Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Share
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Mike E on Sat Oct 31, 2015 10:20 pm

    Replacing a 15 ton tracked vehicle with a 35 ton wheeled vehicle = logic
    avatar
    GarryB

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

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Sun Nov 01, 2015 9:04 am

    Replacing a 15 ton tracked vehicle with a 35 ton wheeled vehicle = logic

    Tracked vehicles are not inherently better protected than wheeled vehicles.

    Tracked or wheeled often indicates tactical mobility vs strategic mobility rather than protection levels as such.

    I was expecting the Boomerang wheeled vehicles to be in the same 25 ton class as the 25 ton Kurganets and in such a case if they had similar firepower and similar protection levels that the wheeled boomerangs would be more popular in some regions (ie western regions with good roads). If the fire power is the same and protection is comparable then the wheeled vehicles are cheaper and easier to operate.. faster and less of a pain to service and maintain... I could see them becoming very very popular in a range of roles.


    _________________
    “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
    SALDIRAY

    Posts : 15
    Points : 19
    Join date : 2015-05-31

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  SALDIRAY on Sun Feb 21, 2016 8:11 pm

    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Mike E on Sun Feb 21, 2016 10:03 pm

    if there is one thing the world does not need, it is a Turkish....tank, yes, a tank.

    Very Happy
    avatar
    higurashihougi

    Posts : 2149
    Points : 2250
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  higurashihougi on Mon Feb 22, 2016 3:40 am

    Anybody have comments about the new large-caliber gun on Leopard 2 ? Question Question Idea
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Mike E on Mon Feb 22, 2016 3:54 am

    Not much to say - it'll be larger, more powerful, and possibly ETC as well. Details are, of course, lacking, but we'll see but in the future. Now the big question is what ammunition it will fire.
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4488
    Points : 4661
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Mon Feb 22, 2016 4:46 am

    Mike E wrote:Not much to say - it'll be larger, more powerful, and possibly ETC as well. Details are, of course, lacking, but we'll see but in the future. Now the big question is what ammunition it will fire.

    Don't beat around the bush...chicks dig the long rods. Wink
    avatar
    Zivo

    Posts : 1491
    Points : 1521
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Zivo on Fri Feb 26, 2016 11:56 pm

    Declassified paper, depicts a project to upgrade the Chieftain with Burlington armor. Total weight of the armor package was 6.15 tons.



    The arrangement had to be modular, so for the glacis, like Armata, it employs the use of a beak.






    http://tankandafvnews.com/wo-194-1323-feasibility-study-on-burlington-chieftain/
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5358
    Points : 5587
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Werewolf on Sat Feb 27, 2016 12:04 am

    It would highly need it despite being 2nd gen western MBT the Chieftain can't even compete with T-55/62 in protection.
    avatar
    Zivo

    Posts : 1491
    Points : 1521
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Zivo on Sat Feb 27, 2016 12:36 am

    Werewolf wrote:It would highly need it despite being 2nd gen western MBT the Chieftain can't even compete with T-55/62 in protection.

    The base thickness of the glacis and lower hull does not instill confidence? Very Happy
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 965
    Points : 963
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Two years ago I watched a documentry about Leclerc.

    Post  Isos on Sun Mar 06, 2016 7:30 pm

    Vladimir,

    Two years ago I watched a documentry about Leclerc. They said they have just 4 tanks for training and all the rest (200 actives) is in storage with special conditions beacause they couldn't survive outdoor environment (humidity ...). And their production stoped.

    Having an very good but expensive hardware isn't good when it comes to war. You try to keep the little you have alive so tactics would be perfect (like US with their Apaches in Serbian didn't use them because of Manpads IIRC).

    On paper Leclerc is better but in a war against Russia 200 tanks is nothing. They can deal with it with BM-27/30 and sattelites and infantry ambushes with Kornets, RPG and IED (Spetsnaz-made not iraqi-made).

    Stopping 900 T-90 + 1000 BMP 1/2/3 + some Tigrs with kornets is more difficult.

    Against US you can just use Ka-52 and Mi-28 after bombing all the airports with some anti-runway missiles and some Iskanders so your helicopters wouldn't be attacked by their aviation.

