Military Discussion Thread

[STGN]

The AR15 is not unreliable even i hard combat conditions, hence why SOCOM just stopped the SCAR 5.56 and many western special forces uses them no matter what standard gun the army has. The dust test supposedly used worn M4's and about half the malfunctions where attributed to the magazine, actually the M4's tested in the previous dust test had less malfunctions attributed to the gun then the SCAR and HK416(should be noted that one of the HK416s tested had a high failure rate at the end of testing giving the gun a worse result than what might have been uptained) had in the third dust test.
And the reason for asking HK to develop the HK416 was to solve problems with the MK18, HK then tried to market it as an M4 replacement. Larry Vickers on HK416 telling how Delta force was searching for a MP5 size M4 and could not find something suitable with direct impingement.
STGN

[NoRailgunner]

STGN this article is a bit dusty - from 2003/2004.
The Norwegian Armed Forces are actually replacing all their HK AG-3 with HK416 and special forces + police/law enforcements around the world using them too (beside other weapons).

I dont think that SOCOM stopped the use of SCAR MK16 only because of politics. If they didnt want FN SCAR as weapon system they would have stopped MK17 and other variants but they are going to purchase more of those:

SOCOM said it will instead purchase additional Mk-17 variants that use the heavier 7.62 mm round, more Mk-13 Enhanced Grenade Launchers, and a newly-designated Mk-20 Sniper Support Rifle. (Industry observers say the Mk-20 is basically the Mk-17 with longer barrel and other sharpshooter enhancements.)

[STGN]

Dusty? I posted the link to show that the reason for the HK416 was not the M4's "unreliability" but the MK18 type AR.
STGN

[***LeGeNDK1LLER***]

It depends on where that percentage is. If its all up in the mountains, then there really isnt a problem, as you wouldnt be fighting in aroured vehicles up there anyway. Its all about suitability to task.

of course but having a vehicle which is able to operate in most of the conditions and situations is preferable than the contrare.especially if you don't need to spend a lot of money for that but you have just to adopt a simple solution.

And I wouldnt over-estimate it. There is a reason that the vast majority of western vehicles have lost their amphibious capabilities over recent decades.

not truth a good percentage of medium/light vehicles has anphibious capability.lav 25-Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle-AAv7-bmp3-spud-sd-M-973 SUSV ecc.of course MBT are not anhpibious.

No, amphibious means
This means river crossing AND beach landing operations. The vast majority of vehicles intended ONLY to cross rivers are deep-water fording capable, not completely amphibious. (See Leopard or T-72 with their fording towers)

of course and i'm glad now you know because ,according with you last anphibious definition, even my dad when is swimming under water could be defined anphibious.

Thanks, I try. And are we fighting the ex colonies? No. So their role is outdated.

can you just make a quick search with google before posting really,i'm telling you frankly.the response is yes they are. in gibuti-french guyana and in these places an old but reliable amx can be usefull.they have different vehicles for different tasks.

There are PLENTY of documented cases of RPG-7's penetrating Bradleys and Abrams.

not completely truth,is plenty of bradleys and abrams hitted by rpg without being disabled.they have continued their mission.probably a double warhead is a bigger threat...but most of the insurgents uses a single warhead.

Also, its funny, on one hand you're ready to say that simply damaging a tank is not enough to knock it out, but on the other (when we talk about the 105 gun) you say that damage IS enough? Make your mind up please?

is funny when someone sees contradictions where there are not
first you are misrepresenting my posts.secondary: damaging a tank doesn't mean to knock it out.or you should definy what you mean for knock it out.you hit with a 105 mm the turret of an abrams, pretty much you have disabled/damaged the flir/FCS ecc is it knock it out?nope of course.seeing contradictions where there aren't isn't a intelligence test successfully passed.

