Video of FSA Terrorists Destroying T-72 Tank with RPG-29 Vampire

Video of FSA Terrorists Destroying T-72 Tank with RPG-29 Vampire

I’m not 100% sure whether this is the FSA perspective of the same bombing of the tank in Darayya as seen in this video by ANNA, but it very well could be. If it’s not, it really doesn’t matter because it’s a fantastic video which shows the devastating power of RPG-29 “Vampire” in all its glory.

The terrorists are definitely equipped with the best weaponry available today. With Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Israel and all ZOG pussy whipped countries like Canada and the USA supporting the jihadists financially, logistically and by arming them with finest weapons and endless supply of ammo while recruiting more and more mercenaries to join their ranks, there’s no surprise the terrorists are able to carry out such attacks.

Still, it looks like one of the tank crew miraculously survives. The blast turned the tank into high powered pressure cooker – how he was able to survive and get the fuck out of there seemingly well and unharmed is a mystery. Perhaps ZOG now needs to supply the jihadists with kryptonite? Or is it just some random guy that was hiding behind the tank from rebel fire?

Props to several Best Gore members for the video, including Young Buck and Hawk:

What People Searched For To Land Here:

  • rpg 29
  • rpg hits tank bestgore
  • best vampire gore series

47 thoughts on “Video of FSA Terrorists Destroying T-72 Tank with RPG-29 Vampire

    • Wrong, completely.

      In August 06, there was a report of an RPG-29′s PG-29V penetrating the ‘frontal’ armour of a Challenger II’s Chobham Armour, wounding the crew. Armour that’s infinitely ahead of the T-72′s Reflecting-Plate armour.
      In the May of ’08, an American M1 was destroyed/wrecked, casualties not released, a further user of the Chobham Armour variant though not the same quality as the British Dorchester Lv:2.

      The T-72b, reflecting-plate armour was, at the time, the greatest armour available in the Russian armoury, arguably the most effective in the world as the American’s lacked the weaponry then to penetrate it frontal glacis.
      The T-72 above was shot directly between the hull and the turret, the weakest aspect of a tank and a fatal flaw in the design of all turret-equipped tanks, a bonus not lost on turret-less tanks despite the obvious disadvantage of having to turn the entire vehicle instead of just the turret. A space that small doesn’t seem like a threat, but the weaker armour of the turret ring means even a dispersed force can penetrate it.

      It is the location tank gunners and heavy weapon specialists in squads are taught to aim for, there will almost certainly not be a weapon-test on a tank chassis that doesn’t show an impact on that area. Old tank hulls they use to demonstrate them are periodically shot there in all manner of weapon tests and even new tank hulls are targeted upon in that region. It doesn’t matter if its a T-90 or a Panzer IV, the fundamental weak spot of a tank is the turret ring, not since World War Two has a tank’s weakest aspect been its rear, engine block casings were reinforced and the armour brought to the same thickness as elsewhere during the 50s for most nations.

      The T-72 also has one of the best armour ratios going. The hull of the T-72B has a 520mm ^APFSDS (T) and a 950mm ^HEAT (T) armour rating, backed up by a 530mm ^APFSDS (H) and a 900mm ^HEAT (H) rating. Its phenomenally armoured for its aspect rating and is still regarded as one of the best main battle tanks ever given its overall combat rating and system specs.

      The Russians have always lead the world when it comes to weaponry and military equipment. The Americans like to boast that technology wins wars and proves the better piece of equipment, it doesn’t. The Russian’s have succeeded in simplicity, mass production and maintenance, a T-90 breaks down, the crew can repair 96% of all issues there and then. If an M1A1 breaks down in the deserts of Afghanistan or Iraq, it has to be dragged back to the EMS and overhauled by a team of twenty with an engine-rig and a two day work time. The Russian tanks also have the greatest survivability rating in both live and simulated action scenarios. During multiple engagements they’ve proven their military effectiveness and the T-90 has dominated every TTWSS since its inception in 1994.

      The T-90 is only being replaced because the Russians have developed the first multiple-role armoured vehicle chassis. The new T-99 will be used for anything including a main battle tank, mobile artillery, CEV, ARV, IFV, HAPC etc etc. Not a bad replacement to what is now arguably the best MBT globally, in a line of vehicles so prestigious that a T-model is never left out of a list of the world’s best, most effective, most combat efficient, even most memorably tanks ever.

