- Thread starter RHunter
- Start date
That was cool!!
lmao!
Scary looking down that bbl.
I can't even imagine being on the receiving end of one of those bastards. Well on the plus side I guess dead people don't have to imagine.
I must be gullible too but it looks pretty real. Why is it fake? No explosion? That they actually recovered footage from the blast?
Sabot rounds travel close to 4000 FPS while HEAT rounds are a bit slower at around 2000 FPS. In either case they are going so fast you wouldn't see them coming, particularly at that close range. Also tank barrels have rifling to stabilize the projectiles and make them hit accurately. The video showed a projectile with fin stabilizers which is what you would typically see from a rocket type weapons platform.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Armor-piercing discarding sabot rounds come in both finned penetrator and unfinned penetrator. The last HEAT rounds I came across (Desert Shield/Storm) were finned.
Last edited:
This is incorrect. The T-72 has a smooth bore cannon. Sabot rounds do have stabilizing fins on them. Also as a point of interest the T-72 can fire guided missiles from it's main cannon.
Not this one.
That tank is a T72. It was equipped with a 125 MM Smooth bore gun and was designed to shoot (among other things) an anti-tank guided missile. The APSFDF designed for the T72 also had fins but my guess is the round in the video was the guided missile due to its flight characteristics, slow velocity and fins greater than the diameter of the round. That missile's velocity would be about 1,100 FPS. It had a range of 5000 meters with a 15(ish) second flight time to target. (at max range)
So I guess that means I can LMAO at Smith, Ballistic, and
...
Graham?
If anyone other than me knew this, I figured Graham would.....
When I was in the military during the Soviet era, this was mandatory learning and we were tested on this annually. We had these little books we had to study with all the non NATO armaments and the T72 had to be on page one because they made so many of the damn things. It went into production in 1971 I think and lasted till the fall of the soviet union.
Last edited:
While I don't know and don't care to doubt any of your info, I will still say its fake. Put the video on 720P and fullscreen. The projectile looks like low grade special effects with poor texturing. Along with the fact that there is no sound other than a short blip until the projectile hits the camera for dramatic effect. Theres not even any wind noise, or the sound of the actual tank. So if you get your jollies off by "LMAO" at me or whomever then go right ahead. Whatever boosts your ego/and or self confidence.
Turn your volume up! I'll give the FSA a call and tell them their GoPro camera is crap. You will hear the impact before the blast from the tank since it is traveling faster than the speed of sound.
Remember this post from you? So you stroked you ego on that post eh? Good for you...
Here is the current production of what is being fired out of that tank for those who do want to know.
Тhe anti-tank guided missile systems KOMBAT and KONUS
Here are the videos uploaded by this group, I doubt seriously they are making fake videos in the middle of a war.
https://www.youtube.com/user/lwaaalbraa?feature=watch
Last edited:
WOOOAAA Talk about being on the wrong side of a barrel! OUCH!
You are arguing in favor of the Internet credibility of any of those groups?! Seriously??!!
Get off your high horse Graham, your condescending attitude is becoming rather annoying. Go crap in your own yard.
The point I am trying to make is, what do they have to benefit from by making a fake video of a tank firing an anti-tank missile? What other videos in that list are fakes? You think some Syrian rebel just woke up one day and decided to make some fake video where a surveillance camera captures an anti tank missile being fired from a T72?
The point of that would be what?
How about actually explaining why you think it is a fake and make a productive contribution to the discussion rather than make some half-assed comment to sabotage my thread. I posted it because of the entertainment value, not some political viewpoint. If you are too narrow minded to understand that then I am sorry, I cant help you.
Looks like we have a 50/50 split between fake and real.
The only way to fix this is for someone to volunteer to stand infront of that tank with a video recorder.
I call, not it.
The only way to fix this is for someone to volunteer to stand infront of that tank with a video recorder.
I call, not it.
Big time fake, look at it frame by frame.
I also call FAKE.