    If you want to win against US in Europe:
    1) Destroy runways of all airports in Poland, Germany, and other nato east counrties with a big attack that involves Iskanders, cruise missiles, and aviation.
    2) Destroy all their aviation like Isreal did agains Egypt and their surfce to air systems.
    3) Use a lot of diesel subs to deny acces to their aircraft carrier.
    4) Use defense tactics with your ground forces to fix their one.
    5) Use aviation to hit their ground forces, specially Su-25 and big bombers like Tu-95.
    6) Use attack tactics with your ground forces and capture all their armies like it was done in WW2.
    7) Calm down and sign peace treaty before Nuclear attacks if they didn't happen yet.
    And that's done.

    Making a T-90 for fighting just Abrams is stupid. War is tactics. And before accepting a hardware you see if it can be usefull for your tactics not if it can beat it's nato homologue. Russian and US make their stuff according to their needs not because the opponant has something that seems better. 300 T-72 Bm + infantry equiped with kornets is better than 500 abrams if you have a good plan.

    Look at all the armies that imports stuff. They can win a potential war against an army that import stuff but not against an army that has it's stuff done by it's country. Because their isn't a global strategy behind.

    Russian T-72 were meant to be produced during the war like it was the case with T-34 (100 destroyed and 100 that come to replace them). Russians can use them because the strategy is to produce while fighting and submerge the oppenant. Irak had not the capacity to produce them and you can see the result (1991).

    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, 2016 10:56 am

    The same tactics as WWII will not work today.

    To have a chance against the best Russian tanks need to be better... and from what I have seen of the armata MBT they have clearly learned the lessons and put crew safety at the top of the list.

    Of course no armoured vehicle is invincible so having firepower and mobility means it can certainly fight back on equal or superior terms to any other vehicle.

    This is not about building a tank to face an Abrams... it is about building a tank that can survive on a modern battlefield with all sorts of threats and survive and be able to deal with targets and threats to support the infantry it operates with... and to equip the infantry with IFV and support vehicles and equipment to support the tanks., artillery, and air power... mutual support.


    _________________
    “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
    galicije83

    Posts : 42
    Points : 44
    Join date : 2015-04-30
    Age : 37
    Location : Novi Sad, Serbia

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  galicije83 on Mon Mar 07, 2016 12:46 pm

    Russia dont have 900 T-90s. Have less then 500 of them.

    T-72 was junk when he was made and its still is. This T-72 tanks dont have real chance against Leo2s, AMX-56s or M1A1/2.

    I know that because i was commander on Yugo M-84 tank, who have much batter FCS then any T-72 even a new one B3. I was trained on T-72M tanks fist then i move on M-84. Our M-84 is mercedes for this Russian junk.
    Only one good modernization of T72 tank was Rogatka but it was to expensive for Russians i guess so they go with this B3 modernization.

    Instead they modernized T-80Us they put them almost all in reserve (one division have operational T-80s i think and its 4th guard division).T-80U have much batter armor protection then any T-72 will have. It has much batter FCS, it is far batter tank then T-72 will be with all this new modernizations...

    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .


    TK-421

    Posts : 1
    Points : 1
    Join date : 2016-03-07

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  TK-421 on Mon Mar 07, 2016 2:47 pm

    galicije83 wrote:Russia dont have 900 T-90s. Have less then 500 of them.

    T-72 was junk when he was made and its still is. This T-72 tanks dont have real chance against Leo2s, AMX-56s or M1A1/2.

    I know that because i was commander on Yugo M-84 tank, who have much batter FCS then any T-72 even a new one B3. I was trained on T-72M tanks fist then i move on M-84. Our M-84 is mercedes for this Russian junk.
    Only one good modernization of T72 tank was Rogatka but it was to expensive for Russians i guess so they go with this B3 modernization.

    Instead they modernized T-80Us they put them almost all in reserve (one division have operational T-80s i think and its 4th guard division).T-80U have much batter armor protection then any T-72 will have. It has much batter FCS, it is far batter tank then T-72 will be with all this new modernizations...

    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .

    some shit here. t-72b passive armor as thick as t-80u if not better, M-84 do not have thermals and new APFSDSs. one thing that better is the engine. the recent contract to upgrade another 150 T-72B to new B3 version would have new engine. The story do not ends with B3 ver. 2013-2014.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5358
    Points : 5587
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Werewolf on Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:32 pm

    What imbecility has struck this guy?

    T-72 shit?

