User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 4:05:15 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Seems like the T55 could be produced fast so the Russians had that going for them but as far as head to head what was a better tank? That depends on the generation of M60.. The M60A3 for the win over the T55 ... Yah but a T-72 would win over an M-60A3 Tell that to the Iraqis... The Iraqi version (T72M) was absolutely crap. The T72 has armor significantly thicker than the 72m version. So much so that after the wall came down and US officials got hands on the real deal, they found that many types of anti-tank ammo would not penetrate the front glacis. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 4:11:27 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Tank warfare is really a question of logistics........just sayin. 15000 M60 tanks qualifies I think... That was the number produced over its service life. 25,000+ T72s 100,000 T55s 13,000 T64s |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 4:15:21 PM EDT
[#3]
S-tank > M60 > T55 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 4:17:06 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Tank warfare is really a question of logistics........just sayin. 15000 M60 tanks qualifies I think... That was the number produced over its service life. I didn't realize that they made so few...Somewhere around 100,000 T-54/55s were manufactured. I wonder how many tanks NATO had vs. the Warsaw Pact when the M60 was in its prime? Not enough. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 4:17:56 PM EDT
[#5]
Looks like that thing can't do decline shooting worth a dam but very low silhouette. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 4:18:20 PM EDT
[#6]
The S tank would be something to behold fighting from a prepared BP. I love the fact that it has a rear-facing driver. Talk about breaking the mold..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 4:19:47 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
Looks like that thing can't do decline shooting worth a dam but very low silhouette. Depressing and elevating the main gun was via raising or lowering the suspension. Clever as hell. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 4:20:51 PM EDT
[#8]
M1 Abrams...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 4:21:49 PM EDT
[#9]
M551A1 vs. T72.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 4:23:52 PM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Tactics, training, crew and support matter more than anything. That said, main battle tanks are going to go the way of battleships. Tank to tank battles will probably never happen again, too hard to even stage before air power takes them out. If the choppers don't get them, the tank killers will, if the drones don't get them the hand held missles will. They've become land based dreadnoughts, at least if they ever go up against a modern foe again. That prediction has been made so many times in the 20th Century, it's become a cliche. In the '90s, the Army was talking about staging warehouses of remotely operated MBTs in AOs that we had strategic interests in (such as the ME), and fighting the tanks from a "simnet" type station here in the states like drone pilots do from the U.S. now. Maintenance would be a challenge, but it could and probably will be done IMHO. Weaponized RGVs would have significant advantages in terms of cost, weight, and lethality with the kind of sensors being developed. Thanks Brother.. I was going to post on that statement as well... People have to understand how badly surprised the Israeli's were in the 73 War by the Soviet Supplied AT-3 Sagger ATGM's that the Egyptians fielded. Most of that Tanks design came from those experiences and from the desert Environment that they operate in. We don't get that luxury as History has shown, we have to have the ability to fight everywhere. The M60A3 was a very good tank and with upgrades continues to serve those who field them. The Chieftains weak point was it's Underpowered Leyland engines that had them breaking down a lot. The turrets in the Chieftains were very small and cramped. The TC's practically sitting on the gunners shoulders. The two piece Main gun ammo is slow to load compared to a one piece round, but there is where the crew training comes to play. The T-72's greatest design flaw was it's Ammunition Carousel with no Compartmentalization. Just look at the Syrian videos floating around of the T-72 who took an AT. Total conflagration of the turret in seconds. The lack of gun elevation and depression is another. That tank was designed to be funneled thru a breach that was made with Artillery prep and punch thru and keep going until it ran out of gas or ate a rd. The FSC limited the max effective range and the Stabilization was rudimentary at best. The EFC of most of the 125mm rds for the Rapira gun were so hot that the barrel was gone in 300-400 rds. The Soviets didn't care as it was designed to be disposable anyway, plenty more where that one came from and all that. Don't think that the Syrians are aiming there tank cannons anymore effectively then they do there AK's 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 4:24:43 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted: It had nothing to do with the engine fuel. It was the low flash point on the hydraulic fluid that was the issue. The MAGACH 6 M-60A1 mod corrected this problem.M60 from the get go. It was the M48 that would catch fire when it had the gasoline engine. Your Israeli buddy is full of shit. ETA- sorry, a bit late on that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 4:25:09 PM EDT
