Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Share

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5673
    Points : 6079
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  Austin on Mon Feb 21, 2011 1:12 pm

    BTW what would it take for the current Russian Tank to penetrate the Front and most hardened part of Western tank.

    From what I have read the reason T-95 went for a 152 mm main gun is because the projectile would penetrate any armour and one would end up building a 80 T tank to withstand a direct hit from 152 mm projectile.

    The current 125 mm projectile lacks the punch to penetrate a western armour , considering the western tank are not even ERA equipped like Russian Tank are , some say the new long rod ammo in T-90M should make is possible to penetrate western armour.

    So as far i I have read the current gun in T-90 can fire a projectile at a speed of 1750 m/s , so if they keep the same 125 mm gun and make a better propellent that can fire a projectile at say 2500 m/s will that suffice or is it impossible ?

    What trends can be expected from future Russian MBT , will they go for 152 mm gun to defeat any Western armour or will they increase the muzzle velocity of 125 mm round to keep rounds common but increase the velocity to say 2500 m/sec

    Any idea ? Also what are the future trends in Western Armour with MBT ?

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  IronsightSniper on Mon Feb 21, 2011 11:59 pm

    Austin wrote:BTW what would it take for the current Russian Tank to penetrate the Front and most hardened part of Western tank.

    Western tanks are so well protected from HEAT projectiles that estimates show you'll need at least a 200 mm caliber HEAT round to penetrate that (for reference, Abrams has up to 1,600 mm of RHAe v.s. HEAT and Leopard has almost 2,000 mm of RHAe v.s. HEAT on the Front turret.) The most logical and linear approach to AT rounds for a tank would be a Longer, slimmer, and denser Kinetic Energy round (or of course, Russia could produce a Top-Attack munition and replace the AT-11 with it.) Current Russian APFSDS projectiles are estimated to penetrate up to 650 mm of RHAe at 2 km. Current M1A2 Abrams turret armor is protected by up to 900 mm RHAe v.s. KE on the turret. For reference, the M829A3 APFSDS round used by the M1A2 Abrams is estimated to penetrate 800 mm of RHAe. The M829A3 is, at current knowledge, the best APFSDS round in service today.

    Therefore, to simply all that, you'd need 1 or more of 3 things:

    1. A Top-Attack ATGM fired by the T-90.
    2. Longer, Slimmer, Denser (perhaps DU?) APFSDS rounds
    3. A bigger gun


    So as far i I have read the current gun in T-90 can fire a projectile at a speed of 1750 m/s , so if they keep the same 125 mm gun and make a better propellent that can fire a projectile at say 2500 m/s will that suffice or is it impossible ?

    That will be highly unlikely. T-72 barrels could handle less pressure than the Rheinmetall 120 mm L/44 or L/55, which are used by the Abrams and the Leopard 2. That means that even if Russia does invent or produce some sort of hyper-velocity propellant, they'd also need to upgrade the gun to handle the pressure or else the T-90s would just blow up everytime they shoot.

    Currently, the most modern Russian APFSDS projectile, the 3BM-42M, is able to penetrate about 650 mm of RHAe at 2 km and 710 mm of RHAe at point blank range. If the Russians were to convert the 3BM-43M from a Tungsten projectile into a Depleted Uranium projectile, that would increase penetration to about 680 mm of RHAe at 2 km and 735 mm of RHAe at point blank range. Depleted Uranium also has a special effect that allows it to not to puff up like a mushroom upon impact but to keep it's shape throughout penetration. DU also is flammable.

    What trends can be expected from future Russian MBT , will they go for 152 mm gun to defeat any Western armour or will they increase the muzzle velocity of 125 mm round to keep rounds common but increase the velocity to say 2500 m/sec

    Any idea ? Also what are the future trends in Western Armour with MBT ?

    We Westerners don't exactly see the point in Tanks nowadays (although some will say otherwise.) America in general is prepping for Asymmetrical warfare so we are not expecting our adversaries to use contemporary equipment. Future U.S. and probably NATO tanks will be more or less modeled after the Soviet philosophy of "Smart Armor", i.e. APS would be proliferated heavily. But I do suspect that instead of going at it Light and Small like the Soviet T-series of tanks, future Western tanks will keep a nice and thick hull armor. Weapons wise, the future U.S. tanks will utilize Electrothermal-Chemical guns which will produce the high velocities you're looking for.

    In regards to Russia, I do suspect they will start producing Longer and Slimmer APFSDS rounds, but of course they'll need to modify their Turrets accordingly to fit those in. They might also improve on the ATGMs their tanks can fire. But if you're talking about the far future, Russian tanks will most likely also equip a ETC gun, but in order to penetrate Western armors, a bigger and smarter gun will be required.


    I should note that in the 80s, Swiss tankers modified a Leopard 2 to use a 140 mm L/47 Gun. That gun was able to launch a 1 meter APFSDS round that could penetrate over 1 meter of RHAe.

    A document about a German 140 mm ETC gun:

    http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:NIIsFo2bvXgJ:www.fprado.com/armorsite/Leo2_Files/tanks.140mm-gun.kruse.pdf+140+mm+gun+tanknet&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShVbcoG0wDSZJbpnc5owfYwuUqmFydnWMF6_HshRivj7FFMv7NZ-0OEtnaUP3ZDfyCXlreYV0ULDdsRQXXr01uv0RZYE4RI1YL8oUILtsfm8H5HgJCjXPLoe-Ka1wHydcblSyvp&sig=AHIEtbTNRRjR80-r54eEphLJABDgO0mGQg

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  GarryB on Tue Feb 22, 2011 3:07 am

    BTW what would it take for the current Russian Tank to penetrate the Front and most hardened part of Western tank.

    If you are in a sword fight against a man with a sword and a shield you don't focus your energy trying to penetrate the shield... you focus on getting around the shield.

    A diving top attack round that is MMW radar guided to the target would be much easier to achieve and can be retrofitted to all vehicles with 125mm guns including Sprut. You could even make a long version with two tandem 125mm calibre HEAT warheads that fire near simultaneously at the same point of roof armour... and if they fail they can fall onto the ground and self right themselves and become anti tank mines.

    From what I have read the reason T-95 went for a 152 mm main gun is
    because the projectile would penetrate any armour and one would end up
    building a 80 T tank to withstand a direct hit from 152 mm projectile.

    With rounds that calibre the HEAT warheads would be very powerful and the volume inside the round would make guidance system with optical or radar seekers much easier. It would greatly reduce the amount of ammo each vehicle could carry and require auto loading as rounds would become very heavy.