        • All of Russian exports to Iraq, blah blah are all “Monkey Models” downgrades, as well as shitter crews.

          Russia military equipment are truely some of the best in the world and design for war.
          American stuff is good to but their inceptions are mainly made to impressive the brass into contracting them. Vechicles like the US stryker, Seg-York, Osprey are all expensive subpar disasters

          oh and @DHMB, great info.

          Simple and reliable are the way to go, Russian tanks also have low sillouettes so they are harder to hit in the first place.

          • Your first point is bang on. Effectiveness is nullified due to purposefully stripped units and poorly (if at all) trained crews.

            You’re also right about the US tech-sectioning. Lobbyists will push resources for tech, its been that way since American and Russia first started having major problems in the 60s/70s. The simple fact of almost all weaponry and vehicles in both Nation’s armouries is that they were designed to destroy each other, both were designed for use in a European theatre in a Cold-War gone Hot situation, the Soviet military just had the foresight to produce their gear to be effective globally, not just in the rolling plains, woodlands and mountainous regions of Western Germany and France.

            I don’t believe anything says more about the American’s inability to produce stuff that works then the V-22 Osprey. Seven crashes with a total of 36 fatalities and numerous smaller failures.
            And yet, it has still gone ahead. A strategically viable system faulted time and time again by failures often so bad that they’ve lead to multiple deaths.
            There hasn’t been a single Russian vehicle, weapon system or aircraft that has done nearly that much damage, primarily because if a testing flight results in a catastrophic explosion that kills nineteen, its generally regarded as a bad (potentially project stopping) event that doesn’t cause the program to be given another kick of life.

        • Several reasons:

          The M1A1 crews at the time were the ‘professional’ crews who had spent the past few years between the M1A1′s induction into the military practicing with it. The crews logged some 7,000-8,000 hours each.

          Second, the T-72 models in Iraq were, at first, knockdown models sold by Poland. Even after that, the Asad Babil was in no way a match for most Western main battle tanks. The 120mm DU round from an M1 could take out a Babil from as far as three kilometers, by contrast the effective range of the TC 125mm is, at best, a margin under two kilometers. Even in close range engagements the M1 was typically prevailed, the combat-doctrine of the Republican Guard tank crews was to draw the M1s into close range combat, or ambushes, but again these were still almost always M1 victories.
          Where the M1 crews had vastly more experience in operating their tanks then the RG did, the technical shorthand due to the knockdown models of T-72 were equipped with limited to no night vision and extremely poor range finding equipment.
          The M1 was made with the base principal of destroying the T-72s, it would succeed with all but the several most top-tier models made. Had the Iraqis been using top-tier equipment on the T-72s with the best specs, many, many more engagements would’ve been Iraqi-won.

          The final reason is down to poor training on the Iraqi side. The T-72s from Poland are reported to have arrived as early as the early-80s and with the engagements against Iran, the crews who had experience mostly left. New replacement crews to fill the void and in time for the engagements in the Gulf War were at best sub-par trained, not that it’d have made much of a difference really, its kind of a moot point. It was akin to putting a crippled child in a cage with a starved tiger, the child being Iraqi crews. If that child had an M429, the child may win the engagement half the time (as with Iraq if it had top-tier T-72s), however you give that child a rubber knife and its handicap is given a further disadvantage.

      • No, he’s not wrong. The Russian tanks are like tinder boxes with wheels. All that equipment and ammo packed in that tiny hull. You don’t even need to penetrate them, just hit them and they explode, as the Israelis found about the vaunted T-72 in the Bekaa Valley.

        T-90 is just a T-72 with bells and whistles, the same whore in a different kimono.

        The M1A2 hit by the RPG29 was hit in the flank, penetrated, and took damage. The tank was not knocked out and continued to fight in that action.

        The Challenger 2 hit by the RPG29 was hit in the lower front hull, a place quite hard to hit, so it’s less well armoured. The driver had both legs amputated but the tank was, once again, not destroyed.

        When’s the last time a Russian tank was hit without being blown to smithereens?