Again, the most BASIC RPG-7 warhead can penetrate 330mm of RHA steel armour. Whilst this isnt enough to scratch frontal armour, it is certainly enough to penetrate the side and rear aspects of well protected MBTs. Going back to the point in hand - it would cut through ANY part of the AMX like a hot knife through butter.

well a part the cod 4 kids statements as " it would cut through ANY part of the AMX like a hot knife through butter ".the rest is just theory.to penetrate an armor with a basic prg-7 you need a certain distance.the good angulation(the warhead must be approximately perpendicular with the tank direction).war is not a like a test when you are proving the tanks resistence.
am i saying an rpg-7 can't penetrate an amx-10/bradley?nope.. i must be clear since you have an amazing skill to misinterpret my words.but surely is a weak threat,very weak for abrams.

Oh please do tell companies like Plasan-Sasa, Glouchester, Rafael, General Dynamics et al that their applique armour kits are "the wrong solution". I'm sure they'd be greatful for your informed input

should i tell them what they already know?you have again changed the point of the discussion. 1 solution to limitate the ied effects on tanks is armour kits.does they become the most good vehicles against IED?sure not.oh well you can even build a 150 tons beast with 3000mm of armour but you may encounter various problems.so the best solution is to find a good shape to limitate the ied blast and to make the lower part of the vehicle more higher.
you wanna se a good shape for anti-ied purposes?
so as i have already said the armour kits are just a solution to adapt a vehicle not created to face IEDs.does means these companies are blind to use these kits?am i suggesting they don't know what they are doing?well....no.do you are able to understand my point?mmm i wouldn't put my 50 euro on you.





well let me tell you,it was easy enough to understand my point,but you prefered to quote me and to change the point of the discussion.

Yes, the BEST current defence against IED's is a v-shaped hull, but you cant reverse engineer that into a lot of vehicles, so an applique armour kit is the next best option.

yes the best option for a vehicle which is already produced...

And I hate to tell you this - but the AMX10 does NOT feature a v-shaped hull. It has a very flat bottom, so is just as vulnerable as Bradley or Warrior.

oh yeah but i wasn't talking about the beatifull v-shaped hull of the amx.in contrare case quote me.i was saying that is a very "high" vehicle and the armour is not close at the ground and this is a good thing against ieds.

Again, as above, unless you get lucky, your 105mm gun is going to do nothing, whilst their well armoured 120mm systems are going to return fire and cut you to bits.

dont take it so badly,cod 6 players can be even respectfull and sometimes smart people...but you are still talking like 1 of those.105 mm is not a candy sprayer.and tanks are not like boxers which they need to fight eachothers inside a ring.can you get me?

The day of the tank destroyer is over. Thats why many nations have retired theirs. And you know what they've been replaced with? Helicopters.

lol...helicopters who? those things that you can shoot down with a sintger/strela/tunguska/aa missile ecc.?
im not complaining so much in this case,anti-tank destroyers were made to face the threats of a simmetrical war with the soviets.but talking that they can be replaced with a chopper is a bullshit.there are places/situation were a tank/anti tank d. can be more proper.uh and before you change again the point/you misrepresent what i've said im not saying amx 10 is far superior comparated with an apache

Well considering its original designed purpose was that of tank destroyer, I'd say that yes, its purpose was to engage MBTs.

Hell, even the giat website advertises the AMX 10 RC as an "anti-tank vehicle"

recon anti-tank destroyer.... recon.that why they have made this vehicle fast and anphibious.because they can't wait the second line for cross bridging kits
or for heavy support.they are the eyes on the ground in a typical conventional warfare with tanks/arty/infantry ecc.they hit and they escape that why they can reach 100 km/h.i hope at least this point is clear now

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/amx/

Wheeled Armoured ***RECONNAISANCE*** Vehicle

No, if they were maximising power they would have gone with the 152 or 160mm systems in development in the 50's and 60's. Instead they went with the most appropriate system to defeat the percieved threat at that time.

nope maximizing doesn't mean you take a gun and you turn it in a rifle(metaphora).
this is your personal meaning of "maximizing".
this is the universal meaning : http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/maximizing

you can't simply add tens and tens of mm without changing the project.your mind is to much confident with these type of grotesque simplifications.

