Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Share
    avatar
    TR1

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

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  TR1 on Wed Jun 05, 2013 8:11 pm

    Department Of Defense wrote:I just have one question for all those who say that Javelin isn't worth it . Why has Russia or any other country for that matter failed to come up with a top attack missile ?

    I remember hearing similar arguments when the US introduced AESA radars in fighters. We were told that AESA is a failure waiting to happen . And yet 20 years later these same nations are struggling to develop AESA radars for their aircrafts.

    The US did not introduce AESA to fighters.
    Japan did.
    And the USSR had the first fighter PESA.
    avatar
    Sujoy

    Posts : 903
    Points : 1069
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  Sujoy on Wed Jun 05, 2013 8:56 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    The main problem is that the weight of fuel to accelerate the entire round to high speed will make it very heavy... but as we know from the late model RPG-7 rounds that as the rockets get heavier they need larger calibre tubes or they become too ballistic.

    Also the very high acceleration speeds required will mean no real contact with the projectile for the first second or so.

    The large booster rocket of the HERMES (210mm) with a slim missile with basic guidance and a 2 metre long 40mm thick DU core weighing 10-15kgs would be interesting as an APFSDS weapon... if the velocity can be in the 1.5-1.8km/s range and that speed maintained then it would be a very effective weapon... even if lofted and allowed to attack the target from a steep angle... gaining more speed.

    The APFSDS can be propelled by two propulsion units, the launch motor and flight motor. Initial thrust needed for safe separation from the launch tube is provided by the launch motor. The launch motor is expended before the missile fully leaves the tube creating a soft launch for the operator. After the soft launch, the flight motor provides thrust for 5.2 s propelling the missile to its maximum speed .

    Pre-guidance is prior to flight motor ignition. During pre-guidance, the system waits for the ATGM to reach a safe separation distance after firing the launch motor. The line of sight (LOS) of the seeker nears its maximum value depending on the distance to the target.Once the seeker angle exceeds its negative limit, the ATGM transitions from altitude hold to terminal guidance. Terminal guidance puts the ATGM on a trajectory for target interception by maintaining a constant seeker angle .

    Terminal guidance uses the same roll and yaw errors as pre-terminal guidance. However, pitch error changes as the ATGM achieves target interception by placing itself on a constant glide slope similar to proportional navigation of guided missiles.
    avatar
    GarryB

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

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jun 06, 2013 3:41 am

    I just have one question for all those who say that Javelin isn't worth it . Why has Russia or any other country for that matter failed to come up with a top attack missile ?

    Except for its cost the Javelin would be the ideal anti US weapon.

    The Abrams runs very hot and would be easy to target with the system so with hit and run tactics it would be excellent if they could afford it.

    The problem is it is a short range ATGM... think of it as a super Dragon or super Milan. The vast majority of its use has been against non armoured enemy point troop positions where its ability to hit the target in fire and forget mode is meaningless because you can't get a lock with an IR sensor on a sniper position or a particular window in a building, so it is just a very expensive SACLOS missile most of the time.

    BTW the Soviets had plenty of diving top attack missiles... santimetr (SALH artillery fired missile in 152mm calibre), Smelchak (SALH artillery fired missile in 240mm calibre), Krasnopol (SALH artillery fired missile in 152mm calibre), Kitolov-2M (SALH artillery fired missile in 122mm calibre), Gran (SALH artillery fired missile in 120mm calibre), and there are guided rounds for their other calibres too including Naval calibre guns.

    The simple fact is that a direct fire weapon can get top attack performance in two ways... a cheap way... like BILL2 by flying over the target... and by putting an expensive seeker into the missile and lofting it up into the air.

    The main advantage is that it exposes the thin top armour of the enemy vehicles... the main disadvantage is that it is so expensive you can't afford to equip your forces with plenty of them.

    I remember hearing similar arguments when the US introduced AESA radars in fighters. We were told that AESA is a failure waiting to happen . And yet 20 years later these same nations are struggling to develop AESA radars for their aircrafts.

    AESA is a huge generational leap ahead of old cassegrain and dish radar, but it is very expensive. It is not a huge generational leap ahead of PESA which also enjoys many of the advantages of electronic scanning but without the cost of AESA.

