Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


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

    Share

    x_54_u43
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 188
    Points : 208
    Join date : 2015-09-19

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank 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 : 3683
    Points : 3795
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank 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

    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 May 13, 2016 9:42 am

    Well my two cents : Air Power is merely one of the factors.......and one not even close to the 4-5 most important ones..... which come in to play in the very complex "equation" at the basis of the variation in the military balance in a conflict between highly advanced peer/near-pear opponents.

    WWII was the last historical example where peer opponents fought one against the other.
    Then ground superiority proved itself orders of magnitude more important and crucial than air superiority even more if we take in consideration that the very bulk of the conflict was mostly fought and won on the eastern front where the balance between the patriotic BBC and Luftwaffe was strongly lopsided in enemy favour, naturally the strategic moment when the balance on the ground begun to slowly shift in РККА's favour, progressively faster the strategic balance of the conflict too shifted equally in our favour until a very fast defeat of Third Reich.

    The post Great Patriotic War military history cannot provide neither a true staple neither a reliable standard to ascertain the real importance of Air Forces in influencing the outcome of a conflict between peers, that for the very simple reason that always those conflicts involved opponents separated by a crushing difference in military technology and/or weight.

    In this global environment Air Forces became progressively more "popular" as military mean to achieve politic aims for the very limited amount of losses involved in its employment against backwarded opponents (both in terms of air defence systems/air forces and long range missiles capable to assure the destruction of the airbases in the theatre).

    The attempt to enormously “blow up” the importance of Air Force is always present in western narrative,for the simple reason that the heavily split, intercontinetal, geographical  composition of the major western  alliance  -NATO- has not only prevented the formation of unified ground forces armies capable to represent anymore than a momentary hindrance to Soviet Army ,but forced also it to invest extensively and almost exclusively in easily deployable/redeployable forces and equipment ,first among all aircraft.

    From this forced strategic choice descended also the pressing need to construct an enormous amount of spread-out related infrascrutures -in particular air bases- for which was at the time and is impossible still today to provide  for NATO any kind of effective IAD coverage.  

    Taking into account what just said is simple to understand why the inherently wronged idea that Air Forces would achieve today ,in a conflict between peer opponents, any better result than what achieved in the last major conflict is so strongly pushed and promoted in western media and ….…..at least publicly…..in the declarations of western military officials.

    Factual reality and cold data talk obviously of a totally different history : in facts even in the post WWII period and just in those conflicts always characterized by a crushing technological/numerical superiority enjoyed by a side on the other, merely the presence of one relatively up-do –date ground based air defense system……i repeat, only one model and not the several dozen different ones representing a full IAD as well its auxiliary and aid assets……,even if in its heavily scaled down export version and in a density
    much lower than what established in the  ПВО doctrinal structure, was sufficient to generate unsustainable aircraft losses on practically the most advanced and well trained “western” Air Forces : US Air Forces and Israeli Air Force, how well explained by Виталий Носов:



    “Почему на Ваш взгляд, действия систем ПВО советского производства в Ираке и Югославии были малоуспешны. Оказало ли это негативное влияние на продвижение российской техники на мировой рынок? Есть ли вообще перспективы систем ПВО, которые основаны на принципах активной радиолокации. Не являются ли более перспективными системы ПВО с пассивными (телевизионными, инфракрасными) датчиками или основанные на принципе бистатической и мультистатической радиолокации?

    Позвольте обратить ваше внимание на тот факт, что за многолетнюю историю противостояния средств ПВО советского производства и зарубежных средств воздушного нападения только в двух конфликтах в равном бою встречалось оружие одного поколения с той и с другой стороны - во Вьетнаме в 1965-1972 годах и на Ближнем Востоке в октябре 1973 года. И почему-то многие забыли, что успехи средств ПВО были тогда более чем впечатляющими. Так, например, только за один 1972 год во Вьетнаме огнем средств ПВО советского производства было сбито более 400 самолетов, из них 223 современнейших на то время самолета F-4 "Фантом" и 51 стратегический бомбардировщик B-52. За 10 дней октября 1973 года только в Сирии и только ЗРК "Квадрат" было сбито 64 израильских самолета. Именно значительные потери американской авиации в 1972 году в небе над Ханоем наряду с другими причинами заставили США подписать соглашение о прекращении боевых действий.

    Во время боевых действий в Ираке и Югославии на поле боя друг другу противостояли системы оружия разных поколений: со стороны стран западного альянса самые последние образцы средств воздушного нападения, поддерживаемые мощной системой воздушно-космической разведки и радиоэлектронного противодействия, а с другой стороны - система ПВО, построенная на основе устаревших ЗРК и РЛС, практически не имевших АСУ, средств радио- и радиотехнической разведки и средств РЭБ, без поддержки с воздуха, без подавления авиации на аэродромах и т.п. Имели место случаи неполного использования возможностей комплексов при их боевом применении. В настоящее время кардинальным образом изменились требования к системам и средствам ПВО, подходы к построению системы ПВО и нестратегической ПРО в целом, поэтому никакими героическими усилиями ни иракские, ни югославские специалисты, располагая старым парком вооружения, построить эффективной группировки ПВО не могли. Эти очевидные факты никем не игнорируются, поэтому события в Ираке и Югославии не только не оказали негативного влияния на продвижение российской техники ПВО на мировой рынок, а наоборот, способствовали резкому возрастанию интереса к ней со стороны потенциальных покупателей.

    Отвечая на вторую часть вопроса, напомню, что может быть эффективной только та система ПВО, которая включает в себя оптимальное сочетание различных огневых комплексов, РЛС, АСУ средств РЭБ, систем радио- и радиотехнической разведки, работающих в различных диапазонах дальностей, высот, частот, использующих различные способы и принципы обнаружения, пеленгации, сопровождения и наведения, в том числе и перечисленные в Вашем вопросе. Чрезмерное же увлечение каким-то одним новым направлением, или полный отказ от использования старых и проверенных принципов может пагубно сказаться на устойчивости или эффективности системы ПВО в целом."


    In those unique post WWII instances where the most advanced, well equipped ,well manned and numerous western Air Forces have confronted a very limited amount of an export version of a single model of relatively up-to-date AD system, not taking into account the total absence of any kind of offensive mean capable to attack directly the western air bases in the theatre (all of them not hardened in any way, devoid of even only the most elementary simulacrum of an IAD at theirs defense and literally overcrowded of an absurd number of very soft skin aircraft, immense amount of fuel and of openly exposed ammunition) only the successful holding of the US and Israeli forces on the ground – in particular for the Yom Kippur conflict – prevented an all-out defeat.

    With enemy enjoying ground superiority those conflicts ,and very likely also the majority of those where even only a single relatively up-to-date AD model was not present, would have resulted in the complete military collapse and the flattening of all the asset and structures in the thetre of operation in a matter of few days.

    Cyrus the great
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 241
    Points : 251
    Join date : 2015-06-12

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

    Post  Cyrus the great on Sun May 15, 2016 3:44 pm

    Garry B wrote:

    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.

    I think I confused APFSDS with full-bore rounds. A full-bore round travelling at 950 m/s is incredibly fast and would be really effective in an urban environment where the distances aren’t so great. The 2a83 is an impressive gun and will destroy any tank in existence [or in development] with just one shot. If it doesn’t completely destroy an opposing tank, it should immobilize it.


    Garry B wrote: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.

    This might sound a little daft but couldn’t they have both? A fully stabilized 60mm mortar [connected to the FCS] could provide great indirect fire against opposing infantry and anti-tank teams in defilade – something that I don’t think the 57mm could achieve. The unmanned turret of the T-14 could probably accommodate 20 + plus 60mm rounds and the 57mm grenade launcher could operate in lieu of the 7.62mm in the remote weapons station. The 57mm grenade would be a great direct fire weapon.

