Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


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

    Share

    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 11:26 am

    Werewolf wrote: leaving craters as 5m big and meter deep.

    Neither 122mm artillery, nor 120mm mortars nor even 152 artillery leaves craters 5 meters deep. Lightest thing that can leave something like that is BM-27 Uragan, 160mm mortars e t c.


    but from above they are thin as paper for anything and certainly not much harder to creak apart where AT mines have been used

    I think you are underestimate 45mm+ thick RHA and overestimate penetrating power of HE shells. 45mm BTW is T-34`s main armor.


    Can you give even evidence of a single incident of a tank stoping an artillery shell that felt on it directly

    I already did.



    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.

    Sure it can. But not S-13OF

    armor is not used to take explosions of violent dozens of kg's (122/152mm shells).

    Actualy it does.

    Nothing of above makes any sense of the subject we are discussing.

    It perfectly does. It empiricaly proves that no explosion overpressure can pass through NBC system intakes


    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.

    This has totaly nothing to do with method mine detects its target.

    Of cource classic pressure mines such as TM-57 deal with tanks through direct contact with its tracks. And the only effect it can achieve even against legacy tanks is mobility damage. It has TWICE more explosives than 122mm artillery shells used in D-30 BTW



    That is why modern anti-tank mines tend to use contactless triggering, such as magnetic or seismical. In order to hit NOT very durable tracks but relatively soft tank belly.

    And you are posting EFP mines set off by distance and have no contact themselfs with the vehicle.

    Because they are much more efficient than classice AT landmines. And first foto was magnetic fuse, shaped charge TM-89 AT landmine designed to target vehicle belly rather than tracks.

    TM-89

    Most commonly used shaped charge anti tank mines in the world are either designed like the PTM-1 or is the PTM-1 ...... It is meaned to slow down enemy tank formations and is deployed by helicopter or as a submunition from dispensers/shells.

    Thats right, they are very light and weak, and they never cause devastation even remotely close to that you seen at the pictures from Ukraine.

    we know that from MRAPS which have broken feet of the occupants without ripping apart the bottom floor.

    Sorry but no bodyparts of tank crews have direct contact with its top armor. They do not have direct contact with the floor either.


    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.

    Sorry but i edit nothing. Be a man and stand up to the facts.


    Vibrations in the air which are initiated by an outside explosion going on a armor plate like the bottom floor of a tank

    No they are not.

    can start to vibrate and pass on that pressure inside

    They never pass any pressure. The only way you can create pressure is either to decrease volume or add gas to that volume.

    HE shells, if not penetrate, do neither.

    much lower than the initial one but still it is enough for humans to harm

    No. It will not even cause a concussion. They will hear very loud sound.


    My fault, Akazyia. Does not matter you claimed tanks could not be destroyed even in WW2 by 152mm direct hits.

    The only way it could do that to T-55/62 is point black shot on the roof, which is never the case

    And it was not my claim, this is notes from german soldiers who failed to deal with KV-1 using 15cm howitzer.[/quote]

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

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

    Post  Werewolf on Mon May 23, 2016 12:14 pm

    MarshallJukov wrote:
    Werewolf wrote: leaving craters as 5m big and meter deep.

    Neither 122mm artillery, nor 120mm mortars nor even 152 artillery leaves craters 5 meters deep. Lightest thing that can leave something like that is BM-27 Uragan, 160mm mortars e t c.

    Again it is only you that is mentioning mortars. The other issue is that you obviously did not see any of the pictures of artillery shelling of ukrop tanks. The craters created by 152mm are indeed of several meters wide and a 1-2m deep, let alone that the craters are created by the faulty ammunition of ukrops which has been expired and have higher pressure and the tanks were devestated into billion pieces and not just what we used to see from other destroyed tanks.

    MarshallJukov wrote:
    but from above they are thin as paper for anything and certainly not much harder to creak apart where AT mines have been used

    I think you are underestimate 45mm+ thick RHA and overestimate penetrating power of HE shells. 45mm BTW is T-34`s main armor.

    You overestimate armor based on wrong understanding of the composition or the brute force delivered to it. There were tests with 100mm HE shell fired on T-55 tank it created a crack it frontal upper armor plate and it is thicker plate what MBT use as its outer RHA steel shell with air gaps and then following composite armor tiles.

    MarshallJukov wrote:
    Can you give even evidence of a single incident of a tank stoping an artillery shell that felt on it directly

    I already did.

    I think we all must have missed please be so kind and provide it "again".

    MarshallJukov wrote:
    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.

    Sure it can. But not S-13OF

    S-13 aswell S-13T delayed fuze, penetrates armor and detonates within.

    MarshallJukov wrote:
    armor is not used to take explosions of violent dozens of kg's (122/152mm shells).

    Actualy it does.

    Really, i only know armor against bomblets not against artillery shells of such calibres. The upper hemsiphere is never protected from such calibres or anything higher than what a WW2 AT grenade produces, hell most of them would probably penetrate that thin armor of 20mm.


    MarshallJukov wrote:
    Nothing of above makes any sense of the subject we are discussing.

    It perfectly does. It empiricaly proves that no explosion overpressure can pass through NBC system intakes

    Doubtful for a 152mm directly exploding anywhere on the tank even on main armor. It will probably fuck up the hatches, or penetrate with pressure the gun and gunbreech if it is anywhere near it to detonate.

    MarshallJukov wrote:
    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.

    This has totaly nothing to do with method mine detects its target.

