|
GreenCard78 posted:What kind of documentary gets to follow around Taliban as they ambush people?? How do they even feel ok doing that? Unless they're Taliban-related, non-Western, whatever and the video got out to "our side." I don't know, probably the same kind that gets to follow around NATO troops fighting the Taliban? If you haven't seen Armadillo, well, you probably should. Documentarists don't have to take sides, and usually the most revealing documentaries are born when the crews go to places where no normal person would. Like warzones. Armadillo caused a huge scandal in Denmark because it shattered the naive image of the Danish role in the war. In that Taliban documentary the fighers were alerted to the presence of an army patrol or convoy of sorts on the nearby road. What followed was the Taliban band rushed to get there as quickly as possible, with the camera crew on tail, but it was really foggy and unclear what went on. Another part of the documentary that I remember was when they were interviewing a prisoner held by the Taliban, some Afghan man who had committed a crime and was awaiting trial. My recollection is really fuzzy and I don't remember its name, unfortunately. It was shown in Finnish tv and wasn't a Finnish production so it must be somewhat widespread. I can't find it but this is kind of similar in that the documentarist spends a lot of time with the subjects, so much that in the end he is taken hostage. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkk5HMwCCQE
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2011 20:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 23:27 |
|
|
Nenonen posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkk5HMwCCQE I wish YouTube comments had an SA-style moderation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2011 20:53
|
|
|
GreenCard78 posted:What kind of documentary gets to follow around Taliban as they ambush people?? How do they even feel ok doing that? Unless they're Taliban-related, non-Western, whatever and the video got out to "our side." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/talibanlines/view/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid davecrazy fucked around with this message at 02:12 on Dec 21, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2011 02:10
|
|
|
GreenCard78 posted:I saw a show on G4 about some EOD guys in Afghanistan and wondered why they dispose of bombs the way they do. I know that often the IEDs planted are detonated by other bombs as the easiest way to take care of them, makes sense. They showed the Buffalos and other vehicles designed to clear mines and absorb blasts and that they had detection systems and claws for digging them up. One thing I wondered was if it's possible to shake the ground or some kind of jolt of pressure to set off bombs in the distance? Especially on roads where there are known bombs, the episode was about clearing a quarter or half mile section of road that was full of them. I'm sure I'm not the first person to consider this so someone more knowledgeable enlighten me. The show wasn't really about EOD. It was about a Route Clearance Platoon with an EOD team attached to it. The guys in the Buffalo, Husky, etc. are all combat engineers. (Sorry, just my one thing I nerd out over). Sperging aside, they pretty much can't do that because it really is infeasible. IEDs aren't nearly as volatile as you might imagine. Shaking the ground near them won't set them off. There might be better ways to detonate them from a distance - in fact, there's tons of ways - but part of the reason they go up and investigate ("interrogate") IEDs is because they don't want to destroy them. If you can disable an IED while intact, you can investigate it, pull clues off it, and trace it back to the source. In the end, US counter-IED strategy focuses on not just "defeating the device", but "attacking the network". You can blow up IEDs all day long, but until you take out the IED production network, you've done nothing to improve security. Nenonen posted:I saw one recent documentary where they followed a Taleban group around as they tried to ambush some convoy with remote detonated explosives, but it didn't work for whatever reason. It was surreal. That particular scene is actually hilarious if you know what's going on; it's obvious that the IED won't go off and why. Even the comical explosion after the fact is foreseeable. The fact that they Taliban are so mystified by something so simple makes it doubly hilarious. Nog fucked around with this message at 02:42 on Dec 21, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2011 02:33
|
|
|
ripped0ff posted:That's "Behind Taliban Lines" by Frontline. It's a great documentary. This pretty much turns into some Wile E Coyote poo poo, doesn't it? Perhaps they should put down some ACME EARTHQUAKE PILLS next time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2011 03:59
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pw-2yMC5BE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GX_EmhpGJI A former Cambodia child soldier shows us how to find and defuse mines. 
Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 04:28 on Dec 21, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2011 04:14
|
|
|
ripped0ff posted:That's "Behind Taliban Lines" by Frontline. It's a great documentary. For those of us who haven't seen it, what exactly does go wrong?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2011 09:39
|
|
|
Mr. Sunshine posted:For those of us who haven't seen it, what exactly does go wrong? Jamming equipment (unless I'm missing something more obvious). Here's the part of the film where this happens: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlcsKY9vh-o 7:40 is the best part.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2011 09:53
|
|
|
Is there anything interesting at all in Lithuanian military history? That's where my parents are from. I don't know much about the place.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2011 10:45
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pw-2yMC5BE He also runs a small museum in Siem Reap (better known for its proximity to the Angkor ruins) that displays many kinds of landmines, most of which he defused and collected himself over the years. The museum staff are mostly landmine victims or orphans, and aside from admission, they also sell merchandise to make ends meet. He's a good man, doing his bit both for his country and for his community.  The information board about himself at the museum, from when I visited in 2008. Wastrel_ fucked around with this message at 12:48 on Dec 21, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2011 12:44
|
|
|
Speaking of IED's, a friend of mine was an Army Ranger in Iraq and while we don't talk about it much due to his PTSD, every once in a while he gets chatty. On one of these occasions, he was talking about how he trained normal army units in patrol strategies and how to evade IED's and another friend asked him why they don't just armor the poo poo out of the bottom of their vehicles so they don't have to care about hitting them. I was also under the impression that these were just lovely bombs they had cooked up with crap they had available and were essentially grenades with triggers. He told us that the armor is not bad, but that some IED's are buried artillery shells and other high power ordinance rigged to blow that pretty much doesn't give a poo poo about armor. The insurgents apparently watch patrol routes and plant the bombs along them, so he had to break his trainees of always running the same route as that tended to get people killed. He also told us about the open air weapons depots that the Iraqis had set up and stocked with assault rifles, bombs, ammo, etc. Even after our army took them, civilians would find ways to sneak in and try to pry the plating off of the bombs to sell as scrap. On one occasion he saw a guy straight up straddling a shell and pounding on it with a ball peen hammer trying to peel off the casing. It exploded and from what he says, there was nothing left of the guy but a bloody streak. It made me pretty sad to hear, because you'd have to be pretty desperate to put a bomb between your legs and hammer away hoping it didn't explode before you made off with your loot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2011 16:40
|
|
|
Yea, IEDs aren't nearly as simple as people imagine. Folks hear the word "improvised" and they think, "Oh, like a pipe bomb." A better way to think of IEDs is as anti-tank mines made out of poo poo that isn't designed to be specifically used for that purpose.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2011 17:07
|
|
|
bartkusa posted:Is there anything interesting at all in Lithuanian military history? That's where my parents are from. I don't know much about the place. Lithuania used to be a pretty big deal in the 14th century, but not so much recently. I don't know a lot about that period, but they conquered a lot of lands and stood up to the Crusades, so they had to have something going for them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2011 17:13
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Lithuania used to be a pretty big deal in the 14th century, but not so much recently. I don't know a lot about that period, but they conquered a lot of lands and stood up to the Crusades, so they had to have something going for them. I would say having one of the few Parliamentary Commonwealths in eastern Europe shared with Poland being quite a big deal indeed. But along came the Cossacks, Frederick The Great and his Prussians and finally the Russians.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2011 17:17
|
|
|
GaryLeeLoveBuckets posted:It made me pretty sad to hear, because you'd have to be pretty desperate to put a bomb between your legs and hammer away hoping it didn't explode before you made off with your loot. There are also a lot of people who just plain don't think through the consequences of their actions; see every darwin award ever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2011 17:20
|
|
|
bartkusa posted:Is there anything interesting at all in Lithuanian military history? That's where my parents are from. I don't know much about the place. It used to be part of a regional superpower, the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Lithuanian_Commonwealth They even invaded Russia and held Moscow for a time - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Muscovite_War_%281605%E2%80%931618%29
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2011 17:58
|
|
|
bartkusa posted:Is there anything interesting at all in Lithuanian military history? That's where my parents are from. I don't know much about the place. Soon after Lithuanian independence, the Red Army steamrolled over them capturing most of the country on the way to Warsaw. Eventually the Polish army pushed them back, but in the end they took over Vilnius and declared it Polish territory, leaving the Lithuanians seething with rage but powerless to do anything. Other than that there isn't much to tell. Except maybe that like in many other Soviet Republics, there were thousands of partisans who kept on fighting a guerrilla war until 1953.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2011 20:12
