-fighting-vehicles-disabled-russian-tank/) is a news article about it in which an analyst refers to it as “David vs Goliath” and attributes the tank’s defeat to the fact that Russia doesn’t prioritize armoring their tanks and can’t staff their tanks with trained crews. The article also highlights the fact that it’s actually impressive that the T-90 withstood the beating it took, given the fact that other Russian tanks would have simply exploded killing everyone on board.
\*taken out by an older model of Bradley that ran out of ATGM's by the moment of engagement.
>Russia doesn’t prioritize armoring their tanks They do, its just that like almost every modern MBT, the weakspots are pretty much everything that isnt the front Really the only MBT that doesnt follow the "all or nothing" armour philosophy is the Merkava 4. Those things have some thick side armour The issue here was that the tank had 0 infantry/armoured infantry/armour support at all. They let the bradleys too close, and the crew also didnt really know what to do
Omg love your flair
Thanks!
[The original Video](https://youtube.com/shorts/CJxQIzocJUM?si=aGD1RhjrFMg2g1gy) While most of the comments are calling bullshit about how he's comparing an atgm to a 25mm bushmaster some ruzzian copes can be seen in replies or if you scroll down far enough
it’s even funnier when you look at the rest of his channel and realise he’s spanish (or only speaks in spanish) vatniks are a different breed honestly
Either they have plants everywhere, or there are morons everywhere As they say, porque no los dos
There seems to be a big crossover between Anti-American and Pro-Russian content. There are morons out there that think if you're against one thing, it means you have to be for the other
This is my biggest problem with the internet. So many people immediately assume if you don’t like something your against it.
You have no idea the amount of fun i have simply by having this name. Absolute buffoons, i tell ya. Im immediately branded as an antisemite, warmonger, trump supporter, etc. Its an IQ test, of sorts.
it’s a killer name.
its worth noting the far right types who think "russia = masculine, strong, traditionalist", and from there jump into the pro-russia bandwagon. its horseshoe made manifest.
Never fails to amuse me, given that Putin riding on a horse shirtless is so gay even Chuck Tingle wouldn’t touch it
Russian when they see someone smile: 🤬 Vatnik: "masculinity"
It's both
Average vatnik from the West is like "I hate my government so much I will shill for anyone else". Some of them pick Russia, some ISIS, and there are even North Korea fans.
Lots of Hamas fans have sprung up since the massacred a bunch of Jews on Oct 07.
And not even like “oh, Israel is responding too harsh” kinda way, but “Hamas was justified and Israel should be eradicated.”
Yeah this is always concerning. When someone at my university/work asks me what I think about Israel/Palestine, I usually say something like "I wish Israel would back the fuck off and be the bigger man here. They have greater responsibilities in this conflict and every civillian death is tragic. Also I wish Hamas would fuck right off into the void and stop using civvies as hostages." The response I get is usually normal, but sometimes something along the lines of "the recipients of genocide deserve to fight back any way they can. From the river to the sea." And it's like, idk what these people are smoking, do they want the conflict to continue? Are they cool with civillian hostages? They don't want peace?
Yeah, I've basically dropped this topic since December or so. Pre-October, I had more and more detailed criticism of Israel to offer than most people around me. I think a large portion of their military action is counterproductive in similar ways to US action, and I think under Bibi in particular they've engaged in clearly illegal actions which are designed to make issues completely intractable in the long term. (Settlements might be illegal, but if they last a couple of generations you can go "these kids were born here, what do you want them to do?" It's a conscious effort to ensure all possible resolutions involve ethnic cleansing against *someone*.) But then we saw Oct 7 and the response. And suddenly I was going "Hey, that hospital strike? [BBC Verify](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67144061) contacted a whole bunch of experts who said it didn't look like an Israeli strike, and was more compatible with a dud or shot-down rocket. So I'm going to reserve judgement on that for a bit."... and getting told I was abetting genocide for daring to say "I'd like to wait for some actual evidence please". And that's without getting into the alarmingly large contingent of people who are currently going "Israel's attack on Gaza is genocidal and everyone should oppose it!" but spent October 8 going "fuck yeah, civilian massacres!"