    For the Russians they can afford to wait for AESA to mature because a really good PESA is better than an immature AESA. As they introduce AESA radars to SAM batteries and at sea the technology will improve and get smaller and cheaper and it will go into AWACS and fighter aircraft soon enough.

    Maybe it will sound like nonsense, but would it possible to create top attack RPG? An unguided one acting same way as Bill, projecting force downwards. Launcher with integrated spotting rifle, digital sight would help with accuracy.

    I have suggested that before on this forum...

    It wouldn't be that hard... a simple gyro would tell the spinning rocket which direction was down... a simple magnetic anomaly detector would tell it it is passing over a large metal object... the sight used in the RPG-32 could be improved... a ballistic computer and laser rangefinder could input a rough time of flight to the target so it could ignore any metal objects on the way to the target... the warhead could use a long focus shape so it detonates 10m above the target and fires a plasma lance down at the thin top armour...

    Of course it isn't a ATGM, as it isn't guided. But, its sole purpose is the same. To take out armor or fortification. New or old, doesn't matter, as long as it follows the same concept - Missile to fortification: Fortification destroyed or damaged.

    Actually the RPG-29 is a good comparison to the Javelin as both will be used against similar targets in Iraq or Afghanistan. The RPG-29 has better penetration, but lower accuracy and shorter range, but you could carry 10,000 for the price of 20 Javelins and a Javelin isn't more effective than 500 RPG-29s.

    Especially when RPG-29 can use the right ammo for the job... HE for soft targets and HEAT for hard.

    The APFSDS can be propelled by two propulsion units, the launch motor and flight motor. Initial thrust needed for safe separation from the launch tube is provided by the launch motor. The launch motor is expended before the missile fully leaves the tube creating a soft launch for the operator. After the soft launch, the flight motor provides thrust for 5.2 s propelling the missile to its maximum speed .

    But the heavier the missile the larger and heavier the initial thrust needed to get the missile moving in the first place... and that first propulsion unit will have to be very powerful because the missile is going to have to have a penetrator that is at least as heavy as a modern APFSDS penetrator... which means 7-10kg for the DU penetrator alone... now add the propellent needed to accelerate that lump of metal to 1.5-1.8km/s and you are talking about a missile weight of at least 25-30kgs... probably much more... 35-40kgs... and now you need a booster charge that will blow that missile out of the tube and far enough forward to that the very powerful high energy rocket motor can accelerate the payload to 1.5km/s without killing the operator... plus you need guidance equipment... some method of steering the missile, plus the launch tube and aiming device and I would suggest to you we are talking about a vehicle based missile.


    _________________
    “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
    GarryB

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

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jun 06, 2013 4:06 am

    The one area where there is potential for APFSDS ATGMs would be with a variant of HERMES... the whole missile weighs about 110kgs, with the missile itself probably being half that with a 30kg warhead.

    The initial launch speed is 1,000m/s, so a dramatic reduction in missile weight and size, plus an increase in booster size from 170mm to 210mm... say a 15kg 2m long DU rod could be the payload with a solid fuelled rocket motor to boost speed and maintain performance out to 8-10km range with simple laser beam riding guidance offering cheap simple control.

    A 2m long penetrator weighing 15kgs of DU travelling at 2km/s would be a devastating weapon against armoured targets with the advantages of short flight time and enormous kinetic energy and relative low cost making it a very effective anti armour weapon.

    For use against unarmoured targets perhaps a small side thruster rocket mounted near the tail could twist the penetrator at the instant of impact resulting in a shattered penetrator of high mass tumbling through the target at very high speed... like a ship or motor vehicle that would otherwise have a small hole punched through it without the modification.

    For a Mi-28N a missile that can hit tanks 10km distant in 5-6 seconds would be interesting...


    _________________
    “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
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7252
    Points : 7546
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  sepheronx on Thu Jun 06, 2013 2:57 pm

    I am surprised that Hermes isn't out yet or being purchased, that missile in itself is quite amazing. I hear that the Pantsir-S1 is using the same missile tech as the Herme's, thus technically, it is being fielded just not for any other roll. Ka-52 was initially supposed to get Hermes missiles, but I guess KBP's lobbying isn't strong enough.