    It would also be great if two 23mm autocannons were attached on the sides of the turret and would make the T-14 Armata an incredibly effective platform in urban engagements.

    Garry B wrote:

    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.

    The T90SM seems to have a good BMS and so I expect the Armata series to have a world class BMS just like how its FCS is arguably superior with its advanced image processing capabilities. With barrel launched drones and an advanced C4IR, the T-14 Armata should be able to see other tanks first thereby getting off the first shot.


    Garry B wrote: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.


    That is incredibly frightening and really puts it all into perspective and really does create the impression that a binary liquid propellant is absolutely essential and will eventually have to be incorporated into the T-14 Armata. Thanks for this informative write-up. I’ve learned a lot from it.

    Garry B wrote:
    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...

    If they can introduce binary liquid propellants then it really should be done especially if it increases efficiency and the speed of the loading system.

    Garry B wrote:

    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.

    Exactly. I really do appreciate Russia’s emphasis on layers of defence to more effectively counter the ever evolving range of threats that armored vehicles will continue to encounter in war.




    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Mon May 16, 2016 1:04 pm

    The 2a83 is an impressive gun and will destroy any tank in existence [or in development] with just one shot. If it doesn’t completely destroy an opposing tank, it should immobilize it.

    The 152mm shells were so effective because their weight... ie about 50kgs is enough to kill the crew on the other side of heavy armour with the concussion effect.

    Just like a 100kg bomb can kill everyone inside a tank... even if it wont penetrate the armour the shock wave will kill the crew anyway.

    This might sound a little daft but couldn’t they have both? A fully stabilized 60mm mortar [connected to the FCS] could provide great indirect fire against opposing infantry and anti-tank teams in defilade – something that I don’t think the 57mm could achieve. The unmanned turret of the T-14 could probably accommodate 20 + plus 60mm rounds and the 57mm grenade launcher could operate in lieu of the 7.62mm in the remote weapons station. The 57mm grenade would be a great direct fire weapon.

    No disrespect meant, but the Russians don't have any 60mm mortars in service... the Israelis do because it is an american weapon. the Soviets had 50mm mortars but withdrew them because they were expensive to make and not that effective on the battlefield.

    If you want to add a light automatic weapon on a Russian tank it would make sense to use an existing type rather that create one completely from scratch or even copy an american design when existing Russian designs have pretty much similar performance.

    the 57mm grenade launcher I am talking about is a new weapon like a 40mm grenade launcher with much bigger and heavier projectiles... the difference between a 57mm grenade and a 60mm mortar bomb is less than 3mm in calibre... both are low velocity rounds that rely on HE capacity for performance... the difference is that the 57mm weapon could be belt fed and automatic, while a 60mm mortar that is not in service in Russia would be semi automatic only.

    the 57mm grenade launcher has a low muzzle velocity... don't confuse it with the new 57mm high velocity guns they are talking about for IFV use with guided shells.

    A 57mm grenade launcher has a curved trajectory like a mortar but a much higher rate of fire and can be used for direct and indirect fire.

    It would be mounted coaxially with the main gun but with independent elevation so where you point the main gun you are pointing the grenade launcher but the grenade launcher can be angled up much higher than the main gun.

    In fact knowing the Russians the 57mm grenade launcher probably has the same cheap simple air burst rounds as their 40mm grenades making the 57mm grenade launcher much more effective than the US or Israeli 60mm mortar.

    (BTW the Israelis used the 60mm mostly for launching illumination rounds to float over the target area to illuminate the enemy and make their own forces harder to see in the dark.)

    It would also be great if two 23mm autocannons were attached on the sides of the turret and would make the T-14 Armata an incredibly effective platform in urban engagements.

    It would make more sense to keep the tank as a tank and have a fire support vehicle like a BMP-T to have the anti infantry fire power. IFVs will also be very well armed and of course the artillery vehicles will also add their fire power... there will be no shortage of bang.

    Exactly. I really do appreciate Russia’s emphasis on layers of defence to more effectively counter the ever evolving range of threats that armored vehicles will continue to encounter in war.

    the key is to remember not to confuse a component with a system. You can look at any single part of a machine and point out its potential faults, but when it is operating as part of a machine... particularly a war machine where every part works as a greater whole trying to assist each other part as well as do a particular job it stops being so easy to find fault or weakness.

    I mean with most vehicle units likely including systems that can detect gunshots then the vulnerability to snipers is reduced. Systems that defeat IEDs and mines and booby traps further make systems safer.

    Learning enemy tactics and adapting to tricks means sneaky attacks can be successful first time and perhaps even second and third time but eventually they will devise tactics to defeat such attacks... it is a constant battle... one side introduces MRAP vehicles able to survive 5kg HE mines under their wheels... the enemy is not just going to stop trying to blow up your vehicles... they will likely start using more HE or different IEDs that attack from the side or the belly rather than blow up a wheel. Smile


    _________________
    “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

    MarshallJukov
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 17
    Points : 17
    Join date : 2015-02-22

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

    Post  MarshallJukov on Thu May 19, 2016 11:17 pm

    GarryB wrote:while a 60mm mortar that is not in service in Russia would be semi automatic only.


    x_54_u43
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 188
    Points : 208
    Join date : 2015-09-19

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

    Post  x_54_u43 on Fri May 20, 2016 2:38 am

    [quote="GarryB"]


    Just like a 100kg bomb can kill everyone inside a tank... even if it wont penetrate the armour the shock wave will kill the crew anyway.


    Don't underestimate tank armor, T-90As are rated to a several kiloton explosion just 700m away. JDAMS were detonated mere meters away from Iraqi tanks and did nothing to them, dispelling a lot of false notions in the process.

    How do you think World War 3 would have been fought? Everyone knew about this and tanks were designed for very high amount of overpressure damage.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Fri May 20, 2016 1:07 pm

    @MarshallJukov

    I am fully aware of the excellent 82mm Vasilek Automatic mortar... but that is not a 60mm mortar.

    As I mentioned the closest thing the Russians have to a 60mm mortar would be the new 57mm auto grenade launcher they have in development.

    Don't underestimate tank armor, T-90As are rated to a several kiloton explosion just 700m away. JDAMS were detonated mere meters away from Iraqi tanks and did nothing to them, dispelling a lot of false notions in the process.

    How do you think World War 3 would have been fought? Everyone knew about this and tanks were designed for very high amount of overpressure damage.

    The shockwave from an explosion propagates in 3 dimensions and loses power exponentially.

    From 300m an aircraft bomb will likely not injure you in the open.

    Abrams tanks have been taken out of operation with 50kg IEDs.

    Abrams armour is no more or less effective than T-90 armour in this respect.

    Very simply for a 152mm shell to kill a tank crew without penetrating its armour it can only do so with a HE shell using the shockwave crushing the crew with its effect.

    Detonating that same warhead 10m from the tank will not even likely injure the crew... though it would destroy aerials and shatter optics.


    _________________
    “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

    MarshallJukov
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 17
    Points : 17
    Join date : 2015-02-22

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

    Post  MarshallJukov on Fri May 20, 2016 4:37 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    but that is not a 60mm mortar.

    As I mentioned the closest thing the Russians have to a 60mm mortar would be the new 57mm auto grenade launcher they have in development.

    Not even close. AGS-57 fires twice heavier and more powerfull rounds. 3,1kg vs 1,6kg. Each contains 600g of А-IХ-2. Thats closer to 8xmm mortars.



