First Photos of Destroyed Leopard and Bradley’s, confirmed

[jhungary]

And there is only ONE propaganda bot with the nickname "jhungary" in this forum. So what?

But sure buddy, sure, it was the VR-Version. I bet it was even a Ch-29, fired by Saddam himself and the mighty Abrooms shrugged it of without a scratch to the paintjob.

And by the way, you see, were the rocket was pointing? It hit below the top of the wheels and was pointing something like 45° towards the ground, so in others words even the VR version would not able to penetrate anything besides the wheel. Basic geometry. The american education system ...View attachment 941668

Have you not heard of the term "mobility kill"

It didn't even achieve that, which mean knocking the track off, but hey, I guess you see shit you want to see. I have no problem you see shit, because you are.

And I take it you have no argument on the warhead, is that why you change direction to where does it strike?? LOL

 

[aziqbal]

Have you not heard of the term "mobility kill"

It didn't even achieve that, which mean knocking the track off, but hey, I guess you see shit you want to see. I have no problem you see shit, because you are.

And I take it you have no argument on the warhead, is that why you change direction to where does it strike?? LOL

Ok unlike you I have work to do

Go with poster around your neck which says “I’m hungry veteran feed me “

 

[jhungary]

Ok unlike you I have work to do

Go with poster around your neck which says “I’m hungry veteran feed me “

You must have beg before, otherwise how you'd know what to do??

 

[NotSure]

More new footage

Here comes the uneducated school drop out who says he served in military

“Oh but 3kg lancet cannot take out armour”

“Oh wait it can’t destroy anything”

“But it’s only 3kg how can it do that”

IQ level of -200 and that’s me being generous

https://twitter.com/x/status/1684320196138348545

There is a video from Iraq, Isis fired a Kornet (~4,5kg warhead) and it hit the left cheek from the front in an angle something around 30-40°, the most armored part of the whole Abrams tank. Or any other tank in the world! It penetrated first the whole turret armor and then the door to the ammo bunker, so the crew inside got burned to death.

https://imgur.com/a/0zovmt0

 

[jhungary]

There is a video from Iraq, Isis fired a Kornet (~4,5kg warhead) and it hit the left cheek from the front in an angle something around 30-40°, the most armored part of the whole Abrams tank. It penetrated first the whole turret armor and then the door to the ammo bunker, so the crew inside got burned to death.

https://imgur.com/a/0zovmt0

View attachment 941681View attachment 941682View attachment 941683

You do know your own diagram show that the turret is the least protected area of the entire tank, right? The most protected area of a tank is the driver compartment and the front armour.

And judging from the flame that come from the hatch, it was open, the ATGM ignited the round inside that main gun most likely from pressure, I wouldn't call it a full penetration, otherwise I am pretty sure the crew, which you can see from this full video, would not be able to escape and would burn to death, and that's what Blowout Panel inside the tank is for, and the driver still have control of the tank means it is not destroyed as you can see it move later on..

By thye way, this is not a kornet, this is a 9K115-2 Metis-M, they are comparable to Javelin

 

[jhungary]

Don’t tell jhungary he will probably die of heart failure

I don't get heart attack from jokes, especially from joker like you lol

I laugh at jokes, like everybody else.

If you can even match my point without these tantrum, maybe, just maybe, I would start treat you seriously.

 

[aziqbal]

I don't get heart attack from jokes, especially from joker like you lol

I laugh at jokes, like everybody else.

If you can even match my point without these tantrum, maybe, just maybe, I would start treat you seriously.

Oh wait 3kg can’t destroy armor ? How’s it’s possible it cannot be true it’s only 3kg warhead how Bradley and leopard is destroyed oh no it must be a lie can’t be true oh no it’s only 3kg

Your village called they said their idiot is lost

 

[NotSure]

You do know your own diagram show that the turret is the least protected area of the entire tank, right? The most protected area of a tank is the driver compartment and the front armour.

