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

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

    Post  Austin on Fri Mar 11, 2011 7:41 am

    ^^ Innteresting but i suppose the Top Attack one tried to attack the center of the turret based on their pre-set images and then compares to the actual and then makes correction while in flight , so that it does not end up hitting other then the turret and in the center.

    Has the US Army every tested Javelin against the Abrams-2 and who has won most times ?

    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 Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:09 am

    Look at this freeze frame of a shot at a tank with Javelin...



    Now turn the tank around for a frontal shot and it is either going to hit the upper hull or turret front.... and it simply doesn't have the penetration capability to guarantee penetration from those angles in those areas.

    It also doesn't have the accuracy to hit a particular part of the tank... especially with a moving tank.

    Most of the time it will kill, I am not saying it is useless or anything, and for most tanks the US is currently fighting it is quite frankly overkill using a million dollar hammer to crack a 50 cent nut... from what I have seen of video footage the US grunts are using it on everything from individual shooting positions to buildings... everything but tanks.

    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 Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:55 am

    Yes indeed the US Army have used Javelin extensively in GW 2 , hitting almost every thing that blocks its way and using F&F capability of Javelin to minimise exposure time and avoid direct fire from enemy.

    Well thats the advantage being a rich nation , you can use expensive toys at your will Laughing

    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 Fri Mar 11, 2011 12:56 pm

    GarryB wrote:Look at this freeze frame of a shot at a tank with Javelin...



    Now turn the tank around for a frontal shot and it is either going to hit the upper hull or turret front.... and it simply doesn't have the penetration capability to guarantee penetration from those angles in those areas.

    It also doesn't have the accuracy to hit a particular part of the tank... especially with a moving tank.

    Most of the time it will kill, I am not saying it is useless or anything, and for most tanks the US is currently fighting it is quite frankly overkill using a million dollar hammer to crack a 50 cent nut... from what I have seen of video footage the US grunts are using it on everything from individual shooting positions to buildings... everything but tanks.

    Actually, the Javelin has a fair sized warhead too. It has a tandem-HEAT warhead with about 8.4 kg of explosives and it's penetrative capability has been stated from 600 - 1,000 mm of RHA. Also, you have to remember that a stationary target is different than a moving target, so a Javelin would not be aiming for the Front of the Tank all the time.

    Also, the Javelin doesn't cost a million, it's more or less around $100,000 :v



    And Garry, answering your question of why not fill the air gap:

    "You need a space that allow sandwich (or flyer) plates to bulge (or move), you need also a room where HEAT jet and penetrator fragments can spread and would not be channeled into deeper parts of armour array. The clue is to have armour module volume as high as it is possible (of course with common sense and ergonomic issues in mind) while maintaining it`s weight at the lowest level, and "pure" space with air inside is probably the best here. "

    "What Przezdzieblo says is perfectly correct, with regards to bulging armor (and similar reactive armors).

    With regards to non-reactive armor with spaced components, the airgap is necessary for the creation of stresses in the penetrator.

    For instance, in a steel/airgap/steel spaced armor array: While penetrating the first steel layer, a long-rod penetrator will compress and shorten. Passing through the airgap allows it to lengthen again. It will compress and shorten again when penetrating the second steel layer. This compress-stretch-compress action creates tensile and compressive strain in the penetrator body, either breaking it, or weakening it and rendering it less effective at penetrating deeper layers of armor.

    In an aluminum whipple shield: Dozens or hundreds of aluminum/air/aluminum transitions cause rapid compressive and tensile loading in the nose of the penetrator, resulting in the destruction of some frontal length. This is similar to other "unsteady hypervelocity interactions" (such as a penetrator passing through a ceramic-filled metal matrix composite).

    In an edge-effect component: Part of the penetrator's front interacts with armor, while the other part does not (passes through an airgap). Imagine a baseball clipping the top of a fence. Because the lower half of the baseball meets resistance and the upper half does not, the baseball deflects and takes on spin. Similarly, the penetrator will experience shearing forces at the airgap/armor boundry, and flexural forces in its length, inducing yaw and possibly bending or breaking it.

    If the airgaps were filled with armor material, then the disparity of forces acting on the penetrator would be less acute, and the effects would be diminished or lost.

    -- TTK"

    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 Sat Mar 12, 2011 12:40 am

    Also, you have to remember that a stationary target is different than a
    moving target, so a Javelin would not be aiming for the Front of the
    Tank all the time.

    I would suggest that a moving target would make it rather harder to hit in a specific place... and in this case the rocket was fired from 500m... it could just as easily have been an RPG-29... which is also fire and forget.

    Also, the Javelin doesn't cost a million, it's more or less around $100,000 :v

    Well that makes it ok then... Cool

    If the airgaps were filled with armor material, then the disparity of
    forces acting on the penetrator would be less acute, and the effects
    would be diminished or lost.

    And what about something innovative like 10cm2 cells of very high pressure nitrogen in a layer 2.5cm thick?

    The layer could be put together in a cold chamber with cryogenic nitrogen poured into the separate compartments with the cells welded shut and sealed within the armour structure. As the armour returns to room temperature the pressure will increase in the cells so when they are penetrated... especially by a super hot HEAT the liquid would turn straight to a gas.
    It would be very interesting to test to see what effect that has on a solid (APFSDS) or plasma (HEAT) penetrator.