    GarryB wrote:
    Very simply for a 152mm shell to kill a tank crew without penetrating its armour it can only do so with a HE shell using the shockwave crushing the crew with its effect.

    Detonating that same warhead 10m from the tank will not even likely injure the crew... though it would destroy aerials and shatter optics.

    Even old KV-1 tanks and their crews survived DIRECT him of 150mm artillery shell during WW2 and did not even left the battle.
    All modern tanks are airtight so they are totaly protect their crew from shockwave.
    Bomb or IED can damage, destroy the tank or injure its crew ONLY if direct blast physicaly reach the tank and the charge is large enough. Neither of mortar shells or 15xmm artillery have enough charge to destroy tanks even with direct hit most of the time. Their detonation in proximity will do almost no damage or harm, if any at all.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5391
    Points : 5640
    Join date : 2012-10-24

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

    Post  Werewolf on Fri May 20, 2016 7:29 pm

    MarshallJukov wrote:

    Even old KV-1 tanks and their crews survived DIRECT him of 150mm artillery shell during WW2 and did not even left the battle.

    I highly doubt that and i doubt you know what you are talking about.

    MarshallJukov wrote:

    All modern tanks are airtight so they are totaly protect their crew from shockwave.

    That is not how tanks are designed nor how shockwaves pass through objects.

    You do not need a shockwave to pass through open gaps or open air entering a hatch or anything. Shockwaves can pass through the armor itself and on flat and thin metal parts like the floor it can pass through the shockwave and "resonance" the shockwave to the inside with a sealed object and watery bodies in this sealed room they are gonna experience some aquashock to their entire bodies.

    MarshallJukov wrote:
    Bomb or IED can damage, destroy the tank or injure its crew ONLY if direct blast physicaly reach the tank and the charge is large enough. Neither of mortar shells or 15xmm artillery have enough charge to destroy tanks even with direct hit most of the time. Their detonation in proximity will do almost no damage or harm, if any at all.

    Direct hits from 152mm rounds will kinetically pass through any 1st gen tanks armor and will knock out todays tanks regardless. I do not know where you have this missconception from but HE shells of that calibre contain enough explosive content to rip apart tanks and artillery shells come from above not frontally. If a artillery needs to fire against a tank head on head because of some defensive situation it will kill it regardless, it is far superior to what a tank round can fire against a tank.

    MarshallJukov
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 17
    Points : 17
    Join date : 2015-02-22

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

    Post  MarshallJukov on Fri May 20, 2016 10:27 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    MarshallJukov wrote:

    Even old KV-1 tanks and their crews survived DIRECT him of 150mm artillery shell during WW2 and did not even left the battle.

    I highly doubt that and i doubt you know what you are talking about.

    That comes directly from the notes of german soldiers on their first encounters with soviet heavy tanks on eastern front.



    Werewolf wrote:
    MarshallJukov wrote:

    All modern tanks are airtight so they are totaly protect their crew from shockwave.

    That is not how tanks are designed nor how shockwaves pass through objects.

    Thats exactly how they designed and exactly how shockwave pass through objects. Main danger of shockwave is PRESSURE and then DEPRESSURE of air.
    Sitting in airtight space behind composite armor they won`t even hear the sound much.

    Werewolf wrote:You do not need a shockwave to pass through open gaps or open air entering a hatch or anything.

    No. Thats exactly what you need.


    Werewolf wrote:Shockwaves can pass through the armor

    Sure. But even when they pass through body of solid steel they become many orders of magnitude weaker on the other side.
    And when the armor is made of multiple layers with different density. When there is space gaps or polymers they die down to a degree you can barely even hear something happened outside.



    Werewolf wrote:experience some aquashock to their entire bodies.

    Yeah right, and to achieve that you need tactical nuke detonating nearby, not a mortar or artillery shell.



    Werewolf wrote: Direct hits from 152mm rounds will kinetically pass through any 1st gen tanks armor and will knock out todays tanks regardless.

    No. If that was as easy as you say, nobody would bother with shaped charges.


    Werewolf wrote:I do not know where you have this missconception from but HE shells of that calibre contain enough explosive content to rip apart tanks

    No, they do not. Actualy even 152mm artillery shells are mostly harmless for troops hiding in trenches just a dozen or two meters from its impact. And they are definetly harmless for troops sitting in tanks at even closer range.

    With direct hit, they will surely knock out the tank, but not destroy it unless they hit thin armor on top.


    Werewolf wrote: If a artillery needs to fire against a tank head on head because of some defensive situation it will kill it regardless, it is far superior to what a tank round can fire against a tank.

    Nope. If artillery encounters tank so close that it needs to engage in direct fire with them then artillery has no chances.
    Not just because HE rounds will do little against main armor, can just damage gun tube, tracks and sensors. But because artillery units most of the time have no or much less armor for their own protection.

    Bottom line - other than in direct hits HE shells pose no danger to the tanks and their crew at all. No shockwave passes through sealed armor. And best artillery can hope for it if shrapnel will damage gun tube.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Sat May 21, 2016 12:52 pm

    Not even close. AGS-57 fires twice heavier and more powerfull rounds. 3,1kg vs 1,6kg. Each contains 600g of А-IХ-2. Thats closer to 8xmm mortars.

    So the AGS-57 will actually be comparable with the 82mm Vasilek in terms of HE fire power... that makes it orders of magnitude better than a 60mm mortar.

    Even old KV-1 tanks and their crews survived DIRECT him of 150mm artillery shell during WW2 and did not even left the battle.

    Not true.

    there was that case where a KV-1 was positioned in the fork of a road on marshy ground and held up a german advance for a day or two... they even fired at it with an 88mm gun and of the 6 direct hits only two penetrated but as they approached the turret started to turn so one of the soldiers dropped grenades in the turret to finish off the crew.

    the few KVs that were destroyed were destroyed by 105mm artillery guns using HE rounds.

    All modern tanks are airtight so they are totaly protect their crew from shockwave.

    No they are not air tight, they usually have an overpressure system to ensure gas or chemicals from outside cannot enter, but that is not the same thing.

    The British use a round called HESH, or HE squash head... basically it is a HE round that is soft and when it hits armour it flattens like a hand full of clay splatting on a wall. It has a tail fuse so when the rear end contacts the armour the charge is detonated... the large surface area means the shockwave going through the armour makes the armour inside the vehicle shatters and material called spall bounces around the inside of the turret or hull... like shrapnel but made of the inner layer of the armour of the vehicle.

    Modern spaced armour defeats HESH rounds and anti spall liners make them ineffective too, but the concept would still work if you had 50kgs of HE instead of 5kgs.

    WWII tanks did not even have layered armour structures and would all be vulnerable to HESH... which was cheap, simple, required no super hard exotic metals, and did not need high velocity.

    Note armour piercing rounds also produce spall when they penetrate armour or come within about 10% of penetrating armour... so anti spall liners are still used.

    Bomb or IED can damage, destroy the tank or injure its crew ONLY if direct blast physicaly reach the tank and the charge is large enough.

    A direct hit is required.

    Neither of mortar shells or 15xmm artillery have enough charge to destroy tanks even with direct hit most of the time. Their detonation in proximity will do almost no damage or harm, if any at all.

    Near miss will smash optics and destroy sensors and aerials and can damage the main gun and machine guns.
    Direct hits to the top or sides or rear of the turret or hull can disable the vehicle and kill or serious shell shock crew.

    Even a HMG burst can blow off the tracks.

    That comes directly from the notes of german soldiers on their first encounters with soviet heavy tanks on eastern front.