    As for the AESA radar: What navy equipment has AESA radar on it in Russian armed forces? All I know of in AESA being used is the Nebo-SVU radar which uses AESA technology. Zhuk-A is undergoing tests with a 1000+ T/R module and the test of PAK FA's radar is apparently going well too (probably use same T/R modules as the Zhuk-A) and I think A-100 is supposed to get AESA radar, no?

    But regardless, PESA radar has its advantages and Irbis-e is the most powerful fighterborn radar.
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3243
    Points : 3329
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  medo on Thu Jun 06, 2013 4:29 pm

    sepheronx wrote:I am surprised that Hermes isn't out yet or being purchased, that missile in itself is quite amazing. I hear that the Pantsir-S1 is using the same missile tech as the Herme's, thus technically, it is being fielded just not for any other roll. Ka-52 was initially supposed to get Hermes missiles, but I guess KBP's lobbying isn't strong enough.

    As for the AESA radar: What navy equipment has AESA radar on it in Russian armed forces? All I know of in AESA being used is the Nebo-SVU radar which uses AESA technology. Zhuk-A is undergoing tests with a 1000+ T/R module and the test of PAK FA's radar is apparently going well too (probably use same T/R modules as the Zhuk-A) and I think A-100 is supposed to get AESA radar, no?

    But regardless, PESA radar has its advantages and Irbis-e is the most powerful fighterborn radar.

    Gamma-DE and Nebo-M are also AESA radars.
    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7252
    Points : 7546
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  sepheronx on Thu Jun 06, 2013 5:56 pm

    medo wrote:
    sepheronx wrote:I am surprised that Hermes isn't out yet or being purchased, that missile in itself is quite amazing. I hear that the Pantsir-S1 is using the same missile tech as the Herme's, thus technically, it is being fielded just not for any other roll. Ka-52 was initially supposed to get Hermes missiles, but I guess KBP's lobbying isn't strong enough.

    As for the AESA radar: What navy equipment has AESA radar on it in Russian armed forces? All I know of in AESA being used is the Nebo-SVU radar which uses AESA technology. Zhuk-A is undergoing tests with a 1000+ T/R module and the test of PAK FA's radar is apparently going well too (probably use same T/R modules as the Zhuk-A) and I think A-100 is supposed to get AESA radar, no?

    But regardless, PESA radar has its advantages and Irbis-e is the most powerful fighterborn radar.

    Gamma-DE and Nebo-M are also AESA radars.

    Any idea who makes the TR modules? Are there any info in regards to links on the T/R Modules used for these systems?

    Rpg type 7v

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

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  Rpg type 7v on Thu Jun 06, 2013 7:08 pm

    can we stop this massive offtopic and stick with ATGM...
    So , read post number 17 here...
    Kornet is also only just man-portable!, its more suited for a vehicle.!
    Hypersonic missile can get over mach 6 or 2km/s, so penetrator can be lighter.And guns still cant launch AP rod to those speeds.
    The moment you start adding guidance the thing becomes more expencive ,its natural.
    If u add mclos or saclos that needs human operator you shall have expensive launch platform but still cheaper missiles.

    If u add fire & forget capability ,you lower the risks for your crew , but then your missiles also become expensive...
    But even that is OK actually ,because its worth it ,if the targets are valued much more then the missile ,and you can count on a good hit probability.
    And you actually dont need a super-trained crew if you dont need a human to guide the thing, and it guides itself , unlike saclos where training and calm is important.
    And stop with that hype about exported rpg-29 or newest rpg-7 ,they are good but , less talked rpg-28 is the real killer, achieving 15-20% better penetration rates.
    avatar
    GarryB

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

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jun 07, 2013 11:45 am

    I am surprised that Hermes isn't out yet or being purchased, that missile in itself is quite amazing. I hear that the Pantsir-S1 is using the same missile tech as the Herme's, thus technically, it is being fielded just not for any other roll. Ka-52 was initially supposed to get Hermes missiles, but I guess KBP's lobbying isn't strong enough.