    First of all you haven't seen a real T-72 my yugo friend the only thing you have ever touched are export models which are inferior. The other thing is the T-72 is the king of all second generation tanks and is the only Tank that can meet requirements of a 3rd Generation tank or a modern battlefield. No other second gen tank could that far, hell the chieftain was inferior to the T-62 not to mention T-62M or any tank that followed.

    Calling a T-72 shit does not give you any credibility especialy with such a nickname.
    avatar
    Walther von Oldenburg

    Posts : 920
    Points : 975
    Join date : 2015-01-23
    Age : 26
    Location : Oldenburg

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Walther von Oldenburg on Tue Mar 08, 2016 11:34 am

    He says T-80U has better protection than every version of T-72 - which is of course total BS. Late 1980s T-72B and T-80U have comparable levels of protection.

    Original T-72 Ural was superior to every tank in the world at the time it entered production. It had excellent armor, was highly mobile and was 3rd tank in the world to be equipped with 120+ mm cannon (after T-64 and Chieftain). It could beat the crap out of M-60, Chieftain and Leopard 1 and fight on equal grounds with early versions of Abrams as it had a 105 mm gun
    avatar
    galicije83

    Posts : 42
    Points : 44
    Join date : 2015-04-30
    Age : 37
    Location : Novi Sad, Serbia

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  galicije83 on Tue Mar 08, 2016 3:10 pm

    T-80U and T-72B have almost same Hull armor protection against Sabots, but T-80U have much more protection on Turret against sabots and HEAT then T-72B (only T-90A have batter HEAT protection on turret then T-80U). U have T-72Bs from late 80s with K5, same as B3. B3 have just batter FCS, then old B, but still this FCS is far far from modern FCS on westerns tank, and far far from FCS on T-90A.

    Yes our M-84s and M-84As dont have thermovision sights but we have much superior FCS then old T-72B. Russian Bs have IR sights of 2 generation in 80s we have 3rd generation on our M-84s. At late 80s we made new prototype of tank call Vihor with many upgrades such ass new FCS with thermovision, batter armor protection, new engine with 1200Hp, new auto transmission, new AT ammo...unfortunately war start in Yugoslavia in 1991 and we never made this new tank Vihor.

    My good friends (from my ex unit) was on last tank biathlon and they see what this NEW FCS on B3 can. They tell me that our FCS from late 80s still is batter then this new on T-72B3, only good thing is thermovision. And this is not bullshits came from my mouths.

    In 1985 when Yugoslavia send 2-3 M-84 to USSR as part of license contract Russian tell after trails that M-84 is 2 times batter then T-72A, and 1.5 times batter then T-80BV version as we speak about FCS. Our FCS was one of the best in world at that time.

    Yugo M-84A have almost same armor protection as T-72B and batter then T-72M1 export version of T-72 all without K5 ERA.

    Later i will tell u how our M-84As kick ass M1s in trails in SA in 1991......


    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3939
    Points : 3966
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Tue Mar 08, 2016 4:37 pm

    galicije83 wrote:T-80U and T-72B have almost same Hull armor protection against Sabots, but T-80U have much more protection on Turret against sabots and HEAT then T-72B (only T-90A have batter HEAT protection on turret then T-80U). U have T-72Bs from late 80s with K5, same as B3. B3 have just batter FCS, then old B, but still this FCS is far far from modern FCS on westerns tank, and far far from FCS on T-90A.  

    Yes our M-84s and M-84As dont have thermovision sights but we have much superior FCS then old T-72B. Russian Bs have IR sights of 2 generation in 80s we have 3rd generation on our M-84s. At late 80s we made new prototype of tank call Vihor with many upgrades such ass new FCS with thermovision, batter armor protection, new engine with 1200Hp, new auto transmission, new AT ammo...unfortunately war start in Yugoslavia in 1991 and we never made this new tank Vihor.    

    My good friends (from my ex unit) was on last tank biathlon and they see what this NEW FCS on B3 can. They tell me that our FCS from late 80s still is batter then this new on T-72B3, only good thing is thermovision. And this is not bullshits came from my mouths.  

    In 1985 when Yugoslavia send 2-3 M-84 to USSR as part of license contract Russian tell after trails that M-84 is 2 times batter then T-72A, and 1.5 times batter then T-80BV version as we speak about FCS. Our FCS was one of the best in world at that time.