    The angled plate meant that full calibre rounds often bounced off the armour rather than penetrate or explode properly. 105mm artillery was widely used to deal with KVs early on when it was found all the dedicated anti armour guns like 37mm and 50mm guns had no effect. It was rapidly found that the best weapons were 88mm anti aircraft guns... mainly because at that time there was not much enemy air power anyway and the mounts were designed to aim in all directions and move rapidly so they were easier to use in the anti tank role than some big 105mm or larger gun.

    Thats exactly how they designed and exactly how shockwave pass through objects. Main danger of shockwave is PRESSURE and then DEPRESSURE of air.
    Sitting in airtight space behind composite armor they won`t even hear the sound much.

    Pressure waves move 4 times faster through water than through air. I am not sure of the figure for steel armour but I would say pressure waves move even faster through steel plate.

    Air is compressible and absorbs the blast effect... water and hard materials transfer the energy directly and without absorbing the force.

    that is why cars have crumple zones to absorb the energy (ie speed) of an impact.

    Sure. But even when they pass through body of solid steel they become many orders of magnitude weaker on the other side.
    And when the armor is made of multiple layers with different density. When there is space gaps or polymers they die down to a degree you can barely even hear something happened outside.

    Which counts for nothing if the explosion blows the turret off.

    No. If that was as easy as you say, nobody would bother with shaped charges.

    the tanks firing at first generation tanks were first generation tanks... you just need to look at the failure of the KV-2 to see why they went for penetration rather than brute force HE.

    No, they do not. Actualy even 152mm artillery shells are mostly harmless for troops hiding in trenches just a dozen or two meters from its impact. And they are definetly harmless for troops sitting in tanks at even closer range.

    A dozen... possibly... 2 metres... no. a shell hitting the ground 2 metres away from men in a trench will find their trench collapse.

    With direct hit, they will surely knock out the tank, but not destroy it unless they hit thin armor on top.

    or sides or rear... or turret ring, or main gun mantlet cavity...

    Nope. If artillery encounters tank so close that it needs to engage in direct fire with them then artillery has no chances.
    Not just because HE rounds will do little against main armor, can just damage gun tube, tracks and sensors. But because artillery units most of the time have no or much less armor for their own protection.

    So Soviet artillery units carrying APHE rounds for direct fire use is a myth?

    Never say never... Soviet 152mm guns unlike western artillery operated on the front line and supported operations with direct fire. the risk of coming up against an enemy tank was actually very high and they had the ammo type to deal with that situation. Obviously not ideal... but in war the first thing that goes out the window on contact with the enemy is the plan.

    Bottom line - other than in direct hits HE shells pose no danger to the tanks and their crew at all. No shockwave passes through sealed armor. And best artillery can hope for it if shrapnel will damage gun tube.

    No body is suggesting 152mm guns just need near misses to take out tanks... of course tanks represent a very small minority of armoured vehicles on most battlefields...


    _________________
    “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

    TheArmenian
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1523
    Points : 1686
    Join date : 2011-09-14

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

    Post  TheArmenian on Sat May 21, 2016 1:19 pm

    @MarshalJukov

    Dear Comarade Field Marshal,

    The vast majority of Ukrainian tanks destroyed in Donbass was from artillery.
    The vast majority of the artillery was 120mm, not 152mm.
    Even 120mm is sufficient to destroy a tank when it hits directly from top, sides, rear, gun mantlet, or turret ring....

    MarshallJukov
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 17
    Points : 17
    Join date : 2015-02-22

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

    Post  MarshallJukov on Sat May 21, 2016 1:43 pm

    GarryB wrote:So the AGS-57 will actually be comparable with the 82mm Vasilek in terms of HE fire power... that makes it orders of magnitude better than a 60mm mortar.

    Thats right, only marginaly weaker but much lighter and with much higher rate of fire. It may act as effective replacement for 20 standard 8cm mortars, which fact may turn it into "mini MLRS"

    GarryB wrote:Not true.

    «Окутанные огнем и дымом, КВ неотвратимо двигались вперед, все сокрушая на своем пути. Снаряды тяжелых гаубиц не причиняли им никакого вреда»…
    ….«Один из КВ натолкнулся на небольшое болотце, в котором увяз Pz.35 (t), и, не колеблясь ни секунды, переехал вражескую машину. Та же участь постигла 150-мм гаубицу, которая не успела вовремя сменить позицию. Когда КВ-1 приближались, гаубица стреляла по ним в упор, не причиняя вреда. Один из танков пошел прямо на нее, и снаряд попал ему прямо в лобовую броню. Танк замер, будто в него ударила молния. Артиллеристы облегченно вдохнули, кто-то сказал : «Ему конец». «Да, этот получил свое», - согласился командир расчета. Но тут танк ожил и, громко лязгая гусеницами, снова двинулся вперед. Он смял тяжелое орудие, словно детскую игрушку, вдавил его в землю и исковеркал»



    GarryB wrote:the few KVs that were destroyed were destroyed by 105mm artillery guns using HE rounds.

    The only way they could achieve that is if they hit them at the top armor. Or if they damage tracks. Or if some hatches where open.

    No they are not air tight, they usually have an overpressure system to ensure gas or chemicals from outside cannot enter, but that is not the same thing.

    They are exactly airtight. Overpressure NBC protection system means (at least for the Russian tanks) that both intake and exhaust from crew compartment performed through controlled vents. That is why, on top of all, Russian tanks can drive underwater. And that prevents airburst from explosion reaching crew inside.

    The British use a round called HESH, or HE squash head...

    We are talking about entirely different things. Airburst overpressure from explosion was subject of debate. Not direct interraction of explosion vs tank armor. But still if you want to bring in HESH here you may do minimal research and discover why its nearly useless in composite armor era.


    Modern spaced armour defeats HESH rounds and anti spall liners make them ineffective too, but the concept would still work if you had 50kgs of HE instead of 5kgs.

    And that is why it defeats HE even better, rendering them nearly useless against modern tanks.


    WWII tanks did not even have layered armour structures and would all be vulnerable to HESH... which was cheap, simple, required no super hard exotic metals, and did not need high velocity.

    And HESH was not the case in that KV-1 story. It was anchient german 15cm HE shell.


    A direct hit is required.

    Exactly. You need it to detonate either directly under the tank. Or IED placed directly on its armor, at some weak spot like hull plates behind tracks. Engine compartment fits too.

    Near miss will smash optics and destroy sensors and aerials and can damage the main gun and machine guns.

    With great luck involved.

    Direct hits to the top or sides or rear of the turret or hull can disable the vehicle and kill or serious shell shock crew.

    Luck needed here too.

    Even a HMG burst can blow off the tracks.

    Not a chance. Even if 14,5mm involved.


    105mm artillery was widely used to deal with KVs early on when it was found all the dedicated anti armour guns like 37mm and 50mm guns had no effect.

    And the only way they could help is shooting them at the sides or achieve lucky hit from the top during artillery barrages. No way it could destroy KVs if hit them in their front armor with HE round.
    Even its AP round was barely enough to deal with soviet heavy tanks from their flanks.

    For 15cm guns they had wide set of HEAT rounds, exactly because of poor performance HE rounds have against heavy armor.


    It was rapidly found that the best weapons were 88mm anti aircraft guns...

    Because of superior ballistics over 10,5/15cm howitzers and good AP rounds avaiable.


    I am not sure of the figure for steel armour but I would say pressure waves move even faster through steel plate.

    Steel is solid matter, to say the least. It does not transfers pressure the way liquids and gases do. External pressure applie over tank structure is absorbed by it.

    Air is compressible and absorbs the blast effect... water and hard materials transfer the energy directly and without absorbing the force.

