Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


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

    Share

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5664
    Points : 6070
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

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

    Post  Austin on Tue Mar 01, 2011 11:18 am

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

    Can you scan that part on SOKOL-1 and put it up for us ?

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

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

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

    Post  IronsightSniper on Tue Mar 01, 2011 12:33 pm

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

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

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

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

    It's funny actually. The more I think about it, the more it seems that even though our Military is being regeared torwards Asymmetrical warfare, it seems as though our MBTs are being regeared torwards Anti-tank warfare. For that long-range AP role, helis fill it, but there's no reason why the tank can't do it too.

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

    Funny thing is that I wrote that. russia

    ahmedfire
    Captain
    Captain

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

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

    Post  ahmedfire on Tue Mar 01, 2011 2:46 pm

    The Abrams is equipped with a ballistic fire-control computer that uses data from a variety of sources, including the thermal or daylight Gunner's Primary Sight (GPS), all computing and displaying one of three components of the ballistic solution - lead angle, ammunition type, and range to the target. These three components are determined using a laser rangefinder, crosswind sensor, a pendulum static cant sensor, data on the ammunition type, tank-specific boresight alignment data, ammunition temperature, air temperature, barometric pressure, a muzzle reference sensor (MRS) that determines and compensates for barrel droop at the muzzle due to gravitational pull and barrel heating due to firing or sunlight, and target speed determined by tracking rate tachometers in the Gunner's or Commander's Controls Handles allowing for target speed input into the ballistic solution
    The fire-control system uses these data to compute a firing solution for the gunner. The ballistic solution generated ensures a hit percentage greater than 95 percent at nominal ranges
    http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/M1_Abrams



    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

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

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

    Post  Vladimir79 on Tue Mar 01, 2011 10:04 pm

    ahmedfire wrote:


    A destroyed T-90 it is not. It is a T-72BM hit during the bombardment of the peace keeper station.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Wed Mar 02, 2011 12:38 am

    A destroyed T-90 it is not. It is a T-72BM hit during the bombardment of the peace keeper station.

    And its turret is in place, which suggests no catastrophic ammo explosion...

    Can you scan that part on SOKOL-1 and put it up for us ?

    I'll dig my scanner out... in the mean time here is a screen shot of a CD I have:



    The shell.

    [quote]

    Note that from enclosed firing positions (ie when the target is not visible to the tank the shell has to use laster target marking. Otherwise it is fire and forget.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Wed Mar 02, 2011 2:54 am




    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5664
    Points : 6070
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

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

    Post  Austin on Wed Mar 02, 2011 5:55 am

    Thanks Garry , Note that in enclosed firing position the max effective range is noted as 12km and the target needs to be lased , so the range is likely obtained by firing at say an angel of 45 degrees or so in a parabolic trajectory at the target.

    The direct fire mode is 5 km which is LOS at the target , the fact that it can do F&F for LOS target and semi-active laser for indirect firing at the target is very interesting , just makes it more versatile and you can use it to attack target at hill top with pin point accuracy.

    BTW is Sokol-1 a Top Attack Missile i did not see any reference to it ?

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

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

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

    Post  IronsightSniper on Wed Mar 02, 2011 7:45 am

    I didn't know Russian tank guns could elevate to 45 degrees >.<

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5664
    Points : 6070
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

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

    Post  Austin on Wed Mar 02, 2011 11:07 am

    IronsightSniper wrote:I didn't know Russian tank guns could elevate to 45 degrees >.<

    How much does it then to have a parabolic type trajectory ?

    Oh well this is a missile , so I suppose it is charged by its own propellant and it can take a parabolic trajectory and dive on its target.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

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

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

    Post  IronsightSniper on Wed Mar 02, 2011 12:13 pm

    I suspect the same thing.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Wed Mar 02, 2011 8:41 pm

    BTW is Sokol-1 a Top Attack Missile i did not see any reference to it ?

    Look at the drawing on page two.

    And the photos of the weapon itself... it has no control surfaces and uses rocket side thrusters to hit the target.

    It would be fired with a high elevation (20 degrees is high for a tank) at a relatively low velocity and likely fall on the target... like a laser guided bomb, though in this case it uses optical guidance against armour and laser homing against other targets.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5664
    Points : 6070
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

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

    Post  Austin on Thu Mar 03, 2011 7:25 am

    Ok Garry , let me try to put that in simple english on how Sokol-1 would work.