        The RPG29 was an act of desperation by the soviets — it’s basically a humongous RPG7, except the rocket stops firing before it leaves the tube or it would fry the operators. It flies in a straight line. It’s a total miracle that it ever hits anything. Ironically, it has a two part warhead, which helps primarily against ERA, a type of protection used primarily by Russian designed tanks, although western tanks do supplement their flank/rear armour with ERA add-on sets when in urban fighting.

        Compare that to the US Javelin missile. This missile is guided by itself to a designated tank target. It will follow a target that is moving. It goes up in the air and then plunges down onto the roof of the tank, where the armour is very thin, blowing the tank to bits.

        Hmm, a giant sewer pipe with a free-falling rocket inside, or a smart missile that follows its target and attacks it from above? No contest.

        Soviet/Russian weapons have always been crude and simple, easy to operate. So if you want an assault rifle to give to illiterate tribesmen or drug addicted child soldiers, the Russians have got you covered. But they have fallen fatally behind in technology, and they have no money to give to their military so these dream projects they are always crowing about stay that — dream projects.

        Their top tank right now is the T90A Vladimir, a T-72 with a fright mask on. How many do they have? About 200. The US has 6,000 M1A1 and M1A2, each of which is worth five T-90s in combat. The disparity is just sick. Russia has nothing now but nukes.

        • The T90 has recurringly proven its effectiveness in the TTWSS tests. It has a >70.6 kill ratio against the M1A1/2 Abrams, a >52.5 kill ratio against the Challenger II and (arguably the world’s greatest tank) a still strong >25.2 kill ratio against the German Leopard II. Against other contemporary main battle tanks: Le Clerc >79.8, Type 99 >67.5 and Merkava >45.6 (given the Israelis now lead in reactive armour technology, it has a lot to do with this).
          The T90 has a greater accuracy rating then all but the Challenger and Leopard (at a 71% hit rate with a 67% first-hit-kill rate), a greater maneuverability rating and has come first in more combat trials then all but the Leopard and Challenger also. All three have the same result in areas such as grasslands, urban, desert, coastal, woodland, mountainous, etc. In all but grasslands/plains/level, the M1A1/2 is far behind the T90s scoring.

        • Apologies, pressed post comment by accident:

          To continue, the T90 is regarded by many as the world’s top main battle tank, personally I’d put it on par with the British Challenger and German Leopard. But its effectiveness is indisputable.

          The tank doesn’t have to be blown asunder, a tank is out of action when the crew can no longer operate effectively, or the vehicle has sustained so much damage that is unable to proceed. A wrecked tank is just as good as a destroyed one, except it has the benefit of potentially being able to continue firing, as a strategic asset, its effectiveness is nullified.

          The Vampir wasn’t an “act of desperation” it was a joint project by Bazalt and Mirinir, the outcome of the project was to develop a man portable weapon with the power to stay atop the armour-race. As armour has progressed through history, means of penetrating it have also maintained, this is simply a product of that race. Soviet military officials realised that contemporary Western vehicles were being reinforced with more and more effective armour and they wanted to create a weapon that was at the very peak of ‘man portable’ whilst sacrificing as little as possible of penetration power. The RPG-29 was the result.

          Frankly, comparing it to the FGM-148 is ludicrous, they’re an entirely different weapon base. There are pros and cons for both.

          The Javelin is a superior anti-tank weapon, but with the technology and warhead options available that’s the least you’d expect. It has, let it be noted, failed to penetrate dummy M1A1/2 chassis before, and the Choblam armour of the M1A1/2 tanks is still considered nothing against the Dorchester Lv:2 of the British and the composite DU mesh of the German’s Leopard, meaning its success rate would drop even lower.
          The Javelin’s technology is also its downfall. The RCLU costs between $125,000-$150,000 per unit, the missiles alone cost $50,000. It is also only operable by a few within the military of the US as a whole, training on it is done by only a handful every year, anyone can pick up an RPG-29 and operate it and to back this up, its unit cost is a shave under $500 and its warhead cost somewhere around $150.
          Not to dispute the effectiveness of an FGM. I’ve seen a live demonstration on several occasions and I certainly wouldn’t want to be on the receiving end, but cost and compatibility do account for an awful lot. Its all well and good having a weapon system that has a 96% kill rate and a 92% hit rate, but if it taking five plus two warheads for each means you’ll be spending in excess of a $1,000,000, its not nearly as combat efficient as having 1,600 RPG-29s and 2,000 warheads to shoot off, as apposed to having five with two warheads each. Yeah, on a one-to-one basis the Javelin has an advantage, but in a drawn out conflict the money could be better used elsewhere. So in terms of a one-on-one, you’re right, no contest, unless you want to blow up a room full of people in a flat, something a Javelin can’t do, or put it in the perspective of any conflict scenario that lasts longer then a one-on-one engagement between a man with either of the above and a tank, then yes, the Javelin does win.
          The closer equivalent of the Russian’s to the Javelin is the 9M133 Kornet, a weapon system that furthermore could be used by anyone, hardly needing months of specialist training and a weapon that costs, for one unit and one warhead, almost $200,000.