    Nope. Just as gas, liquid fills every bit of space it can reach. And that is why it transfers pressure perfectly. Solid matter such as steel need to be deformed in order to transfer pressure. Imagine tank as airtight steel sphere, you need a LOT of external pressure to compress it at least a bit. And you will never get significant fraction of external pressure inside the sphere anyway.

    that is why cars have crumple zones to absorb the energy (ie speed) of an impact.

    You understanding of physics is seriously 4ucked up.


    Which counts for nothing if the explosion blows the turret off.

    If your grandmother would have testicules, she will be your grandfather.
    You need much more than 15cm artillery shell to blow off turret of any tank created within last 60 years.

    you just need to look at the failure of the KV-2 to see why they went for penetration rather than brute force HE
    .

    KV-2 never intended for anti-tank roles.


    A dozen... possibly... 2 metres... no. a shell hitting the ground 2 metres away from men in a trench will find their trench collapse.

    2 meters is well within radius of crater 152mm shells create in most soils. I was hinting you on AIRBURST created by its explosion not it smashing troops in trenches by direct hit, which 2 meters is certainly is.


    So Soviet artillery units carrying APHE rounds for direct fire use is a myth?

    You do know the difference between APHE and HE?

    Never say never... Soviet 152mm guns unlike western artillery operated on the front line and supported operations with direct fire
    .

    Not the case for many many decades.

    the risk of coming up against an enemy tank was actually very high and they had the ammo type to deal with that situation.

    If you talking about ISU-152 then you should look at what kind of armor it had in front. Not like WW2 nazi tanks, even heaviest, was tough enough to survive 152mm HE rounds. Case is, post WW2 and modern tanks are MUCH better protected and rendered HE and even HESH nearly useless against them. That is why you do not see vehicles in ISU-152 class for a long time BTW.

    MarshallJukov
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 17
    Points : 17
    Join date : 2015-02-22

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

    Post  MarshallJukov on Sat May 21, 2016 2:02 pm

    TheArmenian wrote:The vast majority of Ukrainian tanks destroyed in Donbass was from artillery.

    Thats right, indirect artillery barrages when shells hit tanks from the top. Plus there was extensive use of anti-tank subminutions used.

    TheArmenian wrote:The vast majority of the artillery was 120mm, not 152mm.

    122mm, 152mm, 220mm and 300mm

    TheArmenian wrote:Even 120mm is sufficient to destroy a tank when it hits directly from top, sides, rear, gun mantlet, or turret ring...

    There is no way 120mm standard HE mortar shell will penetrate top armor of modern tanks. Just as probability of direct hit of a tank with mortar shell is extremely low. Even if it is not moving. That is why great many of 120mm mortar shells with submunitions developed across the world. Such as 3VO32 with 35 submunitions each with 100mm+ penetration. THAT would be somehow effective dealing with tanks. But not standard mortar shells.

    TheArmenian
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1523
    Points : 1686
    Join date : 2011-09-14

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

    Post  TheArmenian on Sat May 21, 2016 2:43 pm

    @ marshalJukov

    Stop distorting what Garry and myself are saying.

    Once again:
    - Vast majority of Novorossian artillery was in 120mm category: D30 and grad were most common.
    - I am not talking about 120mm mortars. Obviously, these are less effective on tanks compared to a  120mm shell.
    - Large number of Ukrop tanks were destroyed by these artllery shells that hit the tanks from top, rear, sides etc.
    - Obviously, hitting a moving tank with plunging artillery is lucky shot, but hiting a stationary tank or group of tanks with a full battery of guns is more doable and has been done in Donbass. There is also a video from the latest Karabagh war where Armenian artllery is targeting Azeri tanks in indirect fire.

    MarshallJukov
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 17
    Points : 17
    Join date : 2015-02-22

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

    Post  MarshallJukov on Sat May 21, 2016 2:50 pm

    TheArmenian wrote: - Vast majority of Novorossian artillery was in 120mm category: D30 and grad were most common.

    Both D-30 and BM-21 are 122mm. D-30 is useless against the tanks. And BM-21 can do the job only with submunitions.

    TheArmenian wrote:I do not buy claims of 220 or 300mm with submunition, there is no evidence of that.

    There is plenty of evidence both sides using MLRS with submunitions.


    TheArmenian wrote:- I am not talking about 120mm mortars. Obviously, these are less effective on tanks compared to a  120mm shell.

    Useless you might say.

    TheArmenian wrote:- Large number of Ukrop tanks were destroyed by these artllery shells that hit the tanks from top, rear, sides etc.

    Only with submunitions or 152mm+

    TheArmenian wrote:Obviously, hitting a moving tank with plunging artillery is lucky shot, but hiting a stationary tank or group of tanks with a full battery of guns is more doable and has been done in Donbass. There is also a video from the latest Karabagh war where Armenian artllery is targeting Azeri tanks in indirect fire

    It will all make any sense only when its 152mm or MLRS with submunitions. Aside of that its a waste of ammunition.

    TheArmenian
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1523
    Points : 1686
    Join date : 2011-09-14

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

    Post  TheArmenian on Sat May 21, 2016 3:27 pm

    You have replied to my post before I finished editing it.

    So, now you agree that 152 mm artillery can destroy a tank if it hits it. But you think that a 122mm is not good enough to do the trick.

    BTW, apart from one volley on Kramatorsk airport, I did not see Novorossians use 300mm Smerch. I have not seen them use Uragan either. I am pretty sure the have them, but in small numbers and they got them later on during the conflict. I doubt they were used at all against tank concentrations.
    As for Grads with submunition, I would love to see a photo of a used or unused one by the Novorossians.

    Even 152mm guns were not common with the Novorossians for most of the conflict. They became more common after capturing a good number at Ilovaisk and later on in Debaltsovo.

    Anyways, this is all off-topic and I want to leave it there. If you want to continue discussing this subject, you may open a whole new thread about it.

    MarshallJukov
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 17
    Points : 17
    Join date : 2015-02-22

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

    Post  MarshallJukov on Sat May 21, 2016 3:50 pm

    TheArmenian wrote:So, now you agree that 152 mm artillery can destroy a tank if it hits it.

    I never denied it can. In case of direct hit into the turret top or engine compartment. I denied that it can do any reasonable damage in any other case.

    TheArmenian wrote:But you think that a 122mm is not good enough to do the trick.

    Yes, it can`t. Even 3OV56 and its shrapnel rated up to 20mm RHA penetration at best. And its way too short on kinetic energy and explosives charge to hammer modern tank 152mm shells do.

    TheArmenian wrote:BTW, apart from one volley on Kramatorsk airport, I did not see Novorossians use 300mm Smerch. I have not seen them use Uragan either.



    Also i was talking about both sides using it.


    TheArmenian wrote:I doubt they were used at all against tank concentrations.

    Nearly all units in this conflict are mixed units. All of them supported by tanks if those avaiable.

    TheArmenian wrote:As for Grads with submunition,  I would love to see a photo of a used or unused one by the Novorossians.

    That would be unnecessary. As it is obvious fact that HE grad rockets are too weak to destroy modern tanks. While they do have more explosives than 120mm mortar shells, their shell case is relatively thin and light as they designed to be used against soft targets. They also lack of kinetic energy 152mm shells have, which is twice heavier than 122mm warhead and impacts at greater velocity.

    TheArmenian wrote:Even 152mm guns were not common with the Novorossians for most of the conflict. They became more common after capturing a good number at Ilovaisk and later on in Debaltsovo.

