@ enigma, it is b/w me and them, you don't need to get wrecked about it.
Except that basic civility towards others is everyone's concern.
RPG- 29
Aside from an insurgent propaganda video on Youtube, the onlt trustworthy documentation I could find showed that an RPG-29 reportedly injured several tank crewmen of a British Challenger. Important to note that this was not against an A2, and that there are no documented penetrations of an RPG-29 penetrating the depleted uranium composite armor of the A2.
Metis m
Only documentation I could find was, according to the IDF, it had caused damage to Israeli Merkavak Mark III tanks in the 2006 Lebanon war. Russia has denied this. It is important to note that the Merkahvah is relatively outdated, and its speculated that it will be discontinued within the next five years.
Kornet
The Kornet is credited with disabling two A1s and one Bradely IFV vehicle in the opening week of the war. The losses werent permanent, and no crew members were killed.
The sources I checked aggree that the Kornet can ideally penetrate around 1250mm of steel. The M1A1, according to this site
here, the M1A1 that saw combat in Desert Storm had the steel quivalent of 1300-1600 mm of steel. Furthermore, from the same site, Iraqi T-70s engaged several M1A1s at very close ranges, and multiple hits
failed to penetrate the armor.MILAN
The last technical update was over 15 years ago, Its in the process of being fazed out and replaced, and theres no documentation of it being used against any western MBTs. Or any Western nations, for that matter.
H-J 8
Average of 800-1000mm steel penetration, which isnt enough to penetrate A1 chemical equivalent thickness of armor. May be if you hit the track you could hope to disable the tank temporarily, but you're not going to pop the turret off in a glorious fireball.
Short of DU penetrators and airborne munitions, the best an infantryman can hope to do is disable the tank. The Abrams has a stellar record in survivability, and another stellar record in crew survivability should the armor be compromised. And when you consider that A2s are being upgraded with TUSK, and that the A3 is due to come out in 2017, the Abrams will take just about anything you throw at it, and then it will run over you.
We are not i say it again NOT talking about agricultural air crafts, we are talking about bombers and dog fighters, with fuel tanks built for petrol.
Which is why I said "feasible" and not "hay guize we kan doo dis rite naow!" Yes, I can read; I know that its a cropduster. But if you think back a bit to your "America will lose its airforce" argument, this shows that ethanol-powered flight is perfectly viable. Consider the various defense contractors who would stand to gain a lot of money from developing a militarized version? If America needs an airforce, it will have an airforce, come hell or high water.
An agricultural aircraft, with a loaded wait of 1,800 kg (3,968 lb)? Now lets compare it to a small military aircraft, some of the smallest are drones. The MQ-9 Reaper, a small drone, is 10,500 lbs, almost three times that of the small plane. A standard F16 us 26,500 lb (12,000 kg)fully loaded. And a bomber, like the B-2A? 336,500 lb (152,200 kg) fully loaded, a hundred times that of the little plane there. It would be like saying "Helicopters can run on electricity with our current technology *Points toward remote control helicopter*"
Oh silly me. I thought we could just throw bushels of corn into the air intakes of a Harrier jumpjet! Or that the US would actually buy a Brazilian cropduster as a viable military alternative!
Thats what I obviously must have been thinking, because its absosolutely ridiculous to expect that the most powerful nation on Earth would take a concept and then design their own aircraft based on their own needs is ridiculos.