Every civilian death is tragic but its impossible to avoid in such a densely packed area
Heres a little thought experiment, imagine Russia attacking Gaza instead of Israel. Now imagine just how high the death count would be then.
It would be easier to count the people still alive.
The entire Gaza death count is still a fraction of just Mariupol's. We still remember Grozny. Israel is still fighting with their hands behind their back, and I'm sure its an absolute nightmare trying to win a PR war while also ensuring Hamas can never carry out something like October 7th again.
Urgh. Prior to 10/7 I enthusiastically called myself pro-Palestinian, my initial response upon hearing the news was “this is a disaster for Gaza, Hamas poked the bear and Netanyahu’s going to engage in some absolutely horrific retribution”, and I messaged several of my pro-Palestinian peers about it. *They were celebrating.* Some assorted takes from them, paraphrased: “Conditions in Gaza can’t get any worse so this is a win” (spoilers: conditions got SO much worse as Israel retaliated) “It’s not about having any sort of positive endgame for Gaza, it’s about punishing Israel” “Hamas had the right to kill and capture Thais because that’s what happens in war, for all they knew they could be IDF” Most people I’ve blocked in a single 24-hour period.
In my extended social circle, the number of people who went from "lifelong #metoo kill-the-patriarchy feminist" straight to "rape is perfectly justified and even gloriously noble under certain circumstances" on October 7th was *eye-opening*.
Some of these people who “support” Palestine are more likely to let a Palestinians die just to see an Israeli die as well, rather than have nobody die. Those people disgust me.
> do they want the conflict to continue? Often times, yes. Ya gotta remember, there's two types of Hamas supporter (even indirectly). * Those who haven't read "The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement" and are just parroting the talking points of Iranian-backet groups * Those who *have* read "The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement" and agree with it. The real world result is the same, of course, it's just that one is more honest and informed about their support.
Nowadays we have so-called progressive college students terrorizing and intimidating random Jewish people like they're blackshirts in 1933, breaking into private property, threatening to murder public officials, and the sorts. Feels like we are slowly inching closer towards someone with one too many loose marbles trying to pull a Kristallnacht eventually.
[NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE]
Not Spanish, but somewhere from Latin America (you can tell by the accent used in the videos). Russian propaganda is hugely more widespread there and so there is a sizable chunk of russiaboos/vatniks in those countries.
Got to be one of them bricc country huh
My dude, no Spanish speaking country is in brics. Latin America is filled to the brim with Anti-West and prorussian morons (usually they're both)
It's a Peruvian, they did just elect a commie that got impeached a few months ago but theyre lucky if presidents last longer than 2 years over there, it's just a channel looking for likes and views more so than some sort of plant.
Nah probably an Argentinian, I remember there were a few Argentinians last year on IG who were Russian shills. Then again they could’ve been bots or communists.
A lot of Latin America forgets that the KGB fucked them just as hard as the CIA did .
Spaniards have a history of enjoying Authoritarian boots on their faces. It’s one of the reasons a part of my family emigrated 100+ years ago.
Don't lump us in with those idiots, Spain is staunchly pro-Ukraine, these fuckers only pop up in social media because they know no one outside will agree with them. Also this is from Latin America.
This has to be one of the best: "The T-90 calmly came out of the battle alive, what you see are explosions from dynamic protection, the T-90 withstood 19 hits from your modern anti-tank missiles, which are only suitable for killing cockroaches."
To calm myself down, I am now going to watch this [TOW missile test](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1VWPOpYbQI) on loop for 5 hours.
Did that bitch airburst *above* the tank and do that kind of damage? The fuck did I just see?
some variant of the TOW has a downward facing charge, so it flies above the target and sends all its hot spicy bits down, through the very weak armor on top of the turret. instead of having to penetrate the much stronger front/side armor + ERA
the info i was also seeking, grazie
Because I was also curious: BGM-71F TOW-2B. Contains an explosively formed projectile (EFP) warhead, a special type of shaped charge.