    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 Sat Mar 12, 2011 3:17 am

    The IIR seeker will go for what's the hottest. The more you move the hotter you get, except if you have some camouflage on, but that just makes it more difficult but not inaccurate.

    The problem I see with using liquid nitrogen would be that it would lose multi-shot capability. Once you make a penetration all the pressure might disarm the first penetrator but the gases also escape which means it loses it's capability for when the second one comes along.

    Austin wrote:Will the 1200 mm RHAe penetration capability of Khrizantema ATGM HEAT warhead will allow penetration of most western armour in its strongest area ?

    As Garry said, shot placement is key, but answering your question, no.

    M1A2 Abram's strongest area would be it's front turret, that's where the DU in the entire tank is at. It's RHAe is about 1700 mm. Leopard 2x's strongest area would also be it's front turret (as you might notice, Front turrets are the most protected part of Western tanks). It's RHAe is almost 2000 mm. Western doctrine of reinforcing the front turret doesn't come with no merit either. Analysis of shot placement in the Gulf war showed that over 60% of tank rounds hit 1.5 m off the ground, which would be the Front turret for tanks that are around 2.5 m tall (including Abrams and T-80/90). Unfortunately for the Leopard 2, being 3m tall means that 60% of tank rounds will hit it's Glacis, which is fairly armored either way. Not really sure how tank rounds relate to ATGMs, but yeah.

    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 Sat Mar 12, 2011 4:05 am

    The IIR seeker will go for what's the hottest. The more you move the
    hotter you get, except if you have some camouflage on, but that just
    makes it more difficult but not inaccurate.

    Very not true... otherwise the defence from Javelin would be the same as for aircraft... Flare elements in the smoke grenade launchers.
    An IR seeker might be fooled by flares, but an IIR seeker actually builds an image like a thermal imager so you can pick a part of the tank to hit... the problem clearly in this case is that the person launching the missile picked low on the side of the tank and picked a high lofted trajectory which resulted in a poor hit low down on the side at a steep angle.
    The problem with Javelin is that if the tank has no obvious heat signature to lock on to then it can't be fired in fire and forget mode because if the missile can't see the tanks signature the tank could move and the missile would hit where the tank was because it wouldn't see it moving.
    Most tanks however do have an IR signature and moving tanks more so.

    Not really sure how tank rounds relate to ATGMs, but yeah.

    Of course helicopter fired missiles will be launched from 6-8km away and will as a rule be fired at the flanks of an armoured force. The automatic tracking system will likely aim for the centre of the tank and if the missile hits there then we are talking about a good chance of a hit on the turret ring from the side.

    It should also be mentioned that the Krisantema is the cheap replacement for the ATAKA and that when facing front line enemy armour the missile used would likely be HERMES with its 28kg warhead which is designed to defeat current and future enemy main battle tanks.

    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 Sat Mar 12, 2011 4:07 am

    But as we all know, Khrizantema hasn't been adopted as an air-launched ATGM, and as we discussed a whiles back, we're not really sure why either.

    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 Sat Mar 12, 2011 5:22 am

    But as we all know, Khrizantema hasn't been adopted as an air-launched
    ATGM, and as we discussed a whiles back, we're not really sure why
    either.

    It is part of the Mi-28M upgrade of the N model.

    And I am guessing it is because the TOR system of EOs for the gunners sight didn't have the appropriate laser beam for guidance as the ATAKA doesn't use laser beam riding and nor does any other weapon the Mi-28N normally carries. (The Vikhr uses it but that is a Hokum weapon.)
    The TOR system is going to be replaced by an UOMZ turret EO system in the M model Mi-28.

    Additionally I would think the M upgrade will have a fully operational MMW radar system for targeting ground targets.

    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 Fri Sep 23, 2011 10:06 am

    Mindstorm two questions Smile

    1) The Frontal Armour of M1A2 SEP is stated at 900 - 950 mm KE and 1500 mm CE , is there any round internally available that would penetrate the frontal armour for such tanks ? Or the frontal armour of Western tanks remain immune to any known weapon ?

    2 ) Do you have any update on Armata Tank development or it just reamains too classified ? Thanks

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 737
    Points : 920
    Join date : 2011-07-20

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

    Post  Mindstorm on Fri Sep 23, 2011 12:43 pm

    The Frontal Armour of M1A2 SEP is stated at 900 - 950 mm KE and 1500 mm CE


    The central point here is: stated by who ?

    The same gang of ignorant mercenaries strangely avoiding like the death simple ,even intuitive concepts, as specific armoured mass to volume index ?
    The same strangely ignoring that even only the physical LOS of frontal turrett armour in T-90A is significantly higher than Leo-2A5 ?
    The same selling ,comically ,to theirs interlocutors ridiculous ,low level platitudes such as : western tank more heavy = more heavily armoured Laughing Laughing Laughing ?


