Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


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

    Share

    Regular
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1983
    Points : 1990
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

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

    Post  Regular on Sat May 07, 2016 12:37 pm

    ^^^ what werewolf said
    Javelin wouldn't fare well even when it comes to mobility or firepower kills because of weak punch and it would only effect sensors and optics on turret, but since most of the tanks secondary sights it wouldn't make tank unoperational. What is more dangerous - TOW-2B.
    And modern tanks are not very numerous in NATO arsenal too. Tanks are not the best platforms to fight other tanks (mobile AT platform like Khrisantema is superior to any tank when it comes to range, detection, targeting and killing power) and I would be rather worried about NATO dominance in air theatre than on land.
    Russia would have upper hand there as they have better tactical strike capabilities and decent cover from enemy from air. But that have said even limited war against NATO would look like a meat grinder for all involved. I do believe Russian leadership and soldiers are more combat ready then western ones. Although Russian scare is rising readiness in NATO these days.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15858
    Points : 16563
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Sat May 07, 2016 1:11 pm

    How many in service top attack weapons do NATO have... and please don't include Javelin as it can only be used in top attack fire and forget mode if it has a thermal lock on the target, which means it is optically guided... hense SHTORA and indeed Nakidka will adversely effect their performance to the point of making them useless.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Elbows
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 12
    Points : 12
    Join date : 2016-03-13

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

    Post  Elbows on Sat May 07, 2016 10:11 pm

    Hasn't armour almost always been at a disadvantage to anti-tank weapons (be it MBT rounds, ATGMs etc.). I don't recall a time when any tank has been "safe" short of perhaps the heaviest tanks back in WW2 and even then aircraft could take them out.

    I appreciate that we, as countries, have to design tanks to be as survivable as possible, but I don't think any army plans on tanks surviving very long in open combat against a similar opponent. Look at the Abrams. In the hands of a well supplied, well trained crew it's an excellent tank. Put in the hands of poorly trained Iraqis it becomes a battlefield trophy for ISIS.

    In a real engagement with top of the line modern tanks (T-90's, Armatas, Abrams, Leopard II's etc.) it'd be a matter of serious attrition, and that's assuming opposing aircraft didn't flatten most of them before the tanks even started engaging each other. Sure we might have crews which survive, but in the modern battlefield, the tank is still a dangerous place to be.

    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5259
    Points : 5304
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

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

    Post  Militarov on Sun May 08, 2016 12:45 am

    Elbows wrote:Hasn't armour almost always been at a disadvantage to anti-tank weapons (be it MBT rounds, ATGMs etc.).  I don't recall a time when any tank has been "safe" short of perhaps the heaviest tanks back in WW2 and even then aircraft could take them out.

    I appreciate that we, as countries, have to design tanks to be as survivable as possible, but I don't think any army plans on tanks surviving very long in open combat against a similar opponent.  Look at the Abrams.  In the hands of a well supplied, well trained crew it's an excellent tank.  Put in the hands of poorly trained Iraqis it becomes a battlefield trophy for ISIS.

    In a real engagement with top of the line modern tanks (T-90's, Armatas, Abrams, Leopard II's etc.) it'd be a matter of serious attrition, and that's assuming opposing aircraft didn't flatten most of them before the tanks even started engaging each other.  Sure we might have crews which survive, but in the modern battlefield, the tank is still a dangerous place to be.

    Tanks were, and never will be "safe place". Even first WW1 tanks fell victims to direct fire from field guns very soon after they got breath after first shocks of them appearing in first place.

    Regular
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1983
    Points : 1990
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

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

    Post  Regular on Sun May 08, 2016 9:18 am

    Elbows wrote:Hasn't armour almost always been at a disadvantage to anti-tank weapons (be it MBT rounds, ATGMs etc.).  I don't recall a time when any tank has been "safe" short of perhaps the heaviest tanks back in WW2 and even then aircraft could take them out.

    I appreciate that we, as countries, have to design tanks to be as survivable as possible, but I don't think any army plans on tanks surviving very long in open combat against a similar opponent.  Look at the Abrams.  In the hands of a well supplied, well trained crew it's an excellent tank.  Put in the hands of poorly trained Iraqis it becomes a battlefield trophy for ISIS.

    In a real engagement with top of the line modern tanks (T-90's, Armatas, Abrams, Leopard II's etc.) it'd be a matter of serious attrition, and that's assuming opposing aircraft didn't flatten most of them before the tanks even started engaging each other.  Sure we might have crews which survive, but in the modern battlefield, the tank is still a dangerous place to be.
    Yep, safest place in conventional war against Russia and USA would be in attack class submarine. I can't imagine other assets having long lifespan.
    Sorry for off topic Smile

    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3867
    Points : 3902
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

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

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Sun May 08, 2016 11:42 am

    Elbows wrote:Hasn't armour almost always been at a disadvantage to anti-tank weapons (be it MBT rounds, ATGMs etc.).  I don't recall a time when any tank has been "safe" short of perhaps the heaviest tanks back in WW2 and even then aircraft could take them out.

    I appreciate that we, as countries, have to design tanks to be as survivable as possible, but I don't think any army plans on tanks surviving very long in open combat against a similar opponent.  Look at the Abrams.  In the hands of a well supplied, well trained crew it's an excellent tank.  Put in the hands of poorly trained Iraqis it becomes a battlefield trophy for ISIS.