    The commander of say T-90 tank would detect a target at 4.5 km via Commanders TI Sight ( like Catherine-E ) , then he would designated that target to the gunner, the gunner would look at the target with his own TI sight and would lase it to find the range.

    The information on the range and perhaps the target image is passed on to the ballistic computer of the gun and Sokol-1 , the missile is fired at the target in a parabolic/ballistic trajectory. I am assuming Sokol-1 uses passive means as they have mentioned which means IR channel ?

    So what happens once Sokol-1 is fired ?

    1 ) Is there any communication between the projectile and the tank once it gets fired or its a true Fire and Forget missile ?
    2 ) Does the target needs to be lased for some time till Sokol-1 becomes truly F&F and autonomous or its fully on its own right from the time it gets fired ?
    3 ) What is the passive guidance used on Sokol-1 , is this IR or IIR or something else ?

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5664
    Points : 6070
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

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

    Post  Austin on Thu Mar 03, 2011 11:23 am

    This is interesting piece

    T-90S MBT's Combat Effectiveness Flowcharts

    If you check the bar chart they rate T-90S combat potential below M1A2 Abrams and Leclerc but higher then German Leopard , ofcourse this is from Rosoboronexport but a fair assessment ?

    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 Thu Mar 03, 2011 1:31 pm



    Seems about right.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5664
    Points : 6070
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

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

    Post  Austin on Thu Mar 03, 2011 5:13 pm

    IronsightSniper wrote:

    Seems about right.

    So you think Leopard fighting potential is lower then T-90 ?

    Wonder how would they rate the new T-90M they would probably make it equal to Abrams Wink

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3051
    Points : 3149
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

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

    Post  medo on Thu Mar 03, 2011 6:26 pm

    I didn't know Russian tank guns could elevate to 45 degrees >.<

    There is no tank with main gun elevation to +45°. Usually they are from +15° to +20°.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Thu Mar 03, 2011 10:44 pm

    First of all let me say I don't know for certain how it would actually work in practise but this is how I would expect it to work based on my understanding of other similar Russian missiles (ie Krasnopol et al.)

    Lets go with your example of the T-90 tank commander spotting the target at 4.5km and passing that target to the gunner to engage.
    The gunner would lase the target, or perhaps something beside the target so as to get range but not alert the target that they are being ranged.
    He would then select the round... which is important because the ballistics of a HE FRAG round are quite different from the ballistics of an APFSDS round... which will be loaded into the gun while the ballistics computer makes its calculations.
    The round is fired on a trajectory that should result in a hit or a near miss anyway but after a short delay in flight the nose cap of the SOKOL falls off and the seeker is activated and as it falls towards the target it looks for a tank like target to lock on to. In the last 1-3 seconds of flight the side thruster rockets are fired to ensure a central hit, which from above means pretty much centre turret. The impact will not be vertical so the efficiency of the HEAT warhead will not be ideal but as it can penetrate 700mm of armour and the roof of most MBTs equates to about 50-150mm at most it should result in a kill. Even if it doesn't penetrate the armour it will smash all the optics on the tank roof.

    1 ) Is there any communication between the projectile and the tank once it gets fired or its a true Fire and Forget missile ?

    Against armour it is fire and forget. Against anything else it is semi active laser homing... ie another platform lases the target for the last 3-1 seconds. Note 3 seconds for indirect fire and 1 second for direct fire normally.

    2
    ) Does the target needs to be lased for some time till Sokol-1 becomes
    truly F&F and autonomous or its fully on its own right from the time
    it gets fired ?

    For armour it is fully autonomous... my video camera has face detecting technology... when it detects a face in the field of view it puts a box around it and focuses on that face... this is the same thing but it looks for armoured vehicles.

    3 ) What is the passive guidance used on Sokol-1 , is this IR or IIR or something else ?

    I don't know, but would assume basic TV optical, with perhaps IR later on.

    Remember the current Russian Army does not fight at night and it will take some time before it is fully equipped and more importantly starts training at night without flares etc. By the time the Russian Army can fight at night technology like QWIP will allow a TV and IR CCD to be used that is fairly cheap.

    I didn't know Russian tank guns could elevate to 45 degrees >.<

    The Bofors BILL 2 ATGM is a top attack missile whose launcher cannot elevate to 45 degrees.

    Note the Ugroza system is described in a similar way...

