After all the faked footage of destroyed "Russian" tanks we finally get a real video of one being fired upon.
Why didn't the tank explode or melt?
Could it be that tanks have armor?
I'm shocked. I can't believe science and the western media lied to me!
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
en.wikipedia.org
youtube.com
streamable.com
en.wikipedia.org
saab.com
twitter.com
Bad aim
Penetrator missed the armor
improper technique
It was an actual NLAW too that couldn't destroy a T-72B3 tank. Embarassing
the first charge exploded early, and only the second charge reached a bit the tank, or a malfunction on the missile or who launched it fucked up
Glancing blows are misses with these weapons.
But i thought ukraine blew up 6 gorillion tanks wtf
Jesus, military industry complex shills here… operator fault, the wind blew, sun got in his eyes, it’s Monday
STILL NO INFANTRY SUPPORT
>Soviet T-26 Model 1937 advancing aggressively, as described by the photographer, on the eastern side of Kollaa River during the battle of Kollaa
>It takes ten shots to get a kill
Oh no, that sucks
isnt that a terrorist attack, shooting a tank with an rpg? isnt that what we spent the last 20 years fighting?
this is now an official copium thread. Thank you for your service
when you kill secret police is freedom fight, when secret police kill you is terror
It's clear from the video that it went off too soon. Saab will never admit this.
Kek
NLAW needs 30 meters to arm. He should have waited for it to be down the road more. That was not an armed warhead.
the top attack mode is meant to detonate without contact
Glancing blow, plus blast looks like a rpg or HE cant see a deflected penetrator.
LMAO /k/ IN FULL DAMAGE CONTROL!!!!
The west really is sending factory rejects over for the ukies, that’s hilarious.
Within 1 meter though. If you pause the video and look at each frame it's obviously nowhere near that close.
$20K (or are they $30k?) down the drain.
Cope harder, monkey IQ Shitnik.
NLAWs have a minimum engagement distance of ~20m. The tank is too close for the weapon to arm, so it impacts but the warhead doesn't detonate.
Amazing aim, he disabled the MG
holy shit thats cool
the EFP was off-center and caused what looks like a glancing blow, there's another video with a tank taking several NLAW's in a row before any signs of internal damage show.
Why did he aim at the very edge of the turret? seems like a bad shot
Based
I mean it was burning from inside. Isnt that basically destoryed?
Instructions unclear, tank stayed and fish got stuck in ear
>NLAW anti-tank rocket launcher
you can clearly see that this is in fact NLAW
OP cannot be allowed to post.
it has to hit the chassis first. it's a classical 2 stager.
the Azog faggot fired it too high, if it didn't hit the turret it would miss entirely.
uh ohhhh, here comes /k/ and r/volunteersforukraine doing damage control!!!!
note the flash before rocket his
youtube.com
youtube.com
Aimed too high, might just it the spaced armour
> uh ohhhh, here comes /k/ and r/volunteersforukraine doing damage control!!!!
ukraine has the largest tank graveyard in the world. faking destroyed russian tanks is easy for them, they have tens of thousands of old rusted soviet tanks just sitting around. go look it up.
Medium range rocket launcher deisgned for killing tanks at medium distance has a 20m proximity fuse for the safety of the firing personnel so they don't kill themselves.
SHOCKING
Kek
Tanks is like pic rel
maybe because Ukies can't aim for shit??? cope harder r/volunteersforukraine
In the sample vid, does this tank just keep fighting, or do those guys bail out and the tank is recked, but just not instantly?
These fucking videos never show the whole story like what happened next?
Isn't the missile supposed to go above the target?
>It detonated and shoots down into the top of tank.
ffs i didnt know people are so clueless of modern shit
Ah thanks! Was wondering what was being fired.
Pretty tarded to miss nearly point blank.
>hohols
I think this is the correct answer. Fired from too close. Weapon didn't arm.
legally required (geneva convention) warning shot
This is like saying guns aren't deadly because you shot at someone and grazed their arm and they didn't die.
This is weird and sad. I knew a T90 could take it, but a T72. Sweden is beyond pathetic.
looks like the NLAW doesn't work from that angle and distance, an AT4 would have done more damage and they aren't intended for anti-tank use
All these retards criticizing the guy firing. Yeah I'd like to see any Any Forumstard fire anything at a tank at that range. It's not like the video games. You'd probably be too weak in the knees and hyperventilating. It was a glancing blow, but he still had the balls to shoot it, you wouldn't.
COME AT ME FAGGOTS!
It has both top attack mode and impact. Shouldn't matter.
Looks like it clipped the box stuck to the side of the turret. Wrecked the box but didn't penetrate anything vital. Lucky tankers.