    HERMES is a family of missiles for air to ground and ground to ground use that will come with a range of terminal seekers including GLONASS for fixed targets, IIR and MMW radar for fire and forget use, and semi active laser homing.

    I suspect the small sized seekers that are cheap but with enough resolution to be effective is likely the stumbling block. Keep in mind the design is unified with the SA-22, but the SA-22 has a simple command guidance terminal phase rather than self guidance so it is simpler and cheaper.

    What navy equipment has AESA radar on it in Russian armed forces? All I know of in AESA being used is the Nebo-SVU radar which uses AESA technology. Zhuk-A is undergoing tests with a 1000+ T/R module and the test of PAK FA's radar is apparently going well too (probably use same T/R modules as the Zhuk-A) and I think A-100 is supposed to get AESA radar, no?

    Isn't Polment an AESA? There were new AESA radar arrays for S-400 which I would expect to have a naval equivalent too.

    Nebo-SVU is a long wave radar... its AESA elements will not be related to the modules use in high frequency AESAs... its elements will look like TV antenna... big metal loops.

    This is what I am talking about:



    In fact put a staring focal array with 360 degree coverage and it would be RPGs ideal SHORAD sensor package...

    Kornet is also only just man-portable!, its more suited for a vehicle.!

    In its new 33kg missile version it has a range of 8km in the anti armour role and 10km in the anti aircraft/anti MG post role so in many ways it bridges the gap between long range heavy ATGM and man portable system.

    Hypersonic missile can get over mach 6 or 2km/s, so penetrator can be lighter.And guns still cant launch AP rod to those speeds.

    It depends on the weight of the projectile... the 2km/s projectiles will not be heavy ones... 2-3kgs perhaps, so the 125mm gun can fire 7kg projectiles to 1.8km/s muzzle velocity... in this case guns are more efficient.

    The moment you start adding guidance the thing becomes more expencive ,its natural.

    Of course but a powerful inaccurate anti armour weapon is not much use.

    If u add mclos or saclos that needs human operator you shall have expensive launch platform but still cheaper missiles.

    If u add fire & forget capability ,you lower the risks for your crew , but then your missiles also become expensive...

    But if you have a projectile moving at 2km/s then the flight time to impact will be so short then fire and forget become meaningless... it would be cheaper to have CLOS guidance and just have the operator keep his head up for 5 seconds while his missile travels that 10km to hit the target than make the missile cost 300K a shot.

    But even that is OK actually ,because its worth it ,if the targets are valued much more then the missile ,and you can count on a good hit probability.

    But that is the problem between design and reality... the Javelin is VERY COST EFFECTIVE against tanks costing 2 million dollars each, but against an Afghan villager with an SVD in a tree that has been pestering you all day firing a Javelin is simply not worth it... It makes rather more sense to show a flag of truce... go over to his tree and offer him $10K to piss off home to his wife and kids than fire a very expensive ATGM and blow him and the tree up.

    And stop with that hype about exported rpg-29 or newest rpg-7 ,they are good but , less talked rpg-28 is the real killer, achieving 15-20% better penetration rates.

    RPG-28 is for domestic use only AFAIK and is quite heavy but certainly effective enough. Its 125mm calibre warhead makes it incompatible with the 105mm RPG-29 and with a 40mm tube I think it will be too hard for the RPG-7 to use.

    I suspect a new RPG based on the RPG-32 design that can take 72mm, 105mm and 125mm and possibly 135mm and eventually 152mm rockets with a ballistic computer and laser rangefinder in the sight with a thermal channel to improve accuracy and make it day night all weather capable. I suspect a gyro might be added to the rockets to stabilise their flight trajectory to make them easier to shoot too... make them less susceptible to cross winds.


    _________________
    “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

    Mindstorm

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

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  Mindstorm on Fri Jun 07, 2013 12:58 pm

    If u add fire & forget capability ,you lower the risks for your crew , but then your missiles also become expensive...


    It lower the risks only if your enemy is the usual immensely inferior opponent over which you enjoy a so crushing numerical and technological edge that the ridiculous cost-inefficiency of your systems don't produce any negative effect on the outcome of the conflict.