    Of cource classic pressure mines such as TM-57 deal with tanks through direct contact with its tracks. And the only effect it can achieve even against legacy tanks is mobility damage. It has TWICE more explosives than 122mm artillery shells used in D-30 BTW



    That is why modern anti-tank mines tend to use contactless triggering, such as magnetic or seismical. In order to hit NOT very durable tracks but relatively soft tank belly.

    That has nothing to do with our discussions and it does not matter to our discussion what mines are more effective or not. Your claim was a 152mm can not destroy a tank then you moved on from indirect hits, which no one but you were suggesting, now you switch the discussion from AT mines of blast energy to shaped charge while i still discuss your bullshit claims of HE mines not being capable of destroying tanks. It is you who switches constantly the subject instead of sticking to a subject YOU have started.

    MarshallJukov wrote:
    And you are posting EFP mines set off by distance and have no contact themselfs with the vehicle.

    Because they are much more efficient than classice AT landmines. And first foto was magnetic fuse, shaped charge TM-89 AT landmine designed to target vehicle belly rather than tracks.

    TM-89

    EFP mines are less effective against tanks, since their penetration level is low and they still have to compensate for the distance they are set off, the side skirts/ERA, the air gap afterwards and the side armor and then they still have to hit something vital or fuel/ammunition otherwise they just punch a tiny hole with absolute zero after armor effect if they do not set ammunition, fuel or at least injure a crew. Blast mines will always kill the tank either mobility or rip apart the tank itself, EFP mines are ineffective, end of discussion we still are on HE subject which you started so stop switching subjects to safe your arse.


    MarshallJukov wrote:
    Most commonly used shaped charge anti tank mines in the world are either designed like the PTM-1 or is the PTM-1 ...... It is meaned to slow down enemy tank formations and is deployed by helicopter or as a submunition from dispensers/shells.

    Thats right, they are very light and weak, and they never cause devastation even remotely close to that you seen at the pictures from Ukraine.

    And again an evidence that you are trying to diverse the subject to safe your sorry ass. No one mentioned anything of shaped charge AT mines effectiveness in ukraine. The subject was artillery fire on tanks which were obliterated in billion pieces. The other point is that you claim shaped charge mines are more effective than blast mines and now you suggest they are not causing devestation what has been seen in ukraine. You seem not have sorted your own thaughts at all.


    MarshallJukov wrote:
    we know that from MRAPS which have broken feet of the occupants without ripping apart the bottom floor.

    Sorry but no bodyparts of tank crews have direct contact with its top armor. They do not have direct contact with the floor either.

    Seats, feet and backs are in direct contact of the armor/seats direct contact with the armor. They do not have special seats or foot rests which are on resolance absorbing fittings. Planty of tank drivers with injuries to their feet after TM-72 or similiar mines explosions without armor penetration and such mines are much lighter than a 152mm artillery shell that comes in with hundreds of meters per second that will just penetrate any armor from the top even if it were a dud.

    MarshallJukov wrote:
    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.

    Sorry but i edit nothing. Be a man and stand up to the facts.

    Why quote only 5 words out of an entire sentence then? The sentence did not even were half finished. That is editing and is against the rules.


    MarshallJukov wrote:
    Vibrations in the air which are initiated by an outside explosion going on a armor plate like the bottom floor of a tank

    No they are not.

    You have a poor understanding of physics while not giving any explanation.


    MarshallJukov wrote:
    can start to vibrate and pass on that pressure inside

    They never pass any pressure. The only way you can create pressure is either to decrease volume or add gas to that volume.

    HE shells, if not penetrate, do neither.

    My example with MRAP's have already proven you wrong. You still claim otherwise without explenations nor informations.


    MarshallJukov wrote:
    much lower than the initial one but still it is enough for humans to harm

    No. It will not even cause a concussion. They will hear very loud sound.

    So now you changed it from "They will not even hear the explosion" to "They will hear very loud sound".

    Sort your thaughts before engaging in discussions.

    MarshallJukov wrote:
    My fault, Akazyia. Does not matter you claimed tanks could not be destroyed even in WW2 by 152mm direct hits.

    The only way it could do that to T-55/62 is point black shot on the roof, which is never the case

    What huge difference would it make if it was a 1km away or 100m? The kinetic force is still enermous and the HE charge does not change its energy regardless the of the range.

    MarshallJukov wrote:
    And it was not my claim, this is notes from german soldiers who failed to deal with KV-1 using 15cm howitzer.
    [/quote]

    Exactly CLAIMS, while enough footage of ukraine proof otherwise. And is only you that claims otherwise and is not even consitent about what he claims. First you claim WW2 could take 152/155mm shells to their front armor without a problem then you complain it was just a T-55, merely a post ww2 tank that was destroyed by Akazya.

    You are not consistent with what you claim or believe.

    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 1:20 pm

    are indeed of several meters wide and a 1-2m deep

    2 meters is not 5 meters


    faulty ammunition of ukrops which has been expired and have higher pressure

    Expired ammunition has same less power, and never more power.

    You overestimate armor based on wrong understanding of the composition or the brute force delivered to it.

    Your arguments are childish. I have impression that you skipped physics classes in your high school.


    There were tests with 100mm HE shell fired on T-55 tank it created a crack it frontal upper armor plate

    Not glacis plate but turret ring mounting. And not T-55 but T-54. After those tests structure of the tank was redesigned and all weak elements was reinforced to protection be adequate MoD requirements. Even old tanks like T-64 are universe ahead of T-55 in overall protection and durability.
    Like i said, if HE rounds would have been anyhow effective against the tanks there would be no need to bother with DOZENS OF TIMES more expensive and complex HEAT artillery rounds, warheads and submunitions.