[#12]
Most T-72's I have seen had a real problem with their turrets popping off.....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 4:26:48 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Looks like that thing can't do decline shooting worth a dam but very low silhouette. Depressing and elevating the main gun was via raising or lowering the suspension. Clever as hell. That is pretty dam smart. Edit- Just read the wiki about it designed in the 50s too very impressive indeed its like they took the idea of the tank destroyes from WWII and ran with it to the nth degree still looks modern. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 4:31:50 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Seems like the T55 could be produced fast so the Russians had that going for them but as far as head to head what was a better tank? That depends on the generation of M60.. The M60A3 for the win over the T55 ... Yah but a T-72 would win over an M-60A3 Tell that to the Iraqis... The Iraqi version (T72M) was absolutely crap. The T72 has armor significantly thicker than the 72m version. So much so that after the wall came down and US officials got hands on the real deal, they found that many types of anti-tank ammo would not penetrate the front glacis. That is why the M900 was fielded, as a friend who was a TC with one of the only 105mm equipped M1 units in the Gulf said, the M900 would do a through and through and take most the engine out the back of the Iraqi T72s |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 4:32:46 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
Looks like that thing can't do decline shooting worth a dam but very low silhouette. The suspension is adjustable to allow for high and low angles of fire. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 4:33:10 PM EDT
[#16]
Thread needs moar pics
and for the Win... 
"Merica fuck yeah..take that Commie" |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 4:35:19 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
M60 from the get go. It was the M48 that would catch fire when it had the gasoline engine. Your Israeli buddy is full of shit. Actually he's not, their hydraulic fluid caught fire and caused sever burns to their crews. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 4:35:21 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Looks like that thing can't do decline shooting worth a dam but very low silhouette. Depressing and elevating the main gun was via raising or lowering the suspension. Clever as hell. That is pretty dam smart. Edit- Just read the wiki about it designed in the 50s too very impressive indeed its like they took the idea of the tank destroyes from WWII and ran with it to the nth degree still looks modern. In the early 90s it was being discussed whether to upgrade them with 120mm guns. Eventually they were replaced by Leo 2s, though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 4:43:12 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Seems like the T55 could be produced fast so the Russians had that going for them but as far as head to head what was a better tank? That depends on the generation of M60.. The M60A3 for the win over the T55 ... Yah but a T-72 would win over an M-60A3 Tell that to the Iraqis... The Iraqi version (T72M) was absolutely crap. The T72 has armor significantly thicker than the 72m version. So much so that after the wall came down and US officials got hands on the real deal, they found that many types of anti-tank ammo would not penetrate the front glacis. That is why the M900 was fielded, as a friend who was a TC with one of the only 105mm equipped M1 units in the Gulf said, the M900 would do a through and through and take most the engine out the back of the Iraqi T72s I was in that brigade also... 105 gun had no issue with T-72's |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 4:49:37 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
Oh, and throw in the T-80's performance during Grozny, and you may get an idea of how they'd perform in the field. The Russians got mauled in Grozny (the first time) for a lot of reasons, and most tanks would have been fucked going into Grozny in 1995, much less the second siege of the city. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 4:53:43 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
Dude...Bradley/LAV 25mm can pop a T-72/62/55. No. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 4:56:09 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Dude...Bradley/LAV 25mm can pop a T-72/62/55. No. Yet in ODS when Ed Rays LAV Company attacked an Iraqi Armor Bde they were able to kill many of them by attacking the running gear and engine compartments setting them on fire |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 5:04:49 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Dude...Bradley/LAV 25mm can pop a T-72/62/55. No. Yet in ODS when Ed Rays LAV Company attacked an Iraqi Armor Bde they were able to kill many of them by attacking the running gear and engine compartments setting them on fire Which could have been done with a .50. ALL tanks have places where they are vulnerable to small calibur fire. However to claim "Bradley/LAV 25mm can pop a T-72/62/55" is to imply that that gun and round can defeat the armor on those tanks - and that ain't so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 5:09:38 PM EDT
[#24]