    So as far i I have read the current gun in T-90 can fire a projectile at
    a speed of 1750 m/s , so if they keep the same 125 mm gun and make a
    better propellent that can fire a projectile at say 2500 m/s will that
    suffice or is it impossible ?

    That would require huge leaps in propellent technology and gun metalurgy and is rather unlikely without a lot of investment.
    The 125mm gun fitted to the T-90 has plenty of growth potential in it and the gun the upgraded T-90 is said to be some 15% better with regards to ammo performance etc... and for most things it is used for it is already overkill.

    Personally I think if Russian tanks come up against these super well armoured western tanks that it will be easier to use airpower and artillery to deal with them than other tanks.
    The Soviets had a long tradition of lots of direct fire big guns like ISU-152s etc, but unlike the west and Germany these weren't tank killers, they were primarily direct fire support for infantry and tank units... much like the 100mm guns on the BMP-3 today.

    What trends can be expected from future Russian MBT , will they go for
    152 mm gun to defeat any Western armour or will they increase the muzzle
    velocity of 125 mm round to keep rounds common but increase the
    velocity to say 2500 m/sec

    2.5km/s would be the upper limit... there is no point going faster than that. I have seen penetration studies from the late 1980s where increasing velocity beyond 2.5km/s didn't increase penetration very much, whereas increasing projectile weight continued to improve penetration well. Because energy is mass x velocity squared an increase in velocity is an easy way to increase the energy delivered to the target, however there comes a point where extra energy does not go into penetration and is wasted.
    2.5km/s would be a very high velocity to get to without exotic technologies like coil guns or plasma propellants.

    1. A Top-Attack ATGM fired by the T-90.
    2. Longer, Slimmer, Denser (perhaps DU?) APFSDS rounds
    3. A bigger gun

    The point of a bigger gun is that the larger a barrel bore the more the energy you can push down it. I really don't think the 120mm barrel has reached its limits and the 125mm gun is nowhere near its limits either.

    A guided high speed top attack munition makes the most sense especially if it is fire and forget like Brimstone.

    That means that even if Russia does invent or produce some sort of
    hyper-velocity propellant, they'd also need to upgrade the gun to handle
    the pressure or else the T-90s would just blow up everytime they shoot.

    Developing a new higher pressure gun standard is not impossible. Especially if it is a fundamentally different design.

    For instance they could go for a new 125mm gun that operates at pressures much higher than the 120mm L55 gun and use a binary propellent. This binary propellent can be made up of two or more chemicals that on their own wont explode, but when mixed together and have an electric current run through them violent turn directly into a plasma. The chemicals can be stored in opposite parts of the tank so even a vehicle penetration will not mix them and on their own they might be poisonous but not flammable. When combined in the chamber behind a round of ammo they will detonate rapidly without solid or liquid residue. The volume of propellent could be varied for different rounds... extra for high velocity armour piercing rounds and less for HE or missiles or jamming rounds or whatever...

    I do agree that with conventional propellents and conventional guns 2,500m/s is a long way off.

    Depleted Uranium also has a special effect that allows it to not to puff
    up like a mushroom upon impact but to keep it's shape throughout
    penetration. DU also is flammable.

    It is also genotoxic and likely to contaminate training areas and war zones for the half life of the material... about a billion years.

    In regards to Russia, I do suspect they will start producing Longer and
    Slimmer APFSDS rounds, but of course they'll need to modify their
    Turrets accordingly to fit those in.

    Longer yes... slimmer... no. The T-90 upgrade being worked on includes a turret bustle autoloader for long rod penetrators.

    They might also improve on the ATGMs their tanks can fire. But if you're
    talking about the far future, Russian tanks will most likely also equip
    a ETC gun, but in order to penetrate Western armors, a bigger and
    smarter gun will be required.

    The Russians are happy to continue using a variety of technologies rather than focussing on one. Even if they built a powerful ETC gun they will likely develop missiles that can be fired through it. Most western expert fixate on the tank as an anti tank weapon, but for the Russians and Soviets you just need to look at the fact that over half the ammo they load in their tanks is HE shows they expect to engage all sorts of targets with enemy tanks being a relatively minor likelyhood. Less than one quarter is APFSDS ammo with most either HE or HEAT.

    I should note that in the 80s, Swiss tankers modified a Leopard 2 to use
    a 140 mm L/47 Gun. That gun was able to launch a 1 meter APFSDS round
    that could penetrate over 1 meter of RHAe.

    The Kh-29T and Kh-29L are two air to ground missiles with HEAT warheads of over 300kgs. They are designed to undermine the thick concrete foundations of bridges and large structures and also for anti shipping use but could also be used against armour. There are similar though less impressive models in the Kh-25 family with shaped charge warheads in the 90kg range.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  IronsightSniper on Tue Feb 22, 2011 3:46 am

    Funny thing is that WHA is also radioactive, so tungsten and DU is pretty much "eco-harmful". censored

    I don't understand this:

    Longer yes... slimmer... no. The T-90 upgrade being worked on includes a turret bustle autoloader for long rod penetrators.

    You do know that Longer and Slimmer APFSDS rounds will almost always improve penetration? Right now Russian APFSDS rounds are quite "fat" compared to long and skinnier US/German APFSDS rounds.

    The Kh-29T and Kh-29L are two air to ground missiles with HEAT warheads of over 300kgs. They are designed to undermine the thick concrete foundations of bridges and large structures and also for anti shipping use but could also be used against armour. There are similar though less impressive models in the Kh-25 family with shaped charge warheads in the 90kg range.

    And I can talk about the Maverick here but I won't because this isn't Air-to-Ground warefare this is Tank-to-Tank warfare.

    I highly doubt Russia will dissolve their Armor warfare doctrine and replace it with the one the U.S. had in WW2, which was, "Tanks don't fight tanks, Tank destroyers fight tanks", but of course, replace Tank destroyers with whatever pilot able aircraft that can be armed with competent AGM weapons.

    The Russians are happy to continue using a variety of technologies rather than focussing on one. Even if they built a powerful ETC gun they will likely develop missiles that can be fired through it. Most western expert fixate on the tank as an anti tank weapon, but for the Russians and Soviets you just need to look at the fact that over half the ammo they load in their tanks is HE shows they expect to engage all sorts of targets with enemy tanks being a relatively minor likelyhood. Less than one quarter is APFSDS ammo with most either HE or HEAT.