    Yugo M-84A have almost same armor protection as T-72B and batter then T-72M1 export version of T-72 all without K5 ERA.

    Later i will tell u how our M-84As kick ass M1s in trails in SA in 1991......



    No you tell us first, what anxiolytic you mixed with crack cocaine this morning.
    avatar
    OminousSpudd

    Posts : 901
    Points : 918
    Join date : 2015-01-03
    Age : 22
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  OminousSpudd on Tue Mar 08, 2016 6:39 pm

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    galicije83 wrote:T-80U and T-72B have almost same Hull armor protection against Sabots, but T-80U have much more protection on Turret against sabots and HEAT then T-72B (only T-90A have batter HEAT protection on turret then T-80U). U have T-72Bs from late 80s with K5, same as B3. B3 have just batter FCS, then old B, but still this FCS is far far from modern FCS on westerns tank, and far far from FCS on T-90A.  

    Yes our M-84s and M-84As dont have thermovision sights but we have much superior FCS then old T-72B. Russian Bs have IR sights of 2 generation in 80s we have 3rd generation on our M-84s. At late 80s we made new prototype of tank call Vihor with many upgrades such ass new FCS with thermovision, batter armor protection, new engine with 1200Hp, new auto transmission, new AT ammo...unfortunately war start in Yugoslavia in 1991 and we never made this new tank Vihor.    

    My good friends (from my ex unit) was on last tank biathlon and they see what this NEW FCS on B3 can. They tell me that our FCS from late 80s still is batter then this new on T-72B3, only good thing is thermovision. And this is not bullshits came from my mouths.  

    In 1985 when Yugoslavia send 2-3 M-84 to USSR as part of license contract Russian tell after trails that M-84 is 2 times batter then T-72A, and 1.5 times batter then T-80BV version as we speak about FCS. Our FCS was one of the best in world at that time.

    Yugo M-84A have almost same armor protection as T-72B and batter then T-72M1 export version of T-72 all without K5 ERA.

    Later i will tell u how our M-84As kick ass M1s in trails in SA in 1991......



    No you tell us first, what anxiolytic you mixed with crack cocaine this morning.

    When Serbia strong goes to the other extreme... clown

    Bankoletti

    Posts : 4
    Points : 6
    Join date : 2016-02-27

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Bankoletti on Thu Mar 10, 2016 9:39 am

    galicije83 wrote:our FCS from late 80s

    That's Iskra Fotona's FCS, right?
    avatar
    Book.

    Posts : 699
    Points : 760
    Join date : 2015-05-08
    Location : Oregon, USA

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Book. on Tue Apr 12, 2016 2:12 am

    Ukrane Tank T-64: Remote Tirex

    Here: http://twower.livejournal.com/1947915.html

    The proposal of IG "Azov" of the project "Tirex" is a deep modernization of T-64, which, according to developers, allows to solve two crucial problems of today, and one - a perspective. First. Ensure rapid saturation tank and mechanized units of model equipment, which by its combat effectiveness will be comparable, and the introduction of tactical control system - and exceed the "BM" Hold "is probably the most modern Ukrainian tank.

    According to the criterion of "cost-effectiveness", "Tirex", as claimed by its creators, will exceed the capabilities of the T-64 in the form of BM "Bulat", in particular on mobility and the use of the tank weapons at night, but have a comparable price parameters

    It will also allow painlessly and cost-effectively upgrade individual components and platforms as new components and improved manufacturing system. "Our position is that the T-64 in Ukraine the existing fleet allows you to quickly create on its basis a new machine with the necessary combat capability.

    In terms of features, they are comparable to the most modern armored combat vehicles of our enemy, including the highly publicized "Armata". But our project - it's not the future of the tank, it's a massive tank for today and for a certain transition period.





    Look like baby apmata
    avatar
    higurashihougi

    Posts : 2149
    Points : 2250
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  higurashihougi on Tue Apr 12, 2016 9:28 am

    I suspect that somebody is trying to mimic the outer apperance of T-14.
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2967
    Points : 2998
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  max steel on Sat Apr 16, 2016 12:17 am

    Off Topic

    Marines May Protect Tanks With Active and EW Protection Systems, Much Like Ship Self-Defense


    USMC considering Trophy systems for armored vehicles. You thoughts ?  

    As anti-tank threats are growing increasingly sophisticated, the Marine Corps is looking at protecting its ground vehicles with active protection and electronic warfare systems to fend off incoming rounds the same way ships and planes do today.

