User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/27/2004 7:24:48 PM EDT
Member DsrtEgl50 posted this TOW test fire video in the "bet my pic is cooler than yours" thread.
If you slow the video down to frame by frame, at 24.01 seconds, something odd happens. I hilighted what I'm talking about. Can anybody explain to me what that glow is emenating from the track area?  eta - changed Topic name to Javelin. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2004 7:28:49 PM EDT
[#1]
a ghost
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2004 7:29:22 PM EDT
[#2]
Hope its not a welder still working on the tank.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2004 7:31:49 PM EDT
[#3]
or a bird flying away
or some guys cheeseburger wrapper 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2004 7:33:54 PM EDT
[#4]
... Interesting. I don't know. But if you look closely, it does look a bit like a bluish light painted the target
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2004 7:36:01 PM EDT
[#5]
Need more frames to give a diffinitive yea or nay. I think the warhead has just started to detonate and the jet has gone in lit stuff up. Need more frames!!! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2004 7:36:37 PM EDT
[#6]
someone left their pie on the tank
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2004 7:38:47 PM EDT
[#7]
 Predictable, but still funny. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2004 7:38:53 PM EDT
[#8]
Whatever it is, it is only there right as the missile touches the turret. In the prior frame, the missile is in flight, in the next frame the whole thing is a ball of flame. My first guess was an additional explosive underneath the tank, maybe to make the test extra spectacular.
 I have no idea though guys.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2004 7:45:08 PM EDT
[#9]
It's a Javelin, not a TOW. TOW goes straight to target, the Javelin is a top-attack, diving down on
the target so as to hit the thinner top armor. I'll have to look at the video at work tomorrow (I'm on a slow-assed dialup right now) but from that frame, the missile hasn't hit yet, so I'm not sure what the blue area is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2004 7:49:01 PM EDT
[#10]
Im working on getting the additional frames up but my computer is being an SOB.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2004 7:59:22 PM EDT
[#11]
For those who don't know, the jet formed by HEAT warhead is EXTREMELY FAST, it may have had its path altered a bit on entry, lighting up munitions, propellent , and cutting a exit hole.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2004 8:00:31 PM EDT
[#12]
  
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2004 8:07:50 PM EDT
[#13]
I bet when the film was made and they ported into a media file, they chopped alot of the frames out and lowered the resolution.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2004 11:22:20 PM EDT
[#14]
Here it is from a different angle.
   
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2004 11:28:04 PM EDT
[#15]
Maybe through pure luck the camera happened to catch the warhead JUST detonating/penetrating the tank on that frame?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2004 11:28:49 PM EDT
[#16]
That's a Javelin, not a TOW.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2004 11:33:52 PM EDT
[#17]
That movie is a few years old. It was posted over at tank net and the same question was asked. I dont remember if anyone was able to answer what it was.
The Russian members of the forum all said it was a second charge being set off to make the Javelin look much stronger than it is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2004 11:36:48 PM EDT
[#18]
That was my first guess but not sure. There is alot more going on in this video that I will ever understand. Could be similar to what member eodtech2000 said. Maybe a molten metal shower. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2004 11:37:10 PM EDT
[#19]
An old but still good vid.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2004 12:54:57 AM EDT
[#20]
Where's Art Bell when ya really need him.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2004 7:15:06 AM EDT
[#21]
Hmmm... Was this pic taken by ABC News (remember the GM pickup "tests" where they used rocket motors to ignite the gas tank)?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2004 7:31:51 AM EDT
[#22]
It's some dudes purple g-string hanging off the side
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2004 7:32:50 AM EDT
[#23]
It's a piece of that blue tarp in the foreground. They don't kane them like they used to. It is getting torn to pieces by the wind...it just happened that a chunk of it flew infront of the tank as the shutter clicked.
 I don't buy into the extra explosives theory...the timing neede to detonate both munitions simultaneously is almost impossible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2004 7:34:47 AM EDT
[#24]
Given the missles position, I would say its very likely the exit of the metal/explosive "jet' from the hull. The warhead detonates just prior to that point, millisecoinds before, and the timing would be about right.
From all after action reports I have seen the Javelin has been just as effective in the desert as it is in that video, so I doubt the rpesence of any secondary charges. Timing one that perfectly would be a damm trick in itself anyway, damm near impossible to time it exactly for simultaions detonation of a chareg at the exact moment of impact. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2004 8:07:12 AM EDT
[#25]
Definitely need more frames. The rocket motor is still intact when the mystery shape appears with no sign of warhead detonation.
My first thought was tandem warhead,
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2004 8:14:53 AM EDT
[#26]
Artifact of digitalization, or explosion happening faster than the digital camera's refresh rate?
Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2004 8:23:35 AM EDT
[#27]
I was thinking the missle is traveling so fast and the rate of the explosion is so fast that the camera is filming things much slower than they are happening. Kind of like a double exposure or time lapse photography. You still see the back of the missle as it is already inside the tank and exploding.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2004 8:59:03 PM EDT
[#28]
+1 The explosion was WAY to big for the payload of that missle even taking into consideration if that the tank was full of fuel and ammo. Remeinds me of the Side impact tests of GM trucks that NBC did where they "helped" the test to prove their point... S.O. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2004 9:17:00 PM EDT
[#29]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2004 9:20:09 PM EDT
[#30]
LoL yup! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2004 3:54:14 AM EDT
[#31]
Have you ever seen what it looks like when a Russian tank dies? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2004 4:03:33 AM EDT
[#32]
One glaring error in the video that has always bothered me is the initial scene. Javelin is launched, audio is in real-time. The target is what, one half to a full mile downrange.