    Those comical,amateurish, figures for frontal armour level of M12A2(useful ,at maximum, for make some laughters with your friends) circulating on the net remind to me those circulating on the engagement range of AIM-120 series ,triggered ,ostly by the infamous "article" on designation-system site

    [url=http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-120.html ]www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-120.html [/url]

    Observing those "magical" figures ,cited even as acquired data on internet Shocked Shocked by part the horde of blind, ignorant fanaticals, (try only to remember how much times you have heard them ...) someone could argue that missile engine technology and aerodynamic solutions in USA scientifical community had reached alien-like level 20 years ago considering the unescapable size and weigth constraints within which the AIM-120 series was designed ,exactly how someone could infer that english composite armor technology has reached alien-like level and absurd level in the mass efficiency factor if was capable not only to compensate for a so penelizing internal volume to mass index but even to produce results superior to MBT which can count on an armour's physical LOS significantly gretaer in theirs frontal projection .

    Sadly for them ,however, when someone begin to talk seriously of those subject employing serious,professional, sources the Hollywood-like myths immediately shatter and reality quickly realign itself around much less sensational facts, perfectly in line with rational parametrical boundaries of its components.

    [url=http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.181/pub_detail.asp ]www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.181/pub_detail.asp [/url]

    Austin you are an Indian citizen, you have seen an USAF colonel "selling" in a very mean way, closed between four walls,to its brothership friends (among squall,laugthers,SU-30MKI equiped with Tumansky engines and Mig-21 Bison equiped with Elta radar Laughing Laughing Laughing ) a creative "version" of the events at Red Flag 2008 completely overturning the results and the stunning achievements which IAF's officials and pilots had brought to home thanks to hard,serious work and very high level professionalism and that them rightly was celebrating in those same instants in open media in India and you have observed this ridiculous, totally imaginative, private speech become ,for over an year and half ,an official debriefing of Red Flag 2008 !! and even cited as a source by majority of brainless fan-boys in search of any type of pretext to take a revenge for the humiliation of Cope India 2004.

    Just the behaviour and ,let me say that, the incredible technical ignorance, of this colonel in its speech in front of its team-mates give to you a pale idea of the blind mindset at the basis of the perverse mechanisms i have previously described .

    When you see this type of data,ask to yourself :
    Are those data rationally compatibles with irreducible parametrical informations at our disposition ?
    Are them compatibles with unescapables physical constarints in which them operate ?
    Is present any motivation or side interest for which those data should be not coorect....very often even in a self embarassing measure ? (try only to image what would happen if someone would attempt to form an opinion on MiG-35 capabilities on the basis of the comically corrupted figures of its parameters present at pag 77 of "Dogfight!: India’s Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft" by Ahley Tellis ... Laughing Laughing Laughing )

    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 Fri Sep 23, 2011 12:59 pm

    Actually I know about the Colonel statement and his mindset and had the IAF had not rebuffed it , it would have been a gospel truth amongst all Western Trade Magazines like Janes and other , if memory serves me right in reality the USAF did not win a single combat against the IAF Su-30MKI and lost all Laughing

    But coming back to the topic of Longer Slender APFSDS or Shorter Thicker APFSDS , some one would argue why not a longer thicker APFSDS then to take care of ERA + Composite armour.

    I think the issue is neither a Longer Slender or a Shorter Thicker or a Longer Thicker APFSDS is a solution to the problem but a right L/D ratio APFSDS against a given Armour/ERA is a solution.

    If a longer slender APFSDS penetration is reduced by ERA and a Shorter Thicker APFSDS is defeated by composite armour then its very much possible that Longer Thicker APFSDS might just prove ineffective against both.

    I think the Russians are no fools to not have a longer slender APFSDS as a solution to all problem western armour neither are West foolish enough to keep on increasing length in the hope it will penetrate better.

    Both parties are limited in their knowledge of Armour composition of the other and same goes for ERA , so they keep developing APFSDS based on what they know will work based on their own research and their experience from older model ERA and composite armour obtained from either parties including APFSDS.

    There is some serious gray area where no body known how their APFSDS will react to specific armour unless they face each other in real combat and they will never know.

    That leave room for PR from both sides , I for think both sides might be knowing how some things work which they may not be entirely aware how other thinks dont work , O am sure atleast one will be proven more wrong then the other.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 737
    Points : 920
    Join date : 2011-07-20

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

    Post  Mindstorm on Fri Sep 23, 2011 9:15 pm

    But coming back to the topic of Longer Slender APFSDS or Shorter Thicker APFSDS , some one would argue why not a longer thicker APFSDS then to take care of ERA + Composite armour.

    For two main reasons :

    1) A greater diameter obviously increase the interaction surface between the rod and the armour, with the effect of a greater dispersion of the finite kinetic energy delivered by the penetrator at the instant of the contact and during the tunnelling action over a far wider area.

    2) A long rod with an increased diameter ,moreover,would result in a round with a much,much greater mass with the obvious effect in acceleration capability by part of the main gun, average speed and stability problems both during the fire sequence and in fly.


    I think the Russians are no fools to not have a longer slender APFSDS as a solution to all problem western armour neither are West foolish enough to keep on increasing length in the hope it will penetrate better.

    Western designers are all except fools, them have simply selected the solution more rational.
    An APFSDS ,indipendently from presence or absence of ERA, must at the end confront the passive armour of the target; what sense should have design a round including features aiding it at defeat dynamic protectyion of heavy ERA when those same features would renders it uncapable to penetrate the armour of the standard MBT available in its same time frame? (above all taking also into account that ERA don't cover the entire target area of a MBT and almost always work only for one hit in a certain point).