          Finally, Russian weaponry is crude, but its also the most effective longevity wise. Any weapon and vehicle in the Russian Armoury represents this. They’ve gone for simplicity over technology and unlike the Americans, the rest of the world doesn’t consider this a flaw. Technology leaves more to go wrong, costs more and the combat effectiveness is debatable when you have to prepare a weapon for five minutes to fire.

          Consider, the M1A1 when it first entered action in the Gulf had an 82% fail rate in the sand. The T-72 never failed due to sand or indeed has yet to fail in any conditions it has been exposed to.
          The long-loved AK-47, a weapon so popular its on a coin, a flag and is one of the world’s most recognised objects ever is unjammable. Its simplicity means it will never fail to operate in any environment. I’ve dropped mine into engine oil and then kicked it through sand and grit as a demonstration, given it a shake and still operated it.
          During my service, I had the same rifle for a year and a half and put it through all sorts of conditions and never once did it falter or drop its cycling or general combat effectiveness. Its limitations in accuracy are overblown, its weapon options make it as effective in a myriad of environments and situations just as much as any SoPMOD rifle the Americans can kick out and its longevity is there as a testament.

          Its not just in rifles and tanks, Russian aircraft go with switch-nozzle lines and MREDLs meaning they are essentially impervious to electrical interference. Lets look at the JSF Mk 1 in the States and the Mk 2 that Britain is stupidly buying, hell lets throw in the F-22 Raptor and the V-22 Osprey for fun and to prove a point, whilst we’re at it why not add the F4 Phantom, the F-14 Tomcat, the B-52, C130… I could go on. The Americans have shown that they are not capable of producing effective aircraft; in demonstration their statistics should give them an immediate combat advantage but in all but three aerial combat tests they’ve lost to Russian, British, Germany, French and Chinese aerial forces. Pilot training time is increased by 45% to accommodate technological aspects and this has still resulted in a <30% success rate in one-on-one and team engagement scenario dogfights.
          The F-22 is supposedly the greatest fighter aircraft in the world, a Gen.5 monster with stealth, hatch-slip missile capabilities and a top-tier radar/tracking system. However, in forty-seven test engagements in both advantage, disadvantage, one-on-one, team and guide, it has a loss rating of 1:5. For every one kill, it loses five. A ratio that would see anything else be dropped but because the American's have invested so much in it, they wont. The F-35 hasn't had trial tests in engagements yet as it fails too often, and its cost over a trillion Dollars and yet it hasn't seen action, nor a practice engagement, its barely flown (some 2,000 total hours?). That is ludicrous, Russian statistics across the board beat those by significant margins.

          The SU-35 has been the victor in the IACT sections fifty-seven times. Since there have only been a possible sixty section positions to win, that's a nigh perfect success rate. In the IACT engagement between Russia and America, America put its top F-22 pilots up against Russia's tier-2 SU-35 pilots with ten aircraft for both. Not only did the Russian's lose no aircraft, they also only had to use one missile per aircraft apart from one which was killed with cannon.