    The modernised missiles ensure homing:
    -in passive mode against pieces of equipment located in the open;
    -in the semi active mode by illuminating targets with a laser beam for one to three seconds from the carrier or a ground direction post;

    As I said for direct fire illumination for 1 second and indirect fire 3 seconds.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5664
    Points : 6070
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

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

    Post  Austin on Fri Mar 04, 2011 4:54 am

    Thanks Garry , another question that comes to my mind is

    1 ) How do they discriminate between tank A and tank b , lets assume tank A and tank B are like 15 meters apart and there is Sokol-1 approaching it , and lets assume the gunner targetted Tank A , lets also assume both tank is moving at a speed of 30 km per/hour.

    -- Now how does sokol-1 know it has to hit tank-A and not tank-B , how does it take care of the fact that till the time the missile reaches the target the tank could move any where in 360 * space ?

    2 ) How does one distinguish between Tank A getting lased and being targetted by Sokol versus Tank B getting lased but being targetted by another tank.

    So is it possible that if there are two tanks that are getting lased Sokol would just hit another tank because it was too being lased ?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Fri Mar 04, 2011 5:56 am

    1 ) How do they discriminate between tank A and tank b , lets assume
    tank A and tank B are like 15 meters apart and there is Sokol-1
    approaching it , and lets assume the gunner targetted Tank A , lets also
    assume both tank is moving at a speed of 30 km per/hour.

    If both tanks are moving at 30km per hour then the ballistic point of aim as calculated by the fire control system would generate an aim point based on where the target will be when the weapon arrives.

    The Sokol-1 is guided autonomously at distinct armoured targets so when the cap comes off it would look around its impact point for an armoured vehicle shaped target I would assume.

    -- Now
    how does sokol-1 know it has to hit tank-A and not tank-B , how does it
    take care of the fact that till the time the missile reaches the target
    the tank could move any where in 360 * space ?

    There is no way it could determine which tank it was aimed at and I
    would assume it would be guided toward the target nearest the centre of
    its field of view that is not on fire.

    The target might turn 360 degrees just as the enemy tank fires its guided shell but considering its max range is 5km and it probably covers that distance in about 10 seconds... lets say the target is travelling at 60km/h at 90 degrees to the incoming round but as the round is fired they jam on the brakes and turn 180 degrees and accelerate in the opposite direction at 60km/h... this would be the worst possible situation... remember the launch signature of the SOKOL-1 would actually be pretty difficult to see and impossible to hear from 5km... we can make it even worse and take away all the stopping and turning and accelerating and just say that the tank was going at 60km/h in the opposite direction to that which it was thought to be travelling... for our calculations that means the aimpoint will be in one direction and the actual intercept point will be an equal distance in the opposite direction. In other words work out a 10 second lead on the tank and then double it because it is actually a lead in the opposite direction.
    60km/h is 60,000m per hour. Divide by 60 = 1,000m per minute, or 16.6667 m/s. A 10 second lead means the tank will travel about 170m in the 10 seconds it takes for the missile to get to it, but because it is actually travelling in the opposite direction it will actually be 170 x 2 metres in the opposite direction which means the missile will need to turn 340m to its left after travelling 5km to the target... it doesn't sound too difficult.
    Of course there might be an enemy tank in the area it was going for so it might hit that tank instead.
    In the real world however tanks don't operate at 60km/h very often and they certainly can't turn 180 degrees instantly or accelerate to top speed instantly.
    BVR missiles have the same problem in that when they are fired in fire and forget mode they will fly to an intercept point and then search for the intended target, but the problems of the target moving are multiplied several times because aircraft move faster than tanks or ships and might change flight path seconds after the missile is launched. Unless the launch aircraft continues to monitor the targets flight movements and passes those course changes to the missile it has just launched then very long range shots become problematic.

    2 ) How does one
    distinguish between Tank A getting lased and being targetted by Sokol
    versus Tank B getting lased but being targetted by another tank.