    Lt. Gen. Robert Walsh, deputy commandant for combat development and integration, said at a Senate Armed Services seapower subcommittee hearing on Wednesday that as technology proliferates, the anti-tank threat is rapidly evolving. The Navy is investing in protecting its ships and aircraft from similar threats, and Walsh said it’s time for the Marine Corps to take the same approach for its ground vehicles.

    “When we start getting threats on our aircraft, our helicopters, our fixed wing aircraft, [from] infrared missiles, we quickly put out a capability to defeat those types of missiles,” he said.

    “Now we’re seeing the threat on the ground changing, becoming a much more sophisticated threat on the ground. What we’ve continued to do is up-armor our capabilities on the ground, put armor on them. We’ve got to start thinking more with a higher technology capability, with vehicle protective systems, active protective systems that can defeat anti-tank guided munitions, RPGs (rocket-propelled grenades) … along with soft capability, which is the technology our aircraft have.”

    To that end, the Marine Corps is partnering with the Army to test out the Israeli Trophy Active Protection System (APS). The Army is leasing four systems and will experiment with their Stryker combat vehicle and M1A2 tanks. The Marine Corps is currently modifying some of its M1A1 tanks to install mounts for the Trophy system, and the service will later work with the Army to test the protective system on the Marine tanks against anti-tank guided missiles and RPGs, he told USNI News after the hearing.

    The Trophy system has both an active and a soft component. When sensors detect an incoming threat, the active system fires small rounds to deflect the threat, Walsh said, noting that “when they’re going that fast, it doesn’t take much to deflect them away.”



    The soft side uses jammers in the same way ship and aircraft self-protection systems do.

    “The anti-ship missiles are getting better and better, so the Navy’s having to continue to put better capabilities on the ships to be able to defeat it,” he said, with the Marine Corps now seeing those same advances in anti-tank technologies.

    “I think that’s the side we’re really going to benefit from the Navy capabilities, because the Navy has some very good EW (electronic warfare) capabilities. So getting into our warfare centers and working with the Navy on how to get better at electronic warfare capabilities, that’s the soft side of it.”

    Walsh added that the Marines are also investing in unmanned aerial systems to help with reconnaissance, to try to find the enemy before they can launch missiles at American tanks. Even with more eyes in the sky, the enemy will still be able to fire off shots, and Walsh said the Marines need to do better than simply adding more armor to protect personnel inside from blasts.

    With all the extra armor, the vehicles are getting so heavy that mobility is suffering, he said.

    “And certainly being with the Navy, coming from the sea, we want to be able to be lighter and quicker,” Walsh said.
    “And so I think technology is getting smaller – we talk about that all the time – the technology and processors are getting smaller to allow us to put it … on each individual vehicle in the future.”

    More broadly, Walsh said at the hearing that the Marine Corps is in the midst of conducting a force structure assessment to understand what type of force and of what size it will need to succeed in the future operating environment, much like the Navy is conducting an FSA to inform future ship count requirements.

    “In fact I just left the commandant and senior leadership just before I came over here, and we’re conducting our force structure assessment, and it’s all projecting into that future operating environment,” Walsh told the senators.

    “And we see this as probably the most complex operating environment, both at the lower end of the spectrum and certainly at the higher end of the spectrum. And we have not really seen since the Cold War these types of capabilities, when you start getting into precision weapons, ability to sense the area and also working in the electromagnetic spectrum.”


    They never heard of RPG-30 lol1



    Trophy has a number of different issues, some of which have been criticized by the US

    back when they originally rejected Trophy in 2006.

    Trophy uses a multi-EFP countermeasure, i.e. a metal box/tube with multiple pre-made indentations, which is containing an explosive charge. Upon detonation the indentations will form small EFPs (explosively formed penetrators) which will be used as a "shotgun-like" cloud of EFPs/fragments to destroy the missile/RPG.
    This however means that there is a higher chance of injuring dismounted soldiers and civilians. According to official figures from the Israeli company Rafael (manufacturer of Trophy), the chance of injuring an allied soldier/civilian is just 1%. However the IDF has different doctrines (e.g. there Namer only serves as battle taxi, infantry doesn't operate directly alongside armored vehicles) and thus the figures might not be valid for the US. At least the US Army considered Trophy to be too dangerous compared to other alternatives.