I can't say I know anything about what round that tank shoots nor can I even tell you what type of bloody tank it is. In this case IMO it is not relevant.
However, as a previous semi professional photographer who has had some experience in "fabricating a bullshit picture", I would have thought that it was easy to tell this amateur footage was a blatant fake, obvious to even the most novice of cartoon watchers.
RHunter, take a chill pill mate. Unless it was you who made the footage, there is no reason to get so upset.
The up-loader of the Vid does not personally record the footage he posts on his YouTube channel. Who's saying that he has not been fooled by the joker who gave him the footage????
Still a cool thread. Interesting.
Cheers,
Ben.
I can't say I know anything about what round that tank shoots nor can I even tell you what type of bloody tank it is. In this case IMO it is not relevant.
However, as a previous semi professional photographer who has had some experience in "fabricating a bullshit picture", I would have thought that it was easy to tell this amateur footage was a blatant fake, obvious to even the most novice of cartoon watchers.
RHunter, take a chill pill mate. Unless it was you who made the footage, there is no reason to get so upset.
The up-loader of the Vid does not personally record the footage he posts on his YouTube channel. Who's saying that he has not been fooled by the joker who gave him the footage????
Still a cool thread. Interesting.
Cheers,
Ben.
WOOOAAA Talk about being on the wrong side of a barrel! OUCH!
Leveling accusations is the fastest, cheapest route to the moral high ground. But that is moral evasion, which helps no one but the accuser whom, by trying to dodge criticism, ends up shutting down debate.
So now your argument is that in the Middle East there's nothing to be gained by propaganda?!
Bottom line: You don't understand the region, yet you call names and then demand help. Good plan: Does that work in other areas of your life? Maybe try throwing a tantrum in a retail store so that they offer you free stuff if you will agree not to embarrass the other customers. Because it doesn't work that way here.
Get your facts straight: I did not crap on your thread. You brought up the issue of credibility as evidence of accuracy. I responded to that. The fact that you don't like my answer doesn't make it crapping in your yard.
Leveling accusations is the fastest, cheapest route to the moral high ground. But that is moral evasion, which helps no one but the accuser whom, by trying to dodge criticism, ends up shutting down debate.
So now your argument is that in the Middle East there's nothing to be gained by propaganda?!
Bottom line: You don't understand the region, yet you call names and then demand help. Good plan: Does that work in other areas of your life? Maybe try throwing a tantrum in a retail store so that they offer you free stuff if you will agree not to embarrass the other customers. Because it doesn't work that way here.
Last edited:
I call fake as well. Whoever set the camera up wasn't their. It was on tripod! Missile coming didn't seem real either.
I have no opinion as to if its fake or not. There are huge numbers of videos from this conflict. Quite a few with the cameraman looking down a tank barrel in a urban setting.
Why get your nose out of joint if someone thinks its fake? Why post this in this thread which is about observation devices not internet fluff. SN team room section likely a better place.
Why get your nose out of joint if someone thinks its fake? Why post this in this thread which is about observation devices not internet fluff. SN team room section likely a better place.
You offered nothing to the debate but your condescending bullshit and now you have decided to amp it up another notch.
What exactly do you see that makes it a fake?
Personally I think the reason it looks animated is the fact that you have a camera that is only capable of about 26 frames per second capturing a missile traveling 50 feet between the next frame capture. So in one second you are seeing 26 different positions of that missile as it comes toward the camera and I would imagine a cheap camera would also have a very hard time focusing itself between each frame.
Here you can see exactly the same effect in every one of these vids only from behind. So are all of these fakes as well?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AslX5rYwk5k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFhvqVeSJhE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2YJV67gKkI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dv_dJ9TjFx8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0bZFAqHxsU
There are multiple reasons as to why this is bogus footage mate. But here are two main ones.
1. Footage is full of Chromatic Aberration. Yet the "projectile" shows no Chromatic Aberration until the last two frames you see it in, where it is very basically pasted in in three uneven places by the fabricator.