    The problem with ATGMs is interceptability. APS systems are starting to proliferate into Standing armies today and I don't find any articles about Russian missile designers designing a fire-and-forget tank round, thus I must ignore this idea until such an article or at least a story exists. ATGMs, for example, the ones fired from the T-90, is only transonic and only goes about 340 mps. While a tank round, not even one fired from an ETC gun (which are higher in velocity), will go at least 1,500 mps, others go to about 1,800 mps. It's definitely much harder to shoot down a APFSDS round then a ATGM, especially since German and Israeli APS systems operate in milliseconds to microseconds, which is far faster than what ARENA is capable of.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  GarryB on Tue Feb 22, 2011 5:09 am

    Funny thing is that WHA is also radioactive, so tungsten and DU is pretty much "eco-harmful".

    Is it genotoxic though?

    The very fine powder created penetrator hitting target is easily taken in to the human body, but DU radiation while unable to penetrate skin when inside the body damages genetic material inside cells. The result is that your offspring start developing genetic defects that are passed on to all your offspring even though they had no contact with the initial DU dust.

    You do know that Longer and Slimmer APFSDS rounds will almost always
    improve penetration? Right now Russian APFSDS rounds are quite "fat"
    compared to long and skinnier US/German APFSDS rounds.

    A thin penetrator increases the risk of "bending" forces defeating the round and increases vulnerability to ERA elements.


    And I can talk about the Maverick here but I won't because this isn't Air-to-Ground warefare this is Tank-to-Tank warfare.

    Except there wont be tank on tank warfare in the future where no other platforms are involved. That is part of what Netcentric fighting is all about... using all the tools in the tool box.

    I highly doubt Russia will dissolve their Armor warfare doctrine and
    replace it with the one the U.S. had in WW2, which was, "Tanks don't
    fight tanks, Tank destroyers fight tanks", but of course, replace Tank
    destroyers with whatever pilot able aircraft that can be armed with
    competent AGM weapons.

    Russia and the Soviet Union never had a policy of tanks fight tanks... they had a policy that tanks constitute a concentration of protection and firepower that is to be focussed on the enemies weakest point for the purposes of penetrating their line and rapidly hitting their rear area units that support front line operations like artillery, HQ, and supply and support units.

    Kursk was first and foremost barbed wire, mines, anti tank guns, and anti tank ditches... the tanks were kept in reserve to exploit the situation when the German tanks had been ground down and were near to collapse. In the event the northern force was over estimated in strength and the southern force was underestimated and tanks were used on both fronts but the majority were in the south to blunt the german attack. The plan for the anti tank defences did not include using tanks till the force had been pretty much stopped. In effect they were used because the preparations were for use against a weaker force.


    The problem with ATGMs is interceptability. APS systems are starting
    to proliferate into Standing armies today and I don't find any articles
    about Russian missile designers designing a fire-and-forget tank round,
    thus I must ignore this idea until such an article or at least a story
    exists.

    Man portable ATGMs don't require expensive extravagant fire and forget capability.
    RPGs including RPG-7/RPG-29/RPG-32 launchers and disposable rocket models are all fire and forget but without guidance.

    As I have mentioned however:

    MAIN SPECIFICATIONS
    HERMES System
    Maximum firing range max. 100 km
    Guidance:
    target
    area
    radio-command
    terminal
    path
    homing
    Missile load max. up to 16
    pcs.
    HERMES Missile
    Maximum velocity 1300 m/s
    Warhead weight 28 kg
    Warhead type HEF
    Missile weight (in tube) 130 kg
    Caliber:
    booster stage 210 mm
    sustainer stage 130 mm
    Tube length 3500 mm
    http://kbptula.ru/eng/multi/hermes.htm


    Shows they are clearly working on it... and as you can see the main booster rocket accelerates the weapon to 1.3km/s and for the rest of the path a sustainer motor will likely burn to reduce drag as used on most KBP missiles with solid rocket boosters. The Helicopter model has a smaller booster with a 1km/s burn out speed and a flight range of 15-20km. The missile itself is very similar to the missile used on the Tunguska system which is credited with a decelleration of 40m/s/s... so assuming a similar performance for the HERMES for the first second the missile will be accelerated to 1km/s and will cover 1km and for the next second it will cover 40m less and for each second after that 40 m less again.

    For the first 15 seconds of flight therefore the speed should be approximately:

    1 = 1,000m/s
    2 = 960m/s
    3 = 920m/s
    4 = 880m/s
    5 = 840m/s
    6 = 800m/s
    7 = 760m/s
    8 = 720m/s
    9 = 680m/s
    10 = 640m/s
    11 = 600m/s
    12 = 560m/s
    13 = 520m/s
    14 = 480m/s
    15 = 440m/s

    And in those 15 seconds it should have covered:

    1,000 + 960 + 920 + 880 + 840 + 800 + 760 + 720 + 680 + 640 + 600 + 560 + 520 + 480 + 440= just over 10km

    Now clearly as the missile travels its deceleration will not be linear like this and as it slows down it should actually improve with the drag dropping and deceleration decreasing. The sustainer rocket will also influence the performance as I have not even taken it into account. If it completely counters drag for 10 seconds then this 10 second period above could be for the distance 10-20km from the launcher.

    (Note the performance of the missile above which is the ground launched weapon fired on a ballistic trajectory to reach 100km range targets only accelerates to 300m/s faster than the air launched version.)

    It's definitely much harder to shoot down a APFSDS round then a ATGM,
    especially since German and Israeli APS systems operate in milliseconds
    to microseconds, which is far faster than what ARENA is capable of.

    ARENA-1 was designed for HEAT warhead equipped targets including those overflying the tank like BILL.
    To criticise it for not reacting fast enough to defeat APFSDS rounds is like complaining that Patriot PAC-2 missiles were useless against ballistic weapons like modified Scuds.

    ATGMs, for example, the ones fired from the T-90, is only transonic and only goes about 340 mps.

    Ready and in operational service for over 20 years. Trophy et all are new systems so it will take time before a definitive counter for them is developed and deployed.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  IronsightSniper on Tue Feb 22, 2011 5:21 am

    [quote="GarryB"]
    You do know that Longer and Slimmer APFSDS rounds will almost always
    improve penetration? Right now Russian APFSDS rounds are quite "fat"
    compared to long and skinnier US/German APFSDS rounds.

    A thin penetrator increases the risk of "bending" forces defeating the round and increases vulnerability to ERA elements.

    Good thing none of Russia's possible adversaries depend on ERA for Armor protection!


    And I can talk about the Maverick here but I won't because this isn't Air-to-Ground warefare this is Tank-to-Tank warfare.