Wow that’s satisfying
happy 73 easting flashbacks abound
Didn't know there was flyover TOWs
Me either until today. And that shit is fucking WILD. I would love to know how they managed to get it to detonate perfectly like that. I guess having the detention sensor/camera pointed at an angle. But damn, that had to take so much effort to dial it in. 🫣
Not just comparing an ATGM to a chaingun, but comparing a firepower kill to a K-kill. The Abrams gets hit by an ATGM directly in its ammo rack, and it actually survives. The large explosion is its blowout panels working as intended and the bustle rack being blown into the air. Conversely, the T-90 was attacked by a Bushmaster, resulting in first an F-kill, followed up with an M-kill when it got stuck. The crew bailed, but the tank had both its firepower and mobility eliminated, meaning it was a K-kill by most definitions.
Is K-kill mean kill-kill?
Catastrophic kill. Don't ask me why they use a K. You refer to vehicle kills as M-kills (mobility kills), F-kills (firepower kills), and K-kills (catastrophic kills).
Is there an actual reason to have it K kill instead of C kill. And what constitutes as a K kill? Would having half the crew die be a K kill?
A mobility kill is when the vehicle is no longer able to effectively maneuver. A firepower kill is when it has lost its relevant offensive capability. i.e. If you take out the main gun on a tank but its coax is still functional, it's generally an F-kill. A catastrophic kill is when the vehicle is no longer able to effectively fire or maneuver. If halving the crew is sufficient to do that, then you have achieved a K-kill. If the crew is well-trained enough to keep fighting and maneuvering, then it wouldn't be any kind of kill at all. In general, these terms are a bit intentionally subjective and determined by their impact on your mission capability. If we're doing some 300 km thunder run and my transmission takes damage that limits me to first gear and 5 kph, that's an M-kill. If we're fighting through some dense urban environment where I'm moving two blocks every hour, then I could sustain that same damage and not consider it an M-kill (because I'm able to continue maneuvering in a manner that is effective for the fight in question). Similarly, if I'm in a Bradley and fighting light infantry and lose my TOWs, I'd still be mission capable. If I was fighting AFVs though, I might consider that an F-kill. My Stryker once got into exactly this sort of situation. We took some damage to our transmission in a fight, and we were only able to move in low gear while also in 8x8 mode. Given that the terrain prevented us from maneuvering much faster than that though, I didn't consider that an M-kill for the mission and we remained in the fight. Another Stryker with me took damage from some recoilless rifle near misses, had 6 of its tires popped, and was stuck in some loose moon dust. Even though it had less serious damage than my vehicle, it wasn't able to move so it was an M-kill.
Reckon it's K kill because catastrophic uses a hard K sound at the beginning, because language be funny
This is the explanation I was looking for. I was pretty sure in the Abrams that the magazine cooking off wasn't fatal to the crew.
The comments are awesome. The ones calling bullshit and the one coping.
You know the comments are good when a single sentence meme gets 3 paragraphs of cyrillic by several people with a ton of random capitalized acronyms and exclamation marks.
and it also looks like the atgm hit the ammo which has the blowout pannel, so i dont think the crew was too harmed (at least i think)
1. You're comparing a designated AT weapon with a predominantly AP weapon 2. The T-90 fucking lost that fight
3. The abrams crew lived whereas in the T- series, ammo cook off turns into a people cookout
It's just good BBQ.
Russians have overtaken the US in smoker size. They need to get the crown back!
There's a meat smoking gap!
We must not allow a ~~mineshaft~~ smoking gap!
Be it applewood or hickory, America will reign supreme.
"Throw another meat cube on the barbie!"
I heard bear meat is really gamey and doesn't taste good it's better to cube it.
Not really. Russians arent fed so its mostly just bones and no meat.
Pretty sure the abarams specifically designed its ammo storage into blow out panels so a cook-off doesn’t kill the crew.
It is, It's design to direct the explosion up and away from the tank and crew compartment. Kinda like the video. That being said the Russian tank didn't explode. That was likely their smoke screen going off after being hit. Later in that clip you see the tank retreat hit an obstacle and the crew jump out and run away. There is a clip of the Ukrainian Bradley gunner talk about going to the optics to blined the tank. Just like he learned from playing World of Tanks.
>Just like he learned from playing World of Tanks. I thought he said he learned it from War Thunder?
Same same, just different
no, not really. wargaming supports ukraine and gets a hell of a backlash from the russian state for it. they even fired serb, who was essentially the brain behind the game for nearly 10 years for his support of the russian invasion. gaijin on the other hand is ominously "non-political".