    Increasing L/D ratio ,a trend constant in APFSDS's design from well before the introduction of second generation ERA, has allowed western designers to mantain a certain capability and chance to penetrate, at useful operational ranges, frontal passive armour of the main contemporary russian tanks operative in the same span of time, in particular those not covered by ERA tiles or even some weak spots covered by ERA ; any deviation from this conceptual route would have produced a round effectively uncapable to penetrate opponent's MBT frontal protection in any spot.

    There is some serious gray area where no body known how their APFSDS will react to specific armour unless they face each other in real combat and they will never know.

    I agree perfectly with you on that.


    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 Sep 24, 2011 5:30 am

    Mindstorm , so let me ask you a follow on question what has then prevented the Russian designer from developing a longer slender APFSDS considering till date none of the Western tank have deployed ERA in significant number ?

    Developing a longer slender APFSDS is not a rocket science and what the russian need is just a modified autoloader which they could have developed.

    Why has russia chosen to develop a some what shorter APFSDS with thicker sabot and did not join the race for longer and longer APFSDS like US is developing with M829A3 and now underdevelopment A4 ?

    Check the US APFSDS round
    http://tkfiles.storage.msn.com/x1pi7ndPRYteRu6EPHxcjpJ6w356rm-gITpKKV9fbp3AwNBRuBFNeBjebzkPafpcPHEWK-JcVf0vVxPmVcgfftbJGm6FeF38DRb99PCbrR9JpFvHNVp3F0RaQ

    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 Sep 24, 2011 6:51 am

    Mindstorm wrote:10) In several tests conducted in front of Indian delegation using latest foreign munitions of the M829A2 type conducted from 250 meters against T-90S devoid of the normal built-in reactive armor the turrett resulted completely impentrable !!

    From what i have read on other boards on this issue ,US never exported M829A2 DU rounds but only Tungesten rounds , so what is more likely to have been tested is 120mm KEW-A2 round.

    Here are the details of it http://defense-update.com/products/digits/120ke.htm

    KEW-A2 (General Dynamics)
    The 120mm KEW-A2 cartridge is uses a tungsten penetrator, and is proposed as an alternative for depleted uranium based KE projectiles. KEW-A2 uses 8.6kg of JA-2 propellant, accelerating the 7.6kg projectile to a muzzle velocity of 1,700 m/sec. The projectile uses the tungsten rod, steel fin and sabot fabricated from composite materials. ot, fired at a muzzle velocity of 1,740 m/sec generating chamber pressre of 5,800 bar.


    11) Even only tyhr physical thickness of T-90 turrrett armor is in therange of 70-95 cm ,with 45 cm in the firing port area, a Leopard -2A5 show a physical thickness for the same area of 65 cm and 35 cm in the area of gun mantlet

    This part of Leo 2A5 too is disputed ,This is what Damian told me about leo 2 armour

    link

    Some pictures that he had sent me on Leo 2 armour

    http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/231/p1190540q.jpg/
    http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/5435/p1190535.jpg
    http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/3633/p1190532.jpg




    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 Sep 24, 2011 6:54 am

    Mindstorm wrote:
    Increasing L/D ratio ,a trend constant in APFSDS's design from well before the introduction of second generation ERA, has allowed western designers to mantain a certain capability and chance to penetrate, at useful operational ranges, frontal passive armour of the main contemporary russian tanks operative in the same span of time, in particular those not covered by ERA tiles or even some weak spots covered by ERA ; any deviation from this conceptual route would have produced a round effectively uncapable to penetrate opponent's MBT frontal protection in any spot.

    Yes that makes sense now.

    Is K-6 made with different pinciple compared to K-5 ?

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 737
    Points : 920
    Join date : 2011-07-20

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

    Post  Mindstorm on Sun Sep 25, 2011 11:39 am

    This part of Leo 2A5 too is disputed ,This is what Damian told me about leo 2 armour

    DamianThis is obvious lie.

    We have messures made on real Leopard 2 tank, front armor on the left side of turret is at least 800mm, armor behind main sight is 650mm + 200mm in front of main sight in Leopard 2A5/A6 tanks, below sight we again have ~800mm

    Some pictures that he had sent me on Leo 2 armour

    http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/231/p1190540q.jpg/
    http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/5435/p1190535.jpg
    http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/3633/p1190532.jpg


    I am surprised any day more on the capacity to do litterally anything in order to mantain alive beloved metropolitan legends (even when obviously ,totally out of line and devoid of any type of rational and factual foundation), coming even to a selective blindness capable to let the acceptance of twisted or inconsistent proofs while ,contestually ,completely forgetting crushing ones.

    I want to start from the pics ,which it declare to have received from "friends of an its friend", Smile ; the first one is obviously NOT a Leopard 2 A4/A5 left side turret armoured section for no other than simple, crushing, self evident geometrical reasons. [see down]

    Austin i image that you have already noted,moreover, that, except in the third (which naturally perfectly confirm the Leo-2A4's armour LOS figures and the ratio between that and the other section) ,very strangely no other turrett's visible constructive elements are present for reference.