    Except there wont be tank on tank warfare in the future where no other platforms are involved. That is part of what Netcentric fighting is all about... using all the tools in the tool box.

    But we're comparing Tanks v Tanks...if you want to discuss the future of Russian tanks like Austin asked then it's 25% chance of being hit by a Maverick from 8 km away, 50% chance of being hit by a M829A3 from 2 km away, and 25% chance of being forgotten in a dump. Same is true for every other tank, which is why it's pointless to compare system v.s. system because everything ends up being nuked anyways.

    I highly doubt Russia will dissolve their Armor warfare doctrine and
    replace it with the one the U.S. had in WW2, which was, "Tanks don't
    fight tanks, Tank destroyers fight tanks", but of course, replace Tank
    destroyers with whatever pilot able aircraft that can be armed with
    competent AGM weapons.

    Russia and the Soviet Union never had a policy of tanks fight tanks... they had a policy that tanks constitute a concentration of protection and firepower that is to be focussed on the enemies weakest point for the purposes of penetrating their line and rapidly hitting their rear area units that support front line operations like artillery, HQ, and supply and support units.

    Kursk was first and foremost barbed wire, mines, anti tank guns, and anti tank ditches... the tanks were kept in reserve to exploit the situation when the German tanks had been ground down and were near to collapse. In the event the northern force was over estimated in strength and the southern force was underestimated and tanks were used on both fronts but the majority were in the south to blunt the german attack. The plan for the anti tank defences did not include using tanks till the force had been pretty much stopped. In effect they were used because the preparations were for use against a weaker force.

    Which would I guess explain the T-90's inferiority in AT warfare I persume?


    The problem with ATGMs is interceptability. APS systems are starting
    to proliferate into Standing armies today and I don't find any articles
    about Russian missile designers designing a fire-and-forget tank round,
    thus I must ignore this idea until such an article or at least a story
    exists.

    Man portable ATGMs don't require expensive extravagant fire and forget capability.
    RPGs including RPG-7/RPG-29/RPG-32 launchers and disposable rocket models are all fire and forget but without guidance.

    As I have mentioned however:

    MAIN SPECIFICATIONS
    HERMES System
    Maximum firing range max. 100 km
    Guidance:
    target
    area
    radio-command
    terminal
    path
    homing
    Missile load max. up to 16
    pcs.
    HERMES Missile
    Maximum velocity 1300 m/s
    Warhead weight 28 kg
    Warhead type HEF
    Missile weight (in tube) 130 kg
    Caliber:
    booster stage 210 mm
    sustainer stage 130 mm
    Tube length 3500 mm
    http://kbptula.ru/eng/multi/hermes.htm


    Shows they are clearly working on it... and as you can see the main booster rocket accelerates the weapon to 1.3km/s and for the rest of the path a sustainer motor will likely burn to reduce drag as used on most KBP missiles with solid rocket boosters. The Helicopter model has a smaller booster with a 1km/s burn out speed and a flight range of 15-20km. The missile itself is very similar to the missile used on the Tunguska system which is credited with a decelleration of 40m/s/s... so assuming a similar performance for the HERMES for the first second the missile will be accelerated to 1km/s and will cover 1km and for the next second it will cover 40m less and for each second after that 40 m less again.

    For the first 15 seconds of flight therefore the speed should be approximately:

    1 = 1,000m/s
    2 = 960m/s
    3 = 920m/s
    4 = 880m/s
    5 = 840m/s
    6 = 800m/s
    7 = 760m/s
    8 = 720m/s
    9 = 680m/s
    10 = 640m/s
    11 = 600m/s
    12 = 560m/s
    13 = 520m/s
    14 = 480m/s
    15 = 440m/s

    And in those 15 seconds it should have covered:

    1,000 + 960 + 920 + 880 + 840 + 800 + 760 + 720 + 680 + 640 + 600 + 560 + 520 + 480 + 440= just over 10km

    Now clearly as the missile travels its deceleration will not be linear like this and as it slows down it should actually improve with the drag dropping and deceleration decreasing. The sustainer rocket will also influence the performance as I have not even taken it into account. If it completely counters drag for 10 seconds then this 10 second period above could be for the distance 10-20km from the launcher.

    (Note the performance of the missile above which is the ground launched weapon fired on a ballistic trajectory to reach 100km range targets only accelerates to 300m/s faster than the air launched version.)

    You aren't reading what I'm saying.

    By ATGM, I mean fired FROM tanks.

    Also, I said, TANK FIRED fire-and-forget ATGM, I have seen no plans for the Hermes to be shot from a T-series tank.

    It's definitely much harder to shoot down a APFSDS round then a ATGM,
    especially since German and Israeli APS systems operate in milliseconds
    to microseconds, which is far faster than what ARENA is capable of.

    ARENA-1 was designed for HEAT warhead equipped targets including those overflying the tank like BILL.
    To criticise it for not reacting fast enough to defeat APFSDS rounds is like complaining that Patriot PAC-2 missiles were useless against ballistic weapons like modified Scuds.

    So I ask why not allocate the ARENA to be able to hit faster projectiles?

    ATGMs, for example, the ones fired from the T-90, is only transonic and only goes about 340 mps.

    Ready and in operational service for over 20 years. Trophy et all are new systems so it will take time before a definitive counter for them is developed and deployed.

    They're already being deployed on Merkava IVs as we speak, which is why I said earlier, "proliferated heavily into Standing armies".

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5673
    Points : 6079
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  Austin on Tue Feb 22, 2011 6:35 am

    IronsightSniper , Garry much apprectiated for the detail response.

    So essentially a Tandem Warhed should be good enough to penetrate any Armour Western or Heavy in Top Attack mode ?

    It seems the most easier way to take the next leap is to go for a Supersonic Missile like Hermes with a MMW seeker a range of 4-6 km depending on trajectory should suffice, the Tank might just need a MMW FC radar small enough to track targets with high resolution to atleast 10 km.

    I think what it would do is get F&F capability so lacking in present missile fired from tank and give it supersonic speed and attack the vulnerable area which is the turret.

    I personally think a 152 mm MG was a mistake as that would mean they would end up with bigger rounds and to carry that in decent number end up with bigger tanks like western heavies , probably that would explain the size of T-95.



    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  GarryB on Wed Feb 23, 2011 12:55 am

    Good thing none of Russia's possible adversaries depend on ERA for Armor protection!

    Look at their navy. Even their small patrol craft have one or two AK-630s compared to western vessels where even frigates might only have one or two Phalanxs. Their own experience with anti ship missiles leads them to take defence against anti ship missiles very seriously it seems.