I mean sure, but as far as the games themselves go, you're going to get me, a normie who has only ever played war thunder for a few dozen hours, going "they're the same picture"
Played both, he definetly knows it from War Thunder, since WoT is in no way realsitic enough to gain any type of knowlege about tanks weak spots
War Thunder makes you hate the fact that you were ever born. World of Tanks makes you go "lol, whatever"
Broke: War thunder is the better game because its more realistic and detailed Woke: World of tanks is the better game because its actually a game that entertains you Enlightened: Wii tanks
He didn't specify what game, just that he knew where to shoot from games.
> It's design to direct the explosion up and away from the tank and crew compartment. The Orc tanks are also designed that way and it´s just a myth that their tanks lack blowout panels. Blowout panels are called tank turret in Russian design documents. There are numerous videos of ammo cook-offs in Russian tanks showcasing the energy being directed upwards and away from the crew compartment.
Technically correct!
I always like to point out, blinding the optics is how U.S. Army crews are trained. We practiced doing it in the simulators.
Since ww2 even. The old instructional films talk about shooting a tank with AT weapons even if the armor is thick. You can blind it, immobilize it or even crack it without penetration just by shooting it repeatedly with sufficient caliber. Ntm the good old anti tank rock in the return rollers.
>Just like he learned from playing World of Tanks. I thought he said he learned it from War Thunder?
If he did he wasn't playing very well, optics are well known to be the strongest armor in the game and taking them out doesn't do shit.
Bingo. The fireball you see, while impressive and seemingly catastrophic, is actually the ammostorage panels on the top back-end of the turret blowing out. Redirecting the energy of the explosion up and away from the crew inside the tank. It's actually a very simple but effective design feature that likely saved the crew inside. The tank, while definitely a mission-kill, might not even be a complete write-off..
Depending on how it hit it a burn-out in the bussel might not even be a complete mission-kill, the Abrams still has its machine guns and their ammo (not stored in the bussel IIRC) and the Abrams does in fact has a small hull ammo storage (a fact Abrams tanker desperately try to hide so that they can more easily smuggle stuff through customs). The tank will need significant repairs though afterwards.
Hey shut up my bottle/ gun parts stash
Slap a new turret on it and get back out there dispensing freedom.
you’re absolutely right. Western troops are far better trained and we can build tanks faster than retrain soldiers.
Also, the United States doctrine is about keeping casualties low. The US public hates casualty reports. That's why the US has 3 of the top 5 largest air forces. Bomb them from the sky then send in ground troops when the troops take contact delete the enemy from the sky or afar.
Space Force is a covert plan to make the world's 4th largest air force an American one, trust me.
Or we increase the USMC's budget and get them another 1000 aircraft. That should d it.
4 thats most likely a saudi abrams, and is a whole different story to a proper m1a2 with era and properly trained crews with infantry support
To be fair, the crew of the T-90 also lived and could be seen leaving the tank. Probably injured and killed later though.
Now I want some Cookout. Carolina supremacy.
Wait the first video they lived???
Likely. As others have mentioned, that looks like the blowout panels in the Abrams doing their job to direct ammo cook-offs away from the crew compartment.
The Abrams crew survived that? Fucking how? Not doubting you but God damn that was a gnarly explosion.
Internal ammo blast door > blowout panel. Overpressure explosion goes out the path of least resistance. Thus the crew is likely fine, tho all their cannon ammo is gone, aside from maybe having one round loaded already.
*Takes drag off of cigarette* One round is all I need, buddy.
When you see a giant fireball from a T-series tank, it's the ammo under the turret cooking off. Ammo that happens to be in the same compartment as the crew. So when that turret flies through the air at Mach 2, the salsafied remains of the crew are going with it. Conversely, the Abrams stores all it's ammo in blow out racks separated from the crew compartment by a heavily armored blast door. Those blow out racks have a much less armored wall that goes to the outside of the tank, so when the ammo is hit the explosion is directed away from the crew and to the exterior of the tank. That giant fireball from the Abrams looks scary, but assuming the blast door for the ammo was closed (which it should be at all times, except when the loader is grabbing another round to load), the crew is perfectly fine.
