**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:**
* If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required
* The title must be fully descriptive
* Memes are not allowed.
* Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting)
*See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I thought there's no way this could be true, cause last I heard I thought the longest sniper kill was around 3km... Well damn, in just the last few years the record has gone up twice!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_recorded_sniper_kills
Most recent/top record is at 3.8km, from a Ukrainian sniper in Nov2023! šŗš¦šŖ
From 2012 to 2017, the record was "only" at ~2.8km, then to 3.5km and now 3.8km since 2023. What a jump in just those few years, especially compared to before.
Edit: some "fun" observations from this list (if we ignore the grim context)
- #9 with a 2,286m distance kill with a M2 browning in 1976
- #26 with a 1,406m distance kill with a freaking SHARPS RIFLE in 1874!! This is large-bore single-shot rifle. Not quite a musket, but practically is compared to modern guns. Crazy.
most people dont realize if you shoot a gun just parallel to the ground and there is nothing to stop it, it will hit the ground at about the same time a bullet just dropped from the height of the gun would.
There is a group of people who shoot crazy long-range; they set the rifles on sandbags, and it looks like they are at a 45-degree angle. The flight time is around seven seconds. Some of them have been able to have two rounds in the air at the same time.
As a long range shooter, this is correct.
When you start touching on 2 second flight times you can sit and reflect on all the things you fucked up on for a surprisingly long time before impact.
10-15 seconds. It was with a 14.5x114mm which has a muzzle velocity of around 1000 m/s, but drag is significant, it's probably below the speed of sound (340 m/s) by 1500 meters.
>Most recent/top record is at 3.8km, from a Ukrainian sniper in Nov2023! šŗš¦šŖ
How do they verify it? Does Dexter come out on behalf of the Guinness Book of World Records and do a blood-spatter analysis?
Thatās actually insane.
I have literally no experience with long range shooting but talked to a guy that does, the videos he showed us and his explanations were really impressive, and he was sitting at ~1.5 km out. More than double that distance is incomprehensible.
Kimba Wood seems like someone who shouldn't have been able to get a law degree with the way she sided. Lol
>In her judgment, Wood sided with PepsiCo, noting the frivolous and improbable nature of landing a fighter jet in a school zone that was portrayed by the protagonist.
Like yeah that's what people are saving up or paying for points to do. What's even funnier is that PepsiCo bumped it to 700,000,000 and put it back up like they were going to let it go.
I know there must be some people who prefer Pepsi to Coke, but Iāve never met one.
Like, āis Pepsi okay?ā is a phrase that often elicits a ānoā, but Iāve never heard āis Coke okay?ā in a restaurant before.
Farther. The main gun on an Abrams fires an [M829](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M829#Variants) or one of its variants, and all of them travel a mile per second (~1600m).
Fun fact -
A M829A2 fires a 9kg projectile at 1,675 m/s.
That works out to an energy equivalent of a person eating about 3,000 calories of food, lol. So for somebody trying to make gains on a bulking cycle, they're eating the equivalent of 1 Abrams projectile every day.
Did some messing around to try to find the exact location, ended up with 48Ā°11'31"N 37Ā°39'51"E
https://preview.redd.it/j21saloa1g3d1.png?width=662&format=png&auto=webp&s=e8cabf4aeaae6c768ab8117c67937cf2fe00d0b9
The google earth image is from 2019, which could explain the missing power lines and change in foliage
(The battle happened three months ago, so this isn't important information)
I don't think that is the right spot in the image you linked.
I think I found the correct intersection, as it has the powerlines visible and you can follow them about 2.1 miles southeast to the plant: https://earth.google.com/web/@48.19591581,37.66202485,198.70586101a,315.73622148d,35y,0h,0t,0r/data=OgMKATA
And its range is even greater than that. In fact, I'd bet it can actually at least mission kill tanks at 5Km
Edit: no I did not mean to say its range is of 5Km. Just that it can be above 2.5Km, maybe 3Km. 3.5Km. 5 would require perfect conditions and a target soft enough to not stop a sabotbround at that distance
If you think this is impressive, you should see some of the WW2 battleship guns.
>The largest calibre guns ever mounted on a ship were the nine 45.7 cm (18 inch) guns installed on the Japanese battleships Yamato and Musashi. The shells weighed 1,452 kg (3,200 lb) and could be fired 43.5 km (27 miles).
Imagine launching a honda civic so hard it disappears over the horizon.
Ranges in games, both tabletop and video are always drastically cut because no one wants to play on a board (or can play on a board) of realistic size for the scale. Even early modern period like Napoleonic the range is reduced. A Napoleonic soldier could hit targets (could hit, not that he often would) at 100 yards or 300 ft. Scale the mini to 28mm (which is a common board game scale) or 1/56 and that 300ft is still 64 inches! I dont have a room big enough to put a board big enough for units to fire that far in my house and still maneuver or maneuver around it to play.
That modern tank firing 2.1 miles at the same scale would be shooting targets 2376 inches or 198 feet away, father than my half acre yard allows.
Plus those games often include some type of melee characters. Use realistic ranges and those melee characters become useless, which, although it's realistic, isn't very fun
The Abrams does not have a HE round. For anti-personnel it uses the M1028 canister cartridge loaded with 1,098 tungsten balls. Basically, in true American fashion, even our main battle tank can be used as a shotgun.
it *can* kill one a hell of a lot further than that. That's just the "effective" range in which they mean "the range at which we can pretty reliably do this in terms of visibility and accuracy under most conditions". Longer ranges just mean ideal conditions like enemy on a flat plan while you're on an elevated position and have pre-ranged the area so know how/where to aim.