    But we're comparing Tanks v Tanks...if you want to discuss the
    future of Russian tanks like Austin asked then it's 25% chance of being
    hit by a Maverick from 8 km away, 50% chance of being hit by a M829A3
    from 2 km away, and 25% chance of being forgotten in a dump. Same is
    true for every other tank, which is why it's pointless to compare system
    v.s. system because everything ends up being nuked anyways.

    Actually for Russian tanks I would say odds are 99% will never see a Maverick or M829A3 in their entire service life based on experience to date... however as tank forces shrink then air threats are only going to increase over time to the point where the primary threat will be enemy air power. Russia spends rather more on defeating air power because the Russian Army is used to fighting without air support. The west on the other hand tend to rely on it and tend to assume air control for their operations. Not judging. Just stating facts.

    Which would I guess explain the T-90's inferiority in AT warfare I persume?

    Not even nearly.
    Without the financial collapses and the end of the cold war the Soviets would have put the T-95 into service in the mid 90s with a gun easily able to defeat any enemy tank on the battlefield.
    If the cold war had ended at the start of the 80s instead of the 90s and the US decided that the M60 in its upgraded form was good enough and that the new expensive Abrams was not needed imagine what chats on the internet now would be like...

    You aren't reading what I'm saying.
    By ATGM, I mean fired FROM tanks.
    Also, I said, TANK FIRED fire-and-forget ATGM, I have seen no plans for the Hermes to be shot from a T-series tank.

    Of course... the company that will make the 130mm calibre seeker for the HERMES would never bother to use that seeker on any of its other products like KRASNOPOL 152mm guided artillery shells because who wants a terminally guided self homing 152mm artillery shell? BTW they applied the same SALH guidance for the KRASNOPOL in 152mm to the 122mm KITOLOV shell and the 120mm GRAN.
    BTW The 125mm optically guided SOKOL is already being developed BTW and it can be cued by a laser target marker or it can detect moving targets on its own.

    Check this:  http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/ARM/atgm/ammo.html

    Note the last column... in development... and self targeting.

    So I ask why not allocate the ARENA to be able to hit faster projectiles?

    That might be something they are doing, but the faster projectiles are not currently the problem for T series tanks in Russian service... it is the low speed RPGs with HEAT warheads that are the most common threat so it makes rather more sense to defend against that first.

    They're already being deployed on Merkava IVs as we speak, which is why I
    said earlier, "proliferated heavily into Standing armies".

    So how many standing armies have Merkava IVs let alone active defence systems like Trophy?

    So essentially a Tandem Warhed should be good enough to penetrate any Armour Western or Heavy in Top Attack mode ?

    The roof armour of most tanks is pathetic... usually less than 60mm. There is a reason the 30mm gatling on the A-10 seems to be so effective... at 800m its armour penetration is only about 69mm. And of course there are crew hatches that are less than 6cm thick too.   It is a reason urban combat is so dangerous as enemy forces can get on the roof of tall buildings and shoot down at the thin tops of tanks. Even the belly of most tanks has thicker armour to protect from mines.

    Even in Afghanistan the Soviets found the 125mm gun was over powered for most common targets and T-55s and T-62s were commonly used because the targets didn't seem to notice the difference in HE power.

    It seems the most easier way to take the next leap is to go for a
    Supersonic Missile like Hermes with a MMW seeker a range of 4-6 km
    depending on trajectory should suffice, the Tank might just need a MMW
    FC radar small enough to track targets with high resolution to atleast
    10 km.

    Considering the ground based HERMES will have a range of 100km perhaps they will not need a tank based HERMES missile at all. T-90s will be used for all the things a tank is used for... ie direct fire support for infantry ops, and if enemy tanks appear that ground based HERMES vehicles will fire volleys at them from 20km behind the lines with data from UAVs or Ka-52s and tank on tank warfare might be a thing of the past. Why risk an expensive tank when long range missiles can do the job better. Has the tank become the battleship?

    Certainly if you can get good intel and detect when an enemy is forming up an armoured force for an attack it makes rather more sense to fire a volley of SMERCH rockets with anti tank submunitions and then HERMES missiles to deal with what remains than to form up your own armoured forces and hope he does not do to your armour what you could have done to his. In desert storm when Saddams forces were running away in long columns on roads it wasn't tanks that were used to clean them up... it was air power. Of course that was a US operation. A Russian force might prefer to use Army assets like SMERCH and HERMES.

    In addition, the air defense troops the Army will have upgraded
    the S-300V4, Buk-M2 and Buk-M3, anti-aircraft missile systems,
    short-range Tor-M2U (M), portable anti-aircraft missile complexes
    "Igla-S" and "Willow".


    I guess Willow is what I have been calling Verba.

    S-300V4 sounds interesting... an upgrade of S-300VM?


    self-propelled guns" Host "and" Nona-SVK "


    Nona-SVK is the BTR-80 based 120mm gun/mortar system with a turret with 70 degrees traverse.
    Host is a 2S1 with the 122mm gun replaced with a 120mm gun/mortar... also been called Hosta.

    I wonder what this means for Vena?


    anti-tank missile system Chrysanthemum-S and guns" Octopus -SD.

    Yah... a MMW radar guided anti tank missile vehicle and Sprut too.

    special armored vehicles carrying capacity up to 2,5 tons (Iveco, "Tiger," "Wolf")

    Cool, Iveco, Tiger... and Wolf... excellent.

    Garry I hope things are fine at your end , I saw on TV there was a major earthquake at Christchurch NZ.

    I am fine. I live about 300km to the south of CHCH, but I did feel the EQ. It seems it was much worse this time and a lot of people were killed this time around. Last time it was about 430 in the morning so most people were in bed, but this time people were up and around and a lot of people killed were in buildings that collapsed or in cars that the fronts of buildings fell on. Very scary to live in the ring of fire.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  IronsightSniper on Wed Feb 23, 2011 1:27 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Good thing none of Russia's possible adversaries depend on ERA for Armor protection!

    Look at their navy. Even their small patrol craft have one or two AK-630s compared to western vessels where even frigates might only have one or two Phalanxs. Their own experience with anti ship missiles leads them to take defence against anti ship missiles very seriously it seems.

    So, let me get this straight, this is how Russian armor designers think:

    Vlascezk, we need better penetration of Polish T-72s!
    No problem mate! We'll just let these M1A2 Abrams sit and wait!