2. In the last frame you see the "projectile", the projectile is more in focus than the post behind it. Cameras don't work like this lol. You can never get a focused object, then behind that a blurred object and then further back than that, a focused background.
1. Footage is full of Chromatic Aberration. Yet the "projectile" shows no Chromatic Aberration until the last two frames you see it in, where it is very basically pasted in in three uneven places by the fabricator.
2. In the last frame you see the "projectile", the projectile is more in focus than the post behind it. Cameras don't work like this lol. You can never get a focused object, then behind that a blurred object and then further back than that, a focused background.
"Here you can see exactly the same effect in every one of these vids only from behind. So are all of these fakes as well?"
No, not all of them. The second Video however, has either been "cut and overlapped", or is also a fake.
Cheers,
Ben
No, not all of them. The second Video however, has either been "cut and overlapped", or is also a fake.
Cheers,
Ben
This is obviously a very poor quality camera. The only chromatic aberration rainbow I see is on the sun lit items since they are so bright and that is pretty normal in a camera made with poor quality lenses. The only time you really see a glint on the projectile bright enough to cause the chromatic aberration is when it gets a lot closer and much lighter.
What post are you talking about? I see one in the foreground that is very blurred but everything else appears to be in perspective until the camera loses focus because of the dust cloud. There is magnification at play here for sure.
We can agree to disagree. I think reason some of you think it is fake is because of the poor quality of the camera and the low resolution in which it is recording. When I look at a still in photoshop I do not see anything that signals any layered video. Capturing a moving object in excess of the speed of sound in 26 frames per second is a challenge for any camera.
I just do not see anything up close in the individual frame images that tells me this is a fake. There is a fair bit of mirage in all of these videos, are you sure that is not affecting what you see in these videos?
Coming from a guy who does CGI effects for movies, my initial reaction is that the missile was added in rather poorly. It appears that the lighting doesn't match and it's very "strobey", common mistakes for someone trying to composite an element that isn't properly matched to the environment. But on a second look, I'm changing my mind. The magnification is significant enough that there would be very little perspective, which is evident in the video. Also, there's a bird that flies into camera and strobes just as much (ie next to no motion blur). And on a freeze frame of the rocket, the highlight at top gave me the impression that it didn't match the surrounding lighting, but I now take that back. I think it's real.
We that looks animated. Not even sure you would see it if it were fired. Plus it LOOKS like poor cgi. C'mon guys....
You all think at that range you would see it coming like a fast pitch softball? Wth people.
You all think at that range you would see it coming like a fast pitch softball? Wth people.
Hard to say, the the thing that make it look fake is the black halo around the radius of the round. But at least the hilight from the sun is in the right place. I think it's real however.
The round is much larger in diameter than the point you see in the vid. Above I posted a link to a manufacturers website that has a couple pictures of the rounds made for the T72, they have a stepped taper. That Halo is most likely that taper that goes up to the rocket body and fins. My guess is this is a dark OD green round with a silver tip.
Yes, these are relatively slow flying missiles. They are guided ATBM's and if they went too fast they would not be able to correct their trajectory in flight.
Might have been a camera phone too, maybe ???
Are you guys really arguing about this?! It's just a video on the internet!!
I use 3 or 4 GoPros regularly and the GoPro 1/2 suffer from lighting issues...Particularly glare and shading contrasts. -- They also don't focus properly on "smaller objects"...You can find complaints from a lot of Snowboarders, in particularly free riders because they were often moving too fast (40ish mph) for it to focus and thus, a lot of the footage from a few years ago isn't featured...If you're having that issue at arguably 40mph...It would be the same for 1100fps considering that's roughly 750 mph-ish...
That being said -- Having SEEN these issues occur regularly on older models...I'm simply saying, I would waste a $75 GoPro any day before a $400 GoPro and the issues seen in these videos regularly occur with the older stuff.
So, I think they're real.
I don't see anyone arguing... Graham was being a bit of an ass, but other than that I see it as a good discussion.