    In a real engagement with top of the line modern tanks (T-90's, Armatas, Abrams, Leopard II's etc.) it'd be a matter of serious attrition, and that's assuming opposing aircraft didn't flatten most of them before the tanks even started engaging each other.  Sure we might have crews which survive, but in the modern battlefield, the tank is still a dangerous place to be.

    Basically this, a pity the like option has gone the way of the mohicans.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15858
    Points : 16563
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Sun May 08, 2016 12:42 pm

    Hasn't armour almost always been at a disadvantage to anti-tank weapons (be it MBT rounds, ATGMs etc.). I don't recall a time when any tank has been "safe" short of perhaps the heaviest tanks back in WW2 and even then aircraft could take them out.

    Actually at certain times tanks could have been considered safe... the KV-1 and T-34 were a surprise for the Germans and their dedicated anti tank weapons were useless... but the Germans are not stupid and they brought up 88mm anti aircraft guns and 105mm howitzers for the job. The Tiger was also invulnerable for a while... and Saving Private Ryan notwithstanding actually taking out a Tiger was not that easy for aircraft... anything accurate enough like 20mm cannon fire was not powerful enough to reliably kill a heavy tank and anything powerful enough like a small bomb or rocket was not accurate enough to reliably kill a heavy tank.

    An exception were bomblets carried by Il-2 ground attack aircraft, but delivering them accurately was a skill too.

    Even the heaviest tank can be immobilised by shooting off its track and no tank has 360 degree protection from heavy AT weapons. Destroy both tracks and then move around to its sides or rear and just hammer it with RPGs... you will get a penetration eventually even if you aim for the turret rear...

    Look at the Abrams. In the hands of a well supplied, well trained crew it's an excellent tank. Put in the hands of poorly trained Iraqis it becomes a battlefield trophy for ISIS.

    Of course any weapon is a component of a system and the performance of that system is dependent on how well those components work together and are used.

    Fly some Apaches into an enemy held area and they can get shot down... I loved when the western media scoffed at Iraqi suggestions that an Apache was shot down with rifle fire... yet the previous decade Soldier of Fortune magazine continually boasted that Hinds were getting shot down with accurate rifle fire...

    Of course tanks will not be safe places... but I would argue with the Russian Air Force and their SAMs and the Russian Army and their SAMs I rather suspect the airspace over the battlefield will not be filled with NATO aircraft for long...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Isos
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 427
    Points : 431
    Join date : 2015-11-06

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

    Post  Isos on Sun May 08, 2016 2:59 pm

    http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/

    Russian tanks and munitions of 125 mm. Explications and illustrations.

    Cyrus the great
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 250
    Points : 260
    Join date : 2015-06-12

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

    Post  Cyrus the great on Mon May 09, 2016 2:34 am

    GarryB wrote:Well certainly with no crew in the turret/ammo storage area it would be useful to purge the air with nitrogen so any spark or burning material quickly is suffocated.

    The ISU-152 was about the only Soviet vehicle that could defeat the Elephant and Tiger tanks at Kursk... they didn't do it by penetrating the armour, as shown in recent conflicts even a 50kg IED can destroy an M1 Abrams and kill its crew... a 152mm shell weighs in the range of 40-45kg and travels at about 900m/s.

    I would suspect the standard full bore 152mm shell will travel at a higher speed but 1,7km/s would be optimistic for a full calibre round.

    Of course with a range of about 70km the 152mm shell from Coalition would have a decent muzzle velocity I would expect.

    The simple fact is that a 152mm shell is very heavy and slow to load and the only vehicle that used it in a turret during WWII was the KV-2 which was very powerful but not very popular.

    When the T-34 entered service most anti armour guns on tanks were 37mm or 45mm or 50mm calibre long barrel high velocity weapons with poor or no HE capacity.

    the 76.2mm gun was a revolutionary design because it mixed both HE power and armour penetration perfomance... before it tanks were either anti tank vehicles with a 37mm or 45mm high velocity anti armour gun and a machine gun, or a short barrel 76.2mm gun firing HE shells... the former anti armour and anti enemy infantry and the latter anti infantry/fortification.  The 76.2mm gun of the T-34 allowed decent penetration of armour and a decent HE shell for other targets... it was the first real MBT.  Good mobility, good armour, good gun.


    Interesting. I've read elsewhere that the 2a83 has a muzzle velocity of at least 1780mps and other sources have put the muzzle velocity at 2000mps+. Electro-thermal guns can reach even greater velocities, so there are great opportunities there as well. I hope to see electric-diesel engines in the Armata variants due to the fact that electric-diesel engines are quiter, fuel and energy efficient and provide excellent acceleration. Electric-diesel engines would apparently also allow platforms to accelerate forward and reverse at the same speed.


    If the T-14 Armata did decide to install a 60mm mortar in the turret and stabilized it and connected it to the FCS... how many rounds do you think it could hold in the turret? The T-90sm seems to have a BMS like other tanks so I wonder what kind of advanced BMS will be installed on all the Armata variants. I hope I'm not being a nuisance.