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Except maybe that like in many other Soviet Republics, there were thousands of partisans who kept on fighting a guerrilla war until 1953. Wait. What?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2011 20:42
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:Wait. What? These chaps - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_Brothers - though the OP seems to conflating post-WWII resistance to the Soviets with the Polish/USSR war in 1920, which is a different thing. feedmegin fucked around with this message at 20:58 on Dec 21, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2011 20:55
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:Wait. What? Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania had only recently been annexed to Soviet Union, and also in Belarus and Ukraine there were long traditions for independence and just about equal hostility against the Bolsheviks as there was against Nazis. Here's some links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Insurgent_Army http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_Brothers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuanian_partisans_%281944%E2%80%931953%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chorny_Kot
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2011 20:58
|
|
|
GaryLeeLoveBuckets posted:I was also under the impression that these were just lovely bombs they had cooked up with crap they had available and were essentially grenades with triggers. He told us that the armor is not bad, but that some IED's are buried artillery shells and other high power ordinance rigged to blow that pretty much doesn't give a poo poo about armor. The Bush administration had been warned before the war by people like the Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki that we would need several hundred thousand soldiers to effectively secure Iraq. This clashed with their plans and the media narrative they were trying to create, and so the US military went in with too few men to maintain security. At the time the most notable failure was the looting of priceless artifacts from museums in Baghdad, but there were also a lot of unsecured munitions dumps, especially after the Iraqi military was disbanded. For the first few years most of the IEDs were made with materiel stolen at that time, especially 155mm shells, although I think later on the supply of ready-made military explosives dried up. A daisy-chain of multiple 155mm shells buried beneath a roadway would destroy basically anything short of an Abrams. It could even destroy an Abrams if you could detonate it directly beneath one, although I don't think that ever happened and no Abrams has actually been lost to enemy action (although some were severely damaged). Later on the insurgents began using more sophisticated bombs called explosively formed penetrators (EFPs) which use a shaped charge to fire a metal projectile at extreme velocity, and could actually penetrate tank armor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2011 21:04
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:no Abrams has actually been lost to enemy action (although some were severely damaged). Huh? At least a hundred Abrams have been destroyed to one degree or another in Iraq alone. I suppose fewer were "lost" (depending on your definition of lost) as the destroyed hulls are almost always towed back home and then flown back to the US for a sort of...recycling.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2011 00:23
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Huh? At least a hundred Abrams have been destroyed to one degree or another in Iraq alone. I suppose fewer were "lost" (depending on your definition of lost) as the destroyed hulls are almost always towed back home and then flown back to the US for a sort of...recycling. I meant lost in the sense of being unrecoverably destroyed and recorded as lost in combat, but you're right, it is a little misleading to put it that way. Plenty of M1s have been damaged and disabled by IEDs to the extent that they required a total rebuild.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2011 01:09
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:I meant lost in the sense of being unrecoverably destroyed and recorded as lost in combat, but you're right, it is a little misleading to put it that way. Plenty of M1s have been damaged and disabled by IEDs to the extent that they required a total rebuild. Would you consider this "destroyed"? I would. I don't know if this or others have been permanent write-offs but I think it's fair to call this destroyed.  Abrams from the 3rd ID "Thunder Run" into Baghdad. gohuskies fucked around with this message at 01:25 on Dec 22, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2011 01:22
|
|
|
Nah, just put a fresh battery in that sucker and those scratches will polish right out!
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2011 01:37
|
|
|
Switch to your blowtorch and repair that sucker, it'll stop burning and back into the battle in no time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2011 02:04
|
|
|
gohuskies posted:Would you consider this "destroyed"? I would. I don't know if this or others have been permanent write-offs but I think it's fair to call this destroyed. This is just a semantic argument over the meaning of the words "lost" or "destroyed" as it pertains to tanks. If you understand "destroyed" to include tanks that have been knocked out and damaged to the point that they must be completely rebuilt from the hull up, sure, a fair number of Abrams have been destroyed. I believe the US army doesn't record tanks as destroyed if they can be repaired and returned to service, hence the claims that none have been destroyed. The actual hull of the Abrams is exceedingly resistant to damage, but replaceable components like the engine, electronics, gun, turret, etc. are much less so.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2011 03:55
