Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Share
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sun Mar 06, 2011 3:17 pm

    ARENA's max threat-engagement elevation is 15 degrees.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Mon Mar 07, 2011 12:58 am


    RPG-29s are powerful but outdated, cold war 80s stuff. Kornet's
    really the only new kid on the block for a long time. Doubt we'll see
    any "effective" counter-counter measure v.s. modern APS for maybe 10
    years.

    RPG-32 is new and pretty cool in its flexibility, but less powerful than RPG-28.

    Javelin has top dive angle of about 45° so I think it is possible for ARENA or Drozd to engage it.

    Javelin only has a dive angle of 45 degrees when it is in fire and forget mode and it can only be fired in the fire and forget mode if it has an IR signature to lock on to... with Nakidka it probably doesn't so it would follow a normal flight path of a standard ATGM.
    avatar
    nightcrawler

    Posts : 534
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 28
    Location : Pakistan

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  nightcrawler on Mon Mar 07, 2011 9:17 am

    I have been told that Drozd never became operational & was scrapped in the 83s
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  IronsightSniper on Mon Mar 07, 2011 11:31 am

    GarryB wrote:

    RPG-29s are powerful but outdated, cold war 80s stuff. Kornet's
    really the only new kid on the block for a long time. Doubt we'll see
    any "effective" counter-counter measure v.s. modern APS for maybe 10
    years.

    RPG-32 is new and pretty cool in its flexibility, but less powerful than RPG-28.

    Javelin has top dive angle of about 45° so I think it is possible for ARENA or Drozd to engage it.

    Javelin only has a dive angle of 45 degrees when it is in fire and forget mode and it can only be fired in the fire and forget mode if it has an IR signature to lock on to... with Nakidka it probably doesn't so it would follow a normal flight path of a standard ATGM.

    Nakidka doesn't actually reduce the signature too much. The seekers on a Javelin will have less time to lock on to the tank but for the most part, Nakidka's purpose is to reduce the reduce it takes for the IR on an enemy tank to see it.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Mon Mar 07, 2011 12:36 pm

    I have been told that Drozd never became operational & was scrapped in the 83s

    It did not enter service but was field tested in Afghanistan where it was reasonably successful, but not considered worth the cost.

    It was further developed into the Drodz 2 which offered wider coverage in competition with ARENA.

    With a fleet of 20,000 tanks it would be expensive to give every tank an APS like system.

    Now that they are dropping down to 6-8 thousand it might make more sense to protect the tanks you have better.
    avatar
    nightcrawler

    Posts : 534
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 28
    Location : Pakistan

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  nightcrawler on Tue Mar 08, 2011 9:24 am

    Conclusions (VF)

    * RPG-29 proved to be by far the most potent weapon among those used. As powerful as heavy ATGM Kornet, it appeared to assure the frontal penetration of T-80U even for the squad-level firepower. Even though T-90 fared better, it is still not immune to it. Considering sufficient proliferation of this weapon and the fact that this is still a fairly light infantry weapon, it is the most dangerous adversary of modern Russian MBTs, and is a very disturbing development.
    * Original reports that ATGM Kornet performance is severely degraded by ERA due to its peculiar order of internal components proved true as the ATGM with at least 100mm higher penetrating potential was not superior to a much lighter RPG-29.
    * Report of Shtora-1 EOCMDAS trials is confusing. Being laser-guided, ATGM Kornet should not suffer any interference from Shtora as it only affects IR SACLOS ATGMs. Furthermore, ATGMs can only deviate to the left if the marker is set to the left of both emitters, which is hardly likely. It is possible, however unlikely, that it was caused by a sloppy work of removal the warhead which e.g. could cause a gyro cofusion.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20080129043924/http://russianarmor.info/Tanks/TRIALS/19991020.html
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Wed Mar 09, 2011 3:02 am

    * Original reports that ATGM Kornet performance is severely degraded by ERA due to its peculiar order of internal components proved true as the ATGM with at least 100mm higher penetrating potential was not superior to a much lighter RPG-29.

    There were initial problems with the internal arrangement of components with the KORNET which led to its performance revised from 1.2m down to 1m. Improvements have since resulted in a 1.2m claimed penetration performance under ERA so it seems they solved the problems... note these trials are now 10 years old.
    avatar
    nightcrawler

    Posts : 534
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 28
    Location : Pakistan

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  nightcrawler on Wed Mar 09, 2011 9:46 am

    Another question from my side.
    ATGM Kornet should not suffer any interference from Shtora as it only affects IR SACLOS ATGMs. Furthermore, ATGMs can only deviate to the left if the marker is set to the left of both emitters, which is hardly likely.