    Last edited by Cyrus the great on Mon May 09, 2016 2:52 am; edited 1 time in total

    Cyrus the great
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 250
    Points : 260
    Join date : 2015-06-12

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

    Post  Cyrus the great on Mon May 09, 2016 2:45 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Cyrus the great wrote:

    .....................................

    That is incredible. I would hate to be in opposing tanks because it would just be the Armata and burning wrecks. I read up on the ISU-152 and what its low velocity rounds were able to do to German tanks, so imagine what 152mm rounds traveling at 1750mps could do to the Abrams and other modern MBTs. A binary liquid propellant set up would prevent sympathetic detonations even if the Armata was penetrated from the side and so I think that it's something worth investing in.

    .....................................

    Another problem mitigated by the unmanned turret. Because there is nobody inside, they can use more violent and toxic but also more effective firefighting chemicals than on the older models where they would poison the crew.

    Crew is safely tucked away in the capsule so they can use whatever unholy firefighting toxin they want in order to put out the fire instantly and prevent ammo cook off.

    That's true and I guess nitrogen could quickly extinguish any fire within seconds and so I guess a binary liquid propellant is not necessary and would make more sense from a technical and financial level to use these chemicals. Gold platting can be quite dangerous to any military.


    Last edited by Cyrus the great on Mon May 09, 2016 3:20 am; edited 1 time in total

    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5259
    Points : 5304
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

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

    Post  Militarov on Mon May 09, 2016 2:51 am

    Cyrus the great wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    Cyrus the great wrote:

    .....................................

    That is incredible. I would hate to be in opposing tanks because it would just be the Armata and burning wrecks. I read up on the ISU-152 and what its low velocity rounds were able to do to German tanks, so imagine what 152mm rounds traveling at 1750mps could do to the Abrams and other modern MBTs. A binary liquid propellant set up would prevent sympathetic detonations even if the Armata was penetrated from the side and so I think that it's something worth investing in.

    .....................................

    Another problem mitigated by the unmanned turret. Because there is nobody inside, they can use more violent and toxic but also more effective firefighting chemicals than on the older models where they would poison the crew.

    Crew is safely tucked away in the capsule so they can use whatever unholy firefighting toxin they want in order to put out the fire instantly and prevent ammo cook off.

    That's true and I guess nitrogen could quickly extinguish any fire within seconds and so I guess a binary liquid propellant is not necessary and would make more sense from a technical and financial level. Gold platting can be quite dangerous to any military.  

    Actually for purposes like this, at least to this day nothing beats Bromotrifluoromethane aka Halon 1301. They are trying to find replacement for it for 2 decades now but its not coming around any time soon. Issue is that its not very...healthy...at the best.

    Cyrus the great
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 250
    Points : 260
    Join date : 2015-06-12

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

    Post  Cyrus the great on Mon May 09, 2016 3:18 am

    Militarov wrote:
    Cyrus the great wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    Cyrus the great wrote:

    .....................................

    That is incredible. I would hate to be in opposing tanks because it would just be the Armata and burning wrecks. I read up on the ISU-152 and what its low velocity rounds were able to do to German tanks, so imagine what 152mm rounds traveling at 1750mps could do to the Abrams and other modern MBTs. A binary liquid propellant set up would prevent sympathetic detonations even if the Armata was penetrated from the side and so I think that it's something worth investing in.

    .....................................

    Another problem mitigated by the unmanned turret. Because there is nobody inside, they can use more violent and toxic but also more effective firefighting chemicals than on the older models where they would poison the crew.

    Crew is safely tucked away in the capsule so they can use whatever unholy firefighting toxin they want in order to put out the fire instantly and prevent ammo cook off.

    That's true and I guess nitrogen could quickly extinguish any fire within seconds and so I guess a binary liquid propellant is not necessary and would make more sense from a technical and financial level. Gold platting can be quite dangerous to any military.  

    Actually for purposes like this, at least to this day nothing beats Bromotrifluoromethane aka Halon 1301. They are trying to find replacement for it for 2 decades now but its not coming around any time soon. Issue is that its not very...healthy...at the best.

    I guess the only time the crew would have to exercise caution with regard to Halon 1301 and Nitrogen is when they have to maintain the tank after these chemicals have been used. A binary liquid set up is the only way to completely prevent sympathetic explosions but it does seem that it would be a difficult and expensive undertaking.

    x_54_u43
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 190
    Points : 210
    Join date : 2015-09-19

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

    Post  x_54_u43 on Mon May 09, 2016 3:26 am

    Elbows wrote:Hasn't armour almost always been at a disadvantage to anti-tank weapons (be it MBT rounds, ATGMs etc.).  I don't recall a time when any tank has been "safe" short of perhaps the heaviest tanks back in WW2 and even then aircraft could take them out.

    I appreciate that we, as countries, have to design tanks to be as survivable as possible, but I don't think any army plans on tanks surviving very long in open combat against a similar opponent.  Look at the Abrams.  In the hands of a well supplied, well trained crew it's an excellent tank.  Put in the hands of poorly trained Iraqis it becomes a battlefield trophy for ISIS.

    In a real engagement with top of the line modern tanks (T-90's, Armatas, Abrams, Leopard II's etc.) it'd be a matter of serious attrition, and that's assuming opposing aircraft didn't flatten most of them before the tanks even started engaging each other.  Sure we might have crews which survive, but in the modern battlefield, the tank is still a dangerous place to be.

