So you'd agree that there is no Russian 125mm round that's longer than the BM-42M?
The BM-42M was developed in the late 1990s I rather expect, considering they have come out with a new APFSDS round every 4 years or so that there are likely at least 2 other designs we don't know anything about, and if they haven't already they will right now be developing newer longer penetrators knowing that the T-90AM is the new standard T-90 tank design.
Let me rephrase that, no Russian 125mm round that we know of?
You are still not understanding what I am saying. I wasn't referring to
the round; you were. I was referring to the penetrator, the thing that
actually will hit the tank. That thing is only 500 mm long, why you
thought it was 700 mm was your mistake. Like I said, why you didn't
understand the difference between the two, I don't know.
Because if you look at the APFSDS section in the left hand side below where it links to the overview posted above, there is a link below it called nomenclature and if you click on that link it lists all the rounds known at the time the page was written and if you scroll to near the bottom it lists the details of the round in a table.
Under the section on the inflight projectile it tells you the material the projectile is made of... in this case W for Wolfram or Tungsten... and it also gives the length of the projectile... 730mm. Further down the table it lists the penetrator as 570mm by 22mm, but that is the penetrator component of the projectile.
Precisely. You shoulda read the whole page before you thought you knew what you were talking about.
Yes, and thus less effective! 2 155s w/ Excalibur could of blown more holes in less time than
the Tulip will ever do. That's one of the reasons why Western arty is coming out on top.
What do you mean less effective? Since when would a 130 kg HE round be less effective than rounds with 7kg warheads? There are reasons heavier weapons are used... there were reasons the Tu-16 bomber was used in Afghanistan instead of more modern ones... I will give you a hint... FAB-5000.
Same reason why MIRVs are more common place than Unitary warheads. Same reason why submunitions are more commong than Unitary muntions. More rounds, less dispersion, more concentration, more doom. Not to mention the terrible reload/range of the Tulip.
Very simply a little bomb will have little effect on most cave systems, you need a heavy hammer in the exact right place to do the job... and the Tulip did the job.
I heard they missed half the time too.
Precisely! Now you understand. The Smerch can't defend itself in short
ranges when a blitzkrieg of light APVs attacks it. The M270 can. Just
another capability the Smerch lacks.
SMERCH can fire sensor fuzed submunitions that will target and destroy armour accurately and precisely far better than the M270 can and out to much greater ranges.
The area the SMERCH can cover without moving is more than triple the area the M270 can cover.
And it is the precision anti armour capability out to 90km that the M270 lacks.
Didn't I just say "defend itself"? The Smerch can't hit anything it can't see; it can't see a blitzkrieg coming right for it, therefore, it's doomed because of it's lack of short-long range modularity, something that M270 has.
Well, I just proved to you how the Smerch is an inferior tube arty system (inaccurate rounds, short range).
Smerch is rocket artillery and outranges M270 and is more accurate.
Smerch can't hit a house at 300 km, M270 can.
You really aren't doing anything but ignoring contrary evidence now.
Then I went on to 'prove' how the Tochka is an inferior rocket system (very slow reload, 1 rocket at a time).
But a battery has 6 rockets that are more accurate than anything the M270 can fire with a wide range of warheads including nuclear and a range of guidance options too.
A battery lol. 6 M270s = 12 ATACMS which outrange and and out-precisions the Tochkas.
Plus, developmental costs, rocket costs, logistics, etc.
Costs are already paid for.
Same with the M270. Except we paid less.
The M270 does the job that both of them tries to do, and perhaps even
does it better, all while being cheaper. I don't know what system of
measurement you use to gauge the effectiveness of tube arty, but it's
quite clear that the M270 is overall superior to the two.
M270 is too expensive and short on range to be rocket artillery and short on range for the missile precision strike role. It fails.
The M270 is cheaper than what the Russians need to accomplish it's job, it's rockets have longer range than same caliber tube arty, it's precision missiles have longer range than the Tochka and is more accurate. Again, I don't know if you're even thinking now.
Which really just goes to show how advanced and multipurpose Western
military techs are; if compared to current Russian and ex-Soviet
The problem with multipurpose things like Sporks is that you usually end up using your hand to push food onto it, which is very unhygenic. It might be reducing your load but is less efficient and harder to use to save yourself the weight of a knife or fork or spoon. It is a gimmick.