    Multi-EFP warheads cannot defeat KE penetrators such as

    Another issue of Trophy is the launcher design. Trophy's launcher can only hold one interceptor at a time, hence it is required to have a large and bulky autoloader (which in case of the Merkava 4M replaces some of the side armor). After firing the countermeasure, the autoloader has to reload the launcher, for which the launcher has to rotate into neutral position. Given Trophy only uses two launchers (one each side) and that the launchers do not overlap (coverage is only ~180-200° per launcher), this means that Trophy cannot intercept two RPGs/missiles at the same time (or fired in a short intervall).

    On the original autoloader prototype, there was only storage for 3 countermeasures. For restocking/reloading the autoloader, the crew has to leave the vehicle and manually insert the countermeasures after opening a hatch to the autoloader. This cannot be done in combat.

    Then there is the reaction time. According to estimates/measurements published in a German defence magazine, Trophy has a reaction time of 300-400 milliseconds. So if an RPG is launched from close range (say 50 metres / 150 feet) and has a muzzle velocity of about 150 m/s, then Trophy won't be able to intercept the RPG before it impacts on the tank/APC.



    Somebody has measured the time required for reloading Trophy in a marketing video from Rafael. It takes 1.74 seconds to reload and turn the launcher to 90° from the tank. This means a fast-flying missile/RPG (300-400 mps) cannot be intercepted when fired from closer than 500-700 metres!

    Other active protection systems like LEDS-150 from SAAB, AVePs from Diehl or box-based systems like (AMAP-)ADS and Arena do offer more ready to use countermeasures, less probability of injuring allied soliders/civilians and have overlapping launchers.
    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3939
    Points : 3966
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Sun Apr 17, 2016 11:06 am

    max steel wrote:Off Topic

    Marines May Protect Tanks With Active and EW Protection Systems, Much Like Ship Self-Defense


    USMC considering Trophy systems for armored vehicles. You thoughts ?  

    As anti-tank threats are growing increasingly sophisticated, the Marine Corps is looking at protecting its ground vehicles with active protection and electronic warfare systems to fend off incoming rounds the same way ships and planes do today.

    Lt. Gen. Robert Walsh, deputy commandant for combat development and integration, said at a Senate Armed Services seapower subcommittee hearing on Wednesday that as technology proliferates, the anti-tank threat is rapidly evolving. The Navy is investing in protecting its ships and aircraft from similar threats, and Walsh said it’s time for the Marine Corps to take the same approach for its ground vehicles.

    “When we start getting threats on our aircraft, our helicopters, our fixed wing aircraft, [from] infrared missiles, we quickly put out a capability to defeat those types of missiles,” he said.

    “Now we’re seeing the threat on the ground changing, becoming a much more sophisticated threat on the ground. What we’ve continued to do is up-armor our capabilities on the ground, put armor on them. We’ve got to start thinking more with a higher technology capability, with vehicle protective systems, active protective systems that can defeat anti-tank guided munitions, RPGs (rocket-propelled grenades) … along with soft capability, which is the technology our aircraft have.”

    To that end, the Marine Corps is partnering with the Army to test out the Israeli Trophy Active Protection System (APS). The Army is leasing four systems and will experiment with their Stryker combat vehicle and M1A2 tanks. The Marine Corps is currently modifying some of its M1A1 tanks to install mounts for the Trophy system, and the service will later work with the Army to test the protective system on the Marine tanks against anti-tank guided missiles and RPGs, he told USNI News after the hearing.

    The Trophy system has both an active and a soft component. When sensors detect an incoming threat, the active system fires small rounds to deflect the threat, Walsh said, noting that “when they’re going that fast, it doesn’t take much to deflect them away.”



    The soft side uses jammers in the same way ship and aircraft self-protection systems do.

    “The anti-ship missiles are getting better and better, so the Navy’s having to continue to put better capabilities on the ships to be able to defeat it,” he said, with the Marine Corps now seeing those same advances in anti-tank technologies.

    “I think that’s the side we’re really going to benefit from the Navy capabilities, because the Navy has some very good EW (electronic warfare) capabilities. So getting into our warfare centers and working with the Navy on how to get better at electronic warfare capabilities, that’s the soft side of it.”

