Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16861
    Points : 17469
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jun 11, 2013 11:28 am

    Blow off panels will save the crew from a propellent fire, but if the HE ammo sympathetically detonates then blow off panels make no difference.

    Blow off panels are weak spots that give burning material and exploding material a direction to go first that is usually directed away from the crew for their protection.

    Blow off panels DON'T have to be pointed up... there is no reason why blow off panels could not be fitted to the belly of the tank under the underfloor autoloader magazine on T series tanks.

    The T-80s autoloader was flawed as it had the propellent stubs in the crew compartment rather than under armour plate so any penetration set off a propellent explosion. The Black Eagle variant moved all the ammo to the external turret bustle and blow out panels were fitted to it because in that position an penetration could direct an explosion into the turret... blow out panels on top ensure the explosion is directed up and away from the crew.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1228
    Points : 1385
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Tue Jun 11, 2013 1:10 pm

    can we expect the armata having some blowoff protection on the bottom as mentioned?

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 776
    Points : 953
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  Mindstorm on Tue Jun 11, 2013 7:32 pm

    It looks like usual travel path of ATGM. Can You post videos of real instances then?




    Regular ,what has to do the "travel path" with what i've said ?

    It is the "supposed" missile's signature (with the usual grossly blurred and inflated light's radial contour , very tipical of similar low level attempts of video staging Very Happy ) the factor at which i was refering.


    About tank and COIN operations ,we must stress one more time that tank are NOT weapon systems conceived for "home to home" urban fighting , therefore them will NEVER excel in this role ,not today and neither in the future .


    MBTs ,instaed, occupy the CENTRAL and ,perhaps, most important position in ground offensive and defensive operations in large scale conventional conflicts.


    In those type of close range urban combat the most important features to obtain an efficient support vehicles, become

    1) Very wide angular coverage, lethality and sustainability of the fire
    2) Ductility and variety of fire (to cope with different kind and consistence of coverage of enemy defilated infantry)
    3) Optimized sensor suit with full panoramic coverage for commander and gunner
    4) Reduction to the minimum possible of the target area offered to enemy direct fire ,in particular in the vertical dimension.
    5) Increase of passive and dynamic protection ,in particular for incidence angles superior to 25 degrees (mostly enemy elevated fire positions from tall buildings).



    A vehicles like БМПТ respond perfectly to those operational requirements because purposely designed for the task; Syrian tanks instead suffer the usual penalities of any MBT in this specific role; moreover them are constuituted mostly by '80 years EXPORT specimens with vastly outdated sensor ,offensiveù and defensive suit (even export version of K1 ERA is often not present !).

    In spite of that and of the highly "penalizing" role of employment, Syrian T-72s thanks mostly to their cheapness (meaning very high number for the financiary resources allocated) reliability ,resilience to enemy fire and easiness of repair , represent the centerpiece of SAA operations and by far the most lethal and feared killer of the insurgents.





    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5679
    Points : 5707
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  TR1 on Tue Jun 11, 2013 10:12 pm

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:can we expect the armata having some blowoff protection on the bottom as mentioned?

    In Armata, from what I have seen so far, the crew will be completely separated from the ammo.

    Hopefully this solution manages to not have highly vulnerable bustles though.
    Can you imagine if a turret bustle on say a Leo-2 or an Abrams is full of HE rounds, and gets penetrated (something not too hard to do)?
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5679
    Points : 5707
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  TR1 on Tue Jun 11, 2013 10:18 pm

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz_JMQRaSgo&feature=player_embedded

    Another video of Kornet hitting a T-72.

    For the record- I think the big detonation video we see is real. I don't see an issue with the shitty camera quality of the Konkurs, and legacy tanks are easy to penetrate from side angles.
    However, for me, it looks like a set up. The T-72's behavior, the fact that the video cuts, doesn't seem to me that it is Syrian army. What is it doing all alone, with no clear purpose, aimlessly driving with no support, then suddenly pausing right in front of rebels?
    The instant nature of the explosion, plus the size, seems suspicious. Probbaly they packed it with shells, big artillery HE ones.

    Mind you a turret flip is very possible - in Ossetia a Georgian T-72 was hit, and the explosion threw its turret off, which flew THROUGH the roof of a building on the way down. From the tank there was only a crater left- it was totally destroyed. But I think that only happened after ammunition cook off, not instant result of hit.

    Either way, it doesn't say much about T-72 that we did not know.
    However, Konkurs strong!!!

    The Army really needs to work on its flank protection if they want to win. They keep getting outmaneuvered by rebels with heavy weapons. Maybe it is a matter of manpower...
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16861
    Points : 17469
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jun 12, 2013 1:05 pm

    and i dont understand you, yes missiles are getting expensive but so are tanks ,so it will be justified, whats the price of latest t-90 m,s ,versions?

    Modern combat has shown that ATGMs rarely are actually fired at tanks... the exception has been with Israel, the problem with Javelin is that in its lock on after launch mode it flys up high and then tries to lock onto the target from above without input from the soldier that launched the missile. The flight speed over 2km is something like 120m/s which means you have a slow high flying missile that needs to be able to see a distinct IR signature right after launch to get a lock.