Secondly, if 105mm is still so effective, why do NO modern main battle tanks use a 105mm gun? They ALL use a 120mm gun. But thats not because the 105mm is ineffective? Its because everybody wants to "maximise" their power, right?

already gave you a response for that question look above.

So, in your scenario, you've reached your objective, 700km away. You travelled there at say 75km/h, assuming there are paved roads all the way to your objective. That would mean you reach your objective more than 6 hours ahead of the rest of your battle group.

lol this called forcing an example to turn the truth on your side.having the possibility to reach 100km/h means being able to move more fast to a possible target and to retreat more fast than most of the ground vehicles can.
pretty much what a recon tank d. should be.and you can even cross bridge.you are pretty much indipendent while in recon

now you can tell me 1 more time "oh well but if you move at 100km/h for 10 hours and the rest of the team can only travel at 50km/h you will be 500 km far away." there is no relation with what im saying and is not a smart consideration.so there are 2 possibilites you:you are blind mate or you are trolling me.

If you want me to troll you, I can. But so far I have presented nothing but facts, sprinkled with a generous helping of my wonderful opinions.

seriusly you don't have the skill to...the best troll is someone who is trolling
and most of the forum is not understanding it or at least his interlocutor is not.you were spotted several times.

Yes, 38 rounds of main armament is ok as an MBT, but not as a fire support vehicle. You'd want a lot more ammunition than that for extended engagement periods.Which, incidentally is what you'd be doing at the front of an advance, well ahead of your supply chain.

confusing a recon vehicle with a support vehicle is a mistake.face it.is not a support vehicle.and anyway find me a vehicles support/mbt or recon which can carry more than 38/40 shells.

I think you'll find that all my points are based on direct quotes of your posts.

well you are 1 of the greatest examples that pressing the reply button doesn't mean necessarily answering.

The M1 was introduced with a 105mm gun in the 80s because thats what it was designed to use in the 70s.

When the west got ahold of details of T-72, it was discoved that the 105mm gun would not penetrate the frontal aspects of T-72. So they up-gunned it to 120mm. A system which would penetrate T-72.

Herf derf your way out of that one...

"maximizing"as i said. can you post me evidences/test whatever that proves a 105 mm can't penetrate a t-72?plz...

you are jsut saying "ahahah you dumb they have upgrade the cannon cuz they have discovered the weakness of 105 mm against soviet tanks"(with your typical *** * ****** attitude)

well is this reagan that appears on your dreams for revealing stuff like these
or you can post some link?

And if its boring, just stop posting and leave?

i was pretty much 1 mounth ago,but you have replied at 1 mine thread.so i've checked your profile and i've found your....curious ideas(we can call them in this way)
well i'm giving you a second chance to switch from "troll mode on" to " i will be normal this time".otherwise you can continues to change the point of a discussion,misrepresent,posting useless things and trolling.but you will do it alone.

[DM]

Oh good lord, I thought we'd put this to bed...

of course but having a vehicles which is able to operate in most of the conditions and situations is preferable than the contrare.especially if you don't need to spend a lot of money for that but you have jsut to adpot a simple solution.

Making vehicles amphibious is not a trivial task.

Are you aware of the extra effort required to make a vehicle amphibious? In fact, it is pretty much always more expensive to make a vehicle amphibious than it is to not bother. Everything has to be designed to be water-resistant, sealed against water ingress, and dont even get me started on corrosion life...

not truth a good percentage of medium/light vehicles has anphibious capability.lav -25-Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle-AAv7-bmp3-spud-sd-M-973 SUSV ecc.of course MBT are not anhpibious.

And everything you've quoted there are purpose designed as amphibious assault vehicles (lav, aav, efv, bmp etc etc).