    I'm guessing you are one of those people who think that tanks are obsolete and Javelins are the best thing since sliced bread?

    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5259
    Points : 5304
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

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

    Post  Militarov on Mon May 09, 2016 3:28 am

    x_54_u43 wrote:
    Elbows wrote:Hasn't armour almost always been at a disadvantage to anti-tank weapons (be it MBT rounds, ATGMs etc.).  I don't recall a time when any tank has been "safe" short of perhaps the heaviest tanks back in WW2 and even then aircraft could take them out.

    I appreciate that we, as countries, have to design tanks to be as survivable as possible, but I don't think any army plans on tanks surviving very long in open combat against a similar opponent.  Look at the Abrams.  In the hands of a well supplied, well trained crew it's an excellent tank.  Put in the hands of poorly trained Iraqis it becomes a battlefield trophy for ISIS.

    In a real engagement with top of the line modern tanks (T-90's, Armatas, Abrams, Leopard II's etc.) it'd be a matter of serious attrition, and that's assuming opposing aircraft didn't flatten most of them before the tanks even started engaging each other.  Sure we might have crews which survive, but in the modern battlefield, the tank is still a dangerous place to be.

    I'm guessing you are one of those people who think that tanks are obsolete and Javelins are the best thing since sliced bread?

    Tanks are not obsolete, tanks are very vulnerable. And slightest mistakes in way they are deployed or used ends up badly aganist decently armed enemy.

    Elbows
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 12
    Points : 12
    Join date : 2016-03-13

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

    Post  Elbows on Mon May 09, 2016 4:49 am

    x_54_u43 wrote:
    Elbows wrote:Hasn't armour almost always been at a disadvantage to anti-tank weapons (be it MBT rounds, ATGMs etc.).  I don't recall a time when any tank has been "safe" short of perhaps the heaviest tanks back in WW2 and even then aircraft could take them out.

    I appreciate that we, as countries, have to design tanks to be as survivable as possible, but I don't think any army plans on tanks surviving very long in open combat against a similar opponent.  Look at the Abrams.  In the hands of a well supplied, well trained crew it's an excellent tank.  Put in the hands of poorly trained Iraqis it becomes a battlefield trophy for ISIS.

    In a real engagement with top of the line modern tanks (T-90's, Armatas, Abrams, Leopard II's etc.) it'd be a matter of serious attrition, and that's assuming opposing aircraft didn't flatten most of them before the tanks even started engaging each other.  Sure we might have crews which survive, but in the modern battlefield, the tank is still a dangerous place to be.

    I'm guessing you are one of those people who think that tanks are obsolete and Javelins are the best thing since sliced bread?

    I'm merely perplexed by the attitude which I see come across on a lot of these threads where people seem to think current tanks or next-gen tanks are going to be impervious to battlefield threats. You build the best tank you can within a reasonable budget and you expect losses. The pedantic arguing over which ATGM is better, or which armour certain tanks have is pretty pointless. It's all well and good to study the advancement of technology, but let's be realistic. The battlefield is a dangerous damn place regardless how fancy your equipment is.

    Cyrus the great
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 250
    Points : 260
    Join date : 2015-06-12

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

    Post  Cyrus the great on Mon May 09, 2016 5:11 am

    Elbows wrote:
    x_54_u43 wrote:
    Elbows wrote:Hasn't armour almost always been at a disadvantage to anti-tank weapons (be it MBT rounds, ATGMs etc.).  I don't recall a time when any tank has been "safe" short of perhaps the heaviest tanks back in WW2 and even then aircraft could take them out.

    I appreciate that we, as countries, have to design tanks to be as survivable as possible, but I don't think any army plans on tanks surviving very long in open combat against a similar opponent.  Look at the Abrams.  In the hands of a well supplied, well trained crew it's an excellent tank.  Put in the hands of poorly trained Iraqis it becomes a battlefield trophy for ISIS.

    In a real engagement with top of the line modern tanks (T-90's, Armatas, Abrams, Leopard II's etc.) it'd be a matter of serious attrition, and that's assuming opposing aircraft didn't flatten most of them before the tanks even started engaging each other.  Sure we might have crews which survive, but in the modern battlefield, the tank is still a dangerous place to be.

    I'm guessing you are one of those people who think that tanks are obsolete and Javelins are the best thing since sliced bread?

    I'm merely perplexed by the attitude which I see come across on a lot of these threads where people seem to think current tanks or next-gen tanks are going to be impervious to battlefield threats.  You build the best tank you can within a reasonable budget and you expect losses.  The pedantic arguing over which ATGM is better, or which armour certain tanks have is pretty pointless.  It's all well and good to study the advancement of technology, but let's be realistic.  The battlefield is a dangerous damn place regardless how fancy your equipment is.

    I don't think anyone here has argued that tanks are "impervious", so this seems like a straw man argument on your part. People have consistently reaffirmed that tanks will continue to face potent and deadly threats on the battlefield even as multi-layered countermeasures are developed and deployed to address these challenges.

    x_54_u43
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 190
    Points : 210
    Join date : 2015-09-19

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

    Post  x_54_u43 on Mon May 09, 2016 6:21 am

    Elbows wrote:

    I'm merely perplexed by the attitude which I see come across on a lot of these threads where people seem to think current tanks or next-gen tanks are going to be impervious to battlefield threats.  You build the best tank you can within a reasonable budget and you expect losses.  The pedantic arguing over which ATGM is better, or which armour certain tanks have is pretty pointless.  It's all well and good to study the advancement of technology, but let's be realistic.  The battlefield is a dangerous damn place regardless how fancy your equipment is.