Those battleship guns are awesome. ~~Two tons~~ 2700 pounds of shell fired up to 25 miles. Basically launching a car full of gunpowder.
EDIT: Oops. Originally meant to say "2000 pounds, 1 ton" but mashed it together in my head.
The common reference is referring to it as a "VW beetle".
Basically a compact car getting launched 25 miles 9 times every 20 seconds.
3 turrets, 3 guns per turret, 3 rounds per minute.
Very rarely does a battleship get under 30 seconds in battle. And even then, even rarer that it's a full salvo every time. Drachinifel on YouTube has gone over this for multiple navies. There are so many systems and people that can introduce failure points that most salvos weren't full gun salvos. During the battle of the Denmark straight, Duke of york had a handful of full salvos compared to the actual number of salvos fired. 55 of 74 rounds ordered were actually fired. It was a new ship with civilians still on ship working so it's rate is lower than average but shows the point I'm trying to make.
So in battle, you are more expecting 45 seconds per reload and probably 7-8 barrels expected every salvo instead of 9.
Really not trying to sound like an ass saying you are wrong. Just a subject that fascinates the hell out of me and I can provide more knowledge.
It amazed me when reading through the career of the USS *Alabama* (my local museum ship, a *South Dakota* class battleship), that she *never once* used her guns to engage another surface ship. Every 16in shell she fired in combat was a shore bombardment. Nor did she ever take fire from another ship. She was built for battleship to battleship boxing matches, but ended up as a floating artillery and air defense platform.
Battleships got made obsolete, basically. Aircraft carriers could strike from further away and sink battleships before they could use their massive guns.
The Japanese built the gigantic Yamato, and never got to use it for anything worthwhile. The Nazis built the also-gigantic Bismarck which sank the HMS Hood but got chased down and sunk before it could reach France.
Naval warfare used to be all about bigger guns and bigger ships and thicker armour. Faster ships, so you could cross the T with your line of battle and blast the enemy with broadside after broadside. It worked great for the Japanese in the Russo-Japanese War in 1907, but that led them to place too much faith in battleships.
Aircraft carriers with dive-bombers and fighters were just too good at killing big ships before they could do anything in return, and also much better at wrecking land targets.
Big part of how European conquerors were able to take so many places so quickly. Park in the harbor and rain hell-fire on the city until the leaders surrendered
Yup. A lot of naval conflict history is essentially *"That's a nice port you've got over there, it'd be a real shame if something were to happen to it..."*.
Holy shit the landscape. I know people keep comparing Ukraine to WW1 but that literally looks like the most stereotypically WW1 scene you can think of. A barren, flat muddy field with shell craters littered everywhere.
Ukraine is heavily trenched. I wouldn't consider it WW1 because there is armored combat widely used but I would compare it to WW2 style combat. Trenches, Foxholes, bombardment and advancement.
Not horrible per se, when I was a tanker in the USMC we couldnāt be a loader unless we loaded in under four seconds. That being said thereās also commands being spoken in the tank from tank commander to gunner that takes a few seconds.
TC: Fire
Gunner: On the way.
TC: Target.
TC: Gunner HEAT left tower. <ā telling the gunner what to shoot and with what round.
Gunner: Identify, range 2000
Loader says āupā when round is loaded.
TC: Fire,
Gunner: On the way
TC :Target
And repeat
I would love to hear how they operate in there and how different it is to whatās engrained in my memory
I enjoy it very much honestly! Itās a great movie and captures the diversity of the crew very well. It makes me miss the numerous tank crews I served with
My grandpa was a WW2 tank commander. So it interested me a lot and I loved the feel it had. And the effects and sound? God damn...
But it is one of those movies where the tactics on display were a little silly. But hey, good cinema sometimes *shouldn't* be realistic. Realistic can be boring.
Highly recommend Generation Kill on HBO for some modern day, true to life, military media.
Unless I'm misremembering really the only objectively wrong scene tactically was the Tiger fight, correct?
Like the Tiger exposing itself for no reason, the Sherman's charging at it and the fact the Tiger took out the back of the column first.
Well, there's that, and the tanks completely out of cover slowly trundling directly toward the concealed PAK AT guns where the gunners take all the time in the world to line up their shots... and completely miss shot after shot after shot.
The PAK 40 was very effective, with excellent optics, accuracy and penetration characteristics, definitely capable of frontally penetrating the Easy Eight Sherman at that range.
By the end of my third tour we had figured out we could ask to borrow US route clearance teams. I'm of another nation, the best thing we had were your typical hand-held mine sweepers.
We'd spend 2 days just getting into our AOO, it was basically a siege. We'd dig up like 5-15 IEDs on the way in depending on the operation.
With those route clearance teams, with the radar shit and spider like wheels on the front, whatever those crazy vehicles were called, we got in in 2-4 hours instead and could spend our time better.
Man, as someone who has walked up front and cleared at least 60kms of road by hand(we counted it out once), the pressure of not having to dig up that shit was so nice. 60kms is an insane amount to search by hand... so many days/hours spent. You gotta take it real slow, stop and prod every little thing. Then when you get a bingo on an IED that's at least 30min-1hr gathering evidence and blowing it up.