    The addition of Nakidka, or even a new APS that can engage top attack missiles could make it totally ineffective against tanks... which while its primary purpose would not make it obsolete as the vast majority of targets it will be used for include a wide range of targets many of which are not even armoured.

    If this is the case however it brings into question the huge cost of the missile and launcher for a system that will spend most of its time in SACLOS mode anyway.

    It is a neat idea, but just not practical.

    can we expect the armata having some blowoff protection on the bottom as mentioned?

    It may have blow off panels in the turret area to allow the gas from burning ammo to vent upwards away from the crew if the side of the vehicle is penetrated.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Rpg type 7v

    Posts : 390
    Points : 248
    Join date : 2011-05-01

    Modern ATGMs

    Post  Rpg type 7v on Fri Nov 08, 2013 8:55 pm

    so it seems russians have finally recognised their 1.flawed doctrine and 2.that their weapons are aging :
    so the result is=
    1.the top attack version ,
    2. and new 152mm calibre warhead at total system weight of 14,5kg ,and 2.500m range , hmm very good i say.
    avatar
    Regular

    Posts : 2028
    Points : 2032
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  Regular on Fri Nov 08, 2013 11:44 pm

    As I've mentioned before Russians where working with top attack ATGM for some time. It wasn't just rumours. I believe it will be more similar to Bofors Bill 2 rather than Javelin.


    Last edited by Regular on Sat Nov 09, 2013 11:38 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Spelling :D)
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16861
    Points : 17469
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  GarryB on Sat Nov 09, 2013 10:15 am

    Sorry RPG but now you are just ignoring what is being posted...

    so it seems russians have finally recognised their 1.flawed doctrine and 2.that their weapons are aging :
    Did you even read that page?

    Top attack weapons have always been desirable, but not at the cost of being as pointless as Javelin.

    Pointless in the sense of being far to expensive to actually use or be widely deployed except in armed forces used to pssing away taxpayers money.


    so the result is=
    1.the top attack version ,
    2. and new 152mm calibre warhead at total system weight of 14,5kg ,and 2.500m range , hmm very good i say.


    for comparison rpg--7 with 105mm tandem warhead has 11,5kg weight and 200m effective range.
    Except it mentions two weapons... one being an ATGM that will likely coexist with the Metis-M1 simply because the latter is so cheap and simple and portable it is unlikely to be replaced quickly... it calls it a medium range ATGM, which I would suggest would fit quite nicely between the short range ATGM (Metis-M1) and the Kornet-EM long range system.

    The short range system uses two different types of warhead with the top attack version using a gyro stabiliser and thrust vector control to whip the warhead 90 degrees, presumably using a sensitive magnetic anomaly detector to sense the presence of the tank.

    The Russians have never had anything against the top attack flight profile, but the method of reliably achieving such an attack profile had to be cheap and simple but effective so that it can be widely deployed and use in numbers to make it effective.

    Javelin is an example of how not to do it... a thermal sight in the launcher is one thing... fitting it to every missile however means they are very expensive.

    The idea of making them able to be used in a dumb command to line of sight mode actually makes them worse because a much cheaper and simpler missile like Metis-M1 uses that mode of firing... as does Javelin when firing on targets with little or no IR signature.

    Fitting a thermal imager to Metis-M1 gives it all the all weather, day/night launch capability and target detection capacity of Javelin, but at less than $20K per missile it is much cheaper to use in numbers against a range of targets like MG nests and sniper positions than Javelin.

    Of course the troops in the field don't care how much it costs so they will use it against anything and everything... again its cost counts against it.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Rpg type 7v

    Posts : 390
    Points : 248
    Join date : 2011-05-01

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  Rpg type 7v on Sat Nov 09, 2013 2:03 pm

    Regular wrote:As I've mentioned before Russians where working with top attack ATGM for some time. It wasn't just rumours. I believe it will be more similar to Bofors Bikk 2 rather than Javelin.
    bofors atgm is awesome weapon and its principles of work are revolutionary.
    but i think the russians will go with lofted trajectory (like americans only 20yrs latter) instead of straight fight path with angled warhead. the increase lenght and weight of missile seem to suggest that ,and i have been correct in every prediction ive made on this forum.
    ------------------
    OK there should be a correction ,point blank range is given at- 350 meters ,which is still very good .
    I am having problems with weight while 1st version is ok for a soldier , the second is getting very heavy at nearly  20kg and going around with it and putting it on shoulder and aiming is for a very strong man. Analysys shows anything more then 15kg is taking much more energy to carry and handle for a human...
    As for penetration values i compared to kornet which has same warhead diameter (152mm) , but kornets warhead is heavier at 7kg compared to 5,2kg for this system so i would give it 10-15% less penetration value so if kornet is about 1.1-1,2m this shoud penetrate 1000mm od armour ,which is much better then 650mm for rpg.
    -------------------
    Tr1---- you dont need to foam , just mention your analysis and why mine is "flawed' Wink 
    Garry-- capability comes at a cost ,and jav is very capable Twisted Evil
    avatar
    Regular