    But we're comparing Tanks v Tanks...if you want to discuss the
    future of Russian tanks like Austin asked then it's 25% chance of being
    hit by a Maverick from 8 km away, 50% chance of being hit by a M829A3
    from 2 km away, and 25% chance of being forgotten in a dump. Same is
    true for every other tank, which is why it's pointless to compare system
    v.s. system because everything ends up being nuked anyways.

    Actually for Russian tanks I would say odds are 99% will never see a Maverick or M829A3 in their entire service life based on experience to date... however as tank forces shrink then air threats are only going to increase over time to the point where the primary threat will be enemy air power. Russia spends rather more on defeating air power because the Russian Army is used to fighting without air support. The west on the other hand tend to rely on it and tend to assume air control for their operations. Not judging. Just stating facts.

    That's besides the point. The point is that if you want to compare system v.s. system then take it to another thread, this thread is about tanks.

    Which would I guess explain the T-90's inferiority in AT warfare I persume?

    Not even nearly.
    Without the financial collapses and the end of the cold war the Soviets would have put the T-95 into service in the mid 90s with a gun easily able to defeat any enemy tank on the battlefield.
    If the cold war had ended at the start of the 80s instead of the 90s and the US decided that the M60 in its upgraded form was good enough and that the new expensive Abrams was not needed imagine what chats on the internet now would be like...

    Measure-Countermeasure.

    But at this point in time you do agree that T-90 tanks are inferior to Western MBTs in terms of AT warfare no?

    You aren't reading what I'm saying.
    By ATGM, I mean fired FROM tanks.
    Also, I said, TANK FIRED fire-and-forget ATGM, I have seen no plans for the Hermes to be shot from a T-series tank.

    Of course... the company that will make the 130mm calibre seeker for the HERMES would never bother to use that seeker on any of its other products like KRASNOPOL 152mm guided artillery shells because who wants a terminally guided self homing 152mm artillery shell? BTW they applied the same SALH guidance for the KRASNOPOL in 152mm to the 122mm KITOLOV shell and the 120mm GRAN.
    BTW The 125mm optically guided SOKOL is already being developed BTW and it can be cued by a laser target marker or it can detect moving targets on its own.

    Check this: http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/ARM/atgm/ammo.html

    Note the last column... in development... and self targeting.

    You should note that Vasiliy Folfanov takes his information from a rather popular Tank forum.

    And Garry, you must understand the difference between a Paper and Conjecture. Just because they can doesn't mean they will. Show me proof that there is a Fire-and-Forget ATGM being developed to be fired from the gun of a Tank and maybe we can put this to rest.

    So I ask why not allocate the ARENA to be able to hit faster projectiles?

    That might be something they are doing, but the faster projectiles are not currently the problem for T series tanks in Russian service... it is the low speed RPGs with HEAT warheads that are the most common threat so it makes rather more sense to defend against that first.

    Ah, I see, putting a Tank in an Infantry fight, brilliant political move.

    They're already being deployed on Merkava IVs as we speak, which is why I
    said earlier, "proliferated heavily into Standing armies".

    So how many standing armies have Merkava IVs let alone active defence systems like Trophy?

    As of now, only the Israelis, which is actually more than the APS Russians have in their standing army.

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  Vladimir79 on Wed Feb 23, 2011 3:57 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Good thing none of Russia's possible adversaries depend on ERA for Armor protection!

    Look at their navy. Even their small patrol craft have one or two AK-630s compared to western vessels where even frigates might only have one or two Phalanxs. Their own experience with anti ship missiles leads them to take defence against anti ship missiles very seriously it seems.

    Patrol craft are armed with the AK-306. It looks like the AK-630 but it has little anti-ASM capability. It is directed from a gunner mount with iron crosshairs that is hardly an accurate aiming system.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  GarryB on Thu Feb 24, 2011 1:32 am

    Patrol craft are armed with the AK-306. It looks like the AK-630 but it
    has little anti-ASM capability. It is directed from a gunner mount
    with iron crosshairs that is hardly an accurate aiming system.

    Quite right, I didn't mean patrol craft as most of them are operated by the FSB and MVD. I meant missile and torpedo craft of similar size which have AK-630... and the new designs which often have Kashtan-M drawn on them (because most are still largely undecided regarding armament).

    So, let me get this straight, this is how Russian armor designers think:

    Vlascezk, we need better penetration of Polish T-72s!
    No problem mate! We'll just let these M1A2 Abrams sit and wait!

    No. Like any designers they look at the range of potential threats and they design their ammunition to meet those threats. Of course the ammunition we have seen and know about entered service in the early 1990s and has not been updated because of lack of funds. What they don't do as you are suggesting is just look at what the US is making now and try to just copy it. They will certainly look at what everyone is making right now and determine what features will be useful and what will not.
    You have to keep in mind that they are using different materials which have different properties so this makes some solutions not an option for them.

    That's besides the point. The point is that if you want to compare
    system v.s. system then take it to another thread, this thread is about
    tanks.

    Well actually this thread is about production orders for tanks for the Russian military so I guess you should stop mentioning foreign tanks and the ammo used by foreign tanks?

    But at this point in time you do agree that T-90 tanks are inferior to Western MBTs in terms of AT warfare no?

    No. I also think the T-34 was a superior tank to all the tanks the Germans made. It didn't have a better gun or better armour or turret crew layout or optics... it did tend to have better mobility and reliability and it was made in far larger numbers... the closest the Germans came was the Panzer IV which in many ways was as good as the T-34 and in some ways was actually better and overall for the first half of the war was clearly better used.

    You should note that Vasiliy Folfanov takes his information from a rather popular Tank forum.

    Correction... he provides information to that rather popular tank forum.


    And Garry, you must understand the difference between a Paper and
    Conjecture. Just because they can doesn't mean they will. Show me proof
    that there is a Fire-and-Forget ATGM being developed to be fired from
    the gun of a Tank and maybe we can put this to rest.

    You must understand the stupidity of what you are saying?
    You want hard proof of a weapon system in development?
    Would a photo of it in operational service suffice or do I need to show you production figures for last year for the round they are still DESIGNING!