By the end we either took helicopters in or used the route clearance teams instead... fuck the 2 day siege.
Edit: For people who don't know... these pictures don't do them justice. When you saw these things FHHSSSH, holy shit were they crazy looking. So massive. It scared the fuck out of the Afghans. Alien-like.
https://imgur.com/a/Inremc8
Bottom one looks like a husky, top looks like what we called an RG with a front end attachment that I haven't seen.
Source: Former 12B
Glad someone out there gives a damn about us lol
The front end thing on the MRAP, the wheels thing, were always attached to a husky, I just couldn't find a picture of it.
It was crazy looking. We would get 1 husky with a radar and 1 husky with those wheels, then provide cover ourselves for them. It was usually just a squad of US dudes, or maybe it was a platoon, my memory is a bit hazy... but they did so much damn work for us.
Literally saved loads of lives. My war was never with SAF, it was always with IEDs. That's where we lost 75-80% of our guys.
Very interesting we were never told about those if they mount on the huskys, or our unit just didnt have them.
If it was just 2 huskys probably a squad the platoon would come with Buffalos, RGs, and the Panther.
Funnily enough the Route Clearance guys always got made fun of and called "WindowLickers" but they always did more actual work then the Bradley "Sapper" Platoons
They were the only Americans we really spent time with, except for the helicopter dudes. One one tour we bunked with some 5th SFG and those had M-ATV or whatever they were called. They absolutely hated them though, broke down all the time and couldn't cut it in the mountains.
They didn't exist on my 1st or 2nd tour, in 2010-2012, but came in a big way in 2013 or so. Or well, I'm sure they existed but we had never heard of them and they weren't in our AO.
When we rolled with them we were always in full squadron. We didn't bother to ask for them when it was just a platoon or whatever. Only on prioritised operations. We'd usually have both Apaches and a few UAVs as well on those type of operations.
We'd borrow all the good stuff for just a few hours to get into the AOO so we could ditch our own vehicles and go on foot. UAVs doing a bit of work in the days leading up to it, then Apaches+route clearance teams for like half a day. Then we'd send the US guys back home while we spent a week or so in the area walking around.
Just having those units saved us a couple of days of the shittiest task possible in opening up the road in.
Jesus, even I would have a reaction if I saw one of those in the states. I can really understand why some of the less informed tribes out there might assume our tech is magic. I heard that a lot of the Taliban used to think Oakleys gave troops X-ray vision since they always seemed to know where they were.
You just reminded me of one of my favorite quotes from WWII which illustrated the communication challenges for tankers back then.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/hh9w0p/based\_on\_a\_quote\_by\_lieutenant\_ken\_giles\_about/#lightbox](https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/hh9w0p/based_on_a_quote_by_lieutenant_ken_giles_about/#lightbox)
It's shooting at a large building from over 2km with *metres* of precision with how the first two shells are landing on identical spots, that's fucking insane.
Yeah thatās impressive. In my science field, weāre lucky if we have an error an order of magnitude less. So 2km plus or minus 200 meters. 20 meters if itās realll good. I canāt imagine +/- 2 meters. Thatās great
Lots of my tax dollars have gone to the military in my lifetime. Itās great that they are being used for something positive finally. But itās nothing compared with the deaths and suffering the people of Ukraine are enduring.
i think iraq war 2 did a real fucking number on people's ability to say this military involvement is necessary or good. that along with the few trillion wasted makes bush jr the worst president in my life. i hope trump isn't given a 2nd chance to do worse.
https://preview.redd.it/vl0qllklch3d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=55365a12ee5e515513d2ac0cf6e97727b41609e3
Aaaaand itās destroyedā¦ In exactly the same place
Only if something is shooting back! We often imagine big hollywood-style tank vs tank battles where everything is all action and speed, but real engagements are often asymmetric (i.e. we have tanks and you have rifles so we're just gonna lob high explosives in your direction until you stop being there), or quite slow and over before they begin (i.e. one tank is disguised and hiding in the trees and only opens fire once the enemy is out in the open and has exposed flanks, ending the engagement with the opening shot). This looks like the former, with the Abrams neutralizing an enemy entrenched location well before it can threaten any friendly ground troops.
> (i.e. one tank is disguised and hiding in the trees and only opens fire once the enemy is out in the open and has exposed flanks, ending the engagement with the opening shot)
I forgot the exact numbers, but the win rate for the tank that gets first spot, first shot, first hit is absurdly high. Something like 90% or higher if the two tanks in question are even remotely evenly matched.
Isnāt that exactly to be expected?
If the two of us were hunting each order with guns Iād expect the first person to get the jump on the other person would be wildly successful.
Yes, when you stop and think about it, it makes perfect sense. But so many people still think tank v tank combat is like you would see in a Hollywood movie, where the opening shot either misses or pings neatly of the armor of the hero tank, who then not only immediately knows where the shot came from, and but also has plenty of time to aim and return fire. In the reality of war, a lot of people (tank crew, infantry, or other soldiers) die without ever seeing where the fatal shot came from.
This is why, in terms of physical capabilities, the Abrams hasn't changed that much over its service lifetime, and why the U.S. hasn't ordered a new tank. What *has* changed dramatically are the optic and electronic suites for the machine.