|
|
|
Still, I'm surprised that a tank like the one shown would even be worth repairing, in terms of cost and time spent. Is the hull really valuable enough to have a bunch of skilled labor replace everything else manually, as opposed to just building a new tank at the factory?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2011 06:01
|
|
|
gohuskies posted:Would you consider this "destroyed"? I would. I don't know if this or others have been permanent write-offs but I think it's fair to call this destroyed. Aren't most of those pictures taken by tanks blown up by the Americans themselves? I've read somewhere that when a tank needs to be abandoned they'd blew it up so that parts of it couldn't be scavenged. Plus, you can totally buff that out 
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2011 08:54
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:This is just a semantic argument over the meaning of the words "lost" or "destroyed" as it pertains to tanks. If you understand "destroyed" to include tanks that have been knocked out and damaged to the point that they must be completely rebuilt from the hull up, sure, a fair number of Abrams have been destroyed. I believe the US army doesn't record tanks as destroyed if they can be repaired and returned to service, hence the claims that none have been destroyed. The actual hull of the Abrams is exceedingly resistant to damage, but replaceable components like the engine, electronics, gun, turret, etc. are much less so. Are you making GBS threads us? LOOK at the picture. That tank is destroyed. Any vehicle in that state would not be "rebuilt", even if it was a Ferrari 250 Testa Rossa. Sorry, but the Abrams is not protected by magic, it's still a 60 ton box of metal that's limited by the same physics and materials as everything else in the world of mortals. It's better protected than the run of the mill T-72, but the difference is hardly as large as the hype may have led to believe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2011 10:47
|
|
|
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/US-Field-Manuals/abrams-oif.pdf#prof This report on the Abrams performance in Iraq states "Several tanks were destroyed due to secondary effects attributed to enemy weapon systems". So yes, Abrams have been destroyed by enemy action.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2011 11:12
|
|
|
pigdog posted:Are you making GBS threads us? A bit, yeah. quote:LOOK at the picture. That tank is destroyed. Any vehicle in that state would not be "rebuilt", even if it was a Ferrari 250 Testa Rossa. I was actually speaking generally, not about the tank in the picture, because we were talking about whether any Abrams have been destroyed by IEDs. That tank is indeed a total loss, but it wasn't destroyed by an IED, it was bombed by the USAF. gohuskies can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that's a picture of Charlie One Two, the story of which was closely documented in the book "Thunder Run" by David Zucchino. During a firefight with the Iraqis Charlie One Two was struck in the engine compartment, and it began burning. The crew was unharmed and bailed out to fight the flames, and another tank attempted to tow it from the field. However, Iraqi opposition was too intense for them to effectively fight the blaze, and if the ammunition magazines detonated it might damage the tank that was towing it (though given that the turret was still attached to the hull in the photo, apparently the fire-resistant ammo stowage worked as designed). Either way, the effort to recover the tank was compromising the whole unit in the middle of a firefight, so it had to be abandoned. They threw thermite grenades in the crew compartment to destroy any sensitive material. In spite of being on fire and burnt out with thermite, Charlie One Two still appeared a bit too intact, so another Abrams popped it with a HEAT shell. Later the army decided the tank, even after all that, was intact enough that it might still yield up some secrets to the Iraqis, so they had the air force drop a Maverick missile on it, which caused the catastrophic damage in the picture. After the area was secured, there was still enough left of Charlie One Two that it was towed to Kuwait to be cannibalized for spare parts. Thus, we are talking about an Abrams that really was completely destroyed and too badly damaged to be repaired, but the initial enemy action didn't accomplish that. Even the sincere efforts of its crew and an accompanying tank to destroy Charlie One Two fell short. Up until the airstrike, it probably was still reparable. This is all documented in the book I linked above, unless it's some other tank of the Third Infantry Division that was destroyed in the 'thunder run', of which I haven't heard.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2011 11:58
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:I believe the US army doesn't record tanks as destroyed if they can be repaired and returned to service, hence the claims that none have been destroyed. The army doesn't use the term "destroyed" in this context. Once a tank (or any vehicle) is abandoned it is considered a combat loss; after that, if it is recovered, the damage is rated by the maintenance to be performed after recovery. If the vehicle goes to a "recycling" facility (a depot to be stripped and then melted down) it is considered a total loss. At that point the serial number comes off the books and the vehicle is gone forever. It seems like you are thinking that a tank has to be vaporized or something to be considered a combat loss, which needless to say doesn't really happen...there is almost always some of the hull left, even if the tank burned and exploded. Also I don't think the army has claimed "no abrams losses to enemy fire" since the first few days of OIF, when several abrams were lost to enemy fire.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2011 17:03
|
|
|
In contrast, not a single Challenger 2 has been destroyed by enemy fire. However, by another Challenger 2... 