    The point is that in all the latest conflicts against those immensely inferior opponents that NATO so much love to engage, voices on the "possible" employment or presence of a single Kornet-E (export version) launcher in a particular place or instance circulate....almost as legendary tales...and each time, invariably, alarmed questions and concerns, by part of the diplomatic delegates of the nations involved in the conflict come quickly to Moscow and in western media the "case" is reported together with the usual comical reprimand of Federation's behavior Razz Razz

    Simply PATHETIC.

    Even more if we consider that ,taking into account the crushing relative missile's cost ratio, reliability, very short time of engagement, virtual unjammability, ductility of employment and range, seeing those export version of Kornet ATGM engage with HEAT or thermo-baric warheads NATO's : IFVs, APCs, radio relays, helicopters, MBTs, infantry sniper positions, UAV, field radars, FGM-148's squads, Command bases, columns of refueling vehicles, minesweeping squads etc..etc.. from literally anywhere within 5,5 km (a buried position on an hill more than 5 km far, one the upper windows of a ruined building 4,3 km far ,a tree and brush formation 4,8 km from a main road, a covered hole at 5 km from a command and control base or airfield etc..etc..) would represent the absolute RULE not the very rare EXCEPTION against even a moderately strong opponent.

    We must also add to what just said that the immense increase in engagement range, in comparison to today means of attack of opposing forces (mostly represented by PK machine gun fire, infantry man portable very-light mortars and RPGs) would require a numerical increase and density of surveillance sensor assets of....several dozen of times to obtain similar early threat detection ranges of today and ,even worse, a very high amount of the systems employed by NATO forces both in those surveillance and engagement phase such as UAVs, reconnaissance LAVs and helicopters) would well fall within engagement range of export version of Kornet (or much worse with the latest export version of Kornet-M) so that would become very easy to prepare ambush for those systems using false Kornet-E positions or providing several operatives with false Kornet-E launchers.


    Reality is that, not merely the export version of Kornet ATGM, but even only RPG-29 is a very, very rare system on the battlefields of those theatres of war (the ratio with the antediluvian RPG-7 is less than 1:52 in the opinion of IISS !!).



    But even that is OK actually ,because its worth it ,if the targets are valued much more then the missile ,and you can count on a good hit probability.


    Obviously not.

    FGM-148,as any other weapon of its class, find its unique anti-armor niche of employment in close range ambush operations (it was designed for an hypothetical battle for Baghdad) for the very simple reason that the wide majority of enemy armored, mechanized and infantry motorized weapons vastly out-gun and out-range it; this mean also that, to the contrary of TOW series, it cannot be employed in the typical highly fluid offensive/counteroffensive, area denial or deep consolidation operations characterizing battles against armored and mechanized divisions of an advanced enemy in a open conflict....unless someone is a passionate of tiling puzzles and enjoy to play with the effects of HE and HE-frag munitions ,shot from 4-5 km of distance, on the FGM-148's operators.


    In the places where Javelin is effectively operated the menaces are extremely heterogeneous and majority is constituted by.... other infantry squads Very Happy

    US and UK operatives (also in reason of the very poor ballistics of 5,56 mm main rifle's rounds) employ FGM-148 as main weapon for engage at mid range those kind of menaces















    Naturally anyone is perfectly capable to realize that against the immensely weaker opponents that western powers accurately select as theirs enemies of turn , even a similar ridiculous forced mis-employment of FGM-148 don't produce any serious negative effect except a chronic shortage of missiles or the complete absence of the system when necessary ; forcing at its own time at call for even much more cost-inefficient CAS or helicopter interventions (very often arriving well after that the enemy had evaded the area Laughing ).

    Anyone is also perfectly capable to realize what in those same ,identical situations would have happened if the enemy (in a numerical ratio of 4 up to 28:1 and with rate of fire up to 4 times higher than that of FGM-148) would had been equipped with Metis-M ,Kornet-E or something like this one :







    Anything ,in a weapon system's design, allowing your enemy to deploy on the battlefield weapon systems in the same class capable to produce the same or better effects and to neutralize it but... in crushing numerical and fire rates' overmatch, not only DON'T increase survivability of the operator but GREATLY worsen it.