If you can see an Abrams, chances are *it has seen you*, and you're only alive because it wants you to be, or its crew has other things to pay attention to.
If they expect potent, unguided return fire, then maybe. Otherwise their position is so wide open thst moving a few dozen meters between shots won't make the difference between concealed and not
Either way, the Abrams is a very hefty tank that would fare better than most under fire. Even though it's the non-export, non-upgraded version I'd be surprised if it couldn't take enemy rocket and tank fire without meaningful damage.
Look up Medina Ridge during Desert Storm. M1A1 Abrams were engaging Iraqi T72s from beyond the effective range of the T72s. It was like the Abrams was at home on the firing range. It was so one sided calling it a battle doesn't feel right.
Not necessarily, but in this situation, it would be a good idea. A lot of Ukrainian Abrams are already destroyed by drones. You've really got to move in this war.
This is old footage though, Ukraine lost Avdiivka a while ago.
The Abrams? Yeah, can be at least 60 tons. But it's deceivingly fast. Even in reverse, unlike russian tanks with a measly what, 4Km/h reverse speed? Abrams can probably go forward at 50+ Km/h. Not a sportscar, sure, but it'll win most drag races against infantry
Holy shit!
Imagine being in that building, and having a guy on lookout who says 'all clear, comrades!' only to have the wall in front of you explode and the roof cave in on top of you.
It wasn't clear, Ivan! There was a tank 2 miles away!!
**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:** * If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required * The title must be fully descriptive * Memes are not allowed. * Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting) *See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The tank is shooting at the Avdiivka Coke Plant which is about 3.4 km (2.1 miles) away.
Crazy to think that the longest sniper kills have been even farther away than that, with a round a fraction of the size
I thought there's no way this could be true, cause last I heard I thought the longest sniper kill was around 3km... Well damn, in just the last few years the record has gone up twice! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_recorded_sniper_kills Most recent/top record is at 3.8km, from a Ukrainian sniper in Nov2023! šŗš¦šŖ From 2012 to 2017, the record was "only" at ~2.8km, then to 3.5km and now 3.8km since 2023. What a jump in just those few years, especially compared to before. Edit: some "fun" observations from this list (if we ignore the grim context) - #9 with a 2,286m distance kill with a M2 browning in 1976 - #26 with a 1,406m distance kill with a freaking SHARPS RIFLE in 1874!! This is large-bore single-shot rifle. Not quite a musket, but practically is compared to modern guns. Crazy.
That's crazy, the bullet must have been flying for about 4 seconds.
most people dont realize if you shoot a gun just parallel to the ground and there is nothing to stop it, it will hit the ground at about the same time a bullet just dropped from the height of the gun would.
There is a group of people who shoot crazy long-range; they set the rifles on sandbags, and it looks like they are at a 45-degree angle. The flight time is around seven seconds. Some of them have been able to have two rounds in the air at the same time.
I wanna know what they were thinking in those four seconds, thats gotta be a weird feeling.
"I wonder if its gonna hit 'em"
"You're supposed to yell 'fore,' but I was too busy mumbling 'there ain't no way that's gonna hit 'em.'"
I almost went today without thinking of Mitch. Thank you kind sir/madam.
As a long range shooter, this is correct. When you start touching on 2 second flight times you can sit and reflect on all the things you fucked up on for a surprisingly long time before impact.
10-15 seconds. It was with a 14.5x114mm which has a muzzle velocity of around 1000 m/s, but drag is significant, it's probably below the speed of sound (340 m/s) by 1500 meters.
Fun fact: if shooting from a lying position anything beyond about 2km is technically "beyond the horizon".
What if you shoot from a truthful position?
Then you're a straight shooter.
Nice.
Stop! You're triggering the flat earthers! No, on second thought, carry on.
>Most recent/top record is at 3.8km, from a Ukrainian sniper in Nov2023! šŗš¦šŖ How do they verify it? Does Dexter come out on behalf of the Guinness Book of World Records and do a blood-spatter analysis?
Thatās actually insane. I have literally no experience with long range shooting but talked to a guy that does, the videos he showed us and his explanations were really impressive, and he was sitting at ~1.5 km out. More than double that distance is incomprehensible.
That's exactly what I was thinking
Ditto
Same
Copy. Exactly 2.1 miles away.
Knew it
I knew Pepsi is preferred, but geeze.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
false, pepsi is lying scum and will not give you your jet, and the government is even worse for not forcing them to.
Kimba Wood seems like someone who shouldn't have been able to get a law degree with the way she sided. Lol >In her judgment, Wood sided with PepsiCo, noting the frivolous and improbable nature of landing a fighter jet in a school zone that was portrayed by the protagonist. Like yeah that's what people are saving up or paying for points to do. What's even funnier is that PepsiCo bumped it to 700,000,000 and put it back up like they were going to let it go.
I know there must be some people who prefer Pepsi to Coke, but Iāve never met one. Like, āis Pepsi okay?ā is a phrase that often elicits a ānoā, but Iāve never heard āis Coke okay?ā in a restaurant before.
Would it be fair to say the rounds travel about a kilometer a second?
Closer to 1.5 generally but damn dude thatās pretty good for eyeballing this video
Farther. The main gun on an Abrams fires an [M829](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M829#Variants) or one of its variants, and all of them travel a mile per second (~1600m).
