Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Kinetic energy Anti-tank weapons

    Share

    collegeboy16
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1207
    Points : 1234
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Kinetic energy Anti-tank weapons

    Post  collegeboy16 on Sun Feb 01, 2015 8:27 am

    Mike E wrote:
    Yes and no... You want to prepare for the worst of situations when it comes to just about anything. Assuming the enemy will be riding on horses isn't gonna do anybody much good now is it? It would be no less effective than an equivalent HEAT round or missile.

    Do you mean adequate or anything but? The latter would imply it wouldn't be...

    Top-attack ATGM's are great until they have to deal with APS systems. They are slow, and much easier to destroy than a faster flying missile. Much like AShM's I'd like to add.

    i meant adequate(kinda like 'i doubt that its not adequate' would be better phrasing now that i think about it).

    and top attack atgms may not even need to get close- fit them with EFP warhead instead, those are even faster than current apfsds.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Kinetic energy Anti-tank weapons

    Post  Mike E on Sun Feb 01, 2015 9:10 am

    collegeboy16 wrote:
    Mike E wrote:
    Yes and no... You want to prepare for the worst of situations when it comes to just about anything. Assuming the enemy will be riding on horses isn't gonna do anybody much good now is it? It would be no less effective than an equivalent HEAT round or missile.

    Do you mean adequate or anything but? The latter would imply it wouldn't be...

    Top-attack ATGM's are great until they have to deal with APS systems. They are slow, and much easier to destroy than a faster flying missile. Much like AShM's I'd like to add.

    i meant adequate(kinda like 'i doubt that its not adequate' would be better phrasing now that i think about it).

    and top attack atgms may not even need to get close- fit them with EFP warhead instead, those are even faster than current apfsds.
    Ok, that's what I thought. Very Happy

    EFP's are only so effective and would be incredibly hard to properly aim when travel at such high speeds.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Kinetic energy Anti-tank weapons

    Post  GarryB on Sun Feb 01, 2015 10:28 am

    I'd love to hear your thoughts on this kind of tech and anything else Tank/Anti-Tank related.

    One of the models of the Armata... namely this one:



    I assumed showed a mine laying vehicle with vertical launched mine deployment.

    From what I have read however it is actually a lock on after launch ATGM that uses diving top attack capability to defeat enemy armour.

    the enormous energy needed to accelerate a heavy penetrator or large HEAT warhead is largely wasted... it makes rounds of ammo heavier and more expensive while attacking the vulnerable top of a vehicle is far easier... even 300mm penetration performance is enough for most targets.

    The new round for Armata will not be compatible with T-72 or T-90 IIRC.

    2A82 will have backwards compatibility with older shells though.

    Why?

    If they can fit the 2A82 to the T-90AM and T-90MS I don't see why it could not be fitted to any T-72 or later T series tank.

    - Has anybody seen the T-55 upgrade package that turns it into what is basically an older 80U? Russia might actually be able sell a few to the countries that still actively use the T-55.

    The entire turret is replaced with a T-72 turret and the engine and tracks and wheels and transmission are all changed... would make more sense to convert any T-55s into BTR-Ts and buy T-72s to upgrade.

    EFP's are only so effective and would be incredibly hard to properly aim when travel at such high speeds.

    Easy to aim... having them pointing forward and have the missile fly to impact the target...

    Self Forging Fragments however are often made of exotic materials that are not particularly hard and rely on velocity. Most have penetration performance inadequate to penetrate the sides of most tanks, though the roof of most tanks is very vulnerable anyway.

    Of course there is always overkill... GLONASS guided FAB-100s dropped from UCAVs would be very effective against any tank.


    _________________
    “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

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Kinetic energy Anti-tank weapons

    Post  TR1 on Sun Feb 01, 2015 10:37 am

    GarryB wrote:

    Why?

    If they can fit the 2A82 to the T-90AM and T-90MS I don't see why it could not be fitted to any T-72 or later T series tank.


    2A82 has never been fitted to any T-90 , only Obj 187 and experimental tanks. It is certainly not planned for any T-72 modernization.

    And even if we ignore the gun issue, Armata will have new rounds that are longer than even the T-90A allows for, since there will be no carousel width to account for. Can't make those fit into any T-72 legacy tank without essentially making a new vehicle.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Kinetic energy Anti-tank weapons

    Post  GarryB on Mon Feb 02, 2015 7:40 am

    The newest rounds I have read about are not excessively long and are compatible with the 2A82 gun.

    The whole point of having a 125mm gun in Armata was to save costs and weight and ammo commonality.

    AFAIK 2A82 is the gun fitted to the T-90AM and therefore also T-90MS.

    It was originally from this page:

    http://otvaga2004.narod.ru/xlopotov_8/t90m.htm

    Which if you follow the above link gives a 404 page missing message as it has clearly moved or deleted, but information from that page is here:

    http://igorrgroup.blogspot.co.nz/2010/01/90-new-specs.html

    where is says:

    - Totally new 2A82 125 mm MG (2A46M5 - optional).

    If they can fit it to an upgraded T-90M then they can fit it to any T-72 based design.

    Armata could carry rounds that are much longer... if needed, but a lock on after launch diving anti tank missile doesn't really benefit from being longer and neither to HEAT rounds generally.


    _________________
    “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

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Kinetic energy Anti-tank weapons

    Post  TR1 on Mon Feb 02, 2015 8:05 am

    Igor is wrong- all the info @ GurKhans indicated the gun is 2A46M5- and you can tell by the appearance. Looks identical to T-90As piece.