    And that was huge problem for them, trust me. Only heavy MLRS saved their day back then. BM-27 for example which both sides have plenty of

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Sun May 22, 2016 10:23 am

    Thats right, only marginaly weaker but much lighter and with much higher rate of fire. It may act as effective replacement for 20 standard 8cm mortars, which fact may turn it into "mini MLRS"

    Which would make it ideal for use in light vehicles as a main armament, or heavier vehicles as a secondary armament to save full calibre rounds for targets that require more power.

    The only way they could achieve that is if they hit them at the top armor. Or if they damage tracks. Or if some hatches where open.

    Lets assume you are right... can you explain how anti tank mines can completely obliterate a WWII tank... I mean I would expect the explosion under the tracks could only ever blow off tracks and could not set off explosives inside the tank because the energy needed for the explosion to set off HE would be easily enough to kill the crew outright... I mean after all you can hit HE with a hammer and it will not explode... you need a detonator to set off HE... so how does up to 12kg of HE under a track destroy a whole tank?

    They are exactly airtight. Overpressure NBC protection system means (at least for the Russian tanks) that both intake and exhaust from crew compartment performed through controlled vents. That is why, on top of all, Russian tanks can drive underwater. And that prevents airburst from explosion reaching crew inside.

    If there are in and out vents in the crew compartment then it is clearly not air tight... if it was air tight then an air vent sucking air into the crew compartment would compress the air inside like in a bike tire... An overpressure system by definition sucks air into the crew compartment at a rate that means any holes in the crew compartment wont let the air out fast enough to allow more air to come in via those holes or cracks.

    Armoured vehicles would not need to turn on Bilge pumps when entering water if they were air tight.

    We are talking about entirely different things. Airburst overpressure from explosion was subject of debate. Not direct interraction of explosion vs tank armor. But still if you want to bring in HESH here you may do minimal research and discover why its nearly useless in composite armor era.

    We are not talking about overpressure, we are talking about contact shockwaves from an explosion...

    the propellent in the main 125mm gun of a Russian tank burns rapidly but nothing like the velocity of an explosive charge... a standard round can be fired hundreds of times in a standard barrel but a HE charge of equal size will shatter the barrel the first time.

    And that is why it defeats HE even better, rendering them nearly useless against modern tanks.

    Real world experience shows otherwise.

    With great luck involved.

    The fireball of a Kornet hitting a tank creates a and orange ball the size of the tank... a 43kg HE shell from a 152mm gun would be enormous.... there would be little chance the optics survived and the glass blocks would be turned to powder... and would break your air tight seal.

    Even its AP round was barely enough to deal with soviet heavy tanks from their flanks.

    AP 152mm rounds defeated Tigers and Panthers...

    For 15cm guns they had wide set of HEAT rounds, exactly because of poor performance HE rounds have against heavy armor.

    Are you sure? HEAT is not very effective from rifled gun barrels...

    Steel is solid matter, to say the least. It does not transfers pressure the way liquids and gases do. External pressure applie over tank structure is absorbed by it.

    Yeah.... land mines can't kill tanks because the explosion is absorbed by the tank structure... not.

    Nope. Just as gas, liquid fills every bit of space it can reach. And that is why it transfers pressure perfectly.

    Not all liquids act the same. water does not compress so it transfers energy in the form of pressure efficiently.

    Solid matter such as steel need to be deformed in order to transfer pressure. Imagine tank as airtight steel sphere, you need a LOT of external pressure to compress it at least a bit. And you will never get significant fraction of external pressure inside the sphere anyway.

    What?

    A tank is nothing like a perfect sphere it has angles and joints and spaces like the turret race where there is nothing holding the turret to the hull, and it is nothing like air tight... old or new.

    You understanding of physics is seriously 4ucked up.

    In what way?

    Cars designed to crumple on impact spread the energy of that impact over time to the occupants of the vehicle increasing their chances of survival.

    If your grandmother would have testicules, she will be your grandfather.

    Or a serial killer that keeps trophies...

    You need much more than 15cm artillery shell to blow off turret of any tank created within last 60 years.

    tank created within last 60 years... OK... the Sheridan or M60 tank.

    KV-2 never intended for anti-tank roles.

    It was a failure because it was huge and did not carry many rounds, which made it impractical for a standard tank.... just the same as even today the Coalition would be a stupid choice as a MBT.


    2 meters is well within radius of crater 152mm shells create in most soils. I was hinting you on AIRBURST created by its explosion not it smashing troops in trenches by direct hit, which 2 meters is certainly is.

    We are talking about the effect of a direct hit on armour by a 152mm shell... why don't you mention that a 5.56mm rifle round hitting the ground 9m from a trench wont hurt the soldiers inside either...

    You do know the difference between APHE and HE?

    So if artillery will never be used against enemy armour why bother developing and deploying an anti armour round?


    Not the case for many many decades.

    Of course not... with a 125mm main gun on tanks having extra direct fire HE firepower became redundant.

    Not like WW2 nazi tanks, even heaviest, was tough enough to survive 152mm HE rounds.

    And what was the heaviest nazi tank in 1941?

    There is no way 120mm standard HE mortar shell will penetrate top armor of modern tanks.

    the top armour of a T-72 is about 10-15cm and no more... armour on engine deck is even less.

    Top armour of most armoured vehicles is pathetic.

    I never denied it can. In case of direct hit into the turret top or engine compartment. I denied that it can do any reasonable damage in any other case.

    That is all we have been saying.

    End of off topic.





    _________________
    “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

    MarshallJukov
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 17
    Points : 17
    Join date : 2015-02-22

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

    Post  MarshallJukov on Sun May 22, 2016 1:54 pm

    GarryB wrote: so how does up to 12kg of HE under a track destroy a whole tank?

    Simple:
    1) Bottom armor of any tank is much weaker than on the top.
    2) Ammunition and fuel usualy stored much closer to the bottom that the top.
    3) Blast of the landmine is locked within relatively small space under the tank

    GarryB wrote: If there are in and out vents in the crew compartment then it is clearly not air tight...

    It is clearly airtight design. Peaks of overpressure can not pass those vents.

    GarryB wrote: air vent sucking air into the crew compartment would compress the air inside like in a bike tire.

    You would need that pressure to last many orders of magnitude longer than those miliseconds. Or you need it to be really huge like that generated by tactical nuke exploding nearby.

    GarryB wrote:Armoured vehicles would not need to turn on Bilge pumps when entering water if they were air tight.

    Tanks also have fire suppression system. Using your logic one can assume that presense of open fire inside the tank is normal way of its operation.

    GarryB wrote:We are not talking about overpressure, we are talking about contact shockwaves from an explosion...

    Them are not designed to trasfer any shockwave inside the tank. Their mode of operation is to cause spalling on the opposite side of homogenous steel armor. This trick does not works with composite armor. And HE rounds function entirely different to HESH round. Have totaly different purpose and type of explosive compound. That is why you can not use HE round as substitute for HESH round and HESH round is poor substitide for HE round.


    GarryB wrote:but a HE charge of equal size will shatter the barrel the first time.

    Because its filled with BRISANT explosives with detonation velocities many times greater that those of any powder.

    GarryB wrote:Real world experience shows otherwise.

    Real world experience shows exactly that HE projectiles are nearly useless against tanks. That is why real world sticks to MUCH more complex and expensive ammunition types such as HEAT and APFSDS rounds for anti-tank missions.


    GarryB wrote: The fireball of a Kornet hitting a tank creates a and orange ball the size of the tank...

    Coca-Cola bottle with chineese petard and gasoline will create even more spectacular fireball that this. And it will be much cheaper BTW.

    GarryB wrote: a 43kg HE shell from a 152mm gun would be enormous....