    S-13 aswell S-13T  delayed fuze, penetrates armor and detonates within.

    Both S-13 and S-13T have reinforced concrete busting penetrating warheads. S-13OF has NOT penetrating instant action fuse HE warhead and will not penetrate anything.


    The upper hemsiphere is never protected from such calibres or anything higher than what a WW2 AT grenade produces

    WW2 AT grenades had shaped charges. RPG-43 penetrated 75mm of RHA, RPG-6 penetrated 100mm. 1950 RKG-3 did 220mm.

    Thats order of magnitude more penetration any HE artillery shell including all in 15cm class can ever hope to achieve.


    It will probably fuck up the hatches, or penetrate with pressure the gun and gunbreech if it is anywhere near it to detonate.

    Jesus Christ. Do you even imagine what kind of pressure gunbreech designed to withstand?


    Your claim was a 152mm can not destroy a tank then you moved on from indirect hits

    I never said anything other than that 152mm can not destroy a tank with indirect hit. And i never said anything other than that anything lighter than 152mm can NOT destroy a tank even with direct hit to the top.

    bullshit claims of HE mines not being capable of destroying tanks.

    No, they can not. Standard contact fuse AT mines similar to TM-57 can only achieve mobility kill.

    Only AT mines that are designed to hit vehicle belly can actualy destroy them.

    I gave you the picture of T-55 been hit by TM-57 and it is no way near to be obliterated.



    EFP mines are less effective against tanks

    Of cource they are. Afterall tanks are best protected vehicles that move on the land. Yet it is perfectly effective and has penetration rating that by far exceeds hull side protection of any tank currently in service on this planet. Most of them today have it inferior even to IS-10 tanks, as everything was sacrificed to improve protection at the front.


    have to compensate for the distance they are set off, the side skirts/ERA

    Only ERA can somehow help, yet not make them immune. EFP remain effective dozens of meters away. EFP generated by TM-83 mine penetrates 100mm RHA at 50 meters.

    the air gap afterwards

    Airgaps do not affect EFPs much. You mix it with HEAT discharge jet.


    ave to hit something vital or fuel/ammunition


    Hull side of T-72 is 80mm of RHA, tanks such as M1 Abrams have it as low as 15-27mm near engine compartment. Remaining destructive power of such penetrator will be more than enough to cause catastrophic damage or at least severe crew injury and death.


    The subject was artillery fire on tanks which were obliterated in billion pieces.


    No doubt it was artillery fire, genius. My whole point from very start that SUCH DEVASTATION CAN NOT BE CAUSED BY ANYTHING LIGHTER THAN 152mm ARTILLERY

    The other point is that you claim shaped charge mines are more effective than blast

    Coupled with magnetic or seismic fuse they absolutely more effective than contact fuse AT mines. And unlike those they can actualy destroy a tank beyond repair.


    Seats, feet and backs are in direct contact of the armor/seats direct contact with the armor.

    Bottom, not the top. And contact fuse AT mines hit tracks, not bottom.

    Planty of tank drivers with injuries to their feet after TM-72 or similiar mines explosions.

    Not any single person in modern tank was ever injured by contact fuse AT mine that hits the tracks. They will not even even feel its explosion much.

    152mm artillery shell that comes in with hundreds of meters per second that will just penetrate any armor from the top even if it were a dud.

    And i never said it can`t. I said 122mm artillery and 120mm mortars NEVER will.




    Why quote only 5 words out of an entire sentence then?

    Just not to overbloat my response with quotation yet keep track on what sentence i am replying.



    You have a poor understanding of physics while not giving any explanation.

    I give you perfect explanation. Trouble is that you are lacking even school level understanding of physics. You lacking even common sense, talking that somehow steel shell that protects the volume transfers pressure inside without any notable deformation or breach.



    My example with MRAP's have already proven you wrong.


    Your example with MRAPs just proven YOU wrong. Again, MRAP high road clearance AND V-shaped belly is there EXACTLY to defect and disperse the PRESSURE of HE mines and IEDs.

    So now you changed it from "They will not even hear the explosion" to  "They will hear very loud sound".

    Yes. And i am still waiting for you to drop that nonsense that HE charges will magicaly trasfer pressure into protected volume of the tank.

    Also your notion that HE explosion overpressure will break the gunbreach was most rediculous.




    What huge difference would it make if it was a 1km away or 100m?

    Huge difference as explosive power of 122mm HE shell is not enough to destroy the tank on its own. The only way it can be achieved is if it will break in through some weak part and create breach to let in the explosion. To do so it needs kinetic energy. Which as you might guess drops significantly with range.

    The kinetic force is still enermous

    Not enormous enough to shatter entire armor plate. And pressure on impact will never be enough to puncture it the way AP rounds to either.


    Exactly CLAIMS, while enough footage of ukraine proof otherwise

    There is no any footage from Ukraine that demonstrates destruction of the tank by 122mm artillery and 120mm mortars.

    First you claim WW2 could take 152/155mm shells to their front armor without a problem then you complain it was just a T-55, merely a post ww2 tank that was destroyed by Akazya.

    I never said it was destroyed by Akazya, you did. And i never said WW2 tanks where immune to 152mm shells as a whole. I said that low velocity 15cm HE shells from german howitzer failed to destroy or disable KV-1 tanks when hit their FRONT armor.


    TheArmenian
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1505
    Points : 1668
    Join date : 2011-09-14

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

    Post  TheArmenian on Mon May 23, 2016 1:28 pm

    Jukov,

    Enough BS. 122mm can destroy a tank if it hits it.