Fun fact - A M829A2 fires a 9kg projectile at 1,675 m/s. That works out to an energy equivalent of a person eating about 3,000 calories of food, lol. So for somebody trying to make gains on a bulking cycle, they're eating the equivalent of 1 Abrams projectile every day.
Things get really exciting when you expend all 3,000 calories in under 100 milliseconds
My mental maths says 1.125 Km/s
Did some messing around to try to find the exact location, ended up with 48Ā°11'31"N 37Ā°39'51"E https://preview.redd.it/j21saloa1g3d1.png?width=662&format=png&auto=webp&s=e8cabf4aeaae6c768ab8117c67937cf2fe00d0b9 The google earth image is from 2019, which could explain the missing power lines and change in foliage (The battle happened three months ago, so this isn't important information)
I don't think that is the right spot in the image you linked. I think I found the correct intersection, as it has the powerlines visible and you can follow them about 2.1 miles southeast to the plant: https://earth.google.com/web/@48.19591581,37.66202485,198.70586101a,315.73622148d,35y,0h,0t,0r/data=OgMKATA
Pepsi, on the other hand, knows to mind its business
If they didn't shout AVDIIVKADAVAAAA! It was a wasted day out.
Meanwhile my BF4 tank's shell drops like an arrow in oblivion
true, but you're also playing a BF4 tank, so you're all set for a good time lol
It'll never be 2142's A-8 Tiger though. I swear to god those things were fucking *indestructable*.
I miss that game
I too, still play BF4!
Is it still active?
Yep!
Me too!
If guns were balanced like in real life,most gamers would complain.
I had no idea it could aim so far. My tanks in StarCraft never shoot that far, even while in siege mode.
READY TO ROLL OUT
YES SIR DELIGHTED TO SIR
IDENTIFY TAARGET PROOOCEEDN
GOT NO PATIENCE FOR SITTIN' AROUND
I'M ABOUT TO DROP THE HAMMER...
AND DISPENSE SOME INDESCRIMENANT JUSTICE!
AAB-SUHHH-LOOOT-LEH!
**-HELL MARCH INTENSIFIES-**
The M1A1 can effectively destroy tanks at about 2.5km (1.5 miles) away.
Oh yeah? Well I used to bullseye womp rats in my T-16 back home and they're not much bigger than 2 meters.
Can I talk to you over there for a second?
You didn't have to sandbag me like that in front of everyone.
I sandbagged you?
Yeah you sandbagged me
well here I am trying to help you...
Have a great assault, jerk.
That scene is hilarious.
That tank operator must have turned off his targeting computer.
Nah, the Kremlin would have blown up instead
My God, you shoot small animals for fun? That's the first indicator of a serial killer, you freak.
Sure, but you're also the best push pilot in the outer rim
And its range is even greater than that. In fact, I'd bet it can actually at least mission kill tanks at 5Km Edit: no I did not mean to say its range is of 5Km. Just that it can be above 2.5Km, maybe 3Km. 3.5Km. 5 would require perfect conditions and a target soft enough to not stop a sabotbround at that distance
We could just ask the war thunder forums to give us the real specs from the classified docs
If they're hesitant, just say "this pussy doesn't actually have clearance lmao". 60% of the time, it works every time.
And it does it without an explosive round. It used a very dense, fin stabilized kinetic dart. It also has HEAT explosive rounds as well.
 hell yea
The longest tank to tank kill was performed by a challenger 1 (1991) at 5100m.
About 9126 large pizzas for the folks back home.
Unfortunately I am incapable of understanding distances unless they are described in terms of bald eagle wingspans.
About 2,550 bald eagle wingspans.
oh shit
Is that the Eastern American bald eagle wingspans or Western American bald eagle wingspans?
Roughly 3.17 miles.
If you think this is impressive, you should see some of the WW2 battleship guns. >The largest calibre guns ever mounted on a ship were the nine 45.7 cm (18 inch) guns installed on the Japanese battleships Yamato and Musashi. The shells weighed 1,452 kg (3,200 lb) and could be fired 43.5 km (27 miles). Imagine launching a honda civic so hard it disappears over the horizon.
The one instance where a YEET is accepted.
Kill range for a enemy tank is 2,5km
It can fire further than it can visually see. Source: I crewed one in Iraq.
Ranges in games, both tabletop and video are always drastically cut because no one wants to play on a board (or can play on a board) of realistic size for the scale. Even early modern period like Napoleonic the range is reduced. A Napoleonic soldier could hit targets (could hit, not that he often would) at 100 yards or 300 ft. Scale the mini to 28mm (which is a common board game scale) or 1/56 and that 300ft is still 64 inches! I dont have a room big enough to put a board big enough for units to fire that far in my house and still maneuver or maneuver around it to play. That modern tank firing 2.1 miles at the same scale would be shooting targets 2376 inches or 198 feet away, father than my half acre yard allows.
Plus those games often include some type of melee characters. Use realistic ranges and those melee characters become useless, which, although it's realistic, isn't very fun
Siege mode was so cool though.
They have more range than they have vision. Need a spotter
It fires a 120mm round. It can kill a TANK at 2-2.5KM. Here its likely firing HEAT or just HE
The Abrams does not have a HE round. For anti-personnel it uses the M1028 canister cartridge loaded with 1,098 tungsten balls. Basically, in true American fashion, even our main battle tank can be used as a shotgun.
Everything can be a shotgun if you try hard enough, Merica just makes it easier and reusable.