    Posts : 2028
    Points : 2032
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  Regular on Sat Nov 09, 2013 11:51 pm

    There is no doubt Javelin could be used effectively. It's not effectiveness of Javelin that gets all the criticism. It's the price. But hey You were comparing ATGM with RPG. If You served in the military You know that there is even tactical difference how they are employed.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16861
    Points : 17469
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  GarryB on Sun Nov 10, 2013 8:10 am

    but i think the russians will go with lofted trajectory (like americans only 20yrs latter) instead of straight fight path with angled warhead.
    Again your reading comprehension comes into question.

    Of the two weapon types mentioned... the 2.5km range ATGM which according to you should be the Javelin copy but 20 years late clearly states it has laser beam riding guidance with remote control... sounds to me like the missile guides via a laser beam... perhaps flying 5m above the beam to the target and then diving down when it approaches the target area... there is certainly no indication it uses a lofted flight profile.

    The other missile it mentions simple and effective in a high noise environment... ie EO jammers etc, which suggests to me it is either MAD + CLOS guided, or perhaps MMW radar guided... the talk of jet vanes acting on the rocket motor exhaust suggests it is designed to fly over the target and when it detects the target it turns 90 degrees down and fires its warhead at the top of the target.

    and i have been correct in every prediction ive made on this forum.
    You predicted Russia SHOULD copy Javelin. Your complaint was that the Russians didn't have any Javelin like weapons.

    The information provided suggests that as usual the Russians have found a cheap and simple way of getting a result the west has spent a fortune on and continues to do so.

    Look at 40mm grenade launchers... the US wants air burst grenades and gets high tech Swiss timing fuses and puts FCS and laser range finders on auto grenade launchers to make them really expensive... the precision of the fuses makes each round rather expensive... but they can create an airburst.

    The cheap simple russian solution is a small bounding charge to blow the grenade into the air before the main charge explodes. Fraction of the cost... in service since the early 1980s, widely deployed.

    US system far more sophisticated but not in service anywhere.


    OK there should be a correction ,point blank range is given at- 350 meters ,which is still very good .
    This is likely to be a close in weapon to repel a tank attack to support an RPG-7.

    I am having problems with weight while 1st version is ok for a soldier , the second is getting very heavy at nearly 20kg and going around with it and putting it on shoulder and aiming is for a very strong man. Analysys shows anything more then 15kg is taking much more energy to carry and handle for a human...
    Based on the weight of the system and the weights of the missiles it is pretty clear that the short range system has a launcher that is 4.5kg which will likely be carried by the gunner along with a round of ammo.

    With the Metis-M1 each missile weighs about 13kg so the two support soldiers will be carrying two missiles (26kgs each)... the support soldiers for these systems will be carrying 20kg and 30kgs each respectively.

    As for penetration values i compared to kornet which has same warhead diameter (152mm) , but kornets warhead is heavier at 7kg compared to 5,2kg for this system so i would give it 10-15% less penetration value so if kornet is about 1.1-1,2m this shoud penetrate 1000mm od armour ,which is much better then 650mm for rpg.
    And also much better than the 750mm of Javelin, and only slightly better than the 900mm of the RPG-28... which has a 125mm calibre warhead...

    These penetration figures are actually a bit excessive as top attack does not require anything like that level of performance...

    capability comes at a cost ,and jav is very capable
    How do you know? It has only ever been used against targets much cheaper much simpler systems would be effective against.

    you dont need to foam , just mention your analysis and why mine is "flawed'
    As I said before, top attack is a useful feature, but when most targets such systems are used against in real combat (not battlefield 4) like Afghanistan or Iraq it is precision and HE power that matter and of course stand off distance. Milan would have done a similar job at a fraction of the cost.

    The ideal system for the US and UK forces would have been Metis-M1... its effect on target using HE rounds would have been much greater yet its costs would mean they could have had 10 times more the number of missiles and still had billions left over in the budget for bribes.

    This new ATGM (the 2.5km range weapon) is probably the Baikal ATGM that was mentioned a number of times before, but you largely ignored because you wanted a Russian Javelin NOW.

    The thing is however I suspect this new ATGM will actually be rather better than Javelin in terms of price and performance.

    AT-3 in modernised form maybe, but theres better equipment out there,
    Even with upgrades it is still not great, the Metis-M1 moved all the complex and expensive bits into the launcher module so that each missile is about $10K which is ridiculously cheap in terms of what it is... an ability for a team of 3 men to carry a launcher and 5 missiles able to hit targets at 2km with a payload able to penetrate 950mm of RHA...

    If you already have AT-3 it probably makes sense to buy an upgrade, but starting from scratch... even a poor country... Metis-M1 is ideal.

    Compact, portable, powerful, cheap.

    Mount it on a dune buggy and you have very mobile anti armour capability.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:53 pm