    Walsh added that the Marines are also investing in unmanned aerial systems to help with reconnaissance, to try to find the enemy before they can launch missiles at American tanks. Even with more eyes in the sky, the enemy will still be able to fire off shots, and Walsh said the Marines need to do better than simply adding more armor to protect personnel inside from blasts.

    With all the extra armor, the vehicles are getting so heavy that mobility is suffering, he said.

    “And certainly being with the Navy, coming from the sea, we want to be able to be lighter and quicker,” Walsh said.
    “And so I think technology is getting smaller – we talk about that all the time – the technology and processors are getting smaller to allow us to put it … on each individual vehicle in the future.”

    More broadly, Walsh said at the hearing that the Marine Corps is in the midst of conducting a force structure assessment to understand what type of force and of what size it will need to succeed in the future operating environment, much like the Navy is conducting an FSA to inform future ship count requirements.

    “In fact I just left the commandant and senior leadership just before I came over here, and we’re conducting our force structure assessment, and it’s all projecting into that future operating environment,” Walsh told the senators.

    “And we see this as probably the most complex operating environment, both at the lower end of the spectrum and certainly at the higher end of the spectrum. And we have not really seen since the Cold War these types of capabilities, when you start getting into precision weapons, ability to sense the area and also working in the electromagnetic spectrum.”


    They never heard of RPG-30 lol1



    Trophy has a number of different issues, some of which have been criticized by the US

    back when they originally rejected Trophy in 2006.

    Trophy uses a multi-EFP countermeasure, i.e. a metal box/tube with multiple pre-made indentations, which is containing an explosive charge. Upon detonation the indentations will form small EFPs (explosively formed penetrators) which will be used as a "shotgun-like" cloud of EFPs/fragments to destroy the missile/RPG.
    This however means that there is a higher chance of injuring dismounted soldiers and civilians. According to official figures from the Israeli company Rafael (manufacturer of Trophy), the chance of injuring an allied soldier/civilian is just 1%. However the IDF has different doctrines (e.g. there Namer only serves as battle taxi, infantry doesn't operate directly alongside armored vehicles) and thus the figures might not be valid for the US. At least the US Army considered Trophy to be too dangerous compared to other alternatives.

    Multi-EFP warheads cannot defeat KE penetrators such as

    Another issue of Trophy is the launcher design. Trophy's launcher can only hold one interceptor at a time, hence it is required to have a large and bulky autoloader (which in case of the Merkava 4M replaces some of the side armor). After firing the countermeasure, the autoloader has to reload the launcher, for which the launcher has to rotate into neutral position. Given Trophy only uses two launchers (one each side) and that the launchers do not overlap (coverage is only ~180-200° per launcher), this means that Trophy cannot intercept two RPGs/missiles at the same time (or fired in a short intervall).

    On the original autoloader prototype, there was only storage for 3 countermeasures. For restocking/reloading the autoloader, the crew has to leave the vehicle and manually insert the countermeasures after opening a hatch to the autoloader. This cannot be done in combat.

    Then there is the reaction time. According to estimates/measurements published in a German defence magazine, Trophy has a reaction time of 300-400 milliseconds. So if an RPG is launched from close range (say 50 metres / 150 feet) and has a muzzle velocity of about 150 m/s, then Trophy won't be able to intercept the RPG before it impacts on the tank/APC.



    Somebody has measured the time required for reloading Trophy in a marketing video from Rafael. It takes 1.74 seconds to reload and turn the launcher to 90° from the tank. This means a fast-flying missile/RPG (300-400 mps) cannot be intercepted when fired from closer than 500-700 metres!

    Other active protection systems like LEDS-150 from SAAB, AVePs from Diehl or box-based systems like (AMAP-)ADS and Arena do offer more ready to use countermeasures, less probability of injuring allied soliders/civilians and have overlapping launchers.

    Saturation is an easy answer. And actually the Trophy will be able to intercept the first threat. The issue is with the followup in a dense environment.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5358
    Points : 5587
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Werewolf on Sun Apr 17, 2016 1:27 pm

    The answer is always to overwhelm the APS system. It is similiar to Battleships, they are capable of intercepting Anti Ship Missiles, but the question is how many in what short time are necessary to destroy it. That is why the tactic is to flood it and overwhelm the defensive capabilities aswell to assure a destruction and not just damaging it. Tanks and ships are equal subjects to such tactics.

    Sponsored content

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Dec 14, 2017 10:03 pm