If only you knew how to use a spork to avoid spork-to-hand incidents. Which we Americans are very well adapted for, the Russians probably still need trade schools for fork and spoon handling.
You should stop throwing red herrings when trying to learn.
Even in a backwater like the 58th Army near Georgia where the forces don't even have first rate or second rate armour and equipment they still had Tochka and Tender and Smerch available to use within hours.
I think this clearly shows their rocket and missile artillery is not deficient.
If it's available to use, that's good. But will it do it's job? Maybe.
Tochka/Smerch are essentially MLRS (albeit 1 rocket isn't multiple).
Rubbish, they are theatre tactical precision strike. The Tochka replaces a volley of chemical warhead or bio warhead equipped FROG-7 rockets likely aimed at front line airfields or HQ or staging areas. The Tender replaces the Scud in engaging airfields and ammo depots and HQs and staging areas and logistics hubs further back.
A MLRS is a rapid heavy barrage system to defeat enemy forces when the group up for an attack or when they group up to defend from an attack.
They are for area targets so precision is not important, but coverage is. That is why the Smerch has INS and gyro stabilisation in each rockets, not so the rocket hits the target exactly but so that the volley stays close together to make sure the coverage of bomblets or warheads or munitions is kept over the target area rather than spread randomly.
If Russia's supreme logic of "throw more, hope for hits" is essentially better than ours of "throw less, get hits" than I pity the Smerch as if all it needs to do is launch rockets, move away, then wait 20 minutes, while all we have to do is launch 1 rocket, relocate, launch another, relocate, etc etc, as our rockets will essentially hit anything we tell it to compared to the Smerch where it has to spam rockets to do what it needs, than I consider that totally deficient. You are trying to argue that the role of the Smerch is essentially inaccurate suppressive fire but if it needed an INS system than it's Russia's attempt at precision strike capability; to which failed. Maybe I'm just a maverick but I don't need to waste ammo.
The M270, hence, combines the two into a modular platform that can be outfitted with whatever role that needs to be done.
M270 is mediocre at both roles.
This may be true in the sense that it fires light rockets and light missiles. But essentially it can do both jobs while being cheaper; which means tactically, they're on par, strategically, the M270 is supreme.
In fact, when you're a MLRS, you need to be able to do counter-battery
fire to defend yourself, something the Smerch can't do, but something
the M270 can.
Why wouldn't a Smerch battery be able to perform counter battery missions?
Smerch has guided anti armour munitions and could take out an armoured column using a couple of rockets.
You need the same range or more than the incoming projectiles to do counter-battery. 300 km > 90 km.
And lets be honest now, the Smerch can't hit "precisely" at 90 km, it's
just more accurate than regular MLRS at that range. It sure as hell
isn't as precise as the M30.
M270 can deliver barrage fire at 90km range. M30 has zero accuracy at 90km... it has a range of 60km.
If you think M270 can reach 90 km you must be asleep or something
The GPS guidance will work at any range (till battery dies). The missile can only go as far as it's fuel allows.
At 60 km the M30 has the accuracy of a JDAM.
And I am sure the Chinese would make the rockets for the two of us.
And one in three might work but they wont have the range or accuracy of the Russian or American rockets.
China has the longest range MLRS in the world.
But that just goes to show the uneeded expenses that the Russians endure
when a multipurpose platform can do the job of the two while cutting
costs in half. 2 in 1.
You can think that if you want, but for Russia rocket artillery and precision guided missile artillery are different things used at different times requiring different assets at different levels.
The average Smerch battery will shoot at area targets and perform counter battery roles, but targets 300km inside enemy territory they will know little about most of the time as they will be busy suppressing enemy artillery, large armour formations and forward SAM sites/HQ/airfields etc etc.
Maybe I'm just a Maverick, but if I had a gun that can do all the job of all infantry held weapons fine, I'll prefer that over any other gun. That's essentially what the M270 is, well, more so than the BM series.
Unfortunately, those Grads will be pounded by ATACMS.
[quite]How? Those grads will not reveal their position till they fire and it takes 20 seconds to fire all 40 rockets and 30 seconds later they are driving to their next launch position.
The Grad trucks will be moving before their last rockets have hit the target.