It is not every day you get to see an ATBM fired out of a T72 that looks like it is going to hit you in the face.
There are not a lot of videos like this from Iraq and Afghanistan, the war is Syria is a knock down drag out kill them all conflict and videos like these really put war into a whole different personal perspective for those who have not had the displeasure of serving in one.
I agree about the "agree to disagree" but I do not understand why you refer to Graham as an ass.
If you could please defend your statement I would appreciate it as other than him disagreeing with you why is it that you feel he was being "an ass".?
WOOOAAA Talk about being on the wrong side of a barrel! OUCH!
He doesn't like being called to task, so when I disagreed with him he lashed out. Then when I gave him a reality check he got snippy about it.
But seeing as I am already being called an ass, let me add that due to posts like this I can tell he hasn't a clue about the Syrian conflict either:
He doesn't like being called to task, so when I disagreed with him he lashed out. Then when I gave him a reality check he got snippy about it.
But seeing as I am already being called an ass, let me add that due to posts like this I can tell he hasn't a clue about the Syrian conflict either:
Oh, gee, how about this garbage:
His quotes above are a little bit much considering it was just a video, and when I asked him why he thought it was a fake- that crap above is what he contributed to the discussion. The part where I demanded help was really perplexing. Where in this discussion am I demanding help?
Others have looked at the vid and said it was real, others have looked at the video and said it was fake without adding the extra personal attack or the condescending BS. They offered their reasons. To me that is a productive discussion and that is what I wanted to continue in the thread. Graham decides to take it in some bizarre direction, add personal attacks, and give me a free psychological evaluation.
I find it ironic that I call him an ass for adding that unnecessary BS and you want me to defend my opinion of him being an ass in this thread, yet he adds all that additional BS to his posts and you don't call him out over not having a bit of reasonable etiquette in a persons thread. Seems like you condone what was said by him and I look at it and do not see how all that crap was really necessary in this thread OR the discussion.
You obviously did not see what I said in my defense to his BS above so I will quote it here:
That was a response to this:
So yes, I think he was being a bit of an ass and I called him out for it. If I had done that in one of his threads I would have expected the same from him and believe me, I am sure he would have spared nothing.
Here is an example of a great contribution to the discussion:
No personal attack, no BS accusations, just his opinion, what he sees, and why he thinks it is fake or real. I appreciate that contribution to the discussion and the others like it.
WOOOAAA Talk about being on the wrong side of a barrel! OUCH!
And yet you accuse others of posting BS.
Irony is the use of words to express something other than, and most often the opposite of the literal meaning. If you find it ironic that you call me an ass then you're not even calling me an ass.
And yet you accuse others of posting BS.
It is quite obvious that for what ever reason that Graham's response has struck a nerve with you.
I reread the entire thread from beginning to most recent, and until you called Graham an ass, I did not see any evidence that he was providing any ad homonym/personal attacks on you.
Frankly the whole thread of your argument in regards to you feeling being treated with a condescending attitude is quite odd as well as a waste of time and effort in my opinion.
I could not find any evidence of lack of etiquette or other antisocial postings prior to the post in which you called Graham an ass.
I certainly cannot offer any armchair psychiatric advice or offer any reasonable diagnostic conjecture from these written encounters. However it is my opinion that the degree of your response seems significantly beyond what I would classify as a reasonable or normal social interaction.
Notice I am not labeling you or inferring any negative adjectives upon you or your statements other than my opinion that the degree of your negative responses and the time and effort that you are taking to build your case seems beyond their realm of reasonableness.
It seems that my point was indeed proven beyond all doubt.
WOOOAAA Talk about being on the wrong side of a barrel! OUCH!
RHunter, you can't post that clip and expect to retain any credibility in your criticisms of me adding unrelated material or making so-called 'BS accusations'.
RHunter, you can't post that clip and expect to retain any credibility in your criticisms of me adding unrelated material or making so-called 'BS accusations'.
Last edited:
Similar threads