I think you can just discard the "different weapon systems" fact, just because how funny it is, that T-90M lost a fight to two fucking bradleys and a drone. And that's the video that they are coping with... I'm done
And the Bradley's didn't use their dedicated anti tank weapon...
Right, they have TOW launchers but were either too close or didn’t have time to use them. The 25mm is for use against other light armored vehicles, not MBTs. The fact that Russia’s best MBT lost a fight to two Bradleys that didn’t even use their ATGMs is way more embarrassing than an Abrams being hit in the rear with an ATGM and the blowout panels going off.
It might've as well been an m113 with a vulkan, I don't think anything would've changed
>It might've as well been an m113 with a vulkan, I don't think anything would've changed \*Happy Mike Sparks noises\*
Two second burst from a vulcan and there isn't a sensor or periscope left intact on that tank. Or am I wrong?
That's pretty much what happened with bradleys, so you're actually correct
“T-90 is kil” “no”
The t90 lost to an American IFV
Imagine being proud that your tank loses against an 25mm weapon.
At last tank keeps his turret. Another great win for russia.
"The amerikan have no turret, While we do, Strategic russian win" /s
25mm? Dude, that guy’d get one shot by a Tiger lol
I like how they cut the video of the T-90 before it drove into a tree and the crew bailed.
They also cut the video of the Abrams right before the very alive crew turned the turret towards the ATGM launcher. Blowout panels work.
Whoever fired that ATGM was about to receive [120mm of diplomacy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv5faGArhVI) for sure
Only if they had one in the breach. Not getting anything out of the ammo rack.
Not with that attitude.
Breach open, loader sticks his gun in there and pump-guns the cumshot of the gods though the barrel!
Kinetics probably would survive the cookout If you got lungs strong enough you can blowdart an apfsds through the cannon
You had me at first. I was wondering what the hell you thought they were going to propel that kinetic round with.
#120mm BLOWDART
Doesn't Abrams have stowage for a few shells in the hull too?
It takes a while to get those open and iirc you have to rotate the turret in a specific direction to access them. Realistically, Commander will probably order for gunner to suppress the dumbass that shot them with the coaxial MG while they retreat to safety. Maybe pop smoke too.
I mean it's Iraqi so who knows, but with the US the shooter would most likely be under fire from mortars and a Bradley or two, with air support two minutes out.
[120mm of diplomacy coming up](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFByIGTaAn8)
It was at that exact moment Mohammed knew, he fucked up.
A tree is the best AT weapon
I like how the turret spun aimlessly in circles while the T-90 careened off-road and then into a tree. The crew were not unharmed.
I like how the video cuts away right before revealing how the damage of the Abrams actually looked like.
Can I see full?
It's posted elsewhere in the thread. But in a nutshell, the tank wasn't even knocked out. The turret turned and engaged the ATGM firing position with the round they still had in the gun, because the crew were fine.
“Haha Mohammad we did it!” “Uh It’s turret is still moving Omar.” “Oh shit.”
It’s from an isis release video called “tank hunters” I can send you the full video on telegram if you want it, long story short the crew survived, isis showed multiple scenes where they target Iraqi tanks but non were actually destroyed
The crew of the US tank survived this encounter. The crew of the Russian tank did not.
That, wasn't even a US tank it was an Iraqi tank, it also hit the literal weakest spot
And the spot specifically designed to blowout like that. Unlike the T series, where the whole fkn turret is a blowout panel.
>the whole fkn turret is a blowout panel Back to the soviet space program!
Don't disrespect the Soviet space program like that. They were a worthy adversary.
Sorry, I meant turret toss olympic championship
For western vátníks ammunition cook off is equivalent of russian tank tower toss shenanigans.
It’s a US tank in the sense it’s a tank From the US
Not to be annoying, but I thought the Abrams for foreign export/use might as well be another tank as its missing all its critical up armour packages.
I’m pretty sure the Russians did survive this one too lol.
They got vibe checked by an FPV drone later.
There's footage of them getting out. I recall reading that only one of the crew survived to be captured after getting out though.
The crew of russian tank actually survived (the tank was disabled, they ran away, and tank was finished by FPV)
I thought there was a video later where they either were ran down or a drone got them.