    Because the laser target marking laser has a coded beam that is completely different from a ranging laser.
    The Laser Target Marker or LTM uses a coded beam and that coded beam and the missile weapon are synchronised before the round is fired. If another platform is used to mark the target... like a UAV then the communication link used to call in the shot is also used to synchronise the laser to the missile so the missile only detect the laser that is directed at its target and ignores all others. Ugroza is the same. Artillery laser guided weapons are the same. Laser guided weapons from aircraft are the same. Remember the laser only operates for 1-3 seconds so in practical terms it is unlikely to be a problem anyway, but because they are coded even if they all lit up their lasers at the same time there would be few problems.
    Note the same issue exists with the current ATGMs ATAKA which uses coded radio signals to guide ATAKA ATGMs at targets... otherwise a flight of Hinds would only be able to control one missile in the air at one time. The ARENA active defence system also uses coded MMW radar signals to detect incoming targets... imagine a whole platoon of tanks with ARENA all broadcasting MMW radar signals at one time... the secret is they are coded so they can tell their own radar returns from the noise generated by other systems operating in close proximity.

    So
    is it possible that if there are two tanks that are getting lased Sokol
    would just hit another tank because it was too being lased ?

    Armour doesn't need laser designation, but if you specifically needed to hit one particular tank lasing it would be a good way to make sure your missile hit that tank. If two T-90s lased two different tanks then their missiles would hit the tanks their launch platforms were designating. The lasers are visible, but only active in the direct fire mode for 1 second so it is possible that two tanks might decide to hit the same tank. Hopefully communication will mean they wont end up firing at the same target... if the tanks are close together and there is enough time between each tank firing the gunner might have enough time to see the tank he is aiming at is hit and switch to the other target in time to hit it instead.

    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 04, 2011 8:08 am

    Austin wrote:
    IronsightSniper wrote:

    Seems about right.

    So you think Leopard fighting potential is lower then T-90 ?

    Wonder how would they rate the new T-90M they would probably make it equal to Abrams Wink

    IMO, compared to the Abrams, the Leo 2A5 is not that much different, but only slightly inferior. The T-90 however is completely different, and on a quantity to quantity basis, the T-90 could be considered superior to the Leo.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5664
    Points : 6070
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

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

    Post  Austin on Fri Mar 04, 2011 8:26 am

    IMO, compared to the Abrams, the Leo 2A5 is not that much different, but only slightly inferior. The T-90 however is completely different, and on a quantity to quantity basis, the T-90 could be considered superior to the Leo.

    Many would consider T-90 to be an iterative development and upgrade of advanced T-72/T-80 variant keeping many things common and adding new.

    I would consider T-95 as a new development.

    Here is perhaps an advanced tank from Japan (MBT-X) , seems to have all quality that would be needed in modern warfare plus keeps the weight to T-90.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_10

    I just hope the new Russian FMBT introduces many innovations in them.

    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 04, 2011 9:24 am

    As you might notice, the MBT-X is highly expensive, and is worth almost 6 T-90s.

    Those who consider a T-90 an upgraded T-72/80 has a reasonable argument, but that's not my point. My point is that Russian tanks have distinct qualities not found in most Western tanks.

    The Black Eagle would of been Russia's "bridge" so to say to Western tank designs.


    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5664
    Points : 6070
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

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

    Post  Austin on Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:57 am

    GarryB wrote:The lasers are visible, but only active in the direct fire mode for 1 second so it is possible that two tanks might decide to hit the same tank

    AFAIK they use laser in non-visible spectrum , only the gun dot folks use visible laser.

    Nice Explaination , I think the Sokol-1 is still a mystery ,hopefully they would have inducted that weapon and its not a paper project.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Sat Mar 05, 2011 3:59 am

    IMO, compared to the Abrams, the Leo 2A5 is not that much different, but
    only slightly inferior. The T-90 however is completely different, and
    on a quantity to quantity basis, the T-90 could be considered superior
    to the Leo.

    The problem I have with such rankings is that they have no context.

    Russia had the worlds first tank whose primary propulsion was a gas turbine in the form of the T-80. Experience with it proved that no matter what its other features an M1 Abrams would be no use as their primary MBT because the logistics simply could not keep up with the fuel consumption and there are too many rivers and bridges in Russia to cross to make a 70 ton tank viable for Russia.

    As far as I am concerned the Russians aren't stupid, and neither are the Americans or Germans or British... though they can all make mistakes at times. At the end of the day each has a tank that suits them, though right now Russia does not because of a period of lack of funding their T-90s haven't received the upgrades they have needed, so whatever the new T-90 upgrade they are working hard on right now can be considered their current ideal tank.

    I just hope the new Russian FMBT introduces many innovations in them.