    Do you remember mine first suggestion about the acceptance and reliability of suspect informations ?
    "Are those data rationally compatibles with irreducible parametrical informations at our disposition ?"

    Well give a look at THIS very illustrative photo of a Leopard-2 A4 turrett in construction without the armour module blocks inserts







    You will note ,over the absolute inconsistency of the left turrett armour module (that virtually with more LOS ) with that "thing" in the first image envoyed to you, also that this photo allow to execute precise measurements of the ratio with other Leo-2A4 well know visible structural elements employing established, unescapable parametrical measures .

    From that fact result absolutely clear that a measure of 800mm (80 cm) for the left side armour side would be not only totally irreconcilable with LOS of side of turrett but also with the width's figure of the whole MBT (3,75 meters) ,conversely the figure of 65 cm collimate perfectly with the ratio of all the previously mentioned well established dimensional figures.
    At this point become even more interesting observe another time the third pic envoied to you; a part for the comical, even clumsy attempt to increase the LOS measuring from ...the centre of the periscope area !!! and... in oblique !!! Laughing Laughing Laughing this image with a visibles structural element render even more clearly evident as also the figure of 60 cm for LOS of this armour section ,taked correctly from the right of the periscope to the base is perfectly sound and in line with the dimensional ratio with any other constructive element of the Leo-2 A4 MBT.






    Just for reference that is a comparative draw maked by Harkonnen (alias ....Andrey Tarasenko !) on the real ratio between LOS armour level of the Leopard-2A4 a T-80U and T-72B ; note the difference in overall armoured surface area ,size of turrett's frontal protection and angle at which enemy fire are uncapable to hit the side in T-80U and T-72B and on western like design







    Note the perfect consistency of all those elements with what previously asserted on the problem of armoured mass to surface index and on overall mass of a MBT and its internal volume ;those grossly "inflated" LOS for western MBTs (a desperate operation for attempt to mantain alive a childish irrational platitude) would not only collide with structural positioning of other elements and with the same ratio with the well known figures of theirs platform's size, but would bring the weight factor at level even more ridiculous than that already caused by the necessity to protect a MBT's structure horrible plagued by a titanic fraction of internal volume.


    To be continued....


    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 737
    Points : 920
    Join date : 2011-07-20

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

    Post  Mindstorm on Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:53 pm

    Even more intersting is that what presented until now ,a great fraction of which debated in particular in this topic at Tank net, the following


    http://208.84.116.223/forums/index.php?showtopic=14592&st=0


    started just by the same Andrej Tarasenko to debunk one time for all the ridiculous idiocies commonly circulating on frontal armour level of western "heavy" tanks ,claimed to be more thick than corrispective of Russian-built MBTs (please read it entirely ,in particular read with attention the "interventions" of pfcem and Sebastian Balos and you will realize how those idiocies and comical claims originate and spread even with the use of completely invented data !!).

    What is even more interesting is that those elements was so factually and rationally well grounded that ...the same Damian was employing them in a debate just on this same subject !!!


    http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?158677-Tanks-with-urban-survivability-kits./page4 Laughing Laughing



    As you see Leo2 isn't best armored tank, in some areas some russian tanks are better armored, in some other western tanks have better protection.

    Now should become even more intesting to hear from him where "vanish" the remaining Leo-2A4 s' armoured mass weigth if, its total mass was absolutely comparable with that of M1 Abrams ,for its own admission Leopard-2 turrett was even smaller than that of M1 Abrams ...and ,for some strange reason, i perceive that ,in its intention, that element was named as it was a disadvantage !!!..... and it claim for M1 Abrams not only a greater armour's LOS overall but also "~300mm LOS thick on full side armor lenght" Smile Smile Smile




    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 Sep 25, 2011 4:12 pm

    Mindstorm thank you for taking the effort to respond , I wanted to know your views on the following

    1> Why has russian APFSDS turned to be shorter and thicker compared to western APFSDS when Longer Slimer APFSDS are known to penetrate better for composite armour better then shorter thicker APFSDS ? Why dont Russian develop longer slimmer APFSDS any reason for this ?

    2> What is Russian Idea for Armata Universal Combat Vehical ? Do they want to streamline logistics by using common chasis or is it something else.

    3> What is the development on APFSDS front , why dont Russian use DU round to the extent US uses ?

    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 Sep 26, 2011 7:33 am

    1> Why has russian APFSDS turned to be shorter and thicker compared to western APFSDS when Longer Slimer APFSDS are known to penetrate better for composite armour better then shorter thicker APFSDS ? Why dont Russian develop longer slimmer APFSDS any reason for this ?

    Basic physics.

    When you have a circle the width of the turret ring to store 22 rounds of ammo then the length of the rounds is dependant on the distance from the centre of the circle to the outside of the circle minus several cms because if you think of cutting a pizza into slices... when you cut 22 slices in the centre the width of the slices will be too narrow for anything but the thinnest needle of a penetrators nose.
    If the length is limited then to increase the weight you have to make the penetrator thicker.
    There is a limit to how thin a penetrator can be... a fine needle is OK for penetrating skin, but to penetrate metal plate it will bend and not penetrate at all. It needs mass as well as hardness and velocity to penetrate well.
    Long penetrators concentrate more mass onto the same area which improves penetration. Increasing the mass by making it thicker will increase the energy the rod has to penetrate with but the increased width means the effort needed to penetrate the armour is also increased.