    How about this:


    Russian concept of impulse correction

    The 3VOF63 (66) 152-mm rounds with the 3OF38 guided high-explosive/fragmentation Santimetr/Santimetr-M projectile

    The Santimetr-M1 guided artillery projectile

    The Smelchak 240-mm guided mortar shell

    The Beta 2S12 120-mm mortar laser-guided artillery system

    The Firn-1 130-mm M46 gun laser-guided artillery system

    The Ugroza-1M BM-21

    Grad MLRS laser-guided artillery system

    The Sokol-1 125-mm D-81 tank gun laser-guided artillery munition
    A list of new rounds that use side thruster rockets for manoeuvring large distances for short periods during the last seconds to impact with the target that includes the SOKOL-1 that is fired from the 125mm calibre D-81 TANK GUN.
    http://www.orteh.com/eng/products/catalogue/books/12.php

    As I said it uses laser target marking assistance but can hit moving targets without laser target marking.


    Ah, I see, putting a Tank in an Infantry fight, brilliant political move.

    What do politics have to do with it?
    I guess the US is as dumb as I am because they seem to have lots of Armour in Afghanistan... how many tanks have the Taleban used against the coalition of the poppy?

    As of now, only the Israelis, which is actually more than the APS Russians have in their standing army.

    So for the Russians it really isn't an issue then.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5673
    Points : 6079
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  Austin on Sat Feb 26, 2011 6:58 pm

    Can T-90 fire at a moving target while the T-90 tank is moving as well , including the Reflex ATGM missile while T-90 moves and the target is on move ?

    Since Reflex missile is a beam rider , what if the beam gets blocked by smoke or obstruction , it will lose track of target and missile will fall off ?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  GarryB on Sun Feb 27, 2011 1:25 am

    Yes a moving T-90 can hit moving targets... even the BMP-3 can hit moving targets while it is moving firing laser beam riding missiles.

    If the target drives behind a house then a beam riding missile has the same problem a wire guided missile has... and the same with smoke.
    The difference is that a laser beam riding missile platform can move during the engagement because there is no wire that can snag or break.

    That is why the early Russian helo launched ATGMs were all radio command guided (AT-2, AT-6 SHTURM, and ATAKA)... the exception was the Sagger on some Mi-8s and Mi-2s but those helos had to hover during the entire engagement just like a western helo with HOT or TOW. The current missiles like Vikhr and Krisantema are laser beam riders which allow free flight during the engagement... the former including the Su-25TM.

    Think of the beam as a piece of string tied to the target the missile will skid sideways to stay in the beam but as it gets closer to the target the deflection gets less and less till impact... and without dragging wires most are supersonic.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5673
    Points : 6079
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  Austin on Sun Feb 27, 2011 11:31 am

    M1 Abrams vs T-72 Ural: Operation Desert Storm 1991 by Steven Zaloga

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  IronsightSniper on Mon Feb 28, 2011 4:09 am

    That's like the 3rd time you've posted that Austin Very Happy

    Yes, it's a nice book, would love to see more like it.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  GarryB on Mon Feb 28, 2011 5:03 am

    Page 26 of the book you posted...

    The M1A1 had 34 of its 40 rounds of main gun ammunition in a protected bustle
    in the rear turret overhang and the remainder in protected ready racks inside the
    turret.

    So even the M1A1 carries 6 live rounds in the crew compartment... with the new upgrade the T-90 will have all its ammo in the armoured underfloor autoloader and the turret bustle auto loader... which means no ammo in the crew compartment.

    ahmedfire
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 711
    Points : 885
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  ahmedfire on Tue Mar 01, 2011 1:40 am

    So even the M1A1 carries 6 live rounds in the crew compartment... with the new upgrade the T-90 will have all its ammo in the armoured underfloor autoloader and the turret bustle auto loader... which means no ammo in the crew compartment.
    what about M1A2 ,is there any ammo in crew comp ??

    t90 has 125 mm gun that can reach 5km
    abrams has 120 mm gun 3 km range...

    but i think the tank compat now and in the near future will be in the range 3 km by maximum..
    developments now added to eleectonics and better detecting hardware and better IR ,,and focusing in make agood and fast crew to take the enemy from the first shot.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  GarryB on Tue Mar 01, 2011 5:07 am

    The 5km range for the T-90 is for guided missiles, and with the new SOKOL-1 guided round it can engage helos at 8km while the range limit for ground targets is 5km.

    I suspect the 3km range limit for the Abrams is "effective" range for AP rounds... they could probably hit targets at much longer range but penetration at longer range would not be enough to defeat the target reliably.

    Most modern tanks can fire HE frag rounds out to 8-9km in daylight clear conditions.

    Obviously if you could park them on a slope to increase their gun elevation the shells would fly much further but I rather doubt the tanks would know where the shells would land as they are not designed for indirect fire.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  IronsightSniper on Tue Mar 01, 2011 7:36 am

    Actually, no. The Abram's M829A3 APFSDS projectile loses about, 100 cm of penetration out to 3km+, but it can still reliably penetrate, say, a T-72M1 from 5km away. It's just that the range finders on Abrams are governed not to go over 2,999 m, hence why it's max range is 3km.

    But I should pull the same argument many people have pulled, that most combat ranges don't go over 2km, at least, not flat ones.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5673
    Points : 6079
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  Austin on Tue Mar 01, 2011 8:58 am

    Just a hypothetical question.

    If you fire a Top Attack Anti-Tank missile with Tandem Warhead at M1A2 Abrams,T-90,Leopard or any modern western tank , assuming they dont have any Active Hard Kill mechanism can the Tandem Warhead penetrate the turret and kill the crew of these tanks ?

    BTW Reflex does not have a Top-Attack Capability , so the guy would have to point the beam at the turret of tanks , will then it penetrate the modern western turret.

    I came to know from d_berwal that IA regularly practices firing the Reflex at its max effective range of 5 km and it works quite well at max without loosing its speed or dropping etc.

    Here is a video of India's Nag 3rd Gen ATGM with Top Attack capability in action ,lot of slow motion there.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9VN4sXJbTo

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  GarryB on Tue Mar 01, 2011 9:08 am

    Actually, no. The Abram's M829A3 APFSDS projectile loses about, 100 cm
    of penetration out to 3km+, but it can still reliably penetrate, say, a
    T-72M1 from 5km away.

    If it did lose 100cm penetration past 3km range then there is no way in hell it could penetrate any tank.

    I think you mean 100mm because 100cms is 1m.

    It's just that the range finders on Abrams are governed not to go over 2,999 m, hence why it's max range is 3km.

    Are you sure? That is ridiculous! The 125mm gun of the T-80 has a point blank range of 2,100m and I would expect the Abrams to have a similar point blank range.

    Note I am using the technical term point blank range, not the western media use of the term.
    The meaning has been corrupted to mean firing from a range so close that you can't miss... is muzzle of weapon within very close range of the target so if you fired you could not miss even if you wanted to.
    The term actually means the range at which you can fire at a target where the highest point of the projectiles trajectory does not exceed the height of the target so even if you get the range to the target horribly wrong you will still hit it.