    Rpg type 7v

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

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  Rpg type 7v on Fri Jun 07, 2013 3:22 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    This is what I am talking about:



    In fact put a staring focal array with 360 degree coverage and it would be RPGs ideal SHORAD sensor package...
    on what expo was that few years ago and for what platform?
    yesss this is it.
    sure i see this is excellent for mobile shorad if it doesnt overload weight and power requirements.I would change that thing on top for several irst bulbs.and just move those smaller lenses and laser for silent attack to another part of vehicle.
    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 Jun 08, 2013 11:18 am

    It is a Russian Naval observation system designed to be mounted up on a mast in clusters with the optics including long range zoom day and night optics along with laser target markers and ranging equipment.

    Replace the optics with a spherical IR sensor like this:



    Which is the hemispherical array associated with Morfei and is an IR array covering 360 degrees horizontally and 180 degrees vertically to give complete coverage of any IR signal immediately.

    The four faces of the AESA antenna array offer passive 360 degree continuous coverage and the opportunity for rapid 360 degree scanning using electronic scanning rather than mechanical scanning... resulting in coverage in micro seconds rather than seconds.

    The point is that they can do it, but few missiles have the performance to warrant the cost... Morfei with its lock after launch capability and Vityaz with ARH would be two missiles that would benefit.


    _________________
    “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
    coolieno99

    Posts : 139
    Points : 162
    Join date : 2010-08-25

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  coolieno99 on Sun Jun 09, 2013 7:56 am

    FSA attacks SAA armour vehicle with 9M113 Konkurs ATGM


    Mindstorm

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

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  Mindstorm on Sun Jun 09, 2013 9:01 am

    coolieno99 wrote:FSA attacks SAA armour vehicle with 9M113 Konkurs ATGM



    Laughing Laughing Laughing


    coolieno99 do you have some other of those staged video ?

    I want to create a rich collection of those comical videos (all those with tanks filled with explosives up to the top of turret Razz ), with the opening one being the infamous video of FGM-148's "test".

    This one, in particular has been clearly recorded in two parts - do you know ,you need some time to bring explosive in the captured tank (ostendibly a very outdated specimen from some abandoned reserve stock) and not even any kind of missile has been shot against the tank before the....remote detonation trigger. Laughing Laughing

    Simply too funny Laughing .


    If any this video perfectly validate what said ,in some of the latest articles, on the impact of Syrian tanks on rebel operations and morale :


    http://vpk.name/news/85890_siriiskie_boeviki_v_uzhase_ot_nashih_tankov.html


    and how much important has become ,for them, to attempt to discourage theirs employment ,with literally any mean (even the most unsophisticated ones Razz )



    As Sa'iqa

    Posts : 415
    Points : 351
    Join date : 2013-06-01
    Age : 23
    Location : Western Poland

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  As Sa'iqa on Sun Jun 09, 2013 12:12 pm

    Whats wrong with this? It's not the first video of idle tank being hit (do you remember a T-72 hit in the rear?) and if you look closer, you will see that the missle hit exactly where the ammo is stored.

    I think it carried a lot of HE rounds. There is one ANNA movie which shows a T-72 hit by an RPG-29 and the result was exactly the same - instant explosion.

    Mindstorm

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

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  Mindstorm on Sun Jun 09, 2013 5:13 pm

    Whats wrong with this? It's not the first video of idle tank being hit (do you remember a T-72 hit in the rear?) and if you look closer, you will see that the missle hit exactly where the ammo is stored.





    Wrong ?

    In this video is not that merely something is "wrong".....but all is RIDICULOUSLY inconsistent -staged- (and also ,if you allow me to say, in a very amateurish way Laughing ).

    Image that you, by now, have already realized that no missile is recorded in this video Rolling Eyes

    About the explosion all is comically out of line :

    The magnitude, the perfectly iso-radial propagation and the absolute instantaneousness of the detonation (for remain silent of the laughable attempt to add in a second instance the virtual "missile" on the video recording ,forgetting......the interaction with the dusty terrain Laughing Laughing ) are clear sign of a low level operation of staging.