    The 2A82 is optional, but to date has not been seen. No reason why the barel can't be fitted to the T-90 or even T-72, if you are willing to pay for it.


    The reason they chose 125mm for Armata had a lot to do with ammunition capacity on the tank, plus lack of good 152mm rounds any time soon. With 125mm they are backwards compatible, so no need to change the whole stock right away. I imagine technical readiness and cost were also factors.

    But while the 2A82 can technically be fitted to both T-90AM or similar and Armata, the latter won't have the carousel, in order to use longer ammo (among other reasons). No reason to think they will not exploit the possible length to its full. We already saw some leaked photos of prototype rounds that were of massive length.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Kinetic energy Anti-tank weapons

    Post  TR1 on Mon Feb 02, 2015 8:13 am

    For example:
    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Qb9XwMuM0sQ/Tov_kMZIA2I/AAAAAAAAAwI/t-JNcezMh24/s1600/T-90MS_eng-8.jpg

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Kinetic energy Anti-tank weapons

    Post  Mike E on Mon Feb 02, 2015 8:41 am

    Thanks for the info TR1. Very Happy Looks like this thread is off to a good start. 

     - We've all gone 15 posts without insults and arguments! How can that be?

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Kinetic energy Anti-tank weapons

    Post  Mike E on Mon Feb 02, 2015 8:49 am

    GarryB wrote:

    EFP's are only so effective and would be incredibly hard to properly aim when travel at such high speeds.
    Easy to aim... having them pointing forward and have the missile fly to impact the target...

    Self Forging Fragments however are often made of exotic materials that are not particularly hard and rely on velocity. Most have penetration performance inadequate to penetrate the sides of most tanks, though the roof of most tanks is very vulnerable anyway.

    Of course there is always overkill... GLONASS guided FAB-100s dropped from UCAVs would be very effective against any tank.
    He is referring to the EFP getting fired from distance while traveling in air at high speeds. That would be like flying at Mach 2 and trying to hit a plate at 100 meters with a pistol...

    UAV's like that would be easy targets for just about anything.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Kinetic energy Anti-tank weapons

    Post  GarryB on Mon Feb 16, 2015 7:01 am

    But while the 2A82 can technically be fitted to both T-90AM or similar and Armata, the latter won't have the carousel, in order to use longer ammo (among other reasons). No reason to think they will not exploit the possible length to its full. We already saw some leaked photos of prototype rounds that were of massive length.

    The information I have calls the 2A46M5 the 2A82... just like the Su-27M is called the Su-35S in service.

    Why develop a 2A46M5 AND a 2A82? Do they have money to burn?

    With no crew the armata MBT might have a spiral carousel to allow much longer rounds with a small turret bustle to allow the rounds to be loaded into the gun, but most of the new rounds that were talked about that were undergoing testing did not sound excessively long to me.


    _________________
    “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

    collegeboy16
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1207
    Points : 1234
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Kinetic energy Anti-tank weapons

    Post  collegeboy16 on Mon Feb 16, 2015 10:35 am

    GarryB wrote:
    The information I have calls the 2A46M5 the 2A82... just like the Su-27M is called the Su-35S in service.

    Why develop a 2A46M5 AND a 2A82? Do they have money to burn?

    With no crew the armata MBT might have a spiral carousel to allow much longer rounds with a small turret bustle to allow the rounds to be loaded into the gun, but most of the new rounds that were talked about that were undergoing testing did not sound excessively long to me.
    maybe they developed the 2a46m5 back when they thought the T-95 was gonna be a thing- that monster was meant to serve as elite tank alongside more numerous T-90. when the whole thing got cancelled they prolly applied a lot of the technical solutions for the 152 mm gun to a new 125 mm gun- ive read propellant chamber volume on the level of 140mm guns, this 2a82 aint your l/55 to the l/44.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Kinetic energy Anti-tank weapons

    Post  GarryB on Tue Feb 17, 2015 9:13 am

    He is referring to the EFP getting fired from distance while traveling in air at high speeds. That would be like flying at Mach 2 and trying to hit a plate at 100 meters with a pistol...

    A SFF warhead is just a warhead like a HEAT warhead... the HEAT warhead of the HERMES or Vikhr have no problem hitting a target while flying faster than mach 2.

    Moving at about 6km/s a SFF moves in a fairly straight line... ground based anti helicopter mines developed by the Soviets quite a few years ago can hit a helicopter in flight with a SFF warhead fired from the ground...

    And as I said submunitions using a SFF warhead was developed in the late 1980s in the Soviet Union and deployed in the Late 1980s using MMW radar aiming.

    UAV's like that would be easy targets for just about anything.

    A MALE or HALE might be, but a micro UAV from 10 kms is neither an easy to see target or easy to track with IR or radar.

    they ended up having to deploy MiG-29s against Georgian UAVs in the 8 8 8 conflict because standard MANPADs wouldn't lock on such high altitude small targets and it was above the effective range of 23mm cannon. SA-17 could kill them but was over kill.

    maybe they developed the 2a46m5 back when they thought the T-95 was gonna be a thing- that monster was meant to serve as elite tank alongside more numerous T-90.

    they aren't working in a vaccuum... the developments of the 152mm gun will be known to the workers working on the upgrades of the 125mm gun and technology developed for one that is a step forward would no doubt be added to the other in time.


    _________________
    “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: Kinetic energy Anti-tank weapons

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 11:20 pm


      Current date/time is Sun Dec 04, 2016 11:20 pm