    Fireballs do not defeat armor. Unless we talking about fireball of atomic explosion or at least 100kg+ gravity bomb.

    In case with Kornet its sharp hypersonic jet of molten metal generated by explosion of shaped charge which punctures armor and ignites whatever is behind.

    GarryB wrote:there would be little chance the optics survived and the glass blocks would be turned to powder... and would break your air tight seal.

    Those things protected much better than you might think. The only way they can be damages is shrapnel. Not some fireballs or overpressure.

    GarryB wrote:tAP 152mm rounds defeated Tigers and Panthers...

    Those where APHE not HE. A big difference.


    GarryB wrote:Are you sure? HEAT is not very effective from rifled gun barrels...

    They had choice between at least something and nothing. Thats why they had 15 cm Gr. 39 Hl/A round.


    GarryB wrote: Yeah.... land mines can't kill tanks because the explosion is absorbed by the tank structure... not.

    Of cource not. Its because tank structure is weak there and can not absorb enough.

    GarryB wrote:Not all liquids act the same. water does not compress so it transfers energy in the form of pressure efficiently.

    All of them, except non-newtonian.

    GarryB wrote:A tank is nothing like a perfect sphere it has angles and joints and spaces like the turret race where there is nothing holding the turret to the hull, and it is nothing like air tight... old or new.

    Submarines are not perfect spheres either. Yet you do not see them crushed by pressure of water unless they go deeper their design limits. You do not see pressure inside submarines equal to that on outside. Eactly because forces applied by that pressude is held by its hull.
    Our case is not different.


    GarryB wrote:tank created within last 60 years... OK... the Sheridan or M60 tank.

    That too.


    GarryB wrote:It was a failure because it was huge and did not carry many rounds, which made it impractical for a standard tank.... just the same as even today the Coalition would be a stupid choice as a MBT.

    Either way it performed quite well in first period of war. And german tanks of that period was far from perfection even for that era too.

    GarryB wrote:why don't you mention that a 5.56mm rifle round hitting the ground 9m from a trench wont hurt the soldiers inside either...

    Because crater size after 152mm shell explosion is not less than 3,5m wide and 1,5m deep in most soils. That is if it hits 2m away from the trench, it is direct hit to the trench.

    [quote="GarryB"]So if artillery will never be used against enemy armour why bother developing and deploying an anti armour round?[quote]

    Yes. And that is why modern artillery has no APHE rounds, because it is not efficient against modern tanks AND not efficient for anti-personel and demolition jobs as HE round. Modern artillery shifts to guilded and cluster munitions for this purpose for many decades now.

    GarryB wrote:Of course not... with a 125mm main gun on tanks having extra direct fire HE firepower became redundant.

    There is no redundancy. HE rounds in Russian tanks are NOT for usage against other tanks. They have APFSDS and ATGM for this purpose.


    GarryB wrote:And what was the heaviest nazi tank in 1941?

    Not heaviest but thoughest was Tiger I tank. Tiger II and Panthers suffered from poor quality of steel alloys and wielding quality. But even Tiger has poor protection even by 1950s standards and had no chance to last against 152mm HE and APHE projectiles. Aspecialy considering its very delicate transmission placed in front and delicate turret travese mechanisms.


    GarryB wrote:the top armour of a T-72 is about 10-15cm and no more... armour on engine deck is even less.

    Actualy its only starts from 45mm+ under ERA . But RHA penetration of HE 120mm mortar shells and its shrapnel is rated at 10-12mm. Remember, RHA stands for ballistic steel, not average construction steel of some fences and not cast iron those mortar shells are made of.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5391
    Points : 5640
    Join date : 2012-10-24

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

    Post  Werewolf on Sun May 22, 2016 6:12 pm

    Ok, i am on vacation and on my laptop, so i am pretty lazy and will not quote every single remark to reply to it and will do a summary of what concerns me the most.

    1. All participants except of you Marshal were talking exclusivley of direct hits by Artillery shells versus armor, no one mentioned anywhere near anything else except you after the discussion was already going on for a while. So everything you said had absolutley nothing to do with what all the rest of us had discussed.

    Direct hits have constantly been tank killers from all calibres used by ARTILLERY, no one ever mentioned mortars, except you.

    Direct hits from B-13 launchers (127mm) soft shelled rockets from helicopters which come at a flatter angle than Grads are penetrating partially the roof armor of targets on polygons/shooting grounds, from akazya artillery pieces to T-62 tanks. The explosion does the rest. (direct hits only) A 122mm Grad direct hit from top at a 60-90° which is quite common for such rounds today, depending on range they were fired from, they have almost no armor to pass through, even VLD frontal armor plate is very thin especially on western tanks for a round coming in from above, they will penetrate such tanks with delayed timer and blow up entire tank with one hit. We have seen that on T-64's in Novorussian front, certainly direct hits were spotted.

    No tank is air tight sealed, all tanks are overpressure sealed, the ventilation system does not seal the tank and any overpressure from outside (direct hit) of a artillery piece is enorm enough to pass through by air and by armor into the tank, even from the turret that is just set onto the tank, it is not welded to the tank.

    Garry, even tho he was right to 90-95% he is still correct. Mines that are used against tanks are all exclusivley HE mines, the only mines that exist that are  set of by contact are HEAT shells to destroy exclusivley the tracks (mobility kill). All other direct contact set off mines are HE mines and the shockwave even tho reduced by metals is still passing through the armor and it does kill/injure the crew. That is why all MRAPS today have a requirement to have raised seats for the crew with footresters which have no conact to the floor of the vehicle. We know that because in usual APC's that drive on mines, lot of the crew have broken or shattered bones in their feet and legs due to the shockwave that pass through the unbroken floor.

    So garry is correct even tho you are correct on some part aswell, that the shockwave is passed through armor on flat, surfaces like the floor by a vibration of the floor itself and compresses the air inside the encloused internal volume and creates an overpressure. It works like a membran inside a subwoofer that pass the "pressure" by starting to vibrate.

    Howver the pressure is two fold from both, vibrational created pressure passing through the air and the overpressure passing through armor and affecting everything that touches it (drivers feet). This is exclusivley true for AT mines that are not breaking the belly armor of a vehicle, if it breaks it, the crew is dead no point of discussing further.

    IIRC i have seen some footage of Chechnya 1999 of Gvozdika's (152mm artillery) pieces that has fired against chechenyian T-55/62 in direct engagement, that probably occured out of surprise rather than planned. It was used against infantry in upper floors of buildings in Grozny with HE-152 shells and happened to see a T-55/62. End of story, Gvozdika 1, T-55/62 0 a thousand pieces worth.

    So everything you say is true to most part for what you suggest, but no one of us was even hinting to indirect fire, exclusivley direct contact of 122/152mm shells versus armor, at some angles a 122mm is more than enough to kill a tank (top attack).

    So my lazy reply was a summarize of what the rest of us were talking.

    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3233
    Points : 3357
    Join date : 2012-05-16

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

    Post  Vann7 on Sun May 22, 2016 6:45 pm

    New Armata video..





    and with a pretty model as host.

    MarshallJukov
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 17
    Points : 17
    Join date : 2015-02-22

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

    Post  MarshallJukov on Mon May 23, 2016 3:08 am

    Werewolf wrote:Direct hits have constantly been tank killers from all calibres used by ARTILLERY, no one ever mentioned mortars, except you.

    Nope they wasn`t, in case with more or less modern tanks and anything lighter than 152mm

    Direct hits from B-13 launchers (127mm) soft shelled rockets from helicopters which come at a flatter angle than Grads

    Its 122mm and its penetrating warhead goes through 1 meter of steel reinforced concrete. Its HE version can do no real harm to tanks. That is why Zuni FFAR S-13 counterpart has specialised shaped charge anti-tank warhead.