And even if they remained there a single TOR battery could protect them from ATACMS.[/quote]
The M270 won't reveal itself until the Grad fires. Even if TOR is present (seriously, I told you, nuke war, both dead, you never listen), it'll get hit by F-15, if not, F-16, if not, F-18, if not, B-1, if not B-2, if not B-52, if not, AC-130, if not, A-10, if not, Apache, if not, Cobra, if not, F-22, if not, F-35, if not...etc etc etc
At which point, I should add, the M270 also has IR guided EFP
submunitions (why you didn't see SADARM, I don't know), which will make a
mince meat out of T-90s and other mobile bunkers.
APUs will greatly reduce IR signature... along with any fitted with Nakidka kits, and of course the fact that Russian decoy tanks have IR signatures too... and of course when T-90s are in M270 range then the M270 will be within Smerch range and Tochka range and Tender range.
T-90s don't have Nakidka and a 1 kw APU will last them like an hour.
If it does, at least the M270 came out on top.
Hahahahahaha... when was the last proxy war the M270 came up against Smerch?
I don't know, you seem to think there has been? :neutral:
I don't know about you, but there is a fundamental difference between
"tube arty" and "gun arty" even in it's etymology. Gun arty, as you
might know, refers to a round that is propelled by a foreign source.
While a tube arty is, well, just a tube. Rockets come out of tubes.
Katusha is fired from a rail and not a tube. Referring the the eytymology of a word is amusing... are you suggesting a hand grenade is a type of fruit because the word for grenade came from a type of fruit?
Perhaps Katyusha is not a tube arty then?
Perhaps Russia requires modern ballistic computers then.
The sophistication of the ballistic computer is irrelevant... all calculations need to include wind speed at different altitudes for tube and rocket artillery to be approaching accurate.
I heard there are nice ballistic computers that do that.
You know very well that all arty acts like land-based air support, it's
just that the M270 is like a B1-B while the Uragan is like the B-25.
Now you are getting childish.
Just playing fair.
But I just told you how Tochka/Smerch and the BM pals are inferior...
You also told me they are tube artillery...
I bet you're fed up about that.
Unfortunately, the M270 wouldn't be in range.
But it would because you said they would fire one ATCAMS and 6 GPS guided rockets... the latter only have a range of 60km which means it is well within the 90km range of SMERCH.
I didn't say that the Smerch was in the base that was hit by the M30s.
Should be, unfortunately Tender will probably be whacked too.
And M270 would be near the front line and likely whacked very quickly.
Near the front, out of range.
Of course, ATACMS has double the range of Tochka +GPS guidance system.
Like I've said before, the BM-series is not as capable as the M270. The
Tochka isn't either.
Again with this childish rubbish. ATACMS can be shot down easily so it is irrelevant. Tochka has double the range of the GPS guided M270 rockets and a much larger payload.
Personally I think it's childish that you think the ATACMS will be shot down. Tochka has half the range of ATACMS.
It's a joke because now Russia has a family of 3 (you can argue 4) MLRS
systems, who's rockets and warhead's ranges from the shortest range of
the M270 to it's longest range.
And still more expensive to operate being a tracked vehicle.
Literally, the M270 is doing the job of 4 Russian systems, thankfully
they're fixing that but that's just hilariously expensive and
It is M270 that is expensive and ineffective. Most of its roles can now be done by tube artillery with guided shells or short range strike aircraft.
You'd think a plane with bombs and 4 MLRS + gun arty w/ non-exsistant Russian GPS shells is going to cost more than 1 M270. Perhaps Russia has them made in China, would explain a lot.
Grad was the joke of the BM-series as it's not too much cheaper than
it's bigger brothers yet it's more inaccurate than the Tulip while
putting down pencil-projectiles. It may be good if you want to blanket
Tel Aviv with Grads but otherwise it's pretty shitty.
Yeah... it must be crap... I see Egypt and Pakistan still make them too... must be rubbish.
Sarcasm aside, essentially yes.
Exactly, unfortunately the Tornado isn't modular enough to use tactical
ballistic missiles which means it's still mince meat for the M270.
It has enough range to destroy the grid square kilometre around the M270 up to 90km distant... at that range the M270 can fire two ATACMS which should be easy to bring down.
Unfortunately the Tornado wouldn't be in range if the M270 were to fire it's ATACMS. Finally, I'll just like to list what the Russians need, according to you, to counter the M270, if you don't mind:
4 MLRS (Grad, Uragan, Smerch, Tochka) + Msta w/ imaginary Russian GPS-shells + "Short range aircraft" w/ guided munitions + TOR-M1 short-range ADS.
Which according to you, are all cheaper than the M270.
This is why no one takes you seriously