I could provide you with an even longer list of vehicles which are not amphibious that have been introduced to replace vehicles which were amphibious. But you'll probably ignore that too.

of course and i'm glad now you know because ,according with you last anphibious definition, even my dad when is swimming under water could be defined anphibious.

I've got news for you. Your dad IS amphibious. By definition all humans are.

Amphibious means: capable of operating on both land and water. And thats from the dictionary.

What I originally said was:

I wouldnt want to be in or anywhere near this thing on a beach landing.

Which you instantly took to mean some sort of D-Day style assult with troops and mg nests and whatnot.

What I meant was I would not like to be in this vehicle whilst it is at its most vulnerable. I.e. trying to penetrate the surf onto the beach. Not stable enough to fire back, and moving incredibly slowly, thus presenting an excellent target to any AT gunners.

YOU jumped to a conclusion and failed to understand my meaning.

can you just make a quick search with google before posting really,i'm telling you frankly.the response is yes they are. in gibuti-french guyana and in these places an old but reliable amx can be usefull.they have different vehicles for different tasks.

Without googling too deeply into it, sure, using the AMX against a bunch of rebels armed with ak's and rpg's isnt so scary.

Up against a traditional enemy, or one more capable of employing IEDs as part of guerilla tactics, then no, its not so good.

not completely truth,is plenty of bradleys and abrams hitted by rpg without being disabled.they have continued their mission.probably a double warhead is a bigger threat...but most of the insurgents uses a single warhead.

So because some have been hit and continued on with their mission, all those which were hit and destroyed are suddenly somehow irrelevant?

Fantastic logic I must say.

The point still stands that the basic RPG-7 is capable of penetrating 330mm of RHA. Which is probably in a region of 310mm more than the AMX has in most (NOT ALL) places.

you hit with a 105 mm the turret of an abrams, pretty much you have disabled/damaged the flir/FCS ecc is it knock it out?nope of course.

Funny then that there are plenty of stories from the middle east of the Iran/Iraq war. Where Chieftain tanks took multiple hits to the turret and fought on. (Ok there were plenty of cases where the crews simply abandoned their vehicles, for them to be absorbed into the oppositions inventory since they were not damaged at all).

The same can be said of M1's in the 1st Gulf war. Quite a few took hits to the frontal armour, and aside from partial penetration (which did not pass all the way through the armour) the tanks fought on.

I'd post links, but sadly all this information is in books. So what can you do.

You seem to think that just striking the turret will magically destroy all the optics and computers and so on. It just doesnt happen. Especially with KE rounds. Unless the KE round fully penetrates its going to do little more than leave an ugly hole in the armour.

intelligence test

I wouldnt be the one mouthing off about intelligence. Considering my replies have been backed up with facts, and yours have such gems as

french foreign legion wouldn't use this vehicle like a front line tank during desert storm if was not able to shoot while is moving.

and

lol what a bullshit i've searched on your link and is not written "stabilized :no"

which I followed up with

well a part the cod 4 kids statements as " it would cut through ANY part of the AMX like a hot knife through butter ".the rest is just theory

Still going strong with the "cod kiddie" defence I see...

to penetrate an armor with a basic prg-7 you need a certain distance.the good angulation(the warhead must approximately perpendicular with the tank direction).war is not a like a test when you are proving the tanks resistence.
am i saying an rpg-7 can't penetrate an amx-10/bradley?nope.. i must be clear since you have an amazing skill to misinterpret my words.but surely is a weka threat,very weak for abrams.

Again, you have failed to see my point.

You said "AMX is a beast"
I replied that "vehicles which are much tougher than the AMX are having additional armour packages added to them. That additional armour weighs as much as the entire armour package of the AMX. Therefore, the AMX is not a beast by any stretch of the imagination."

You then went off on one about how the AMX is or isnt or maybe it is designed to fight tanks, or was it people with aks and rpgs in the former colonies, or was it to go and do recon on the FEBA? I dunno, you've changed your tune so much on what the AMX is meant for its hard to keep up.