    Now the Soviet and Russian tanks are quite small but I would assume with a 120mm gun and APFSDS rounds that if you fired at it while it was within 2km you would still get a hit with a bore sighted shot.

    This pretty much means the Abrams laser range finder is only of use for its MGs...

    But I should pull the same argument many people have pulled, that most
    combat ranges don't go over 2km, at least, not flat ones.

    I agree, but think that the laser beam of the rangefinder doesn't actually stop at 3km so it is not like you are making it harder to detect or anything. Sounds like a pointless idea that limits performance... I bet that was a real pain in the desert.

    They clearly don't intend to fire HE frag rounds then?

    If you fire a Top Attack Anti-Tank missile with Tandem Warhead at M1A2
    Abrams,T-90,Leopard or any modern western tank , assuming they dont have
    any Active Hard Kill mechanism can the Tandem Warhead penetrate the
    turret and kill the crew of these tanks ?

    Penetrate... yes, without question. Kill all the crew depends on where it hits and what it hits as crews in modern tanks have all sorts of protection vests etc etc. If the penetrating beam of plasma hits a crewman they are probably dead or lose what is hit like an arm. If it hits fuel tanks or ammo there will be a fire which could be more lethal.
    Could just as easily hit the engine compartment and disable the tank without killing or injuring anyone.

    BTW Reflex does not have a Top-Attack Capability , so the guy would have
    to point the beam at the turret of tanks , will then it penetrate the
    modern western turret.

    Could just as easily aim for the side of the tank or the joint between turret and hull or the lower glacis plate.

    The current development SOKOL-1 is a diving top attack round that can penetrate 750mm of armour designed to be fired from standard 125mm guns.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  IronsightSniper on Tue Mar 01, 2011 9:24 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Actually, no. The Abram's M829A3 APFSDS projectile loses about, 100 cm
    of penetration out to 3km+, but it can still reliably penetrate, say, a
    T-72M1 from 5km away.

    If it did lose 100cm penetration past 3km range then there is no way in hell it could penetrate any tank.

    I think you mean 100mm because 100cms is 1m.

    Yes, I did meant 100 mm of penetration loss unshaven

    It's just that the range finders on Abrams are governed not to go over 2,999 m, hence why it's max range is 3km.

    Are you sure? That is ridiculous! The 125mm gun of the T-80 has a point blank range of 2,100m and I would expect the Abrams to have a similar point blank range.

    Note I am using the technical term point blank range, not the western media use of the term.
    The meaning has been corrupted to mean firing from a range so close that you can't miss... is muzzle of weapon within very close range of the target so if you fired you could not miss even if you wanted to.
    The term actually means the range at which you can fire at a target where the highest point of the projectiles trajectory does not exceed the height of the target so even if you get the range to the target horribly wrong you will still hit it.

    Now the Soviet and Russian tanks are quite small but I would assume with a 120mm gun and APFSDS rounds that if you fired at it while it was within 2km you would still get a hit with a bore sighted shot.

    This pretty much means the Abrams laser range finder is only of use for its MGs...

    It's just a Governed range, like the Governed top speed of an Abrams, it can be removed.

    And if you noticed, I got that info from the book Austin posted. cheers

    But I should pull the same argument many people have pulled, that most
    combat ranges don't go over 2km, at least, not flat ones.

    I agree, but think that the laser beam of the rangefinder doesn't actually stop at 3km so it is not like you are making it harder to detect or anything. Sounds like a pointless idea that limits performance... I bet that was a real pain in the desert.

    They clearly don't intend to fire HE frag rounds then?

    IMO, it's kinda pointless to try to turn a Tank gun into a flak gun, but yes, I do assume that we don't plan on using our Abrams for that role.

    BTW Reflex does not have a Top-Attack Capability , so the guy would have to point the beam at the turret of tanks , will then it penetrate the modern western turret.

    No. Reflex's current penetration rating is almost 1m of solid steel. Fortunately, the Turret armor of tanks like the M1A2 or Leo 2A6, have between 1.6m - 2m of RHAe v.s. HEAT rounds.


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  GarryB on Tue Mar 01, 2011 9:34 am

    IMO, it's kinda pointless to try to turn a Tank gun into a flak gun, but
    yes, I do assume that we don't plan on using our Abrams for that role.

    I wasn't suggesting turning it into an anti aircraft gun.

    There are plenty of targets on the battlefield for which an APDSFS round is not really effective against... a Kornet ATGM and crew is one example.
    At 5km you will want to blow the crap out of such a launcher and the people around it because they can launch a missile at you and be in the zone for a hit (Kornet hits targets out to 5.5kms).
    With a HEAT round range is vital to get it within range of the target and your laser range finder doesn't reach that far...

    There is a reason the Russians are introducing gun tube launched Laser missiles with HE Frag warheads... infantry will often call in tank fire to deal with problem positions like a MG nest in a high rise building or half way up a hill where the approaching terrain has no cover... call back to a tank and ID the target and they will fire from well back to hit the point target and take it out. I don't know about US practise but for the Russians this is perfectly normal... and is a reason why the BMP-3 has a 100mm gun so it can offer direct fire support to its infantry squad that can never get called away on a different tasking etc.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5673
    Points : 6079
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  Austin on Tue Mar 01, 2011 10:08 am

    GarryB wrote:The current development SOKOL-1 is a diving top attack round that can penetrate 750mm of armour designed to be fired from standard 125mm guns.

    What is the status of SOKOL-1 development ? I havent heard any thing on that front , is it in works or cancelled ?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  GarryB on Tue Mar 01, 2011 10:32 am

    Just reading its design specs that describe it as able to be fired at distinct battlefield targets or moving ones it sounds like it might use the same optics as the Ugroza rocket upgrade package for unguided rockets.

    It is advertised in the 2004 Russias Arms catalogue and it shows actual rounds rather than drawings, but like anything it would likely need funding at that time. Right now however I would expect as part of their drive to introduce guided weapons into the inventory that it won't be too far away if it is not already in service.

    Have read the Wiki page on the S-13 and it talks about the Ugroza package and describes S-13 rockets upgraded with the Ugroza package as having KOR added to their designation... so for example a S-13OF which is a HE Frag rocket would be S-13OFKOR if it had Ugroza guidance... which makes it sound like it is already in service.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 3:03 am


      Current date/time is Thu Dec 08, 2016 3:03 am