    As Sa'iqa

    Posts : 415
    Points : 351
    Join date : 2013-06-01
    Age : 23
    Location : Western Poland

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  As Sa'iqa on Sun Jun 09, 2013 5:36 pm

    Ok so look at this:
    7:23 - instant explosion of a T-72. You can't even distinguish between a hit and ammo cook-off.

    Soviet/russian tanks do not have separate ammo compartment and blow-off panels, the ammo is stored at the bottom of the hull, it looks like this:

    Such a layout makes it hard to hit ammo storage in tank vs tank combat but if something hits it, then the crew has no chances to survive. If the tank carries a large numbe of HE or HEAT shells, then it gets even worse and a catastrophic explosion may occur.

    Mindstorm

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

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  Mindstorm on Sun Jun 09, 2013 8:47 pm


    Ok so look at this:
    7:23 - instant explosion of a T-72. You can't even distinguish between a hit and ammo cook-off.



    Rolling Eyes I know very well this ,like dozen and dozen of other videos and photos (published and not) of SAA tanks in operation....and naturally in vast majority of them the rebel terrorists are wasted and SAA tanks survive to resume theirs work the day after Wink .


    There is NOTHING in this video being even only close to the ridiculously staged video previously proposed: the detonation is dozens of times less powerful and perfectly compatible with sympathetic detonation of ammo charge and fuel's ignition ; moreover is not possible to ascertain precisely times ,but ostensibly it come from a shot from a 25+ elevation degrees, as in vast majority of destroyed SAA tanks.



    Soviet/russian tanks do not have separate ammo compartment and blow-off panels, the ammo is stored at the bottom of the hull, it looks like this:

    You want to educate me on the placement of ammo in Soviet tanks ? Very Happy

    Overall ammo compartments (western type) actually increase, NOT reduce the vulnerable target area's projection for enemy fire in direct LOS engagements and it is a compromise design solution dictated mostly by the huge internal volume occupied by the human loader and ergonomic and practical requirement of accessibility of the ammo for such manual loader.

    The layout with ammo stored in the lowest and more recessed hull's sector (near center of mass and significantly lower of the line of maximum density of direct enemy fire) is incomparably more advantageous and less exposed for classical MBT's employment in tipical conventional war's CONOP.

    Blow-off panels ?

    Say to me, how much tanks employ blow-off panels ?







    This image appear strangely similar to those which a pair of funny guys (that already come here sometimes ago attempting to sold theirs fairy tales....with very, very scarce luck Laughing

    http://www.russiadefence.net/t1368p540-first-photos-of-t-95-and-t-90am

    who, like elementary school kids, love to fill , half way between the utter bias and the complete irrational, with red and other colors MBT-related images.


    I image that you know perfectly where is REALLY placed autoloader's carousel and its REAL frontal projection.

    Do you know, this childish red stain manage to annoy contemporaneously both the sight and the intelligence of the beholder.




    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 Sun Jun 09, 2013 9:38 pm

    At least blowoff panels actually give a chance for the crews to survive unlike hull ammo compartments. Does it matter how hard it is to hit the ammo compartment of a soviet tank that when a round hits it the whole soviet tank crew is vaporized?

    If blowoff panels are so uneccessary then why did the Russians put them on the Black eagle and T-72 bulat that were planned to enter service?
    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 Sun Jun 09, 2013 10:52 pm

    Mindstorm wrote:
    Image that you, by now, have already realized that no missile is recorded in this video Rolling Eyes

    About the explosion all is comically out of line :

    The magnitude, the perfectly iso-radial propagation and the absolute instantaneousness of the detonation (for remain silent of the laughable attempt to add in a second instance the virtual "missile" on the video recording ,forgetting......the interaction with the dusty terrain Laughing Laughing ) are clear sign of a low level operation of staging.



    So how missile flies in real life? Don't look less virtual than


    Mindstorm

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

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  Mindstorm on Sun Jun 09, 2013 11:18 pm

    At least blowoff panels actually give a chance for the crews to survive unlike hull ammo compartments. Does it matter how hard it is to hit the ammo compartment of a soviet tank that when a round hits it the whole soviet tank crew is vaporized?

    This is partially true ...but only if we talk of an asymmetrical war with a side hundreds of times stronger than the other.