    Innovation has risk. The T-95 was supposed to be very innovative, but the goal posts changed before it got into production and it was no longer the ideal platform the Russian Armed forces wanted. Sometimes the expensive cold war white elephant enters service... like the F-22 and B-2, and sometimes it is cancelled in time like the T-95, Commanche helicopter, and that US artillery vehicle.
    The simple honest truth is that for most jobs the T-90 is fine and the upgraded T-90 what ever it is called is all the Russians need for quite a period.

    Those who consider a T-90 an upgraded T-72/80 has a reasonable argument,
    but that's not my point. My point is that Russian tanks have distinct
    qualities not found in most Western tanks.

    The first model T-90 was a T-72BM, which was basically an earlier model T-72 with greatly improved armour and all the sophisticated modern stuff that the T-80 had like new ballistics computer and fire control system etc etc.

    If it wasn't made mostly in the Ukraine the T-80 would still be an adequate tank with new ammo and a few tweeks here and there.

    AFAIK they use laser in non-visible spectrum , only the gun dot folks use visible laser.

    I didn't mean human eye visible, I meant that when the gunner is looking in his sight using TI the IR laser beam is visible to him and if another tank is lasing the same tank at the same time he will see their laser too.
    The problem is that they are both only lasing for 1 second so while he is looking at his target waiting for his round to get close if he sees a laser beam light up his tank and 1 second later an impact of a missile if he has only just fired his missile he might have time to move the sight a few degrees sideways and aim at another target... the missile doesn't care and as long as it is still within the missiles field of view it might have to manoeuvre a bit more but I don't see why it couldn't still hit a different target close by.
    Certainly there is always the chance that a stationary target could start moving after the round has been fired or a moving target stops after the round has been fired so there would have to be some flexibility in the guidance to allow for that... these missiles are not cheap and only 6-8 are normally carried, though the addition of HE FRAG warhead equipped missiles might increase that number at the expense of the number of standard HE FRAG rounds carried.

    Nice Explaination , I think the Sokol-1 is still a mystery ,hopefully
    they would have inducted that weapon and its not a paper project.

    Hard to day without talking to someone who has served recently or still in service...

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5664
    Points : 6070
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

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

    Post  Austin on Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:22 am

    GarryB wrote:Innovation has risk. The T-95 was supposed to be very innovative, but the goal posts changed before it got into production and it was no longer the ideal platform the Russian Armed forces wanted. Sometimes the expensive cold war white elephant enters service... like the F-22 and B-2, and sometimes it is cancelled in time like the T-95, Commanche helicopter, and that US artillery vehicle.
    The simple honest truth is that for most jobs the T-90 is fine and the upgraded T-90 what ever it is called is all the Russians need for quite a period.

    Its true that Innovation has risk , but without taking the risk you cant move beyond what you have to build a break through product.

    We really do not know the real reason why T-95 was cancelled ,but perhaps i would think after being 20 years in development even if it had many key new features in it , Russia would do a better job by building a new design and taking positive qualities of T-95 and look and incorporate what is available now in its FMBT design.

    I believe T-95 was cancelled not because it was expensive , heavy or lacked innovation it was cancelled becuase they could today build a much better tank than what T-95 could deliver ,keeping their doctorine of mobility in mind , so put it simply an FMBT designed and developed in next 5 years will be a better and newer T-95.

    Innovation need not necessarily be expensive and giving America has an example of how things can go wrong is a bad example in first place , American developers and designers and companies are privately owned entity, responsible for their privately owned shareholders well being , so they try to extract maximum money from Pentagon for any project giving the most expensive solution , it doesnt matter if it ends up being viable or not , these corporates and entity make most money even if the project gets cancelled midway , if pentagon purses expensive project well they make more money.

    Russian entities are largely government owned and they know there is a hardlimit to how much they can get , so they try to build something knowning very well that they would be budget caps and the defence forces may not buy if its expensive , so they end up delivering best they can within the money alloted by government , they know if they make innovative projects with lowest cost they will have a higher chances of getting selected and that would bring them long term revenue.

    I really like the idea that Russians are now moving to Electric Tanks ,keeping featured of T-95 and building a common platform for different vehical ,thats one way to innovate and spread the cost to keep unit cost minimum.

    Lets see what shape and role FMBT takes place in years ahead.

    Sponsored content

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

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 11:13 am


      Current date/time is Sun Dec 04, 2016 11:13 am