    Up until the unlimited funds suddenly dried up (mid 1980s) the penetrators they were using were effective enough, and their primary anti armour round was actually the HEAT warheads as the terminal effects were better and they could be effective against a wider range of targets with blast damage as well as penetration.

    Hitting a truck with an APFSDS round might lead to the round punching a 40mm calibre hole right through the back of the truck, whereas a hit with a HEAT round will likely do far more damage and likely start a fire.

    2> What is Russian Idea for Armata Universal Combat Vehical ? Do they want to streamline logistics by using common chasis or is it something else.

    It is basic common sense that tanks can't fight infantry very well and they need support, but as they found in Chechnia BMPs don't last very long in combat in built up areas operating with tanks.

    The solution is to give tank level armour to all the vehicles that will operate with tanks.

    Rather than develop 20 different new vehicles with tank level armour they are going to develop two... one with the engine at the front and one with the engine at the back.

    The MSTA already uses a tank chassis, as does the BTR-T and BMPT, and the various bridging vehicles and the BREM recovery vehicle... so it really isn't that new.

    Even the BMPT is not totally a new idea as the Bradley M3 was designed to not carry troops but to carry a double ammo load for its weapons and to act as a fire support vehicle. It did not have tank level armour however.

    3> What is the development on APFSDS front , why dont Russian use DU round to the extent US uses ?

    In the past they have been able to get the required performance from Tungsten alloy rounds.
    The new DU round is of improved design with new materials alloyed to enable a step up in performance. The problems with DU dust and the expensive clean ups mean the round will likely rarely be used and will be kept aside for emergencies to minimise clean up costs.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 737
    Points : 920
    Join date : 2011-07-20

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

    Post  Mindstorm on Mon Sep 26, 2011 11:59 pm

    Mindstorm thank you for taking the effort to respond , I wanted to know your views on the following

    1> Why has russian APFSDS turned to be shorter and thicker compared to western APFSDS when Longer Slimer APFSDS are known to penetrate better for composite armour better then shorter thicker APFSDS ? Why dont Russian develop longer slimmer APFSDS any reason for this ?

    2> What is Russian Idea for Armata Universal Combat Vehical ? Do they want to streamline logistics by using common chasis or is it something else.

    3> What is the development on APFSDS front , why dont Russian use DU round to the extent US uses ?



    What said on those subjects by GarryB in its post is ,as always, all correct and rationally well centred ; i can only stress some points.

    1) In half of '80 and beginning of '90 years Soviets was sure to enjoy ,in the armoured sector ,in a possible high mobile multi-front offensive in the Great European Plain ,a crushing advantage on NATO not only quantitative but also qualitative ; this element was crucial in slow-down R&D efforts in the field of tank round design and evolution.
    This belief was founded on some cardinal elements of Soviet MBT's classical structural design mixed to some "new" developed (for the time) capabilities, signally :

    1) Wide stand-off fire capability ,assured by theirs gun launched ATGM capable, moreover, to pose also a very serious danger to CAS aircraft and combat helicopters.
    2) Ever improving multilayered passive armour already capable to stop, in the turrett's frontal projection, vast majority of KE and CE round of western MBT of the time , passive armor which combined with the effects of second generation ERA rendered them incredibly resilient to almsot all anti-tanks weapons present in NATO arsenal in those years (as realized by NATO experts of the sectors only after live tests on original Soviet specimens at half of '90 years)
    3) The very compact structure ,with slow silhouette ,small internall volume, reduced target area projection and low weight ,over the obvious advantages in terms of : armoured mass to volume index, lower fuel consuption ,shortened logistical footprint,ease of rail and aircraft trasport of the forces, improved off road mobility, faster capability to reach force concentration etc..etc... was capable also to assure a significantly higher percentage of enemy miss-fire in the high mobile engagements that Soviets expected to characterize a conventional conflict in Europe.
    4) Could count on the pernicious effects achieved ,both at a tactical and a strategical level, by theirs strctured disinformation campaign aimed both to western military operatives and the the analyst community ; very successful,in the period,at corrupt the same foundations (employing very often empyrical purposely crafted "proofs" to reiforce technical beliefs totally out of line....) of western strategic and tactical models of representation and obviously tactical and startegical solutions and doctrine.
    5) Soviet experts was sure that the round operative with armoured forces was more than capable to penetrate NATO's typical MBT of the time

    On the last sentence can be interesting red what writed Viktor Murakhovsky on the tests of 3BM42 APFSDS "Mango", in service on Russian tanks since 1986 :

    " 125-mm 3VBM17 round with 3BM42 APFSDS projectile «Mango» was put into service in 1986. The advanced power projectile is designed to modern updated armored vehicles with combined armor protection. It has complicated structure, which includes solid ballistic and armor-piercing cap, armor-piercing damper and two penetrators made of high-duty tungsten alloy.
    The penetrators are fixed in the hull by a steel body made of low-melting- temperature alloy. When it penetrates, the steel body melts and the penetrators move to the penetrating pipe without consuming energy to leave the hull.The sabot is madeof V-96C1 alloy with advanced characteristics.