    Nobody intelligent has ever stated that tanks are impervious. Or that the battlefield is safe while inside a tank.

    However, your statement that tanks would get flattened by air power before engaging each other is hilarious and the sign of a feeble and Hollywood-influenced mind.

    Remove the fanciful notions such as the F-35 or B-1B completely demolishing tank fleets with SDB-IIs. It will never happen, even if the tanks are without air cover or air defenses. Such notions have been hilarious to watch as they fall apart, especially the B-2 and the ICBM tracking fantasy, which was completely forgotten in the legendary SCUD hunting clusterfuck in the Iraq war.

    Tanks may be a danger to be in, but relatively, they are far less risky to be in than other positions, especially in a new Russian tank such as the T-14. Consider the threats it faces, old TOWs and Milans and the laughter-inducing Javelin, with a hilariously low penetrating potential against a 3.5 gen T-90A, much less than a 4th generation T-14, with SIX radars, fully duplicated commander and gunner FCS with new generation thermal imagers and laser rangefinders, all-around camera system and laser warning system. Even if the T-14 is catastrophically hit, mostly likely in its turret, then I will be safe within the armored capsule.

    It's good to be a tanker. Especially a Russian one.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15858
    Points : 16563
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Mon May 09, 2016 9:46 am

    Interesting. I've read elsewhere that the 2a83 has a muzzle velocity of at least 1780mps and other sources have put the muzzle velocity at 2000mps+.

    It is a question of projectile to propellant ratio... a full bore or full calibre round like a HE Frag round is about 23kgs... that is the projectile is 23kgs.

    The entire round is about 33 kgs so we are talking about 10kgs of propellant pushing 23kgs of projectile... down an old 125mm barrel that means about 850m/s muzzle velocity... which is fine... HE rounds don't need to move fast.

    An APFSDS round which is basically a metal dart is about 8kgs and has about 13kgs of propellent pushing it down the barrel at about 1.7km/s down a normal barrel.

    A 152mm full bore round... ie not an APFSDS round, would not be travelling faster than 950m/s or so unless it has a very large propellent charge and a very long barrel... it would never get above 1,500m/s.

    Of course an APFSDS round that is about 10kgs and with extra propellant would be a lot faster than 1.8km/s I would assume.


    If the T-14 Armata did decide to install a 60mm mortar in the turret and stabilized it and connected it to the FCS... how many rounds do you think it could hold in the turret?

    If they wanted a secondary small calibre I doubt they would develop a 60mm mortar.. more likely they would adapt something like the 57mm grenade launcher they were working on... the advantage would be much smaller rounds so you could have a much larger number of targets engaged, and a 57mm low velocity grenade would have quite a powerful HE round. Being an external weapon the ammo could be added to the outside of the vehicle and could carry as many rounds as you want... Placing it on the rear of the turret like the 30mm grenade mount on the upgraded BMP-2s would be interesting... it would just need elevation performance rather than 360 degrees rotation which would mean it would not obstruct the roof mounted 12.7mm HMG.

    The T-90sm seems to have a BMS like other tanks so I wonder what kind of advanced BMS will be installed on all the Armata variants. I hope I'm not being a nuisance.

    Likely all the new vehicles will have a C4IR system that communicates to each other and other platforms. It is likely it will also allow control of UAVs and to get video footage of nearby sensors both air and ground based.

    That's true and I guess nitrogen could quickly extinguish any fire within seconds and so I guess a binary liquid propellant is not necessary and would make more sense from a technical and financial level to use these chemicals. Gold platting can be quite dangerous to any military.

    No. Even with nitrogen or even Halon if a spark hits the cardboard shell of a 125mm propellant charge then it will burn... it does not need oxygen from the air to burn... when the shell and propellant in the gun ready to fire there is not enough oxygen to burn... it provides its own fuel and oxygen... once ignited it would burn in space or under water... the fact that nitrogen has replaced the air around it would not stop the fire... just slow it down from burning objects nearby.

    If you dropped a flare into a nitrogen filled turret the lack of oxygen would stop things in the turret like foam or plastic or wood from burning... it will still be damaged by the heat of the flare but would not burn without the oxygen in the air.

    Put 20 propellant stubs in there and drop a burning flare on them even with no oxygen in the air the carboard would burn because it is designed to combust and leave little residue in the chamber... once the flame of the flare hits the propellant... boom and the shower of flame will ignite the other stubs and the pressure spikes exponentially and boom off go the hatches and anyone in that turret is dead... though they already suffocated with a lack of oxygen anyway.

    A binary liquid set up is the only way to completely prevent sympathetic explosions but it does seem that it would be a difficult and expensive undertaking.

    At its heart it is just plumbing... and a liquid propellant would be more powerful than the current solid propellant.

    It would also be easier to change the charge, so a HE shell uses less propellant, while APFSDS rounds have more...