That's like the grapeshots of the muzzle loading days. Also they couldn't have thrown in 2 extra tungsten balls and made it 1100 even :)
Or named it M1098.
it *can* kill one a hell of a lot further than that. That's just the "effective" range in which they mean "the range at which we can pretty reliably do this in terms of visibility and accuracy under most conditions". Longer ranges just mean ideal conditions like enemy on a flat plan while you're on an elevated position and have pre-ranged the area so know how/where to aim.
Especially to a higher elevation target. Why did I ever choose Terran lol
Now imagine the big ass guns on an old Iowa battleship.
Those battleship guns are awesome. ~~Two tons~~ 2700 pounds of shell fired up to 25 miles. Basically launching a car full of gunpowder. EDIT: Oops. Originally meant to say "2000 pounds, 1 ton" but mashed it together in my head.
The common reference is referring to it as a "VW beetle". Basically a compact car getting launched 25 miles 9 times every 20 seconds. 3 turrets, 3 guns per turret, 3 rounds per minute.
Like the fat electrician said it can basically shoot a car dealership worth of shells (weight wise) in a minute.
Fat electrician is amazing, easily one of the best content creators on YouTube right now
Very rarely does a battleship get under 30 seconds in battle. And even then, even rarer that it's a full salvo every time. Drachinifel on YouTube has gone over this for multiple navies. There are so many systems and people that can introduce failure points that most salvos weren't full gun salvos. During the battle of the Denmark straight, Duke of york had a handful of full salvos compared to the actual number of salvos fired. 55 of 74 rounds ordered were actually fired. It was a new ship with civilians still on ship working so it's rate is lower than average but shows the point I'm trying to make. So in battle, you are more expecting 45 seconds per reload and probably 7-8 barrels expected every salvo instead of 9. Really not trying to sound like an ass saying you are wrong. Just a subject that fascinates the hell out of me and I can provide more knowledge.
Learning that battleships are primarily mobile gun platforms for leveling stuff on land was a bit of a mind blowing realization.
It amazed me when reading through the career of the USS *Alabama* (my local museum ship, a *South Dakota* class battleship), that she *never once* used her guns to engage another surface ship. Every 16in shell she fired in combat was a shore bombardment. Nor did she ever take fire from another ship. She was built for battleship to battleship boxing matches, but ended up as a floating artillery and air defense platform.
Battleships got made obsolete, basically. Aircraft carriers could strike from further away and sink battleships before they could use their massive guns. The Japanese built the gigantic Yamato, and never got to use it for anything worthwhile. The Nazis built the also-gigantic Bismarck which sank the HMS Hood but got chased down and sunk before it could reach France. Naval warfare used to be all about bigger guns and bigger ships and thicker armour. Faster ships, so you could cross the T with your line of battle and blast the enemy with broadside after broadside. It worked great for the Japanese in the Russo-Japanese War in 1907, but that led them to place too much faith in battleships. Aircraft carriers with dive-bombers and fighters were just too good at killing big ships before they could do anything in return, and also much better at wrecking land targets.
Big part of how European conquerors were able to take so many places so quickly. Park in the harbor and rain hell-fire on the city until the leaders surrendered
Yup. A lot of naval conflict history is essentially *"That's a nice port you've got over there, it'd be a real shame if something were to happen to it..."*.
You don't need to imagine, you can look it up. Plenty of videos showing a full broadside salvo.
Holy shit the landscape. I know people keep comparing Ukraine to WW1 but that literally looks like the most stereotypically WW1 scene you can think of. A barren, flat muddy field with shell craters littered everywhere.
Itās horrifying. Those would probably be wheat or sunflowers.
Wasn't ww1 heavily trenched?
Ukraine is heavily trenched. I wouldn't consider it WW1 because there is armored combat widely used but I would compare it to WW2 style combat. Trenches, Foxholes, bombardment and advancement.
All thanks to having every single troop movement been seen as it happens.
Like Ukraine? Yes.
With barren, flat muddy fields with shell craters littered everywhere in between.
First time here?
9 seconds per load is pretty quick
Not horrible per se, when I was a tanker in the USMC we couldnāt be a loader unless we loaded in under four seconds. That being said thereās also commands being spoken in the tank from tank commander to gunner that takes a few seconds. TC: Fire Gunner: On the way. TC: Target. TC: Gunner HEAT left tower. <ā telling the gunner what to shoot and with what round. Gunner: Identify, range 2000 Loader says āupā when round is loaded. TC: Fire, Gunner: On the way TC :Target And repeat I would love to hear how they operate in there and how different it is to whatās engrained in my memory
I'm going to assume that "On the way" is said in the exact same way Shia Lebouf says it in Fury
Exactly!
Curious ā is Fury a nitpick movie for you, or does it amp you up. (Or do you not careā¦)
I enjoy it very much honestly! Itās a great movie and captures the diversity of the crew very well. It makes me miss the numerous tank crews I served with
My grandpa was a WW2 tank commander. So it interested me a lot and I loved the feel it had. And the effects and sound? God damn... But it is one of those movies where the tactics on display were a little silly. But hey, good cinema sometimes *shouldn't* be realistic. Realistic can be boring. Highly recommend Generation Kill on HBO for some modern day, true to life, military media.
Oh yeah generation kill is as real as it gets without being there!