At the end of the day, it was designed in the 70's as a tank killer. A job which is now well and truly outdated. And as such, so is the AMX10RC.

You do NOT need a 105mm gun to do recon. The Brits realised this in the 80's, the Americans and the Russians did too.

should i tell them what they already know.you have again changed the point of the discussion. 1 solution to limitate the ied effects on tanks is armour kits.does they become the most good vehicles against IED.sure not.oh well you can even build a 150 tons beast with 3000mm of armour but you may encounter various problems.so the best solution is to find a good shape to limitate the ied blast and to make the lower part of the vehicle more higher.
you wanna se a good shape for anti-ied purposes?

well let me tell you,it was easy enough to understand my point,but you prefered to quote me and to change the point of the discussion.

Your point was so fucking jumbled up its hard to keep track.

To boil it down again, I said
"vehicles are getting additional armour to combat the IED threat"
to which you replied
"in afghanistan tanks have not a bigger threats than rpg 7"
which made no sense what so ever, because it missed my point. Again, that point was 60 ton tank gets extra armour that weighs the same as the AMX, thus the AMX's armour is rather weak/pathetic.

As for the v-shape hull issue. Of course I know that a v-shape hull is better for defeating the IED threat. Again, the point is you can NOT retro-fit a v-shape hull to a flat bottom vehicle.
Is that so hard to understand?

oh yeah but i wasn't talking about the beatifull v-shaped hull of the amx. i was saying that is a very "high" vehicle and the armour is not close at the ground and this is a good thing against ied.

Oh, and again, you're singing the AMX's praises where they are not due.

AMX10RC ground clearance: 60cm (thats maximum, it usually travels at 30cm)
Warrior ground clearance: 50cm
Bradley ground clearance: 40cm
AAV7 ground clearance: 40cm
Stryker ground clearance: 46cm
LAV-25 ground clearance: 36cm

So unless the AMX just happens to be travelling at maximum ground clearance setting (not only rare, but also negates its "low profile") then its in a WORSE position than everything else. So dont go touting "advantages" which dont exist...

yes the best option for a vehicle which is already produced...but i've only said the armour kit for ied are a solution made for a vehicle which is not create to face ied.

Finally, we can agree on something.

dont take it so badly,cod 6 players can be even respectfull and sometimes smart people...but you stil lare talking like 1 of those.105 mm is not a candy sprayer.

Calling me a cod kiddie and trying to insult my intelligence directly too. Nice...

Well aware that the 105 is not a toy gun. Also well aware that the 105 is not as good as you're making it out to be.

lol...helicopters who? those things that you can shoot down with a sintger/strela/tunguska/aa missile ecc.?
im not complaining so much in this case,anti-tank destroyer were made to face the threats of a simmetrical war with the soviets.but talking that they can be replaced with a chopper is a bullshit.there are places/situation were a tank/anti tank d. can be more proper.uh and before you change again the point/you misrepresent what i've said im not saying amx 10 is far superior comaprated with an apache

Give me one case where a tank destroyer could be more suitable than an attack helicopter packing TOW or Hellfire missiles.

Each missile is pretty much, assuming it hits the target, guarenteed to take out the tank. The 105, if its lucky enough to hit something vital might damage it.

Also, one of your key "selling" points for the AMX is its speed. Well, pretty sure that a helicopter is waaaay faster than the AMX can ever hope to be. It also solves that pesky issue of having to be amphibious, AND it can go up in the mountains where the AMX cant (think flanking maneuver)

Also, if its such bullshit, explain to me then why in most NATO forces, the tank destroyer was phased out at the same time the TOW/HOT equipped helicopter was phased in.

To use one of your faveourite words:

"its called updating"

recon anti-tank destroyer.... recon.that why they have made this vehicle fast and anphibious.because they can't the second line for cross bridging kits
or for heavy support.they are the eyes on the ground ina typical conventional warfare with tanks/arty/infantry ecc.they hit and they escape that why they can reach 100 km/h.i hope at least this point is clear now

Unless there is a river directly behind them, then they escape at about 7km/h.