          Technological supremacy leaves so much to be desired its a poor contender for a benefit of something. Russian technology has an incredible benefit as its simple, it can be repaired by the crew or the operator easily and the parts required to replace it are minimal.
          For example, the overhaul of an M1's engine block in the Gulf War was a $245,000 investment PER UNIT. It would've cost around $100 per tank if they'd have had the foresight to do it back in the States, simple regulator filter drives would've saved the engines from being clogged with dirt, grains of sand and general build up.
          There are reports, and by all accounts this is true, of a Mil Mi-24 Hind gunship having its tail rotor shot to hell by a Swiss Orelekon in the Soviet-Afghan war and upon return, the crew manufactured a new rotor stem and constructed the new rotors out of a car's bonnet.
          Their vehicles don't fail under different conditions, crews are taught how to perform repairs on the move, in combat and more major repairs at base meaning a crew isn't needed solely for repair, but can also operate the tank. The M1 units in the first Gulf had a team of three engineers per tank, men who stayed on base and waited for there to be a problem with the tanks, fortunately as common as they were, they didn't get bored.

          Simplicity is success, the more people can use it, the better its received. I don't want a Hummer that's flash and technologically better, its engine guzzles fuel like a dehydrated dog and they break down all the time.

    • Like @Hawk said on the other post, the FSA probably captured it from an SAA weapon store. But it could also be supplied by a foreign military who bought it from Russia, with a handful of exceptions the Russians are not picky about who they sell to.

      • I’ve heard mercenaries from Chechnya that have been recruited in large numbers had these stockpiled from military storage units from Soviet Russia. After the fall of communism, everything kind of collapsed and nobody knew who is in charge of what so advantage was taken by militants who laid their hands on some powerful weaponry.

        • Thanks @Roamer and Vincit, both answers make sense.
          Just a few hundred miles south through Georgia and a friendly Turkey and the Chechen mercenaries are into Syria.

  1. Fuck me! A pressure cooker is right! That was an awesome sight to see though. I don’t play those video games that are all realistic. Whatever i see here is about all i see of stuff like that. Pretty badass to see..

  2. from what i can tell, this isn’t a different POV to the video from ANNA, in the other tank POV, the tank just blew up completely and there were no visible survivors, plus there were only 2 tanks at the time in the other video, this is a different place/fight

  3. I agree. It does not look like the other video at all. The other explosion is really different. Still, this is a pretty amazing view. Looks like the flames reached the fuel.

  4. Hey kids it not the same video! The other one the tanks turrent was blown off and he shot it from a hole in a wall. In this one he shot from the roof and the tanks cannon shells ignited due to the fact there not in a blast proof storage unit like our M-1 ! And the guy that survived was under the back of that tank pickin flowers or some damm thing! Sure phuced his day up and his hearing!

    • headshot

      I agree, the first tank completely lost its turret and this video shows the vulnerability of, what I think in both videos, is the T72. The ammunition storage is not confined to the turret; there is supplementary storage in the cavities within the right front fuel cell and within a large fuel cell behind the crew compartment (so called ‘wet storage’), a hull penetration can lead to a catastrophic explosion of ammunition propellant and fuel. The later secondary explosions are, I think, the tank rounds cooking off.

  5. Its not the same weapon, that’s a certainty. On the timer of the video, the change between 00:58 and 00:59, you can see the projectile incoming towards the tank from the left side of the screen, right between the fence and the brickwork of the building on the left side of the screen’s bottom-most balcony. Its a shell, a large shell at that, but certainly not the 105mm TBG-29V round or the PG-29V. To back this claim, both the above warheads would leave a contrail behind, unless they’d been fired at a distance of over 600 meters, an unlikely feat down a city street, given the tank would’ve been much smaller at that range and the sights on a Vampire would’ve been less then useless and only an experienced operator would recognise the ballistic trajectory of the warhead and to level accordingly.

    Furthermore, the angle is incorrect and the view doesn’t support the location of the tanks assembled either. Firstly, the operator doesn’t fire the weapon at a level heading, its angled downwards, the incoming projectile at the time mentioned above comes in completely horizontally.
    Secondly, the view from the camera on the screen doesn’t show any structures around them, they are on a roof higher then any buildings at least in that direction, but the angle suggests that if the Vampire had been the weapon to destroy that tank, the buildings behind the trio of SAA T-72s would’ve been visable.