    Whynt Kornet is interfered provided both Kornet & SACLOS are 2nd generation ATGMs??
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Wed Mar 09, 2011 10:39 pm

    Most wire guided SACLOS missiles like TOW and AT-5 and HOT and Milan and METIS etc have a small flare in the tail of the missile... or newer versions have IR lamps there, and while the operator guides the missile simply by keeping the crosshair on the target the launcher has two optical ports... one a sight for the user to keep his crosshair on the target, and the other a gionometer which detects the flare or IR light from the tail of the missile to determine where the missile actually is so that its position in relation to the aim point can be calculated and control signals can be sent down the wires to command the missile to manoeuvre into the line of sight so it flys down the crosshair line to hit the target.

    The Kornet on the other hand is a laser beam rider, the launcher does not care where the missile is and has no gionometer to track it. The launcher has a coded laser beam of four colours and it is the missile that has a sensor looking back at the launcher that can see the laser beam. If the four colours are red, blue, green and yellow with say red in the top left, blue in the top right, green in the bottom left and yellow in the bottom right if the missile sees yellow it knows it is low and to the right so it manoeuvres itself up and to the left until it can see all four colours and then it knows it is in the centre of aim.

    When Shtora is operating it appears to be intensely bright in the IR frequencies so for the wire guided missiles the gionometer is trying to see the IR signal of the missile in the huge beams of the Shtora and it is like trying to see a candle in front of a search light... if the launcher can't see the missile then it can't guide it to the target... it doesn't know what course corrections to send.

    For the laser beam riding missile the missile is looking away from the target tank so Shtora can't interfere with its guidance... its only defence is smoke and by the time Kornet gets inside the smoke cloud it will be within about 200m of the target... so lets say it penetrates 50m into the smoke cloud before it loses sight of the laser beam it only has another 150m to the target... if the missile just carrys on straight it would have a fairly good chance of still hitting the target.

    An important factor of course is that because the sensor looks directly at the laser rather than looking forward at a laser beam reflecting off the target the laser used is 4 orders of magnitude less powerful and is not effected by the colour or reflectivity of the target. (4 orders of magnitude is 10,000 times less powerful... which means the laser sensor might mistake it for the reflections of a laser pointed at something nearby or the tanks own laser being used to get a range on a target.)
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Wed May 18, 2011 5:24 am

    Anyone that can something similar from different countries...

    Nakidka kits for Russian tanks and vehicles and cloaks for infantry reduce IR signature and radar and optical signatures all at once.



    My question is that with that big screen attached to the side of Israeli vehicles... how do they see to drive?

    Would be perfect against Javelin. Useless against everything else.
    avatar
    nightcrawler

    Posts : 534
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 28
    Location : Pakistan

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  nightcrawler on Wed May 18, 2011 12:03 pm

    But Nakidka kits passive in nature & this an active counter-measure..besides deception feature of this device is good. Mean you can change tank to ICBM launchers. Also the efficiency of Nakidka is dubious against FLIRs

    My question is that with that big screen attached to the side of Israeli vehicles... how do they see to drive?

    If you see the second video the top mounter IR masking camera can deliver full 360 degree black/white visual coverage to inside crew
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3245
    Points : 3331
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  medo on Wed May 18, 2011 4:09 pm

    But Nakidka kits passive in nature & this an active counter-measure..besides deception feature of this device is good. Mean you can change tank to ICBM launchers. Also the efficiency of Nakidka is dubious against FLIRs

    Nakidka is passive and is effective against radar and FLIR to reduce the picture. This Israeli system is active, so it need additional energy to work. If energy generator in vehicle is not strong enough, there could be a problem in working of other systems.Also how is this system effective against image intensifiers and radars?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Israel ground arm

    Post  GarryB on Thu May 19, 2011 4:40 am

    But Nakidka kits passive in nature & this an active counter-measure..besides deception feature of this device is good. Mean you can change tank to ICBM launchers. Also the efficiency of Nakidka is dubious against FLIRs

    Nakidka reduces IR and radar signature, whereas this system seems to only operate against IR and it is likely much more expensive.

    The main question is will it work against all IR frequency options (short, medium, and long wave IR sensors)... and of course the obvious problem will it also work against LLLTV or digital TV... especially when the target is moving?


    If you see the second video the top mounter IR masking camera can deliver full 360 degree black/white visual coverage to inside crew

    Except that the camouflage are limited to being displayed on fixed displays... what if one fails in combat?
    avatar
    Cyberspec

    Posts : 2142
    Points : 2307
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Cyberspec on Mon Sep 05, 2011 11:16 pm

    Some info and pics on a new Russian tank engine (translated from Gur Khans blog)

    The Fiery Heart of the Russian Tanks
    http://sovietoutpost.revdisk.org/?p=21#comment-35

    Interesting....it looks like 2 V-6 engines joined together, meaning a 12 cylinder engine yet relatively compact.