    No tank is air tight sealed, all tanks are overpressure sealed


    They are airtight, having overpressure system does not stop them being so.



    the ventilation system does not seal the tank and any overpressure from outside

    Yes it does.
    Just made some calculations for you:


    In other words, to achieve 0,2atm overpressure inside of volume of 7 cubic meters within 0,5 seconds and with external overpressure of 1 atm you will need a tube over 4400mm in diameter

    That is you need to have your some hatch wide open in order for the crew to be somehow injured by artillery shell exploding somewhere on its armor.
    As you may guess, NBC intake is much, much smaller in diameter

    Thats gross approxiation of cource but this result within same order of magnitude.

    Mines that are used against tanks are all exclusivley HE mines






    the only mines that exist that are  set of by contact are HEAT shells to destroy exclusivley the tracks (mobility kill).

    Sorry but all shaped charge anti-tank landmines outthere will penetrate the bottom of the tank much easier than they damage tracks. Modern tanks have less than 16-20mm steel at the bottom. Piece of cake even for most basic shaped charges and IEDs.

    and the shockwave even tho reduced by metals is still passing through the armor and it does kill/injure the crew

    Exactly because armor at the bottom is paper thin even compared to the top.


    That is why all MRAPS today

    Have VERY high road clearance and huge V-shape instead of flat bottom tanks have. Exactly because the only way to deal with HE charges is to direct explosion blast away. Otherwise you will need wheeled battleship.


    vibrational created pressure passing

    There is no any BS like that. The only thing what HESH and HE rounds can achieve without penetration is backside spalling. Which is not the case with composite armor reinforced by anti-spalling kevlar lining. That is one of the reasons why HE and HESH are useless against modern tanks unless you have really heavy HE projectile.


    Gvozdika 1, T-55/62 0 a thousand pieces worth.

    Gvozdika is 152mm okay? And T-55/62 is post WW2 tank. Thank you.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5391
    Points : 5640
    Join date : 2012-10-24

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

    Post  Werewolf on Mon May 23, 2016 10:50 am

    MarshallJukov wrote:
    Nope they wasn`t, in case with more or less modern tanks and anything lighter than 152mm

    That is only what you are saying, we have shit load of evidence from Ukrops losing stationary tank positions being obliterated with direct hits, blowing them up to billion pieces, leaving craters as 5m big and meter deep. Artillerys when directly hitting a tanks armor (from above obviously) has always penetrated by kinetic energy roof and lot of frontal upper plate is ripped apart since they are all very thin from that angle and they are very thin on Abrams and other tanks which only gain armor with the almost 180° flat surface for enemy AT weapons but from above they are thin as paper for anything and certainly not much harder to creak apart where AT mines have been used to crack the bottom open and weight just as half as an 152mm artillery shell.

    Can you give even evidence of a single incident of a tank stoping an artillery shell that felt on it directly, not some remote detonations, but a direct hit from artillery fired angles against targets?


    MarshallJukov wrote:
    Direct hits from B-13 launchers (127mm) soft shelled rockets from helicopters which come at a flatter angle than Grads

    Its 122mm and its penetrating warhead goes through 1 meter of steel reinforced concrete. Its HE version can do no real harm to tanks. That is why Zuni FFAR S-13 counterpart has specialised shaped charge anti-tank warhead.

    You are lucky that i am not on my rig otherwise i could show you footage what a S-13 rocket can penetrate roof armor of most vehicles and rip open tank turret armor. You do understand what HE means HIGH EXPLOSION, that is exactly how we use to rip apart things, armor is not used to take explosions of violent dozens of kg's (122/152mm shells). I really do not know where you get this idea from, there is enough evidence that proofs otherwise.


    MarshallJukov wrote:
    They are airtight, having overpressure system does not stop them being so.



    the ventilation system does not seal the tank and any overpressure from outside

    Yes it does.
    Just made some calculations for you:


    In other words, to achieve 0,2atm overpressure inside of volume of 7 cubic meters within 0,5 seconds and with external overpressure of 1 atm you will need a tube over 4400mm in diameter

    That is you need to have your some hatch wide open in order for the crew to be somehow injured by artillery shell exploding somewhere on its armor.
    As you may guess, NBC intake is much, much smaller in diameter

    Thats gross approxiation of cource but this result within same order of magnitude.

    Nothing of above makes any sense of the subject we are discussing. I think you are completley discussing your own private thing while the rest of us is about very specific things which you started but are not tracking sidewards.

    MarshallJukov wrote:
    Mines that are used against tanks are all exclusivley HE mines




    Ok now you piss me really off because you are now obviously a troll that is abusing the quote function.

    I clearly stated without confusion possible to anyone, that ONLY and exclusivley mines with HE filler are used to crack tanks with a DIRECT CONTACT SET OFF. You have edited that part out which clearly and beyond doubt makes you an quote abuser and i will not tolerate such troll horseshit by anyone. And you are posting EFP mines set off by distance and have no contact themselfs with the vehicle.


    TM-89 still kills most vehicles with its 7kg explosive filler just like most AT mines.


    MarshallJukov wrote:
    the only mines that exist that are  set of by contact are HEAT shells to destroy exclusivley the tracks (mobility kill).

    Sorry but all shaped charge anti-tank landmines outthere will penetrate the bottom of the tank much easier than they damage tracks. Modern tanks have less than 16-20mm steel at the bottom. Piece of cake even for most basic shaped charges and IEDs.

    Most commonly used shaped charge anti tank mines in the world are either designed like the PTM-1 or is the PTM-1 which has a body that ised as the shaped charge itself and destroys tracks or roadwheels when something like a tracked vehicle drives on it. It is meaned to slow down enemy tank formations and is deployed by helicopter or as a submunition from dispensers/shells.

    MarshallJukov wrote:
    and the shockwave even tho reduced by metals is still passing through the armor and it does kill/injure the crew

    Exactly because armor at the bottom is paper thin even compared to the top.

    No, because the shockwaves do not need to rip apart the paperthin armor at the bottom we know that from MRAPS which have broken feet of the occupants without ripping apart the bottom floor.


    MarshallJukov wrote:
    That is why all MRAPS today

    Have VERY high road clearance and huge V-shape instead of flat bottom tanks have. Exactly because the only way to deal with HE charges is to direct explosion blast away. Otherwise you will need wheeled battleship.

    Again you edit quotes by me and completley come with horseshit that has nothing to do with what i said initially. Do it again and i will contact mods.


    MarshallJukov wrote:
    vibrational created pressure passing

    There is no any BS like that. The only thing what HESH and HE rounds can achieve without penetration is backside spalling. Which is not the case with composite armor reinforced by anti-spalling kevlar lining. That is one of the reasons why HE and HESH are useless against modern tanks unless you have really heavy HE projectile.

    That is exact same thing you said because it is true, either you play dumb or you just want to be the only guy who is right. Vibrations in the air which are initiated by an outside explosion going on a armor plate like the bottom floor of a tank (flat thin and large surface) can start to vibrate and pass on that pressure inside, much lower than the initial one but still it is enough for humans to harm them or at least feel them, depends on initial energy.


    Gvozdika 1, T-55/62 0 a thousand pieces worth.

    Gvozdika is 152mm okay? And T-55/62 is post WW2 tank. Thank you.[/quote]

    My fault, Akazyia. Does not matter you claimed tanks could not be destroyed even in WW2 by 152mm direct hits. You are changing your prior claims like you are merkel.

    Sponsored content

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

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 12:13 am


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 10, 2016 12:13 am