    • DHMB no offense but I think the only thing we can be certain of is that you don’t know what your talking about. All of your information is always inaccurate, incorrect, and assumed. In fact I’ve already disproved most of your post on weapons that you claim to “know about”. Most of the very basic information is correct but when it comes to correct terminology, parts, or even simple actions of the weapons I can tell right away your not as familiar with the weapon as you say you are. One of the biggest problems I have with your false information aside from it being incorrect is that you assume alot of things instead of going off facts and you also make up names and parts that don’t excist or even belong to that weapon. Again I’m not trying to be a dick but it pisses me off when I read your incorrect comments that your trying to pass of as fact and then I have to go in and correct them to keep you from posting false information. Unlike you I actually know what I’m talking about, small arms are more than just a hobby for me I make living at it and for you to post bullshit info on them doesn’t sit well with me at all. Where you and I differ aside from you not knowing what your talking about is that for one thing I never assume things and try to pass them of as fact. Any information I post comes from first hand knowledge or from a reliable source of information I know to be 100% correct, if I don’t know something then I don’t know it. I dont make up shit or assume it then throw it in there with facts and try to pass it of as correct information…alot of you halfass info is just that. And I am still waiting to find out where you get most of your incorrect info on previous post. Every time I’ve responded to your comments and proven them to be wrong I’ve asked where you got that false information from yet you never respond back. As far comment the you made above you have no way of being certain of what your claiming unless you yourself were there or have firsthand knowledge of a Vampir and have seen what they do with your own eyes, you have no way of knowing if that tank was or was not hit by a Vampir. For you to be so certain of that shows me again that your assuming things and trying to pass them off as facts. When you assume things that’s your opinion and you should not try to pass it off as fact. Part of the reason of I proven most of your information to be incorrect is because of your assumptions. Either way I’m still waiting for you to respond on previous post so when you get a chance enlighten me lol.

      • Apologies, in advance, for not responding to any of your posts. If there is a notification system on here that tells you if you’ve been replied to, I’m unaware of it, so again, apologies. I tend not to watch videos more then once, which is the simple explanation to my lack of replying. I only checked this twice as I wanted to see how the other tanks responded to the other’s destruction, I didn’t see the first time.

        I’m Russian/British and I spent several years in the Russian Ground Forces before moving into Policing. I served in the Chechnya with my cousin in the 58th Army in ’07 as well as in Georgia in ’08 before deploying back into Chechnya to train up the Kontrakniki there as well as patrolling the Caucuses. I left just after the military reformation in late 2010 after having served from early ’07.

        My Uncle has been in the Army since the Soviet/Afghan war, deployed into Chechnya and fought through both wars there, as well as the engagements in Georgia, he’s now a Senior Lieutenant. His other son is one of the few operators of the Ka-52, the newer model arriving in around the end of this decade he will train others on.

        I dotted back and forth between Britain and Russia for a few years before I started my Service, but since I was a child I’ve had a fond, fond fascination with the Russian Military. During my courses in both a Masters and a PhD, I studied Russian/European/Eastern Bloc history but secondary courses focused on military history, primarily that of the Russians and their military background through the Tsardom right up to modern day. My secondary Dissertation was on the Russian Military and I wrote eleven papers on Russian Military Engagement Scenarios against opponents such as the European Union as a whole, the United States, Germany, China, Britain, a secondary engagement in Afghanistan, an internal conflict etc.
        Because of my ties to Russia, I was able to gain most of my information for the above in visits to my Uncle and my cousins, I was allowed to access old records and view both live and practice combat engagements to view statistical analysis and compare this to the military analysis of other nations. It was during these I decided that I wanted to return to Russia and serve in the Military, I’d always adored Russia as a country and again my fascination with its military was absolute, but it was only then I decided to join.

        After my time in Georgia and Chechnya, again, we stayed in Chechyna to train up the contract soldiers who took up a full time role there. Afterwards we were rotated to the Caucuses and we spent a few months dealing with the troubles up there and after a few more years in the Service I returned to Britain, took up policing and shifted to arms instructing and riot-control classes.
        My knowledge of the Russian Army is backed up by five years of Service, the combined knowledge of myself, the sources I’ve read, the people I’ve talked to and first hand accounts as well as two pieces of paper, one a Masters and another a PhD both regarding Russia and the Eastern Bloc nations, their military power and political dispositions, eleven papers on scenarios, over five thousand hours in firearms doctrine, use and maintenance and finally god knows how many books and accounts on the subject.
        If you disagree with my terminology, its possible you and I have different words for the same process, equipment, part, etc.
        If you disagree with my accounts of the actions of a weapon, then I’m afraid you’re not as well trained as you say. If my memory serves, three weapons I’ve commented on on this site have been the RPG-7, the Vampir above and I believe I commented on a Roulette video, regarding revolvers and handguns.
        Whilst I’ve never played Roulette, I trained (through a period of several months) over a hundred Kontraktniki in the use of the RPG-7 and whilst I’ve never operated the RPG-29 Vampir, I have witnessed its operation in practice exercises though I’ve never seen its live military use in person, as far as I know we didn’t even operate it in Chechnya or Georgia (at least not that I ever saw).
        However, through viewing it in demonstration on more then a dozen occasions, I’m well aware of how its operated, what it looks like in operation and its warhead. The above is certainly not it.