I dont doubt that for recon speed is vital. I do doubt that the 105 gun is. If you're doing recon, the idea is not to be seen. If you're then engaging enemy tanks, chances are you've been seen. At which point you're no longer recon, you're the dead dudes at the FEBA.

nope maximizing doesn't mean you take a gun and you turn it in a rifle(metaphora).
this is your personal meaning of "maximizing".
thsi is the universal meaning : http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/maximizing
you can't simply add tens and tens of mm without changing the project.your mind is to much confident with these type of grotesque simplifications.

What the fuck are you talking about?

You said NATO chose the 120mm to "maximise" their power. I told you that if NATO wanted to maximise its power, it would have gone with the 152 or 160mm guns it was developing at the same time as the 120mm gun.

They chose 120mm because it was the right size for the job. Thats not maximising in ANY sense of the word.

Chieftain was designed around a 120mm gun (the first NATO tank to have one). Abrams was also designed around a gun of this size, but a suitable weapon was not available at the time - the M256 that it uses now, not being produced until 1979, 4 years after the M1 was designed. So they went with the L7/M68 105mm gun, one they were familiar with from the M60.

Incidentally, the MBT-70, which if successful would be the MBT the Americans would be using now, was to be armed with either a 152mm gun (for the Americans). That would be "maximising" power.

I still fail to see how you dont understand that the 120mm gun was designed specifically to penetrate the armour threat of tanks at the time. It wasnt anything to do with "maximising" power. Hell, if you want to see an example of maximing power, look up P.1500.

seriusly you don't have the skill to...the best troll is someone who is trolling
and most of the forum is not understanding it or at least his interlocutor is not.you were spotted several times.

Oh noes, johnny-come-lately is calling me out on the forums.

Somebody call the interbutts whaaaambulance...

confusing a recon vehicle with a support vehicle is a mistake.face it.is not a support vehicle.and anyway find me a vehicles support/mbt or recon which can carry more than 38/40 shells.

I call it a support vehicle because that is what most countries who still have such things use them as.

Theres no point putting them up against tanks because they just get annihilated. Plus most of these former colonies dont have tanks. So what can you use them for? Fire support. Its quick, its mobile, it can hurl 105mm HE shells at the bad dudes from relative safety. Thus, FSV.

Edit to add, because I missed it first time round:

Challenger 2: 52 rounds 120mm
M1 Abrams: 42 rounds 120mm
Arjun: 39 rounds 120mm
Leopard 2: 42 rounds 120mm
Merkava Mk IV: 48 rounds 120mm

"maximizing"as i said. can you post me evidences7test whatever that proves a 105 mm can't penetrate a t-72.

you are jsut saying "ahahah you dumb they have upgrade the cannon cuz they have discovered the weakness of 105 mm against soviet tanks".

well is this reagan that appears on your dreams for revealing stuff like these
or you can post some evidence?

Well for a start there is documented evidence of Chieftains, Challengers (1 and 2) and Abrams surviving hits from MUCH more powerful 120 and 125mm guns.

Secondly, I know of no documented cases of tanks surviving 105mm strikes. Equally I do not know of any documented cases of tanks being penetrated/destroyed with 105mm hits. I am also not going to believe the hyperbole the manufacturer posts on their website.

Lastly, if the 105mm gun is still so effective, why do NO modern MBTs use it? Why do ALL modern MBTs have 120mm guns? And don't just say "because they want to maximise power" because thats utter bullshit. Its because the 105 (and quite often, as has been proven in battle, the 120mm) gun is NOT capable of penetrating modern armour threats.