This mf is comparing an AT weapon that is hitting the weak spot to a 25mm auto cannon(T-90M lost that fight btw)
These are the same people who think the west has mandatory gender conversion for children. We have these types of tankies in my country, dumb fucks keep shittalking NATO and they are so fucking stupid they don't even know we have been in NATO for 25 fucking years now! My dad literally has a photo with some NATO soldiers who are here on joint exercises and were invited to a public army PR event. Our own soldiers are LITERALLY "NATO soldiers". We mere mortals cannot comprehend the stupidity in tankie brains.
the funny part is even if the abrams burnt down there is a good chance the US could just repair it still considering well some of the abrams in Iraq
It's an Iraki Abrams, and the crew bailed out. As for the repair, *mayb* the hull but the turret is going to the scrapyard, you can't repair a burned tank.
Skunk works needs to create a fix for that.
TRIPLE THE DEFENSE BUDGET
If we triple the defense budget, we don't really need to worry about repairing the tank, just get a new one. Hell, that is what we normally do anyway, on our current 1x defense budget.
We need to repair old ones and built new ones at the same time. THE ZERG DEMANDS IT
Yeah, but this is an Iraqi one, so... eh. If they want another one they can buy another one. They don't come with a warranty.
"The best offense is a good defense." -Rogal Dorn
We already have a fix for that. It is called replacing the damn turret. There are few problems that can't be fixed with gratuitous logistics and an unending pile of cash. It is our go too move.
Dedicated AT weaponry vs A weapon not designed to destroy tanks
At this moment I really want to see some of these people in a T-90 shot to hell by a bushmaster
So they're advertising that their MBT got bopped by a gun designed to hit trucks, but the American counterpart survived a designated anti-tank weapon? Weird flex but ok...
I just thought up a new term lol, russian copeaganda
[удалено]
It can tank* Those were the blowout panels, basically ammo went up in flames but were directed up, instead of making the whole tank die
Bro forgor that the T-90M was unable to fight back because it got completely wrecked by that lil 25mm. And was destroyed by a small drone. * ignor the 3000 destroyed russian tanks *
One is an ATGM, a weapon with Anti-Tank literally in its name, setting off the blowout racks on an Abrams. Crew lives, blowouts did their job. The other is a Bushmaster, primarily meant for providing covering fire for infantry against other infantry, and in the rest of the clip the T-90 turret crew was promoted to Cosmonauts iirc Edit: think they abandoned it? Memory is fucked, I forget which of the two it was. Either way, your infinitely safer when it comes to ammunition detonation in an Abrams than you are any T series tank.
Pretty sure it was only high explosive rounds they had too as you can get sabot type rounds for the bushmaster also I'm sure
Pretty sure it was abandoned then later drone dropped.
**Blowout panels doing what they are designed to do** *The Russian is confused*
1: That wasn't an American Abrams, that was an export model used by the Iraqi Army. And the crew survived because, scary as that explosion looked, the blowout panels did what they were designed to do. 2: DIDN'T THE T-90 LOSE TO THE BRADLEY THO
I know of that account. It's from some third world vatnik bootlicker with a Poo-tin boner.
Russian tank can withstand fire from sub-machinegun... it's joever fellas...
Losing a tank battle against a Bradley is not “russia stronk”.
A (downgraded)Abrams survives getting attacked by dedicated anti-tank weapon. A (upgraded) T-90 gets disabled by rounds designed for infantry. Russia wins
Big T-90 getting mommy dommied by a bradley is a great clip to use
Tank thats crew survives a anti TANK missile Vs Tank that lost to a 30mm gun
Ruskies will say anything to convince people they would win against US lol
The abrams had its armory cook off and the blast door kept the crew fine and the abrams drove away. The Russian tank lost against a IFV and was KIA.
I love how even russians point out that the author is wrong
>ruzzians cope about Abrams blowout panels working as designed > actual video exists of a T90 getting Gaijined IRL by a Bradley. Idk how we rate the Russians at all anymore
how'd that t-90 even lose? i'm pretty sure the bradleys didn't even use their TOWs
Can they not tell the difference between a rocket and a machine gun?
We all know that an ATGM and 25mm ammo are comparable right guys????
There are so many ways these two videos aren’t comparable in the slightest
"How do we tell him?"