    Now take into examination those factors (very often purposely avoided in debates on that subject) and try to respond to the following question ( :

    Image to having modified and "compromised" your MTB's design and ammo placement to include blow-off panel ( at ex: you cannot place ammo compartment in the lowest plane of the hull where PHit of enemy would be several times lower...) to "increase" crew survivability , OK ?


    Now ,instaed of the tipical operation against the usual defensless third world enemy, you confront instead a world level power( with several thousands or even dozens of thousands of MBTs, IFV, APC, self-propelled artillery, MLRS, BM, ATGM squads, field autocannons. etc...etc...); now one of your MBT is hit hard and let put that your blow-off panels have managed to "save" the entire crew, ok ?

    This crew instead of a burning tank in a solitary road in Iraq or Afghanistan, with support infantry and mechanized forces now searching for the elusive enemy responsible of the "attack" now is ,instead, in a motionless burning tanks at.... 1400 to 2200 m away from enemy first and second heavy defensive line of direct fire (if you was on the offensive) or motionless on the pact of the advancing front of enemy armoured and motorized divisions (if you was of the defense) all of that under heavy artillery barrage and medium caliber automatic weapon fire.


    Question : How much time this "surviving" MBT's crew (chose you the measure's unit : minutes , seconds...) will still continue to breath ?


    Respond to this question and after ,try to image what solution you would adopt ,if you would be a tank designer, wanting to select the most cost-effcient (which mean numerical overmatch on your enemy Wink ) design solution for ammo internal storage for a MBT designed for win a major conventional conflict against an advanced enemy ? Wink





    If blowoff panels are so uneccessary then why did the Russians put them on the Black eagle and T-72 bulat that were planned to enter service?

    Simple : A trend seeing reduced chances of a major conventional conflict against a world level power and ,instead, a substantial increase of regional low-intensity or COIN operations .




    Mindstorm

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

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  Mindstorm on Mon Jun 10, 2013 9:37 am


    [/quote]
    So how missile flies in real life? Don't look less virtual than

    [/quote]



    Regular you talk seriously ?

    Ok, look another time at the video and observe with attention the missile (....only the "supposed" missile).







    Noticed anything, now ?

    Well that is exactly what happen when someone, with very scarce technical means and proficiency, try to grossly "copy and paste" an 9M113 attempting to cover the original light-to-background contour Laughing Laughing.

    Not that, sincerely, i expected any better from those jiahdists Rolling Eyes

    Theirs comically imaginative claims and PR videos has become a sad routine by now.



    Rpg type 7v

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

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  Rpg type 7v on Mon Jun 10, 2013 7:37 pm

    now imagine if you had advanced, western , top attack, fire and forget, AT missile ,you wouldnt need to be in a house aiming all the time ,exposed like a turkey... but shoot from the backyard out of line of sight ,and run while the missile is still on its way. And no tank has top armor to stop even rpg-7 ,while many tanks frontal armor can stop konkurs.
    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?
    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 Tue Jun 11, 2013 10:25 am

    Rpg type 7v wrote:now imagine if you had advanced, western , top attack, fire and forget, AT missile ,you wouldnt need to be in a house aiming all the time ,exposed like a turkey... but shoot from the backyard out of line of sight ,and run while the missile is still on its way. And no tank has top armor to stop even rpg-7 ,while many tanks frontal armor can stop konkurs.
    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?
    I don't think that shooter exposed himself to fire because usually there are no one that can return it. Without proper support they can easily walk to the tank, open the hatch and hit tank commander in the face. Judging by older videos Syrian tanks are blind and usually they get no support from infantry that could pinpoint and suppress their positions. Look earlier ANNA videos and their modus operandi.
    Now we see improvement and less tanks they have the more they value them. Infantry is working with tanks, spotting targets, suppressing. We should see results of these improvements soon.
    But yeah, Spike family or even Belorussian Shershen ATGM could be perfect in the city.
    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 Tue Jun 11, 2013 10:35 am

    Mindstorm, sorry, I can't see clearly in the first video as I'm using my iPhone. It looks like usual travel path of ATGM. Can You post videos of real instances then?

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:58 pm