    It does not matter how many times you say, tell, yell, scream, bang your head on the wall or jump up and down. Fact is: Majority of Ukrop tanks were destroyed by BM-21 rockets and D-30 shells.

    The Ukrainian conflict is a heavily documented war with lots of photo and video evidence.
    There are no photos of Novorossians using URAGAN and/or SMERCH on the Ukrainian military (except for the Kramatorsk airport strike which was not on tanks).
    If these rockets were used to destroy the Ukrainian armor, there would be lots of photos of unexploded anti-tank submunitions, cassettes etc. paraded by the Ukrainian propaganda machine, not just the couple of rocket from the Kramatorsk strike.

    Don't waste your time and everybody else's time by writing and claiming. If you have photo-evidence please post 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 Mon May 23, 2016 1:44 pm

    Enough BS. 122mm can destroy a tank if it hits it.

    No.

    Majority of Ukrop tanks were destroyed by BM-21 rockets and D-30 shells.

    No. Most of them was destroyed by RPGs, ATGMs, landmines, 152mm artillery, 100mm Rapier AT guns and heavy MLRS.

    The only way BM-21 can achieve kill of modern MBT is if HEAT submunitions are used, or it will hit something flamable or explosive nearby.

    The Ukrainian conflict is a heavily documented war with lots of photo and video evidence.

    And there is no any evidence in those that tanks where destroyed by 122mm HE shells, HE Grad rockets and 120mm artillery. Only your imagination.

    There are no photos of Novorossians using URAGAN and/or SMERCH on the Ukrainian military

    So i guess they have them just to stand and stare at them.

    If these rockets were used to destroy the Ukrainian armor, there would be lots of photos of unexploded anti-tank submunitions

    Absolutely not necessary.
    I can tell you more, for more than a year military censorship of LDNR army works fine and we do not see much of photo and video from the warzones.

    paraded by the Ukrainian propaganda machine, not just the couple of rocket from the Kramatorsk strike.

    Perhaps i should remind you that both Ilovaysk and Debaltsevo was kept by LDNR army and no Kiev propagandists have access there.


    Don't waste your time and everybody else's time by writing and claiming. If you have photo-evidence please post it.

    YOU must post something that will disprove my empirical data that again and again proven that HE rounds lighter than 152mm can destroy modern tank.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

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

    Post  Werewolf on Mon May 23, 2016 4:22 pm

    MarshallJukov wrote:
    are indeed of several meters wide and a 1-2m deep

    2 meters is not 5 meters

    The exact thing i said, 5 meter craters and several meters deep (several more than one and depends on 122mm or 152mm aswell angle they go in on ground 90° to ground will create small crater since the explosion of HE filler is directed horizontally to the longtitude axe of the shell, if it goes at an angle to the ground the crater will be deeper)

    MarshallJukov wrote:
    faulty ammunition of ukrops which has been expired and have higher pressure

    Expired ammunition has same less power, and never more power.

    That is the case of broken sealed ammunition that is not expired but decomposing to environmental changes, temperature, moisture level and density of propellant or ammunition.

    Which does not matter to the incident since the tanks were penetrated by mainly 122mm artilery shelling and the tanks were ripped apart violently beyond recognition. The main force comes from the HE shells not the propellants that have been detonating inside the tanks aswell in creates which they been pilling up at their position which we have seen more than once.


    MarshallJukov wrote:
    You overestimate armor based on wrong understanding of the composition or the brute force delivered to it.

    Your arguments are childish. I have impression that you skipped physics classes in your high school.


    It will probably fuck up the hatches, or penetrate with pressure the gun and gunbreech if it is anywhere near it to detonate.

    Jesus Christ. Do you even imagine what kind of pressure gunbreech designed to withstand?

    Says the guy that believes gun breech can take an explosion from a 152mm artillery shell that explodes outside the barrel in direction inwards to the tank which has several fold more energy delivered than a propellant ever could. Who skipped physics class? You do know that gun barrels outside their gun pressure that they often just explode and the energy delivered by a 152mm artillery shell with a much more brisant filler weighting several times more than propellant is going to have much higher pressure on gun breech than the propellant used to push a projectile? You do actually understand the how military things work?

    Why not use the same filler for bombs as propellant? OHh wait they would lose every fucking time a barrel and probably more than just that.


    MarshallJukov wrote:
    There were tests with 100mm HE shell fired on T-55 tank it created a crack it frontal upper armor plate

    Not glacis plate but turret ring mounting. And not T-55 but T-54. After those tests structure of the tank was redesigned and all weak elements was reinforced to protection be adequate MoD requirements. Even old tanks like T-64 are universe ahead of T-55 in overall protection and durability.
    Like i said, if HE rounds would have been anyhow effective against the tanks there would be no need to bother with DOZENS OF TIMES more expensive and complex HEAT artillery rounds, warheads and submunitions.

    It was a glacis and the test wasn't such an old test it stays the same today for calibres beyond what was used in the test.

    MarshallJukov wrote:
    S-13 aswell S-13T  delayed fuze, penetrates armor and detonates within.

    Both S-13 and S-13T have reinforced concrete busting penetrating warheads. S-13OF has NOT penetrating instant action fuse HE warhead and will not penetrate anything.

    When i am on my rig next weekend i will post the results of normal used S-13 and S-13OF what they cause to the week turret armors.

    MarshallJukov wrote:
    The upper hemsiphere is never protected from such calibres or anything higher than what a WW2 AT grenade produces

    WW2 AT grenades had shaped charges. RPG-43 penetrated 75mm of RHA, RPG-6 penetrated 100mm. 1950 RKG-3 did 220mm.