    I don't think anyone here has argued that tanks are "impervious", so this seems like a straw man argument on your part. People have consistently reaffirmed that tanks will continue to face potent and deadly threats on the battlefield even as multi-layered countermeasures are developed and deployed to address these challenges.

    Ditto.

    There is no perfect tank, just like there is no perfect anti tank weapon.

    Russia is not just applying a range of technologies to help protect their men, like armoured capsules, ERA, NERA, APS, Nakidka, Shtora, different armour types, but it is also investing in communications and command and control systems and computers down to infantry level as well as systems to defeat the enemies equivalent equipment.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Elbows
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 12
    Points : 12
    Join date : 2016-03-13

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

    Post  Elbows on Mon May 09, 2016 6:56 pm

    x_54_u43 wrote:
    Elbows wrote:

    I'm merely perplexed by the attitude which I see come across on a lot of these threads where people seem to think current tanks or next-gen tanks are going to be impervious to battlefield threats.  You build the best tank you can within a reasonable budget and you expect losses.  The pedantic arguing over which ATGM is better, or which armour certain tanks have is pretty pointless.  It's all well and good to study the advancement of technology, but let's be realistic.  The battlefield is a dangerous damn place regardless how fancy your equipment is.

    Nobody intelligent has ever stated that tanks are impervious. Or that the battlefield is safe while inside a tank.

    However, your statement that tanks would get flattened by air power before engaging each other is hilarious and the sign of a feeble and Hollywood-influenced mind.

    Remove the fanciful notions such as the F-35 or B-1B completely demolishing tank fleets with SDB-IIs. It will never happen, even if the tanks are without air cover or air defenses. Such notions have been hilarious to watch as they fall apart, especially the B-2 and the ICBM tracking fantasy, which was completely forgotten in the legendary SCUD hunting clusterfuck in the Iraq war.  

    Tanks may be a danger to be in, but relatively, they are far less risky to be in than other positions, especially in a new Russian tank such as the T-14. Consider the threats it faces, old TOWs and Milans and the laughter-inducing Javelin, with a hilariously low penetrating potential against a 3.5 gen T-90A, much less than a 4th generation T-14, with SIX radars, fully duplicated commander and gunner FCS with new generation thermal imagers and laser rangefinders, all-around camera system and laser warning system. Even if the T-14 is catastrophically hit, mostly likely in its turret, then I will be safe within the armored capsule.

    It's good to be a tanker. Especially a Russian one.

    A feeble mind huh? Hmmm, that's a shame. I guess I should take your insulting posts with a grain of salt. Curious, what made you think I was referring to Russian tanks being flattened by US airpower? Or is that because I'm a "Western Devil" and I can't possibly be applying that logic to all forms of armour/aircraft?

    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3281
    Points : 3405
    Join date : 2012-05-16

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

    Post  Vann7 on Mon May 09, 2016 7:34 pm

    Isos wrote:
    Russia doesn't need to invade Turkey if a war happen, just destroy their navy and their airplanes. A major ground batlle wouldn't happen..


    Turkey is armed with nuclear weapons, yes you heard that right. Right now there are a dozen or more nuclear warheads in Turkey from Americans. It also can get nukes from Israel or Pakistan or "Saudi Arabia".  in reality weapons supplied by Americans ,Pakistan or Israel passed from hand to hand and end in Turkey.

    So this is just one of the many potential scenarios.
    So if Erdogan Army invades Syria or attack Russian airforce again, killing a dozen of Russians ,Russia will be forced to retaliate their airforce and shut down a couple or more of planes . Then Turkey close the hormuz strait to Russia , cutting Russia from the mediterranean sea. then Russia is forced to declare war on Turkey and do what you say , destroy their navy , then Turkey retaliates with tactical nuclear weapon supplied by "mysterious hands" who could they be?  ,or simply attack Crimea with chemical weapons.

    In all this people needs to understand Erdogan is not a rational man. He is a muslin terrorist , he is an extremist . and such kind of people do not think in consequences . Look how he give the order to shot down Russian plane. with the full support of Americans. So such people are very unpredictable. This means that you cannot say.. it will never happen. because it can.
    and this is because Erdogan is not a rational man. he is today arming ISIS to overthrow Syrian government and put ISIS in control of it, Something that could provoke a major world humanitarian crisis with millions killed. If ISIS takes control of Damascus. in short erdogan is a monster. So you cannot say for sure he will not do the unthinkable because he is already risking the life of millions in Syria. So predicting what an irrational and sick man like Erdogan can do or not is impossible. He could be capable of attacking Crimea with nukes or chemical weapons if humiliatted as you say and its navy destroyed.

    So sinking the navy of turkey will NOT remove Erdogan from power. The war of Russia with Nazis did not end until Russia planted a flag in Berlin. that said. if Russia face a full scale war with Turkey. it will have no option but to invade Turkey and take control of Istanbul to reopen the Bosphurous strait at least. The only other option will be to nuke ankara and sacrifice millions innocent civilians. So thats is not an option. Russia will simply need to be prepared for the unthinkable like an invasion of Turkey to remove erdogan. This is why is really important for Russia to have fully modernized Army with Armatas in big numbers in service ,to minimize as much as possible the casualties of Russian army ,by providing them the best military hardware possible in Russia inventory. remember Russia vs georgia war of 5-6 days. Who will have thought such weak nation will kill hundreds of Russian soldiers and start a war against Russia without any provocation?