FWIW,ARVN M-41s successfully took out T-54s and 55s with their little 76mm gun.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 5:12:21 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Dude...Bradley/LAV 25mm can pop a T-72/62/55. No. Yet in ODS when Ed Rays LAV Company attacked an Iraqi Armor Bde they were able to kill many of them by attacking the running gear and engine compartments setting them on fire Which could have been done with a .50. ALL tanks have places where they are vulnerable to small calibur fire. However to claim "Bradley/LAV 25mm can pop a T-72/62/55" is to imply that that gun and round can defeat the armor on those tanks - and that ain't so. But LAV did kill them and penetrated places that a 50 cal could not |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 5:14:48 PM EDT
[#26]
EM-50 > T-55 |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 5:16:43 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Don't know, but I recall talking with an Israeli guy who had been in their army in the 1970s, who said the M60 caught fire a lot when it got hit, so they developed the front-engined Merkava. From my understanding, the point of putting the engine in front on the Merkava was that it was aid in crew survivability - not anything related to catching fire. They just wanted a bit more metal up front so that if the tank was disabled, the crew could still survive. yep |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 5:34:21 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Don't know, but I recall talking with an Israeli guy who had been in their army in the 1970s, who said the M60 caught fire a lot when it got hit, so they developed the front-engined Merkava. From my understanding, the point of putting the engine in front on the Merkava was that it was aid in crew survivability - not anything related to catching fire. They just wanted a bit more metal up front so that if the tank was disabled, the crew could still survive. yep It also allowed them to add a bail out door in the back they couldn't add otherwise I believe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 5:43:20 PM EDT
[#29]
How is a tank that literally cannot fire on the move, not at all, and is designed solely for ambush tactics, better? What happens when you actually want to attack someone, or maybe, I don't know, advance? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 6:03:58 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
How is a tank that literally cannot fire on the move, not at all, and is designed solely for ambush tactics, better? What happens when you actually want to attack someone, or maybe, I don't know, advance? "In 1967, Norway carried out a two week comparative observation test with the Leopard 1 and found that with closed hatches the 103 spotted more targets and fired faster than the Leopard. In April to September 1968, two 103s were tested at the British armour school in Bovington, which reported that "the turretless concept of the "S"-tank holds considerable advantage over turreted tanks". In BAOR 1973, the 103 was tested against the Chieftain tank. Availability never fell under 90% and the final report stated, "It has not been possible to prove any disadvantage in the "S" inability to fire on the move." In 1975, two 103s were tested at the American armour center at Fort Knox. The trial demonstrated the 103 fired more accurately than the M60A1E3, but on an average 0.5 seconds slower." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stridsvagn_103 |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 6:08:39 PM EDT
[#31]
The 103 was also the first tank with a fence on its front lawn
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 6:20:52 PM EDT
[#32]
Lots of innovative features on the S tank, the ability to dig its own fighting positions far more effectively that the Soviet entrenching blades on their tanks, the use of the Jerry can side skirts as spaced armor, just some cool stuff. Doesn't it also have an internal 60mm mortar that can be fired from under armor?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 6:38:46 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
Lots of innovative features on the S tank, the ability to dig its own fighting positions far more effectively that the Soviet entrenching blades on their tanks, the use of the Jerry can side skirts as spaced armor, just some cool stuff. Doesn't it also have an internal 60mm mortar that can be fired from under armor? I think that the Merkava unless the Israelis also stole that feature from the S-Tank. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 6:49:27 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
Doesn't it also have an internal 60mm mortar that can be fired from under armor? Nope. You might be thinking of the Merkava. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 7:09:58 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted: Quoted: Doesn't it also have an internal 60mm mortar that can be fired from under armor? Nope. You might be thinking of the Merkava. What's the thinking behind that, anyway? It's pretty unique. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 7:11:46 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Doesn't it also have an internal 60mm mortar that can be fired from under armor? Nope. You might be thinking of the Merkava. What's the thinking behind that, anyway? It's pretty unique. The Israelis like it because it allows the tank to support the attached infantry without having to use the main gun. The mortar can also fire illumination and smoke rounds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 7:16:48 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Doesn't it also have an internal 60mm mortar that can be fired from under armor? Nope. You might be thinking of the Merkava. What's the thinking behind that, anyway? It's pretty unique. The Israelis like it because it allows the tank to support the attached infantry without having to use the main gun. The mortar can also fire illumination and smoke rounds. Some WW-II German tanks had a mortar system mounted on the turrets. One of the uses was to fire rounds that would explode shortly after firing to eliminate any unfriendly infantry that got too close to the tank. nahverteidigungswaffe was the German 92mm system. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 7:17:05 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Doesn't it also have an internal 60mm mortar that can be fired from under armor? Nope. You might be thinking of the Merkava. Knew the Merkava had one, the Mag Achs had them retrofitted as well, must have gotten confused about the S tank. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 8:09:29 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted:
First, the important thing to know is that tactics trump the actual specifications or abilities of the tank, period. We've found this out time and time again, as arguably superior tanks have lost against inferiors, simply because the lesser tank had better tankers. Having said that, it all depends on the model. What year are we talking about? The T-54 was built about 15 years before the M60, and had a lot of variations, just like the Patton. If they're the same, I'd take the Patton. But as others have mentioned, there are far more modern Soviet tanks that would fare much better against an M-60, like the T-72 which is on par with it. But do note that the Soviets had an even better tank (as the T-72 was inferior to some others they had) in the T-64. The T-64 was arguably superior to the M-60 in every way: Three times the armor, a better gun, and faster. I don't think the Patton would stack up to it very well. That is why you never hear much about the tank - the Soviets never exported it to Warsaw Pact countries, and rather sent monkey models of the T-72 out of country. So: M-60 > T-54/55 M-60 = T-72 [div]M-60 < T-64[/div]Bullshit! The T-64 has dual transmissions, which the Soviets couldn't get to work in unison, which is why it was never exported. M60 is better than ANY Soviet armor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 9:02:16 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Looks like that thing can't do decline shooting worth a dam but very low silhouette. Depressing and elevating the main gun was via raising or lowering the suspension. Clever as hell. That is pretty dam smart. Edit- Just read the wiki about it designed in the 50s too very impressive indeed its like they took the idea of the tank destroyes from WWII and ran with it to the nth degree still looks modern. Exactly! The S-Tank was ahead of its time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 9:09:39 PM EDT
[#41]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Seems like the T55 could be produced fast so the Russians had that going for them but as far as head to head what was a better tank? That depends on the generation of M60.. The M60A3 for the win over the T55 ... Yah but a T-72 would win over an M-60A3 Tell that to the Iraqis... The Iraqi version (T72M) was absolutely crap. The T72 has armor significantly thicker than the 72m version. So much so that after the wall came down and US officials got hands on the real deal, they found that many types of anti-tank ammo would not penetrate the front glacis. That is why the M900 was fielded, as a friend who was a TC with one of the only 105mm equipped M1 units in the Gulf said, the M900 would do a through and through and take most the engine out the back of the Iraqi T72s The Israelis had no problem with Syrian T-72s in Beirut in the '80s, according to what I've read. I wasn't there, of course. It's also my understanding that Merkava tanks that sustained hits from 125mm main gun rounds resulted in zero Israeli KIAs during that campaign. The M900 series KE rounds for the 105mm main gun weren't lacking for penetration against enemy armor. However, the 105mm lacked the range of the 120mm. I didn't figure that out until the Canadians came down here to Idaho for gunnery in the late '90s. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 9:36:09 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
Bullshit! The T-64 has dual transmissions, which the Soviets couldn't get to work in unison, which is why it was never exported. M60 is better than ANY Soviet armor. Why did they build 8,000 of them? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2013 9:39:55 PM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
The Israelis had no problem with Syrian T-72s in Beirut in the '80s, according to what I've read. I wasn't there, of course. It's also my understanding that Merkava tanks that sustained hits from 125mm main gun rounds resulted in zero Israeli KIAs during that campaign. The M900 series KE rounds for the 105mm main gun weren't lacking for penetration against enemy armor. However, the 105mm lacked the range of the 120mm. I didn't figure that out until the Canadians came down here to Idaho for gunnery in the late '90s. USSR exported weapons systems, and ammo, was often inferior to the stuff they kept for themselves. East German equipment would be first rate stuff. Supposedly it was better than expected when tested. The Middle East exports that have been in past wars wasn't as good. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/22/2013 6:16:38 AM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Tactics, training, crew and support matter more than anything. That said, main battle tanks are going to go the way of battleships. Tank to tank battles will probably never happen again, too hard to even stage before air power takes them out. If the choppers don't get them, the tank killers will, if the drones don't get them the hand held missles will. They've become land based dreadnoughts, at least if they ever go up against a modern foe again. That prediction has been made so many times in the 20th Century, it's become a cliche. In the '90s, the Army was talking about staging warehouses of remotely operated MBTs in AOs that we had strategic interests in (such as the ME), and fighting the tanks from a "simnet" type station here in the states like drone pilots do from the U.S. now. Maintenance would be a challenge, but it could and probably will be done IMHO. Weaponized RGVs would have significant advantages in terms of cost, weight, and lethality with the kind of sensors being developed. Pfft. What do you need tanks for? Do you plan on rolling into Bejing like we did Baghdad in 2003? I don't think so. We need MRAPS only. Everything else is a waste. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/22/2013 6:26:27 AM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploads18/stripes_em50_urban_assault_vehicle1308805823.jpg EM-50 > T-55 AWESOME....I am watching Stripes tonight for sure !!! ERic |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/22/2013 6:30:53 AM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Oh, and throw in the T-80's performance during Grozny, and you may get an idea of how they'd perform in the field. The Russians got mauled in Grozny (the first time) for a lot of reasons, and most tanks would have been fucked going into Grozny in 1995, much less the second siege of the city. Yeah, IIRC, it took around 17 RPG hits, on average, to take out the Russian tanks on Grozny, and most of those were fired from overhead buildings. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/22/2013 6:44:25 AM EDT
[#47]
Quoted:
M551A1 vs. T72. As much as I love my Sheridan and I do, I never wanted to go head to head with a T72 where the T72 got the drop on me, That is not what the Sheridan was designed for. A T72 would have cut right through a M551A1 . The Sheridan had mobility it was a scout vehicle after all and if the Sheridan got the first shot with the Shillelagh from cover it would kill the T72 but there is no way ever I would go head to head with a T72 that was a suicide mission. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/22/2013 6:58:38 AM EDT
[#48]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Tactics, training, crew and support matter more than anything. That said, main battle tanks are going to go the way of battleships. Tank to tank battles will probably never happen again, too hard to even stage before air power takes them out. If the choppers don't get them, the tank killers will, if the drones don't get them the hand held missles will. They've become land based dreadnoughts, at least if they ever go up against a modern foe again. That prediction has been made so many times in the 20th Century, it's become a cliche. In the '90s, the Army was talking about staging warehouses of remotely operated MBTs in AOs that we had strategic interests in (such as the ME), and fighting the tanks from a "simnet" type station here in the states like drone pilots do from the U.S. now. Maintenance would be a challenge, but it could and probably will be done IMHO. Weaponized RGVs would have significant advantages in terms of cost, weight, and lethality with the kind of sensors being developed. Pfft. What do you need tanks for? Do you plan on rolling into Bejing like we did Baghdad in 2003? I don't think so. We need MRAPS only. Everything else is a waste. SYSTEM ERROR: "Does not compute". |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/22/2013 7:06:15 AM EDT
[#49]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Dude...Bradley/LAV 25mm can pop a T-72/62/55. No. Yet in ODS when Ed Rays LAV Company attacked an Iraqi Armor Bde they were able to kill many of them by attacking the running gear and engine compartments setting them on fire LAV 25mm fire penetrated turrets of T-62s (and I'll presume T-55s as well) in ODS. Maybe not frontal hits, but the metallurgy wasn't as good as we thought it was going to be. The softer armor of the Russian / WP-made tanks was a big let down when KE rounds hit, too-less friction upon penetration, less pyrophoric effect DU is known for. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/22/2013 7:11:07 AM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Dude...Bradley/LAV 25mm can pop a T-72/62/55. No. Yet in ODS when Ed Rays LAV Company attacked an Iraqi Armor Bde they were able to kill many of them by attacking the running gear and engine compartments setting them on fire Which could have been done with a .50. ALL tanks have places where they are vulnerable to small calibur fire. However to claim "Bradley/LAV 25mm can pop a T-72/62/55" is to imply that that gun and round can defeat the armor on those tanks - and that ain't so. A cal. .50 is NOT going to penetrate the armor of a T-55 for a mobility kill, let alone a T-62 or T-72. I'm not sure a SLAP (TC penetrator) round will either. BMP, MTLB, BTR, etc.? Yes, but armor is too thick on an MBT for anything less than a HEAT warhead (M72 series, AT4, TOW, Dragon, Hellfire, etc.). ETA: Top armor excepted. |
|
|
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