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2011 17:40
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Also I don't think the army has claimed "no abrams losses to enemy fire" since the first few days of OIF, when several abrams were lost to enemy fire. Fair enough. Do we know what killed them, or is that secret for reasons of operational security? I would guess IEDs or lucky hits from RPGs. EDIT: Oh, I realized I should say that under the terms you described about "combat loss" and recovery of knocked out tanks, I was obviously wrong in the above posts. Learn something new every day, and thanks for correcting me. Schenck v. U.S. fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Dec 22, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2011 19:34
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:Fair enough. Do we know what killed them, or is that secret for reasons of operational security? I would guess IEDs or lucky hits from RPGs. We don't know exactly, there's some things floating around on the web but nothing confirmed. By the way, at what point do RPG hits stop being lucky and start being unavoidable due to a large number of them being fired from all angles? Hell, even a 1961 RPG-7 hitting the sideskirts of a vanilla M1A1 (which the Marines still use today) will probably get you a mobility kill, something that would have meant having to take it out by air in Baghdad circa april 2003 lest you let the enemy loot about 1 million $ worth of ammo and equipment either to be used against you or sold to a third party. The M1 is not some kind of end-all, be-all supertank. Tradeoffs in tank design make for a pretty tightly margined product. Weight gains in frontal protection (front turret, glacis) have to be offset by weaker armor on the sides, rear and top of the vehicle. Modern tandem warheads will slice through those areas unless stopped by either reactive armor or hard kill systems, which bring their own slew of problems concerning interoperability with dismounted infantry not to mention cost.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2011 20:25
|
|
|
Koesj posted:By the way, at what point do RPG hits stop being lucky and start being unavoidable due to a large number of them being fired from all angles? Hell, even a 1961 RPG-7 hitting the sideskirts of a vanilla M1A1 (which the Marines still use today) will probably get you a mobility kill, something that would have meant having to take it out by air in Baghdad circa april 2003 lest you let the enemy loot about 1 million $ worth of ammo and equipment either to be used against you or sold to a third party. I was asking bewbies about the tanks he cited which were actually destroyed, not just mobility killed. RPG-7s aren't really capable of inflicting that kind of damage to an Abrams unless they strike specific weak points, which are difficult to aim for. For example, I don't think it's known for sure what knocked out Charlie One Two in the story I related above, but whatever it was struck it in the rear engine grill, one of the most vulnerable points on the tank. Even if they were deliberately aiming for the grills, they were lucky to score such an effective hit. Maybe you think calling the hits "lucky" is in some way disparaging them, or me indicating that they don't count, like I got in a fight and was knocked out with one punch and I petulantly complained that it was "just a lucky punch." That's not the case. quote:The M1 is not some kind of end-all, be-all supertank. Yeah, I know. I'm not sure why people want to believe that I think the Abrams is invulnerable. It's just that the weapons that the Abrams has encountered in its service lifetime typically haven't been powerful enough to destroy it outside of specific circumstances. An RPG-29 could definitely do catastrophic damage if fired to the sides or rear, although I think the front turret and glacis can resist penetration even from the most advanced rockets. Top attack missiles like the javelin would destroy one easily. I even said from the start that an IED made from 155mm HE shells could easily destroy an Abrams, only I went on to say that I didn't think it had actually been done.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2011 20:52
|
|
|
Fair enough. The point of contention with 'lucky' hits is that these vehicles were, and are, deployed in environments where such hits are much more likely than the (semi-) open terrain they were designed to operate in. I'll just quote a 2005 post on tank-net about Charlie 1-2: "The loss of the M1A1 Charlie One Two (IIRC...my copy [link] isn't handy) was due to a fire started on the stowage racks that caused an engine air filter fire that could not be put out. Comments were made to adhere to SOP for stowage of external gear to prevent external fires." You could point to the alleged Kornet kills in Lebanon as an (or maybe the) example where a modern MBT has encountered a 'non-specific' thread. I'm glad there haven't been more cases where a specific weak point proved to be statistically significant like shot traps in WWII.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2011 21:20
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:In contrast, not a single Challenger 2 has been destroyed by enemy fire. As I recall, a Black Watch tank hit the open commanders hatch of a Queen's Royal Lancers vehicle with a HESH round, taking the turret off.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2011 21:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 23:27 |
|
EvanSchenck posted:I was asking bewbies about the tanks he cited which were actually destroyed, not just mobility killed. RPG-7s aren't really capable of inflicting that kind of damage to an Abrams unless they strike specific weak points, which are difficult to aim for. For example, I don't think it's known for sure what knocked out Charlie One Two in the story I related above, but whatever it was struck it in the rear engine grill, one of the most vulnerable points on the tank. Even if they were deliberately aiming for the grills, they were lucky to score such an effective hit. Maybe you think calling the hits "lucky" is in some way disparaging them, or me indicating that they don't count, like I got in a fight and was knocked out with one punch and I petulantly complained that it was "just a lucky punch." That's not the case. I forgot the exact max effective range for an RPG-7 but it's inside of 200Ms. This is the range as tested by the US military. Something like 25% of aimed RPG shots miss from that range and the number improves to like 75% inside of 50Ms. It is pretty loving lucky that an Iraqi RPG team managed to get within 100Ms of an entire column of vehicles equipped with high quality thermal optics. There's a video floating around of an M1 getting lifted off the ground by an IED that detonated beneath it. If you can trust the video description, the crew survived and the tank was returned to service. Minor point of note: IEDs are 'daisy chained' to ensure that the target will be within the kill radius of at least one of the charges.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2011 21:38
|
|