And judging from the flame that come from the hatch, it was open, the ATGM ignited the round inside that main gun most likely from pressure, I wouldn't call it a full penetration, otherwise I am pretty sure the crew, which you can see from this full video, would not be able to escape and would burn to death, and that's what Blowout Panel inside the tank is for, and the driver still have control of the tank means it is not destroyed as you can see it move later on..

Sure buddy, sure.

The turret cheeks, the most exposed part in a fight, are not the most armored part of the abrams or any other tank. In some different reality, with an alternative geometry or so.

Total gaga denial.

 

[jhungary]

Oh wait 3kg can’t destroy armor ? How’s it’s possible it cannot be true it’s only 3kg warhead how Bradley and leopard is destroyed oh no it must be a lie can’t be true oh no it’s only 3kg

Your village called they said their idiot is lost

Sure, explain to me how 3KG of PETN (which is considered the best explosive, which I doubt is what Lancet drone made of) of 8400 m/s detonation velocity and 1.76g/cm3 density can pack enough punch to defeat 900mm RHA armour. You aren't talking about projectile charge (like APFSDS round) nor tandem charge, you are talking about High Explosive warhead.

Go on, I am waiting.

Sure buddy, sure.

The turret cheeks, the most exposed part in a fight, are not the most armored part of the abrams or any other tank. In some different reality, with an alternative geometry or so.

Total gaga denial.

It's your own god damn graph

Tell me, which area have more space you can put armour on? The circle in blue or the circle in red?

Everyone knows the top portion of the tank is less protected than the main chassis, because that's where the gun and all the equipment were, it would not have enough space to put armour in.

Beside, you still have not address any of the issue, how the crew escape if the tank was destroyed. Fire happened BEFORE the crew bailed. And how the tank manages to move after the fire? Both suggested the tank was not destroyed, I can't say for sure it is penetrated, but I doubt it actually was, because the commander will not be able to bail out post fire.

 

[aziqbal]

Sure, explain to me how 3KG of PETN (which is considered the best explosive, which I doubt is what Lancet drone made of) of 8400 m/s detonation velocity and 1.76g/cm3 density can pack enough punch to defeat 900mm RHA armour. You aren't talking about projectile charge (like APFSDS round) nor tandem charge, you are talking about High Explosive warhead.

Go on, I am waiting.


It's your own god damn graph

View attachment 941694

Tell me, which area have more space you can put armour on? The circle in blue or the circle in red?

Everyone knows the top portion of the tank is less protected than the main chassis, because that's where the gun and all the equipment were, it would not have enough space to put armour in.

Beside, you still have not address any of the issue, how the crew escape if the tank was destroyed. Fire happened BEFORE the crew bailed. And how the tank manages to move after the fire? Both suggested the tank was not destroyed, I can't say for sure it is penetrated, but I doubt it actually was, because the commander will not be able to bail out post fire.

Sure here

https://twitter.com/x/status/1684289416271912960

 

[jhungary]

Sure here

https://twitter.com/x/status/1684289416271912960

Sure, no flame, no smoke no second det after explosion, either this tank have NOTHING inside, no gas, no ammo, not anything even remotely combustible, or the lancet did not penetrate inside the tank, so do tell me, how to destroy a tank without even penetrating the tank?

Again, for the last time, just because there is an explosion, that does not mean shit. Hitting does not equate to destroying, That tank didn't even do this

And you are telling me that tank was destroyed? How did you know??

 

[aziqbal]

Sure, no flame, no smoke no second det after explosion, either this tank have NOTHING inside, no gas, no ammo, not anything even remotely combustible, or the lancet did not penetrate inside the tank, so do tell me, how to destroy a tank without even penetrating the tank?

Again, for the last time, just because there is an explosion, that does not mean shit. That tank didn't even do this

And you are telling me that tank was destroyed? How did you know??

Ok so those tanks are getting knocked out without explosions

that means it’s Bad design, even worse advertisement for western equipment

If you admitted to it being destroyed by lancet you would above saved yourself some more embarrassment

 

[jhungary]

Ok so those tanks are getting knocked out without explosions

that means it’s Bad design, even worse advertisement for western equipment

If you admitted to it being destroyed by lancet you would above saved yourself some more embarrassment

How you knock out a tank with a drone with explosive WITHOUT EXPLOSION?? What you use then? magic? sound wave??? Then remind me again, what did "explosive" do?