    Dont underestimate Americans , they can manage to get wars to happen. another front Russia can face very easily a war is on moldova if attack trasnistria will force Russia to help their Russian soldiers peacemakers there. . and Turkey is not an exception ,with Erdogan will be even more easier because he is an islamic extremist. it will be totally foolish if Russia is attacked by Turkey ,and hundreds or thousands civilians die and they do not invade Turkey.  Putin will have 100% support to finally stop Erdogan , and save Europe and the world from that terrorist.
    it will also send a message to NATO. it could finally put an end to the dictator Erdogan and take control of Istanbul for once and no longer allow NATO to have any effective use for Turkey against Russia. The entire world will also backup Russia war against turkey and finally kick the Turks from Cyprus ,from Constantinople and from Syria and IRAQ.  allowing Erdogan to continue ruling after Turkey declares full scale war against Russia will be a serious mistake ,because he will only increase its hostilities and attacks. just like hitler did to Russia. he could be re armed and continue more attacks and give more support to ISIS.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5394
    Points : 5643
    Join date : 2012-10-24

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

    Post  Werewolf on Mon May 09, 2016 7:57 pm

    Turkey, Italy, Germany and Netherlands do not posses those nukes they are only and exclusivley in US hands, so if any nuke is used it is a direct US act. Those military bases are Americans exclusive, no germans are allowed in Ramstein base where they have their nukes, except authorized personal which have no hands and have no procedures within the base whatsoever.

    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5259
    Points : 5304
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

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

    Post  Militarov on Mon May 09, 2016 8:12 pm

    Vann7 wrote:
    Isos wrote:
    Russia doesn't need to invade Turkey if a war happen, just destroy their navy and their airplanes. A major ground batlle wouldn't happen..


    Turkey is armed with nuclear weapons, yes you heard that right. Right now there are a dozen or more nuclear warheads in Turkey from Americans. It also can get nukes from Israel or Pakistan or "Saudi Arabia".  in reality weapons supplied by Americans ,Pakistan or Israel passed from hand to hand and end in Turkey.

    So this is just one of the many potential scenarios.
    So if Erdogan Army invades Syria or attack Russian airforce again, killing a dozen of Russians ,Russia will be forced to retaliate their airforce and shut down a couple or more of planes . Then Turkey close the hormuz strait to Russia , cutting Russia from the mediterranean sea. then Russia is forced to declare war on Turkey and do what you say , destroy their navy , then Turkey retaliates with tactical nuclear weapon supplied by "mysterious hands" who could they be?  ,or simply attack Crimea with chemical weapons.

    In all this people needs to understand Erdogan is not a rational man. He is a muslin terrorist , he is an extremist . and such kind of people do not think in consequences . Look how he give the order to shot down Russian plane. with the full support of Americans. So such people are very unpredictable. This means that you cannot say.. it will never happen. because it can.
    and this is because Erdogan is not a rational man. he is today arming ISIS to overthrow Syrian government and put ISIS in control of it, Something that could provoke a major world humanitarian crisis with millions killed. If ISIS takes control of Damascus. in short erdogan is a monster. So you cannot say for sure he will not do the unthinkable because he is already risking the life of millions in Syria. So predicting what an irrational and sick man like Erdogan can do or not is impossible. He could be capable of attacking Crimea with nukes or chemical weapons if humiliatted as you say and its navy destroyed.

    So sinking the navy of turkey will NOT remove Erdogan from power. The war of Russia with Nazis did not end until Russia planted a flag in Berlin. that said. if Russia face a full scale war with Turkey. it will have no option but to invade Turkey and take control of Istanbul to reopen the Bosphurous strait at least. The only other option will be to nuke ankara and sacrifice millions innocent civilians. So thats is not an option. Russia will simply need to be prepared for the unthinkable like an invasion of Turkey to remove erdogan. This is why is really important for Russia to have fully modernized Army with Armatas in big numbers in service ,to minimize as much as possible the casualties of Russian army ,by providing them the best military hardware possible in Russia inventory. remember Russia vs georgia war of 5-6 days. Who will have thought such weak nation will kill hundreds of Russian soldiers and start a war against Russia without any provocation?

    Dont underestimate Americans , they can manage to get wars to happen. another front Russia can face very easily a war is on moldova if attack trasnistria will force Russia to help their Russian soldiers peacemakers there. .  and Turkey is not an exception ,with Erdogan will be even more easier because he is an islamic extremist. it will be totally foolish if Russia is attacked by Turkey ,and hundreds or thousands civilians die and they do not invade Turkey.  Putin will have 100% support to finally stop Erdogan , and save Europe and the world from that terrorist.
    it will also send a message to NATO. it could finally put an end to the dictator Erdogan and take control of Istanbul for once and no longer allow NATO to have any effective use for Turkey against Russia. The entire world will also backup Russia war against turkey and finally kick the Turks from Cyprus ,from Constantinople and from Syria and IRAQ.  allowing Erdogan to continue ruling after Turkey declares full scale war against Russia will be a serious mistake ,because he will only increase its hostilities and attacks. just like hitler did to Russia. he could be re armed and continue more attacks and give more support to ISIS.