        In regards to the RPG-7, I believe it was the video where the FSA individual had the warhead detonate in the tube, I’ll head back to that video and reply (I apologise in advance for missing it, and if the other was the Roulette one, I’ll also check there, again apologies, I never went back to them).

        I also wouldn’t post if I wasn’t certain of what I was talking about, I don’t know exactly where you believe I’ve gone wrong yet, but I’ll try and correct and misplacements and if they are my own fault, I’ll address those too.
        I have read a few of your posts (the ones I’ve seen, anyway) and you do know what you’re talking about, and whatever job it is where you make a living from small arms, I respect your knowledge base. However, I have no need to lie and/or bend the truth, my replies to subjects involving the above are based on my own knowledge and certified accounts, if you disagree there’s plenty of explanations as to why, when or where we’ve missed the mark but I’ll try and clear the rubble on the other posts, apologies again for not replying.

        • I always knew you were full of shit but not this full of it lol. All you bullshit story does is reaffirm what I’ve know all along. What I don’t understand is how someone who’s supposedly trained with these weapons not know their basic functions or how they operate? All your information is shit that you can read on bullshit sites like wiki and most of their information is always incorrect and that’s how I know your not familiar with these weapons. And if you had trained with some of these weapons then you would know things about them that most people wouldn’t but instead its seems you don’t know anything about them but what you read on wiki. All your information has always been very basic and nothing that tells me your actually familiar with these weapons…but when it comes to how the weapons operate you seem to get confused. I would figure with all your time around these weapons you would know them like the back of your hand and atleast be able to mention something about them that only someone who has used them firsthand would know. Either way I enjoyed your bullshit story and I give you an A+ for effort and imagination. Also If your gunna try to bullshit your way thru your previous unanswered post like you did here then don’t even bother to respond to them.

          • And my reasons for lying would be what, exactly? To show off some intellectual supremacy on a website?
            Please. I’ve no reason to lie and even less reason to waste my time putting together fake or false information to post on a site like this. If it was a site where the best made up story would win me money, perhaps I would spend the time, but a site like this? Hardly.

            What do you want me to mention that people wouldn’t already know? I’ve talked to teenagers with a firmer grasp on the workings of an assault rifle playing Call of Duty then I have recruits.
            My friends little brother told me about the workings of several Heckler and Koch rifles I never even knew about, let alone the new cycling system, all from playing a pissing video game.

            I don’t know everything about militaries of the world, but I spent the better part of a decade assembling statistical analysis and information (accumulated from field reports, manufacturer and user reports, personal experience etc) on them to develop war simulations, engagement scenarios and a dissertation.
            To add to that, I’ve over five years experience in the Russian Ground Forces, I’ll be going back in 2015 to serve another term as well as a combined family service time of eighty years in the Russian Army, along with being a firearms instructor for three years, a gunsmith for two I’ve worked with Heckler and Koch and Izhmash JHC and only now moved into riot-control specialisations and firearms control in the UK. I consult trainees on the use of riot small arms and teach the Police Firearms Unit. I teach both Authorized and Specialist Firearms Officers but again, will be returning to active service in 2015.

            But, as you seem to know me better then I do, or hold the view that everyone on the internet has the time, patience and reasoning to lie through their teeth for the sake of doing so, then you’ll no doubt see the above in an entirely different light. Probably with a big, red ‘BULLSHIT’ stamped across it. I’ve no reason to bounce around Best Gore, lying, I’ve even less reason to justify myself to the likes of people who assume liars exist around every forum strewn across the internet and around every corner in day to day life, if I’m honest.