You dont spend billions of dollars replacing a system which works just fine. If the 105mm gun was still a viable threat on the battlefield, dont you think everyone would still be using it? Do you really think they spent all that time and money developing the 120mm gun because they wanted to? Or was it because they found out that the 105mm gun wasnt up to the job anymore, so it needed replacing with something more capable?

you are jsut saying "ahahah you dumb they have upgrade the cannon cuz they have discovered the weakness of 105 mm against soviet tanks".

Because thats what they did? Maybe tomorrow, maybe later on, I'll post the excerpts from the various books talking about how and why the 120mm gun came about.

well i'm giving you a second chance to switch from "troll mode on" to " i will be normal this time".otherwise you can continues to change the point of a discussion,misrepresent,posting useless things and trolling alone.

Wow, thank you oh kind and benevolent master of the internet. Thankyou for giving me a chance.

Or, what we could do, is accept the fact that the AMX10RC is an outdated design, grossly over-armed and grossly under-armoured.

Because that would be realistic.

[Baff1]

Some notes...

One example of a tank destroyer being more useful than a helicopter mounted system would be a war in which you did not have air superiority.

In the Gulf Wars for example, helicopters were the first to be destroyed.
Iraqi tank assaults were made during sandstorms which also prevented the flying of our own helicopters to engage them.

Helicopter are also very vulnerable to groundfire and the Apaches that spearheaded the tank thrusts in thw second Gulf war took heavy casualties from RPG's where the tanks did not.



As for the Abrams and the Bradley not being at significant risk from the RPG, the up armouring of both of these vehicles in the aftermath of the the invasion of Iraq should not be lost on anyone.

Birdcages on Bradleys and reactive armour all down the sides of the TUSK.

This a picture of an Abrams hit by an antipersonnel RPG 7 warhead.

No penetration on it's weak flank.

Here is one of an armour peicing warhead to the same spot.
Penetration has occoured,


There is a visible burn pattern of an chemical warhead which these two photographs display.



Below is one that got hit by a kinetic armour peircer on the same spot.

http://data.primeportal.net/m1_iraqp...2/Dscf0093.jpg




TUSK variants have added reactive armour to the sides to counter the RPG threat.


A tank that can be recovered and fixed is only more useful than tank that is destroyed beyond repair, if you win the battle. If you lose the battle, this is actually a disadvantage as you have given the enemy your tank.

Here is a picture of an Abrams that was disabled by a 7.62 round to the engine radiator.

The resulting engine overheat and fire caused the tank to be abandoned. But it was not "destroyed" outright.




However, it occoured in enemy controlled territory and the tank could not be recovered. It was effectively destroyed. (And so they finished it off themselves rather than allow the technology to be captured).

Here it is captured.






Here it is again after the battle. By now, the victim of numerous allied airstrikes and tank rounds.



A tank is "knocked out" when it stops fighting.

[TFatseas]

@Baff1: That tank you show as an example, I believe it was disabled by a 23mm from a ZSU, not a 7.62.

It was during one of the Thunder Runs into Baghdad, so they just decided to leave it.

[da12thMonkey]

Or, what we could do, is accept the fact that the AMX10RC is an outdated design, grossly over-armed and grossly under-armoured.

To demonstrate this you only need look at the AMX-10RC's proposed replacement, the Panhard SPHINX:





600HP, 17 tonnes, MBDA NLOS missiles, CTA 40mm cannon, STANAG Level 5 protection against projectiles (Bar armour and appliqué composites), STANAG Level 4 mine protection from a V-shaped hull.

A world away from the AMX-10's spec

[echo1]

So if they need 7,62 rifle they should point attention to some of the .308 variants of AR-10 or SR-25.
I remember, what loud words had been said about SCAR program, about every its advantage. And now... Suddenly it doesn't have any noticeable advantages. BTW, its price would be much lower if it become not only SOF but whole army rifle instead of M4/M16 variants.

Aren't there some serious reliability problems with the SR-25? I read that only a few rounds can be fired in rapid succession or it fucks with the barrel or something... which kinda defeats the point of a semi-automatic...

[HyperU2]

Stick with the M16/M4 and the M14.