    Thats order of magnitude more penetration any HE artillery shell including all in 15cm class can ever hope to achieve.

    The kinetic energy of a single 122mm artillery shell will crack any turret roof armor of any MBT of any generation open 20mm to 40mm is absolutley nothing, let alone a shell exploding after cracking into the armor itself. You do understand how fuzes are used on artillery shells for tank formations? Same fuzes with different settings are used soft ground or hard ground, if the projectile goes on hard ground but can penetrate a bit of it will go as far untill the fuze cap starts to deform and sets of the shell before it is deformed beyond breaking the shell.

    That is how APHE shells also use same fuzing. Those fuzes are standard for all aritllery shells to have better effect on buildings and the thin top armor of turrets, let alone engine compartment is nowhere near enough to withstand the dud let alone the combination of a small tend/penetration with the explosion.

    MarshallJukov wrote:
    Your claim was a 152mm can not destroy a tank then you moved on from indirect hits

    I never said anything other than that 152mm can not destroy a tank with indirect hit. And i never said anything other than that anything lighter than 152mm can NOT destroy a tank even with direct hit to the top.

    You mentioend KV-2 and a german tankers notes and moved forward that exact assertion that it could not penetrate a tank with a direct hit, then you were discussing as the only person about indirect remote detonations to the tank. Not GarryB, not TheArmenian and certainly not me, were even thinking of indirect hits, such thing would not even occure to any of us especially how you started this discussion within a scenario of a direct hit.


    MarshallJukov wrote:
    bullshit claims of HE mines not being capable of destroying tanks.

    No, they can not. Standard contact fuse AT mines similar to TM-57 can only achieve mobility kill.

    Only AT mines that are designed to hit vehicle belly can actualy destroy them.

    I gave you the picture of T-55 been hit by TM-57 and it is no way near to be obliterated.

    Most tanks are indeed mobility kill because such mines are placed without measurements to assure a kill and they do not care much mobility or kill, they just fullfill their job to place mines rapidly without preperations. That is the standard procedure.

    However when you place mines in the middle of the road and not on the sides where the tracks would drive over, then you can place a plank above it so the tracks drive over it but the plank still activates the mine and detonates right under the belly. The results have been seen on old BREM like vehicles of T-55 and have indeed some breechs through the belly armor and they only have half to dozen kg's of filler, artillery shells do lot more.

    MarshallJukov wrote:
    EFP mines are less effective against tanks

    Of cource they are. Afterall tanks are best protected vehicles that move on the land. Yet it is perfectly effective and has penetration rating that by far exceeds hull side protection of any tank currently in service on this planet. Most of them today have it inferior even to IS-10 tanks, as everything was sacrificed to improve protection at the front.


    have to compensate for the distance they are set off, the side skirts/ERA

    Only ERA can somehow help, yet not make them immune. EFP remain effective dozens of meters away. EFP generated by TM-83 mine penetrates 100mm RHA at 50 meters.
    the air gap afterwards

    Airgaps do not affect EFPs much. You mix it with HEAT discharge jet.


    ave to hit something vital or fuel/ammunition


    Hull side of T-72 is 80mm of RHA, tanks such as M1 Abrams have it as low as 15-27mm near engine compartment. Remaining destructive power of such penetrator will be more than enough to cause catastrophic damage or at least severe crew injury and death.

    ave to hit something vital or fuel/ammunition


    Hull side of T-72 is 80mm of RHA, tanks such as M1 Abrams have it as low as 15-27mm near engine compartment. Remaining destructive power of such penetrator will be more than enough to cause catastrophic damage or at least severe crew injury and death.

    Except that side armor with side skirts and incoming at an angle does not exceed by far the armor rating and a penetration does not ensure a mobility or the destruction of the vehicle, on a blast AT mine it does indeed ensure mobility or destruction of tank. They are less effective and less distributed.


    MarshallJukov wrote:
    the air gap afterwards

    Airgaps do not affect EFPs much. You mix it with HEAT discharge jet.

    I do not confuse anything here, i think i am more then well educated on how both of them work. The EFP is effected by air gap aswell, not much but everything matters that is why they are designed that way to take such things into calculations at what distances such EFP's are effective and at what distances they are not. I am probably the only one who was trained here for AT mines among them i also was trained for among the best AT mine in use DP-12 PARM which is basically a small TOW like warhead propelled towards the side of a tank and penetrates between 400-550mm RHA.



    MarshallJukov wrote:
    The subject was artillery fire on tanks which were obliterated in billion pieces.


    No doubt it was artillery fire, genius. My whole point from very start that SUCH DEVASTATION CAN NOT BE CAUSED BY ANYTHING LIGHTER THAN 152mm ARTILLERY

    No your claim was a  152mm can not kill a tank with direct hit like KV-2 from german tanker notes, then you changed it to indirect hits, then you changed it that no 152 or 122mm can kill a tank from top, then refused it again and claimed nothing smaller than 152mm can kill a tank from top and now you are claiming all together something different from the entire happenings and events in ukraine caused by mainly D-30 artillery shells.

    Again you are not consistent with what you claim.


    MarshallJukov wrote:
    The other point is that you claim shaped charge mines are more effective than blast

    Coupled with magnetic or seismic fuse they absolutely more effective than contact fuse AT mines. And unlike those they can actualy destroy a tank beyond repair.

    Their fuse will not affect their devestation against armor, if they are not used properly in the field. The fuze of shaped charged mines is very rare and magnetic or seismic fuses also have faulty and time related reliability issues.