    When the projectile was tested the projectile engaged a multilayered armor, which simulates the armor of than cutting-edge tanks: seven- layer armor at an angle of 30 and 60 degrees; three-layer armor at an angle of 65 degrees; steel homogenous armor plate. The tests proved that the 3BM42 APFSDS projectile penetrated the armor which is the same as used in the main battle tanks M1, M1A1 «Abrams» etc. "


    It continue specifying that the round had a guaranteed piercing performance, at a distance of 2000 m and 0/60 degrees, of 450/230 mm and an average piercing performance at a Distance of 2000 m always at 0 degrees of 500 mm.

    From all those elements ,combined witht the "blacks" '90 years, we can deduct that ,at the exact contrary of western scientifical community of the sector ,alarmed by the sudden discovery of the level of resiliency reached by original MBT's specimen with seven layer composite armors (for avoid the enrmous problem represented by the new, second generation,heavy dynamic protections) before SU's collapse in the sector lacked even the technical motivations for engage in an urgent evolutive R&D effort in the APFSDS /HEAT round field.




    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 Sep 27, 2011 9:22 am

    Thanks Mindstorm , Garry for putting up to my questions and patiently answering them Very Happy

    So 3BM42 APFSDS projectile with a guranteed penetration of 450 mm at 0 degrees and an average of 500 mm was guranteed to penetrate NATO tanks of that time which is quite good.

    But since then the APFSDS development has remained static , I have also heard that the 3BM42M APFSDS was never put into production due to bureaucratic reason ?

    Coming to back to the next two decade of development , as we can see from the video and even from Chief Designer statement , the T-90MS affords a frontal protection figure of 850 mm for KE and 1200 for CE and is stated to be similar to modern Western but heavier tank.

    So we must assume that in future any apfsds should be able to penetrate ~ 900 mm of RHA and 1300 mm of CE for high probability of frontal penetration at 0 degrees.

    Since the current best APFSDS we know is 3BM42 ( we really do not know the figure for new 740 mm APFSDS ) and the best CE figure for Reflex missile is 900 mm CE.

    It is quite clear that none of the Russian tank based KE and CE would penetrate the frontal armour of modern Western Tank like M1A2SEP or Leo 2A7 ?

    is there any significant development work going on in APFSDS and CE sphere in Russia to deal with NATO threats ( i am excluding bigger rounds like kornet and focussing on tank based capability )

    Thanks.

    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 Sep 27, 2011 9:41 am

    But since then the APFSDS development has remained static , I have also heard that the 3BM42M APFSDS was never put into production due to bureaucratic reason ?

    Whether it was put in production or not is not the issue.
    The Western tanks that western experts thought were invinsible from the front were not, and the Soviet tanks that were weak and pathetic as shown by the Iraqi performance in Desert Storm is also rubbish.

    Considering all this time it was economics and not skill or physics that prevented Russian tank designers out performing western tank designers is amusing... especially when one considers how much money the west spends a year on "defence".

    Since the current best APFSDS we know is 3BM42 ( we really do not know the figure for new 740 mm APFSDS ) and the best CE figure for Reflex missile is 900 mm CE.

    It is quite clear that none of the Russian tank based KE and CE would penetrate the frontal armour of modern Western Tank like M1A2SEP or Leo 2A7 ?

    Can we assume the same in reverse? I am an expert in Russian designs and equipment and know nothing about any western vehicle newer than the mid 1980s and Soviet and Russian weapons could easily penetrate western vehicles of that time period so can I say that Russian tank based KE and CE could penetrate any western vehicle?

    Of course I couldn't, such a statement would be based on ignorance.

    The weapons made by the Russians were designed to defeat the western vehicles of the period and based on the information we have it is pretty clear they succeeded.

    That is not to say their upgraded T-54s and T-62s could do it, only those vehicles that could fire the new 125mm ammo.

    To compare apples with apples we will need to wait till we find out a little more about the new DU APFSDS round developed for the domestic T-90AM.

    BTW these protection figures you give are front turret figures... with modern fire control systems it is perfectly possible to add a little bias into the software in the aiming algorithm to make the rounds hit low...

    is there any significant development work going on in APFSDS and CE sphere in Russia to deal with NATO threats ( i am excluding bigger rounds like kornet and focussing on tank based capability )

    The article that mentioned new rounds talked about 4 rounds being tested last year and a total of 16 new rounds across the large calibre gun and artillery range.

    I would expect at the very least two new rounds for export with the MS and two new rounds for the domestic of AP and HEAT design, and I would also expect a new HE Frag round suitable for use with the ANIET system and likely at least a new tube launched missile... perhaps two... with one for export.

    Just all speculation of course...

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 737
    Points : 920
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Air power against Tanks and Ground Forces

    Post  Mindstorm on Tue Sep 27, 2011 7:56 pm

    Modern real world experience also tells us the greatest threat to armour is not other tanks, it is air power.

    I am sorry for say that so harshly ,but that is one of those cheaply selled misconceptions absolutely devoid of any factual foundation at which i always refere ; at the exact opposite, if possible, any pasted operational theater of war has systematically proved, in an irrefutable way, that air forces are totally uncapable to inflict significative losses to ground forces (in particular armoured ones) even in heavenly favourable scenario,taking into account very prolongued time windows, against enemies devoid of any serious/modern AD network and lacking any capability to attack the airfields from which opposing air attacks come from  !!