The inside of the tank is filled with a lot of combustible thing, again, if none of those are ignited, how the tank was destroyed??

 

[aziqbal]

How you knock out a tank with a drone with explosive WITHOUT EXPLOSION?? What you use then? magic? sound wave??? Then remind me again, what did "explosive" do?

The inside of the tank is filled with a lot of combustible thing, again, if none of those are ignited, how the tank was destroyed??

I honestly can’t believe how dumb you are and you hold a professional title holder ? What kind of losers get these titles there is a minimum IQ level?

You are seriously not suggesting that lancet set off a secondary explosion which killed the vehicle and that is not a credit to Lancet ? How stupid and retarded are you ? Were you born like this or do you have to work for it ?

I normally don’t even read your posts i actually did read this one and shocked !

Lancet is a loitering munition NOT a 155mm shell it’s not designed to kill with its own power

It didn’t need to destroy, it’s meant to set off secondary explosions to kill the vehicle with its own fuel and ammunition due to poor design flaws of the target vehicle which means they can make 1,000 lancets per month

It’s 3kg because it doesn’t have to be more than that to get a secondary explosion set off

Is that why you have been saying for days 3kg can’t kill a tank

Well the answer is to kill armor with minimum cost and weight advantage, if it does that it’s working, only the END RESULT counts, which is to disable or destroy

No wonder dumb westerners are losing this war they are using £2 million storm shadow and Russia use $10,000 shaheed 136 to take out bridges

This is a economic war as well as a military

To stop the enemy with minimum requirement and lancet does that

It’s basic economics of war something you won’t understand

 

[jhungary]

I honestly can’t believe how dumb you are and you hold a professional title holder ? What kind of losers get these titles there is a minimum IQ level?

You are seriously not suggesting that lancet set off a secondary explosion which killed the vehicle and that is not a credit to Lancet ? How stupid and retarded are you ? Were you born like this or do you have to work for it ?

I normally don’t even read your posts i actually did read this one and shocked !

Lancet is a loitering munition NOT a 155mm shell it’s not designed to kill with its own power

It didn’t need to destroy, it’s meant to set off secondary explosions to kill the vehicle with its own fuel and ammunition due to poor design flaws of the target vehicle which means they can make 1,000 lancets per month

It’s 3kg because it doesn’t have to be more than that to get a secondary explosion set off

Is that why you have been saying for days 3kg can’t kill a tank

Well the answer is to kill armor with minimum cost and weight advantage, if it does that it’s working, only the END RESULT counts, which is to disable or destroy

No wonder dumb westerners are losing this war they are using £2 million storm shadow and Russia use $10,000 shaheed 136 to take out bridges

This is a economic war as well as a military

To stop the enemy with minimum requirement and lancet does that

It’s basic economics of war something you won’t understand

And are you really this dumb about what type of damage done by an explosive drone

That drone deal damage by explosive forcing the way in with explosive force, it is NOT an EMP drone, it is not a Incendiary drone, it's not a sonic drone, it's a High Explosive drone.

How it can "KILL" not just damage or hit, a tank, if said explosion did not get INSIDE the tank, I can throw a grenade next to a tank and it will give me an explosion, but all the damage it done is superficial, it will not kill the engine, it will not kill the crew, it will not kill the electronic, it will not cook off the ammo. That's what Hard "KILL" mean.

If the drone hit the tank, and it did anything inside, it would be a kinetic explosion, as it was a high explosive warhead, so if said explosion occur INSIDE the tank, you will have flame come out of the inside (if it ignite the fuel line) it will cook off the ammo. You can't kill the engine or cook off the ammo from the OUTSIDE.

None of these happen in this incident, then how we know the engine of that Leopard 2 is destroyed? If it did it sure as hell not from the drone, because it has an explosive warhead, or how the ammo cook off by the explosion?

If you are too dumb to understand the concept of hard kill, that's hardly my business.