    Austin

    Posts : 6443
    Points : 6844
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Austin on Tue Sep 06, 2011 9:23 am

    Cyberspec wrote:The Fiery Heart of the Russian Tanks
    http://sovietoutpost.revdisk.org/?p=21#comment-35

    Interesting....it looks like 2 V-6 engines joined together, meaning a 12 cylinder engine yet relatively compact.

    Looks like its on the catalog , some specs on the new engine

    http://chtz-uraltrac.ru/catalog/items/206.php

    How does it compared on fuel consumption and other parameters compared to western counterparts ?
    avatar
    Cyberspec

    Posts : 2142
    Points : 2307
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Cyberspec on Thu Sep 08, 2011 12:25 am

    Austin wrote:
    Cyberspec wrote:The Fiery Heart of the Russian Tanks
    http://sovietoutpost.revdisk.org/?p=21#comment-35

    Interesting....it looks like 2 V-6 engines joined together, meaning a 12 cylinder engine yet relatively compact.

    Looks like its on the catalog , some specs on the new engine

    http://chtz-uraltrac.ru/catalog/items/206.php

    How does it compared on fuel consumption and other parameters compared to western counterparts ?

    Looks like it's comparable to the latest German diesel engines...

    http://www.mtu-online.com/mtu/products/engine-program/diesel-engines-for-wheeled-and-tracked-armored-vehicles/engines-for-heavy-vehicles/
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Thu Sep 08, 2011 7:07 am

    Looks like it's comparable to the latest German diesel engines...

    Which is rather impressive considering less than 2 years ago everything the Russians made was crap and they are 30 years behind NATO etc etc.

    Very interesting looking at the above pictures showing the turret bustle from different angles.

    The left side of the turret bustle is all ERA blocks protecting the side of the turret bustle, yet the right sight appears to have a large rectangular tool bin with three latches on it.

    Would love to see better pictures of the turret bustle from above... those roof access hatches look interesting.

    Thanks for those pics BTW Kratos1133...

    Austin

    Posts : 6443
    Points : 6844
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Austin on Thu Sep 08, 2011 10:20 am

    Just to get the record straight

    The US and Russian equivalent of tank versus tank of their respective generation were

    T-72 was made to match US M60
    T-80 was made to match US M1A1
    T-90/90AM was made to match M1A2/A2 Tusk
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Some info and pics on a new Russian tank engine (translated from Gur Khans blog)

    Post  GarryB on Thu Sep 08, 2011 12:15 pm

    Well technically no...

    At the time the T-72 was being mass produced as a numbers tank the US numbers tank would probably have been the M48.

    The Soviet equivalent to the M60 would have been the T-64.

    Austin

    Posts : 6443
    Points : 6844
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Austin on Sat Sep 10, 2011 6:54 pm

    Documentary on T-80


    Austin

    Posts : 6443
    Points : 6844
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Documentary on T-80

    Post  Austin on Sat Sep 10, 2011 7:29 pm

    If smooth bore gun of T-80 tank can fire HE-Frag round against bunkers, fortification etc why do they specially need rifled bore to fire HESH round ?

    Well the main reason why India went for rifled bore of Arjun was it could fire HESH round.

    Austin

    Posts : 6443
    Points : 6844
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Austin on Mon Sep 12, 2011 12:32 pm

    1 ) Does the missile firing ability of T-80/90 allows you to fire a missile at a target and the gunner goes about hunting for other target and fires a KE round , while the missile goes about doing it job or does the target against which the missile is fired needs to be lased and pointed at till it hits it which for a max range is 14 sec ?

    2 ) What was West response to missile capability that existed since T-80 , I do not find western tank with missile capability why has west neglected this advancement ?
    avatar
    KRATOS1133

    Posts : 28
    Points : 41
    Join date : 2011-08-11
    Location : Algeria

    1 ) Does the missile firing ability of T-80/90

    Post  KRATOS1133 on Mon Sep 12, 2011 12:44 pm



    Acrab

    Posts : 6
    Points : 11
    Join date : 2011-10-01

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Acrab on Sat Oct 01, 2011 5:37 pm

    Austin,
    can you tell what are the major difference between the Leopard 2A4 & 2A5 & 2A6?
    TIA

    Austin

    Posts : 6443
    Points : 6844
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    major difference between the Leopard 2A4 & 2A5 & 2A6?

    Post  Austin on Sat Oct 01, 2011 6:37 pm

    Acrab wrote:Austin,
    can you tell what are the major difference between the Leopard 2A4 & 2A5 & 2A6?
    TIA

    Acrab , this is a good site that would answer your question on Leopard
    http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm

    Sponsored content

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Dec 15, 2017 1:19 pm