          • Oh come on DHMB do really expect me or anyone else to belive all that bullshit you posted up there? Honestly I thought it was a joke when I first read it but its obvious your the type that belives his own lies no matter how dumb they sound and your also the type that will continue to lie after being caught in a lie…in fact your lies seem to get even bigger lol I guess you figure the bigger they are the less obvious the smaller ones are, how sad…you need to get that under control “boy who cried Russian commando” lol. You might be use to posting bullshit and lying your ass off on the internet but I see right thru it and I’m sure after reading all that crap everyone else does to, that story is so fucking phony I can’t even keep a straight face after reading it lol. You might use to bullshiting little kids on video games but I’m not one of them. And really I don’t care why you would do something that lame, what I care about is all your incorrect information that I’ve proved wrong time and time again I suspect your bullshit story is some way of trying to distract or hide the fact that you don’t know what your talking about. But of all that bullshit you posted you still haven’t managed to tell me anything but more bullshit lol. Its funny how you think that by shoveling bullshit on top of bullshit its going to some how cover up and hide all your bullshit lol. I don’t care if your in the fucking spetznaz which I’m sure you believe you are lol, my problem isn’t your fake military history my problem is with the weapons that your pretend to know about but shit all over them with your incorrect info. If you wanna pretend to be some Russian Rambos then that’s fine I don’t mind laughing at you and your bullshit story lol, but if your gunna put information out there get it right….although its apparent you can’t even get your own bullshit stories right, first you were claiming to be a cop and now your some Russian commando who on his time off plays video games with children and gives them incorrect info on assault rifles. That’s where you fucked up your so use to bullshiting children that you’ve forgotten that there are people out there who actually do know what your claiming to know and also that there are people who can see thru bullshit, lucky for you or unlucky I should say you didn’t think you would run into them here on BG. And just for the record I don’t think everyone’s a liar…just you. I give people the benefit of the doubt until they fuck up and give me a reason to suspect them just like you did…and even then I give them a chance to redeem themselves like I did with you but if they keep trying to bullshit me like you did then its obvious they’re full of shit like you are.

          • Also DHMB, how the fuck does your little brothers friend know more about the workings of HK rifles than you who claims to have worked for HK as a gunsmith? A little boy who isn’t even old enough to buy a rifle let alone have the money to buy an HK? How is that possible are really that useless of a gunsmith that a little kid knows more than you? You see your so full of shit you don’t even know it, for you your lies are reality and its sad go back and re-read all your comment and hopefully by you reading your own bullshit you’ll see how stupid you sound.

  6. damn !! the russian army really sucks man ! their governor are so fucking corrupted that they sells their own weapons even to their enemies . they probably aren’t ZOG , but act like they were

  7. DONT YOU ALL BELIVE IT !!! IT’S all methodology for to feed the WAR machine !! don’t you get it ?? jonny richpig (sic) dosent get paid durring peacetime !!

  8. The guy that ‘survived’ was not IN the tank. He was either riding on or walking beside it. If he’d been in the tank, his legs would either be gone or torn to shreds and he’d be burnt over a good percentage of his body.

  9. That’s not entirely true… I assume you re referring to the use of explosive reactive armour which many modern battle tanks use to defeat incoming rpgs and the like. The Vampir has two charges in the warhead, the first is a smaller high explosive charge that sets off the reactive armour and clears a path for the main charge to blast its way thru the armour and shower the inside of the tank with a shower of molten copper* traveling realfuckingfast.

    Your assertion that, “u can kill a newer tank only from above” is crazy and I could be wrong but seems like info that you picked up from a video game, not Any sort of independent research.

    *I think these warheads use a cpper slug around the shaped charge anyway but I don’t know that for a fact.

  10. Young buck, you mean leopard 2, not leopard A2. :-)

    Never say never. If a Challenger 2 was penetrated frontally, a Leo 2 could be as well. But you need to get the hit in just the right place, and the RPG29 just shoots straight ahead.

    Hit a Leo in the flank or rear and your chance of damaging it goes way up (like the M1 hit in 2008).

    The real lesson here is tanks are vulnerable in BUA so protect those rascals! The Syrians don’t know what the fuck they are doing and have tanks sitting there without proper infantry cover — sitting ducks. Worse, they are T72s. You spit on a T72 and it explodes.

Leave a Reply