    MarshallJukov wrote:
    Seats, feet and backs are in direct contact of the armor/seats direct contact with the armor.

    Bottom, not the top. And contact fuse AT mines hit tracks, not bottom.

    So to recapture your claims.

    You claimed 152mm can not destroy roof armor, a mine of much lower amount of Explosive filler can injure soldiers with direct contact to the recieving object of the pressure. That assumption i base directly on the sentence above based on your exclusion of bottom from top recieved pressure to armor and the contact of occupants. From all those assertions you contradict several side lined claims.

    Now to the subject, i meant it to mines exclusivley, non of the delivered projectiles would even need to rely on damage by explosion without penetration, they will assure penetration beyond injury level to the occupants, but total destruction of them and the rest of the tank interior.



    MarshallJukov wrote:
    Planty of tank drivers with injuries to their feet after TM-72 or similiar mines explosions.

    Not any single person in modern tank was ever injured by contact fuse AT mine that hits the tracks. They will not even even feel its explosion much.

    Very funny claim.

    Ok from my reply above that one we all can assure that you have changed again your thoughts on that matter. Your prior claim and exclusion of bottom recieved floor of a tank from tank mines and the direct contact of drivers with armor from the top recieved explosion from artillery shells since drivers have no contact to the top armor physically. Now you claim they never recieved any injuries from mines.

    Never seen such inconsistent person except the heretics of christianity i have met. Either you are trolling or another person with shizophrenia and different opinions. We have another guy with shizophrenia but he seems to be consistent.

    152mm artillery shell that comes in with hundreds of meters per second that will just penetrate any armor from the top even if it were a dud.






    And i never said it can`t. I said 122mm artillery and 120mm mortars NEVER will.

    So  now they can? Well i am growing tired of all those inconsistencies aswell the cosntant fucked up mentioning of things no one ever here has brought up like MORTARS. Stop fucking mentioning them, no one even near mentioned a fucking mortar but artillery exclusivley.




    MarshallJukov wrote:
    Why quote only 5 words out of an entire sentence then?

    Just not to overbloat my response with quotation yet keep track on what sentence i am replying.

    Context is all that matters. If you want to reply to a specific, quote the entire sentence/phrase and then mark the line you reply with FAT letters so everyone sees to what you are actually replying without taking it out of context which you did. All i ask is genuine and respectful quoting to assure no nonsense out of context which occurs to often on forums and i gave you an example how to avoid it without the necessity to reply to entire chunks of things you do not want to reply.



    MarshallJukov wrote:
    You have a poor understanding of physics while not giving any explanation.

    I give you perfect explanation. Trouble is that you are lacking even school level understanding of physics. You lacking even common sense, talking that somehow steel shell that protects the volume transfers pressure inside without any notable deformation or breach.

    Actually, iirc there are some articles in russian of explosions outside of tanks that let the crew pass out in a closed tank. The tresholds are quite extented. The chart was posted on otvaga again not on my rig so can't post it right away.



    MarshallJukov wrote:
    My example with MRAP's have already proven you wrong.


    Your example with MRAPs just proven YOU wrong. Again, MRAP high road clearance AND V-shaped belly is there EXACTLY to defect and disperse the PRESSURE of HE mines and IEDs.


    No that proofs my exactly correct. The V-shaped belly redirects most of the explosive away and does not concentrate it on a flat surface. It is physics, jumping on a flat ground you can have bigger injuries than jumping on a slope in your jump direction, because it decreases your speed over an extented time unlike a flat ground. That is physics for you, however the V-shaped belly is only one standard for MRAPS, the seats and footrests that are on shockaborbant fittings and not directly contact with the floor are the other part of the standards which again proofs my correct. That is based on the shockwave that travels through almost solid objects, quick but strong enough to injure occupants by breaking their feet or shattering bones, not as violent enough to kill them tho, but there is little difference to some in the field that might die later due to injuries and lack of treatment.



    MarshallJukov wrote:
    So now you changed it from "They will not even hear the explosion" to  "They will hear very loud sound".

    Yes. And i am still waiting for you to drop that nonsense that HE charges will magicaly trasfer pressure into protected volume of the tank.

    Also your notion that HE explosion overpressure will break the gunbreach was most rediculous.

    I can't drop things that are correct, it is your poor understanding of military differences between gunbreech designed for much lower brisance of propellant which are directed outwards of the gun and a tank shell of 152mm HE exploding near the gunbarrel and gunbreech directed against the tank filled with a HE Filler of higher brisance with much higher filler weight than what stubs are used to push projectiles out of the barrel.

    When you understand the difference come back to discuss real things.




    MarshallJukov wrote:
    What huge difference would it make if it was a 1km away or 100m?

    Huge difference as explosive power of 122mm HE shell is not enough to destroy the tank on its own. The only way it can be achieved is if it will break in through some weak part and create breach to let in the explosion. To do so it needs kinetic energy. Which as you might guess drops significantly with range.

    Like the 10-25mm thick turret roof or engine compartment? You seem to discuss things no one else is discussing, again.



    MarshallJukov wrote:
    The kinetic force is still enermous

    Not enormous enough to shatter entire armor plate. And pressure on impact will never be enough to puncture it the way AP rounds to either.

    Actually it does, but it is the lack of your knowledge nor the experience you have with such matters. 122mm shells do penetrate by sheer kinetic force the ROOF ARMOR, not FRONTAL FUCKING ARMOR. Either you do not make any difference between them or your assumptions are always HEAD on engagements against most protected parts. We here are discussing ARTILLERY and their common engagement is indirect fire from above, in case of direct hit from above against the tank, the tank is DEAD, period. Ged please educated on that matter and keep some consistency otherwise you are a troll.