    Nuclear weapons under "Nuclear sharing agreement" are being "hosted" in Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands and Turkey, however they are not under control of their armies but US Air Force, stop spreading missinformations on this forum for once.

    NORAD is to supply the codes and fuses to hosting country in case of need for such weapons to be deployed, and they are to be launched from hosting country aircraft, some of which are adapted to deliver nuclear warload. Whole time weapon deployment is to be handled by mixed crews of US servicemen and host country.

    Now, if you are trying to claim that NORAD would supply Turkey with means to deliver nuclear warload on their own... just....no. Actually there are rumors US is planning of retrieving remaining warheads from Turkey and transfer them to Germany and Netherlands due to instability in the region.

    I am not sure whats up with you people and all this BS talk about nuclear war and nuclear apocalypse. Grow up, its not going to happen any time soon. Everyone is aware of how dangerous nuclear weapons are, and how grave the consequences would be for whole human kind. Stop flooding forum with crap like this, its getting very annoying.

    wilhelm
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 228
    Points : 234
    Join date : 2014-12-09

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

    Post  wilhelm on Mon May 09, 2016 10:48 pm

    Elbows wrote:
    x_54_u43 wrote:
    Elbows wrote:

    I'm merely perplexed by the attitude which I see come across on a lot of these threads where people seem to think current tanks or next-gen tanks are going to be impervious to battlefield threats.  You build the best tank you can within a reasonable budget and you expect losses.  The pedantic arguing over which ATGM is better, or which armour certain tanks have is pretty pointless.  It's all well and good to study the advancement of technology, but let's be realistic.  The battlefield is a dangerous damn place regardless how fancy your equipment is.

    Nobody intelligent has ever stated that tanks are impervious. Or that the battlefield is safe while inside a tank.

    However, your statement that tanks would get flattened by air power before engaging each other is hilarious and the sign of a feeble and Hollywood-influenced mind.

    Remove the fanciful notions such as the F-35 or B-1B completely demolishing tank fleets with SDB-IIs. It will never happen, even if the tanks are without air cover or air defenses. Such notions have been hilarious to watch as they fall apart, especially the B-2 and the ICBM tracking fantasy, which was completely forgotten in the legendary SCUD hunting clusterfuck in the Iraq war.  

    Tanks may be a danger to be in, but relatively, they are far less risky to be in than other positions, especially in a new Russian tank such as the T-14. Consider the threats it faces, old TOWs and Milans and the laughter-inducing Javelin, with a hilariously low penetrating potential against a 3.5 gen T-90A, much less than a 4th generation T-14, with SIX radars, fully duplicated commander and gunner FCS with new generation thermal imagers and laser rangefinders, all-around camera system and laser warning system. Even if the T-14 is catastrophically hit, mostly likely in its turret, then I will be safe within the armored capsule.

    It's good to be a tanker. Especially a Russian one.

    A feeble mind huh?  Hmmm, that's a shame.  I guess I should take your insulting posts with a grain of salt.  Curious, what made you think I was referring to Russian tanks being flattened by US airpower?  Or is that because I'm a "Western Devil" and I can't possibly be applying that logic to all forms of armour/aircraft?

    Don't stress about it too much, Elbows. Smile

    x_54_u43, Elbows was pretty neutral, and didn't exactly pick on any nation over another.
    I really can't see why he deserved the slight dig? dunno

    Either way, I was glad when I was a soldier back in the day that I was an infantryman. Twisted Evil

    On that note, forgive me if I haven't been following as closely as I should the progression of Armata, but is it still in State Trials, or have those been concluded now?
    If they are concluded, is there a date that it is to be inducted into service? I seem to recall reading on this site that a production order was announced the other day.

    x_54_u43
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 190
    Points : 210
    Join date : 2015-09-19

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

    Post  x_54_u43 on Mon May 09, 2016 11:53 pm

    wilhelm wrote:
    Don't stress about it too much, Elbows. Smile

    x_54_u43, Elbows was pretty neutral, and didn't exactly pick on any nation over another.
    I really can't see why he deserved the slight dig? dunno

    Either way, I was glad when I was a soldier back in the day that I was an infantryman. Twisted Evil

    On that note, forgive me if I haven't been following as closely as I should the progression of Armata, but is it still in State Trials, or have those been concluded now?
    If they are concluded, is there a date that it is to be inducted into service? I seem to recall reading on this site that a production order was announced the other day.

    Anyone who thinks air power can significantly affect ground power is a retard, simply put.

    Russian air force or American, it makes no difference.

    Contract for Armata have begun.

    PapaDragon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3853
    Points : 3965
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

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

    Post  PapaDragon on Tue May 10, 2016 12:28 am

    Elbows wrote:.....'Western Devils'.......

    Don't get too worked up over harsh tone Elbows, it's just the flavour of this forum. Problem is that low quality of discussion and amount of stereotypes on other forums and comment sections makes people here go into ''shoot first ask questions later'' mode quite often.

    There are only so many videogame-grade ''experts'' you can tolerate at any given time before preemptively going ballistic.

    Just roll with it and feel free to shoot back.Very Happy

    Oh, and expression you were looking for is ''West Stronkian'' or ''West Stronker''. Nobody outside East Asia uses expression ''Western Devil'' as far as I know. Cool

    Sponsored content

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

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Feb 22, 2017 2:55 am