Shitty tech(as is all non-chinese tech)
its clearly cgi, dork
We know about that stuff.
Just wondering why the fuck he shot at active armor in the first place.
Just put more armor on top
>an AT4 would have done more damage
IRL things don't have health bars that you have to bring to zero...
also looks like the charge didn't even detonate
you right now
the amount of explosive seen detonating is equivalent to like a hand grenade if that
There's hardly any difference between late t72 and t90.
How will the military industrial complex survive
Ukrainians dont know how to use their weapons?
>point blank
>still almost miss
don't be a mong that's the main rocket charge igniting
I'm unsure what the aftermath of this video is, but from a visual assessment that's a non-critical hit. The missile may have failed entirely to arm because the operator is under the 20m minimum range stipulated and we're only seeing the tanks explosive reactive armor engage.
wtf why is the tank alone there? man i thought Russian army is better at this stuff
stronk tonk
the eternal gringolem strikes yet again. You are worse than cattle.
Compare exlposion in video to this: youtube.com
charge didn't explode or the video is fucking fake, judging by what appears to be a tiny amount of napalm left burning on the tank armor the video is probably fucking fake.
Poor Russians have shit leadership that wants them dead
>the operator is under the 20m minimum range stipulated
Where is that stated?
What happened to the tank later? Did it speed away or shoot back at the building?
Kek, the Ukrainian "defense" in one webm
tank did not have the anti projectile system installed my dude, missile didn't hit anything vital tank will still go forward engine fine driver fine. Inside the turret might be different story the spalling fragments might have fucked up the back of the gunner or commander whoever sits on the right side of turret.
>shrugs off NLAW
>Goodness, I wish I could do that when MY inlaws come over.
>ba-dum-tss
>This program brought to you by Pfizer.
>we finally get a real video
we got a video of a dickhead shootin it below the working range
Their own advertisement video, NLAW effective range is 20-400?+ meters.
The fucker probably didn't even notice it
streamable.com
>/k/tards deleted the thread
OH NO NO NO
MAXIMUM DAMAGE CONTROL
cover your tonks, ivan wtf
>memeflag /k/edditor hiding his polish flag
kek jannies moving their seethe threads here has been hilarious
Nice vid. But wtf is wrong with the driver? Are the T72s manual trans or something? Cuz it looks like the driver has it in 2nd gear and is revving it to prevent it from stalling.
19K here, never seen a tank driven this jerky except for absolute newbs.
Go back to /k/ and masturbate shill.
There are so many things that could have happened.
Was it an AT rocket?
Maybe the rocket malfunctioned (the explosion doesnt seem to be too big)
Maybe it was a bad hit from a weird angle (NLAW locks onto the target and detonates a meter above the target, it doesnt seem like it did that, maybe it wasnt locked on the target).
Maybe it did kill all the crew inside and we just dont see it in this video.
It could even be a combination of these.
Based
go check the wiki page on the NLAW
The missile needs to get up to speed and needs to clear the rocket tube and safe distance from the operator before it does a burn. Which does not leave the rocket much time to activate its tandem charge (to disable the ERA) prior to the primary charge.
I wonder if it has a minimum arming distance so you dont accidentally blow yourself up.
Shot below working range or missed the tank.
So where is it?
See . It didn't detonate because of the short range.
I've qualified expert markman twice. both times only missing two shots
come at me faggot
youtube
why do third worlders love russia so much all of the sudden? do you actually think you'd be better off under a china tier violent fascist dictatorship?
close your motherfucking muslim mouth Akhmed
en.wikipedia.org
>Effective firing range 20–600 m (66–1,969 ft) initially
PKM TOAST. TAKE THAT RUSSIA PIGS
>saab.com
>Combat range 20 m – 800 m
fucking nigger
>go check the wiki page on the NLAW
Why don't you just supply the source? Also a wiki page is just biased opinion.
>tank turret right under you
>uses top attack instead of direct attack
hohol brain
Arming distance of the NLAW is 20m you retard. The tank was still too close, nothing to do with the armour.
copeland present
predictable butthurts
rpgs aren't real
It grazed the side.
shoulda used a old trusty rpg-7
The crew definitely will have something to talk about afterwards.
It didnt connect with target
>flag
Russia is fighting a common enemy so for now he is our ally. The fucking West is slowly turning into a fascist totalitarian 'democracy'
>Doesn't know what arming distance is
the primary charge didn't explode that much is clear from the video
>Combat range 20 m – 800 m
>Their own advertisement video, NLAW effective range is 20-400?+ meters.
So is it 400 or 800?
Also what is the arming distance no combat range? How is the arming distance figured? Time, rotation, acceleration armed?
I'm not logging into youtube go fuck yourself