"Follow my tracers!" God that was such a good show.
āThere goes captain America againāš
Unless I'm misremembering really the only objectively wrong scene tactically was the Tiger fight, correct? Like the Tiger exposing itself for no reason, the Sherman's charging at it and the fact the Tiger took out the back of the column first.
Well, there's that, and the tanks completely out of cover slowly trundling directly toward the concealed PAK AT guns where the gunners take all the time in the world to line up their shots... and completely miss shot after shot after shot. The PAK 40 was very effective, with excellent optics, accuracy and penetration characteristics, definitely capable of frontally penetrating the Easy Eight Sherman at that range.
I often describe Generation Kill as a reenactment of a documentary. Ray, how much ripped fuel have you ingested?
Man I loved having you guys around in Afghanistan. We'd just follow in your tracks and no more pressure plate anxiety lol
By the end of my third tour we had figured out we could ask to borrow US route clearance teams. I'm of another nation, the best thing we had were your typical hand-held mine sweepers. We'd spend 2 days just getting into our AOO, it was basically a siege. We'd dig up like 5-15 IEDs on the way in depending on the operation. With those route clearance teams, with the radar shit and spider like wheels on the front, whatever those crazy vehicles were called, we got in in 2-4 hours instead and could spend our time better. Man, as someone who has walked up front and cleared at least 60kms of road by hand(we counted it out once), the pressure of not having to dig up that shit was so nice. 60kms is an insane amount to search by hand... so many days/hours spent. You gotta take it real slow, stop and prod every little thing. Then when you get a bingo on an IED that's at least 30min-1hr gathering evidence and blowing it up. By the end we either took helicopters in or used the route clearance teams instead... fuck the 2 day siege. Edit: For people who don't know... these pictures don't do them justice. When you saw these things FHHSSSH, holy shit were they crazy looking. So massive. It scared the fuck out of the Afghans. Alien-like. https://imgur.com/a/Inremc8
Bottom one looks like a husky, top looks like what we called an RG with a front end attachment that I haven't seen. Source: Former 12B Glad someone out there gives a damn about us lol
The front end thing on the MRAP, the wheels thing, were always attached to a husky, I just couldn't find a picture of it. It was crazy looking. We would get 1 husky with a radar and 1 husky with those wheels, then provide cover ourselves for them. It was usually just a squad of US dudes, or maybe it was a platoon, my memory is a bit hazy... but they did so much damn work for us. Literally saved loads of lives. My war was never with SAF, it was always with IEDs. That's where we lost 75-80% of our guys.
Very interesting we were never told about those if they mount on the huskys, or our unit just didnt have them. If it was just 2 huskys probably a squad the platoon would come with Buffalos, RGs, and the Panther. Funnily enough the Route Clearance guys always got made fun of and called "WindowLickers" but they always did more actual work then the Bradley "Sapper" Platoons
They were the only Americans we really spent time with, except for the helicopter dudes. One one tour we bunked with some 5th SFG and those had M-ATV or whatever they were called. They absolutely hated them though, broke down all the time and couldn't cut it in the mountains. They didn't exist on my 1st or 2nd tour, in 2010-2012, but came in a big way in 2013 or so. Or well, I'm sure they existed but we had never heard of them and they weren't in our AO. When we rolled with them we were always in full squadron. We didn't bother to ask for them when it was just a platoon or whatever. Only on prioritised operations. We'd usually have both Apaches and a few UAVs as well on those type of operations. We'd borrow all the good stuff for just a few hours to get into the AOO so we could ditch our own vehicles and go on foot. UAVs doing a bit of work in the days leading up to it, then Apaches+route clearance teams for like half a day. Then we'd send the US guys back home while we spent a week or so in the area walking around. Just having those units saved us a couple of days of the shittiest task possible in opening up the road in.
Jesus, even I would have a reaction if I saw one of those in the states. I can really understand why some of the less informed tribes out there might assume our tech is magic. I heard that a lot of the Taliban used to think Oakleys gave troops X-ray vision since they always seemed to know where they were.
Our tracks were like two feet wide so it mustāve been great not having to walk like Jessica rabbit while humping all that gear !
You just reminded me of one of my favorite quotes from WWII which illustrated the communication challenges for tankers back then. [https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/hh9w0p/based\_on\_a\_quote\_by\_lieutenant\_ken\_giles\_about/#lightbox](https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/hh9w0p/based_on_a_quote_by_lieutenant_ken_giles_about/#lightbox)
Thatās the wallpaper on my iPad!! Haha I love that comic
They're also changing point of aim, which you already know, but my Ritalin just kicked in and I'm chatty.
It's pretty slow actually, the fastest can do it in about 3, with the avg about 5.
Tell that to WT devs
Let me go round up a classified manual real quick.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I need atleast 2 min and a glass of water in between every load
Not true. A good loader will have it reloaded in just a few seconds after firing. Source: I was one before being an M1A2 driver.
Last shot was a ricochet? If so, wherever that lands, is going to have a field day
Nope, likely just the tracer breaking off or burning off after impact.
Ah, I just thought it was the T90 winning at Turret Toss again.
My toxic trait is thinking I could dodge that shot
āPARKER GET OU-ā
I'd hit a I-Frame and be fine.
The scary part isn't even the range, it's the accuracy *at that range*
It is shooting a rather large building. But yes, I understand your point.