    MarshallJukov wrote:
    Exactly CLAIMS, while enough footage of ukraine proof otherwise

    There is no any footage from Ukraine that demonstrates destruction of the tank by 122mm artillery and 120mm mortars.

    can you fucking stfu about mortars, no one ever mentioned them and you fucking troll piss me off with the shit you are changing constantly.



    MarshallJukov wrote:
    First you claim WW2 could take 152/155mm shells to their front armor without a problem then you complain it was just a T-55, merely a post ww2 tank that was destroyed by Akazya.

    I never said it was destroyed by Akazya, you did. And i never said WW2 tanks where immune to 152mm shells as a whole. I said that low velocity 15cm HE shells from german howitzer failed to destroy or disable KV-1 tanks when hit their FRONT armor.

    Yes, i did claim that based on a video i a saw from grozny. You claimed based on ww2 german tanker notes that 152mm can not do shit against tanks head on to destroy their armor or the tank. It is your inconsitency on that matter that keeps changing or your poor skills to actually bring your clear thought out opinions to the board for others to understand.

    All 15cm HE shells have low velocity, the kinetic energy even as a dud is enough to penetrate tanks roof armor let alone what might we see with todays artillery guns with much higher velocities, which are still very low compared with directly fired AT shells.


    YOU must post something that will disprove my empirical data that again and again proven that HE rounds lighter than 152mm can destroy modern tank.

    Empirical data? You have not provided anything. Are you now Gosdepp of US to claim having evidence which he never presented to us?


    Edit:

    Tula KBP 120mm Gran precision ammunition with OF warhead (HE) designed to engage tanks as one of its purposes.


    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 6:28 pm

    I do not know where to start with this epitome of nonsense, really. Ok....

    angle they go in on ground 90° to ground

    They can never hit the ground at over 45 degree angle.

    Which brings us to another reason why they can not defeat top armor of modern tanks: 45mm at 45 degree is 63mm effective LOS and HE shrapnel can never penetrate even 20mm.

    if it goes at an angle to the ground the crater will be deeper

    It will never be any deeper, its just means quarter of its shrapnel is a waste.

    Which does not matter to the incident since the tanks were penetrated by mainly 122mm artilery shelling

    And never by any HE rounds.

    and the tanks were ripped apart violently beyond recognition.

    After detonation of their own ammunition, NOT because of any HE rounds.

    The main force comes from the HE shells not the propellants

    Main power of HE rounds is EXACTLY their explosives, and never their kinetic energy.

    Energy released by explosive filling of 122mm HE round is 12-20MJ depending on type. While its muzzle energy at full charge is only 5,2MJ


    Says the guy that believes gun breech can take an explosion from a 152mm artillery shell that explodes outside the barrel

    Yes it perfrectly can. EVEN IF it will explode right in front of the bore, pressure it will deliver through the tube to the gunbreach will be well below 10atm. Meanwhile 2A46 chamber and tube DESIGNED to have ***600+ atm*** as its NORMAL mode of operation.



    It was a glacis and the test wasn't such an old test i

    It was not glacis. And the test was in 1950s. T-54 was subjected to 85mm and 100mm AP and HE rounds to determine protection flaws which was then fixed.


    The kinetic energy of a single 122mm artillery shell will crack any turret roof armor

    No. It can not. 5,2MJ it can have even in theory is nothing in that case. 122mm is basicaly WW2 era caliber. BR-471 AP round fired by D-25T gun used in IS tanks penetrated 97mm at 2km at 60 degree. As you may imagine artillery barrages are made at FAR GREATER range, so very same round at, say 8km and 45 degree impact angle will not penetrate even 30mm armor.
    Now, you still going to tell me that 122mm HE round for very same gun can penetrate more armor than 122mm AP round?

    Cut the BS already.

    You mentioend KV-2 and a german tankers

    I mentioned KV-1 and german field artillery.

    However when you place mines in the middle of the road

    If you place contace fuse AT mine in the middle of the road it will NOT EXPLODE, genius. In order to have its fuse triggered you need tank tracks pressing it!


    place a plank above it so the tracks drive over it

    Facepalm....


    Except that side armor with side skirts and incoming at an angle

    Such mines are set exactly to hit their target at most favorable angle.

    does not exceed by far the armor rating


    It does.

    and a penetration does not ensure a mobility or the destruction of the vehicle

    In most cases, it does.

    They are less effective and less distributed.

    They are much more effective for tactical role they been created. And its not the same as dumb contact fuse AT mine at all.



    I do not confuse anything here, i think i am more then well educated on how both of them work.

    Yes you confused. No, you are not well educated.

    The EFP is effected by air gap aswell,

    No, they are not even remotely affected by gap, and they do not need to sustain FOCUS which is critical for shaped charge jet efficiency.

    and at what distances they are not.

    Their range limit is determined more by their ability to accurately hit target rather than drain of power.

    I am probably the only one who was trained here for AT mines among them i also was trained for among the best AT mine in use DP-12 PARM which is basically a small TOW like warhead propelled towards the side of a tank and penetrates between 400-550mm RHA.

    Considering mountain of nonsense you posted your experience is limited to videogames and this forum.


    No your claim was a  152mm can not kill a tank with direct hit like KV-2

    I claimed it from very start. 152mm ***HE*** rounds can not destroy tanks like KV when hit them to their FRONT ARMOR.