The detonation is audible immediately when it goes off, without a 3 to 5 second delay that would normally be present at that range. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2004 4:19:45 AM EDT
[#33]
The test is NOT rigged. T72's DO blow up when penetrated if their magazine under the turret floor is penetrated. That is NOT the Javelin exploding the tank but its own ammo. If you have ever seen the ammo stowage inside a T-72 and the total lack of protection it has you would know why.
Javelin initiates catistrophic explosions more often than most other weapons because against a T-72 without reactive armor on the roof the precursor charge is sufficent to penetrate the roof armor by itself. The Primary meets little or no resistance and flashes unhindered into the magazine in the turret floor. The powder charges for the 125mm gun use combustable cases so its very easy to light them off, then the HE rounds go. Mines will also do this to the T72 series (to include the T80 and T90). In the mid 90's T72's were withdrawn from service in Chechnya and replaced with the modernized T55BM for a time untill heavy armor plate was added to the underside of the tank to protect the magazine. So will Hellfire and Copperhead both of which usually strike the roof. Tow and 120mm rounds do this less often becuase they usually hit horizontally and higher up in the turret, their path does not take them directly THROUGH the magazine. Even then they will catch on fire and will eventually cook off, though more slowly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2004 5:09:35 AM EDT
[#34]
That expalins why the tanks I saw during the Gulf war weren't blown to bits like the video. Burned or the turret popped off... Based on what I saw in Iraq I assumed they had to have filled the video T72 with something to get it to blow like that. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2004 5:13:44 AM EDT
[#35]
It's a trap man!
BigDozer66 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2004 5:22:24 AM EDT
[#36]
To really get it to go off you need a full 44 rounds of ammunition as well. The lower the number of cartridges and HE shells, naturally the less potent the explosion. APDS projectiles and MG ammo are largely inert, and the cartridges stowed loose in the turret are more likely to burn than those confined in the chambers of the carousel under the floor where they apparently have just enough confinement to cause a explosion rather than a flash fire, but not enough to protect them from fire or hot shrapnel. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2004 5:27:48 AM EDT
[#37]
+1 for molten metal. The function of defeating armor is usually accomplished by an initial blast on contact of the exterior to propel the pentrator of the said munition into or through the armored vehicle and to explode the secondary destructive charge. It is very likely that this frame is the few milliseconds that exist as the penetrator isblasting entry through the hull of the armor.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2004 5:35:32 AM EDT
[#38]
That's the Kanooter valve ....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2004 5:45:43 AM EDT
[#39]
It was just a test though right? Why would they have a tank full of shells if they were going to just blow it up? I think the blue little thing in front of the tank is one of 2 things. It is either a balloon left go by some little kid on a picknic and is now crying because his ballon has gotten blown up or it is an alien space craft drone testing it's ability to withstand high explosives of earth. If it with stood it then the invasion can begin!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2004 6:05:00 AM EDT
[#40]
Those Russkies are full of it. The APDS round from a Bradley will go through a T-72-in one end, out the other.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2004 8:20:24 AM EDT
[#41]
The official answer from the Experts of Tankdom over at TankNet is that the test was rigged with good intentions. It was a manufacturer's publicity footage.
Apparently the idea was to simulate the tendancy of Russian tanks with open carousels to explode by putting a lot of explosives inside the tank. However, they packed in a little too much more explosives that would have been required for a proper simulation, with the evident result. NTM |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2004 8:40:34 AM EDT
[#42]
For an interesting article about how the Javelin fared in Iraq, see
www.raytheon.com/feature/warfighter/battle.html The explosions were not as big as pictured in this thread, but the tanks were just as dead. Edit to add, I remember seeing a hell of a powerpoint presentation floating around somehwhere with a detailed explanation of what happened at this battle. Also, I believe a CNN reporter was killed, as well as some friendly kurds by an airstrike in this battle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2004 8:42:57 AM EDT
[#43]
that test was a combat loaded t72, full fuel and ammo(minus projectiles, but with equivalent HE to replace HEAT warheads) at least thats what they told me at Javelin school |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2004 8:58:07 AM EDT
[#44]
You ever seen what a Javelin does to a tank? It's pretty spectaular, my guess was that it had a load of fuel in it. If it had any ammunition, it would be well beyond what you saw in the video. Secondary explosions are pretty hard to miss, they're so big that jet fighter pilots can see them from the air. As for the blue thing, well, I just looked at the video and my opinion is that it's something to do with the camera. It's not a secondary charge, the Javelin don't need help. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2004 9:06:42 AM EDT
[#45]
... Not questioning the effectiveness of the Javelin system at all. But having actually participating in filming military hardware tests in much of my career, I have to say; there are more than a few anomalies with this particular film that makes me seriously question it's complete, unadulterated authenticity.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2004 11:22:23 AM EDT
[#46]
That was NBC's Dateline. I know it's tough to tell the liars apart without a program. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2004 12:45:12 PM EDT
[#47]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2004 8:45:43 PM EDT
[#48]
That's what it appears to be, to me too. Missing frames in between, but it's the initial break-through of the explosion. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2004 10:52:19 PM EDT
[#49]
its not a secondary charge simply because it wouldnt be needed.
if there was a need to make it look stronger, the take would simply be filled with explisived that would be set off the whe missle hit, no need to ATTEMPT to time them off at the same time which would be near impossible |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2004 6:46:22 AM EDT
[#50]
There are ample experiences of T-72s being catastrophically killed, both by kinetic and chemical energy pentrators, tank and missile-borne.
By way of example, if you think that a Javelin has a large or effective warhead, compare it to the results of Hellfires, TOWs and even Mavericks hitting tanks, all of which ended up in the vehicle definitely more recogniseable condition than the footage here. Most usually it's simply a turret removal. It wasn't just the Russians on TankNet crying 'fraud.' NTM |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
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.