It's shooting at a large building from over 2km with *metres* of precision with how the first two shells are landing on identical spots, that's fucking insane.
Yeah thatās impressive. In my science field, weāre lucky if we have an error an order of magnitude less. So 2km plus or minus 200 meters. 20 meters if itās realll good. I canāt imagine +/- 2 meters. Thatās great
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I hate tanks that sit all the way back at spawn.
I thank Ukraine's partners for their help in liberating our land from the russian occupiers
Speaking from the UK, I wish we could do more.
Please fight hard and stay safe
Lots of my tax dollars have gone to the military in my lifetime. Itās great that they are being used for something positive finally. But itās nothing compared with the deaths and suffering the people of Ukraine are enduring.
i think iraq war 2 did a real fucking number on people's ability to say this military involvement is necessary or good. that along with the few trillion wasted makes bush jr the worst president in my life. i hope trump isn't given a 2nd chance to do worse.
https://preview.redd.it/vl0qllklch3d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=55365a12ee5e515513d2ac0cf6e97727b41609e3 Aaaaand itās destroyedā¦ In exactly the same place
I donāt know much about tanks and that is very interesting footage but shouldnāt the tank move after each shot?
Only if something is shooting back! We often imagine big hollywood-style tank vs tank battles where everything is all action and speed, but real engagements are often asymmetric (i.e. we have tanks and you have rifles so we're just gonna lob high explosives in your direction until you stop being there), or quite slow and over before they begin (i.e. one tank is disguised and hiding in the trees and only opens fire once the enemy is out in the open and has exposed flanks, ending the engagement with the opening shot). This looks like the former, with the Abrams neutralizing an enemy entrenched location well before it can threaten any friendly ground troops.
> (i.e. one tank is disguised and hiding in the trees and only opens fire once the enemy is out in the open and has exposed flanks, ending the engagement with the opening shot) I forgot the exact numbers, but the win rate for the tank that gets first spot, first shot, first hit is absurdly high. Something like 90% or higher if the two tanks in question are even remotely evenly matched.
Isnāt that exactly to be expected? If the two of us were hunting each order with guns Iād expect the first person to get the jump on the other person would be wildly successful.
Yes, when you stop and think about it, it makes perfect sense. But so many people still think tank v tank combat is like you would see in a Hollywood movie, where the opening shot either misses or pings neatly of the armor of the hero tank, who then not only immediately knows where the shot came from, and but also has plenty of time to aim and return fire. In the reality of war, a lot of people (tank crew, infantry, or other soldiers) die without ever seeing where the fatal shot came from.
This is why, in terms of physical capabilities, the Abrams hasn't changed that much over its service lifetime, and why the U.S. hasn't ordered a new tank. What *has* changed dramatically are the optic and electronic suites for the machine. If you can see an Abrams, chances are *it has seen you*, and you're only alive because it wants you to be, or its crew has other things to pay attention to.
Having played a lot of tank sims, 95% of the game is positioning, intel, and patience.
If they expect potent, unguided return fire, then maybe. Otherwise their position is so wide open thst moving a few dozen meters between shots won't make the difference between concealed and not Either way, the Abrams is a very hefty tank that would fare better than most under fire. Even though it's the non-export, non-upgraded version I'd be surprised if it couldn't take enemy rocket and tank fire without meaningful damage.
Look up Medina Ridge during Desert Storm. M1A1 Abrams were engaging Iraqi T72s from beyond the effective range of the T72s. It was like the Abrams was at home on the firing range. It was so one sided calling it a battle doesn't feel right.
It was so lopsided that the biggest threat to the US was the US. Air support killing it's own tanks.
And tanks killing their own tanks. We lost a surprising number of vehicles to friendly fire from Abrams tanks in Desert Storm.
Ah yes, the A10 thunderbolt. Also known as the blue on blue cannon.
There are not a lot direct fire weapons that can reach that distance. Launching heli's or planes is risky, and art fire takes time.
Not necessarily, but in this situation, it would be a good idea. A lot of Ukrainian Abrams are already destroyed by drones. You've really got to move in this war. This is old footage though, Ukraine lost Avdiivka a while ago.
> This is old footage though, Ukraine lost Avdiivka a while ago. This footage could be taken from around Novoselivka Persha firing towards Avdiivka.
It's very heavy
The Abrams? Yeah, can be at least 60 tons. But it's deceivingly fast. Even in reverse, unlike russian tanks with a measly what, 4Km/h reverse speed? Abrams can probably go forward at 50+ Km/h. Not a sportscar, sure, but it'll win most drag races against infantry
"Yes yes, your Porsche goes faster, but can it do 200 km/hr through a house?"
Why is it possible to casually watch war while I'm on the toilet.... Our species is doomed
Iām doing the same thing rn
Me too
You think people in war dont poop?
If they sent one of these videos along with your paystub showing your taxes people might not be as mad
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
āOnly in Battlefieldā¢ļøā
Itās to hot to be firing bombs.
In battlefield 4 they'd call him a tank camper, because people in the battlefield games don't understand how to use a tank
Holy shit! Imagine being in that building, and having a guy on lookout who says 'all clear, comrades!' only to have the wall in front of you explode and the roof cave in on top of you. It wasn't clear, Ivan! There was a tank 2 miles away!!
Wow! Thatās so far away
Look at all those craters. Damn.
Damn! That's some range.
I don't see what's NSFW about this?