         
    Take, at example, Gulf War:  at the beginning (in plain war) Coalition Air Force Command had declared to have destroyed in the month and half of dedicated operations before G-day (start of ground operations) about 50% of Iraqi ground forces ( 47% of Iraqi armoured forces ).
    That figure, already disowned as completely wronged by the same Coalition Forces assessing in first person what was the reality on the ground..., shrinked more and more ,at an unbelievable pace, as the results and version of battle damage assessment studies and data was updated .

    At the end of this process we have the verdict of the last CENTCOM data, certifying that less than 10% of the iraqi armoured losses -9,6 %- was inflicted by Air Forces in over a month and half after litterally several hundreds dedicated operations ,while all the remaining losses was inflicted, in less than 3 days, by the Coalation ground forces ; in particular the majority of losses to iraqi armoured divisions was inflicted by Coalition artillery and infantry/IFV TOW missiles ,often against not manned MBTs (both elements well attestd by the same survey of M. Held "Warhead hit distribution on main battle tanks in the Gulf War").

    You can read on this subject "Gulf War: The Complete History" by Thomas Houlahan - director of the Military Assessment Program of the William R. Nelson Institute for Public Affairs at James Madison University -,i suggest this book because ,if from a side, it is truly complete and provide a very detailed,integral description of the weapons and tactics employed by Coalition forces in the ground engagements from the eyes of an operative,it represent,contemporaneously, also a perfect example of the high degree of misconceptions and totally false informations which Soviets managed to inject copiously in the minds even of western military insiders, just thanks to the "supporting" factor represented by theirs purposely designed export models),but naturally,by now ,any serious publication report those definitive data.

    -Interesting are also the declarations of captured Iraqi ground forces commanders : almost all of them asserted to being full of hopes before the ground offensive assessing that NATO Air Forces was capable to inflict in a month and half very minor losses only to see Coalition artillery,mechanized infantry and MBTs obliterate majority of theirs pieces in a pair of hours (at example the chief of 48th iraqi artillery division,captured by the UK 4th armoured brigade, declared that its division had lost just eleven pieces in all the month and half of Air Force's attacks and....eighty-seven pieces in less than 40 minutes from the artillery attack of US VII Corps !!!

       
    Let me spare to you the example ,even more disastrous, of Kosovo War .....also here initial claims by part of Air Forces Command of several hundreds of Serbian MBTs destroyed 500 artillery pieces ,thousands of infantry troops killed, shrinked progressively more and more (mostly for the "annoying" element represented by European war commission and theirs survey's data) up to...14 tanks destroyed , 18 APC and 23 artillery pieces ! ! !  ; and naturally also the last conflict in Lybia is a clear proof od what said up to this point.

    Is important to stress that ,over the absence of any type of serious AD (an element already capable to overturn completely the equilibrium in similar conflicts), none of those opponents owned any military mean capable to attack air bases used by enemy Air Forces in the theater of operation , in presence of this class of weapons (the proliferation of which is normally strictly controlled by international arms control treaties and usually present only in the arsenals of major world powers) even only attempt prepare an air campaign become absolutely impossible if not a true suicide act.  

    Air Forces in the last 20 years became more and more popular ,against the typical immensely inferior enemy ,simply because it is a military mean ,in spite to be immensely expensive and time-inefficient, allowing to mantain friendly losses very low ,often even to zero ( with the obvious implications in terms of inpact on internal public opinion and media) ,allowing a fast response to international emergences and to limit the civil losses through the employment of PGM and don't force to invade another country (an important factor in mantaining international community support to the military operation ) ; Ground Forces in a tiny fraction of the time required to aircraft to take off from its airbase , deliver theirs ordances and return at the airfield, can deliver litterally ,in the same area, dozen of thousands times the destruction power delivered by Air Forces.
    Simply them are less suited for minor local conflicts characterizing the actual international political scenario.

    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 Sep 28, 2011 3:06 am

    Stats don't lie, but I would suggest that Russian Air Power, as degraded as it was led to the destruction or abandonment of far more armour in Georgia than actual ground forces achieved.

    The use of ground forces approaching an enemy force will force the enemy force to do one of two things... run away, or form up into a force powerful enough to meet the enemy force.

    If they run away the ground force takes ground, if they form up air power can punish them.

    In the US they like to think air power can win wars on its own.

    In Russia the Army does not expect to be supported by air power and provides its own air defence.

    The irony is that working together like the Germans did makes them both far more powerful, but then the Germans lost.

    The thing is that the modern air forces don't want to become a branch of the army and so they pretend they can do it all on their own.

    Sad really, but the truth is that a single Su-25 armed with 8 x 500kg cluster bombs with top attack bomblets is likely a much greater threat to enemy armour than a single T-90, yet in many ways the hidden truth is that an Su-25 and a T-90 are much more capable together, because an Su-25 can't hold the ground it clears the enemy from.

    Sponsored content

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

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 4:19 pm


      Current date/time is Wed Dec 07, 2016 4:19 pm