    Read it again, HE rounds and FRONT ARMOR

    you changed it that no 152 or 122mm can kill a tank from top

    No. I always said 152mm HE rounds CAN kill a tank when hit their top armor. And any LIGHTER HE ROUNDS can not.
    I never changed my story. Yet you keep comming with more nonsense.


    events in ukraine caused by mainly D-30 artillery shells.

    And neither of those D-30 ever killed a tank with HIGH EXPLOSIVE ROUND



    Their fuse will not affect their devestation against armor

    It perfectly does. As it allows to target weakest spot any tank has.

    The fuze of shaped charged mines is very rare and magnetic or seismic fuses also have faulty and time related reliability issues.

    They do not have any reliability issues. In fact they are more reliable than contact fuse AT mines.

    You claimed 152mm can not destroy roof armor

    I never claimed that.

    That assumption i base directly on the sentence above based on your exclusion of bottom from top recieved pressure

    HE round exploding on top of tank or near it will NEVER deliver even 1/1000000th fraction of pressure to its belly needed to anyhow damage it.

    they will assure penetration beyond injury level to the occupants

    Nothing lighter than 152mm HE round has any chance to penetrate top armor, PERIOD.


    Very funny claim.

    Nothing funny. As those mines barely capable to damage the tracks. Never reach the belly and have zero chance to damage anything behind side armor.


    Your prior claim and exclusion of bottom recieved floor of a tank from tank mines

    Contact fuse AT mines explode under TRACKS and NEVER belly.


    152mm artillery shell that comes in with hundreds of meters per second that will just penetrate any armor from the top even if it were a dud.

    152mm artillery shell is NOT 122mm artillery shell, genius.

    And 122mm artillery shell has NO CHANCE to penetrate top armor of the tank at that range EVEN if it is 122mm AP round.


    So  now they can?

    Yes genius. 152mm HE rounds can. And thats EXACTLY whay i am telling you from very start. Slowpoke much?

    That is based on the shockwave that travels through almost solid objects

    No. That is ONLY because explosion DIRECTLY UNDER vehicle floor DEFORMS IT. If its not strong enough to DEFORM it that "shockwave" of yours alone can do nothing.

    I can't drop things that are correct

    Only in your Wonderland, Alice.


    it is your poor understanding of military differences between gunbreech designed for much lower brisance

    Artillery shells can not deliver their brisance to any gunbreach, genius. Their brisance ends right after their tear apart their own shell. After this PRESSURE drops EXPONENTALY with range! It will be LESS than 500atm at 1,5 meters from center of detonation, 50atm at 3 meters and less than 3-5atm at 6 meters!!!! I told you already, NORMAL tube pressure in tank guns is OVER 600atm!!!!

    When you understand the difference come back to discuss real things.

    Get back to your school, boy. You are far under my league.

    Like the 10-25mm thick turret roof or engine compartment?

    T-72 Ural top turret armor starts at 40mm, genius, same with engine bay plate. That does not even adding ERA modules here.


    Actually it does, but it is the lack of your knowledge nor the experience

    Facepalm....


    122mm shells do penetrate by sheer kinetic force the ROOF ARMOR

    122mm HE shells will NEVER penetrate 40mm of RHA at THAT range and THAT angle. In fact they will NEVER penetrate it even POINT BLANK.

    I told you kid, even BR-471 ARMOR PIERCING round penetrates 97mm at 2000m and 60 degrees impact angle.

    Stop playing WoT so much. Jesus.....


    Tula KBP 120mm Gran precision ammunition with OF warhead (HE) designed to engage tanks as one of its purposes.

    No where it said to be able to engage tanks, genius. Its said to be able to engage armoured targets. And thats it.

    I am done, your endless waves of stupidity simlply gives me headache.


    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

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

    Post  Werewolf on Tue May 24, 2016 11:35 pm

    MarshallJukov wrote:

    angle they go in on ground 90° to ground

    They can never hit the ground at over 45 degree angle.

    Which brings us to another reason why they can not defeat top armor of modern tanks: 45mm at 45 degree is 63mm effective LOS and HE shrapnel can never penetrate even 20mm.

    if it goes at an angle to the ground the crater will be deeper

    It will never be any deeper, its just means quarter of its shrapnel is a waste.

    I already told you how to quote others you wish to reply no i go to formaly complain about this abuse and out of context refering since you are either a troll or highly unintelligent person.

    The crater varies by the angle the round is coming in that is normal and a prevelent problem for distant targets.

    That is also why some FAB's and MRLS missiles have warheads with either airbreaks or parachutes so they detonate 90° to the ground so the explosive filer which reacts horizontally is going against the target not the ground.

    The depth of crater is affected directly by the angle of the artillery shell to the ground. The fragments play absolutley no role in this only an uneducated would assume that. The explosive effect pushs the ground apart not the fragments. When the artillery shells comes in at 90° there is a small crater when it hits with a flat angle, the explosives are facing downwards and are pushing ground apart and creating a bigger crater. Simple, known nothing to refuse there.



    MarshallJukov wrote:
    Which does not matter to the incident since the tanks were penetrated by mainly 122mm artilery shelling

    And never by any HE rounds.

    Always and exclusivley HE shells for 122mm.


    MarshallJukov wrote:
    and the tanks were ripped apart violently beyond recognition.

    After detonation of their own ammunition, NOT because of any HE rounds.

    Of course you idiot, no one was suggesting anything else ffs. ARe you even capable of using a fucking brain?


    MarshallJukov wrote:
    The main force comes from the HE shells not the propellants

    Main power of HE rounds is EXACTLY their explosives, and never their kinetic energy.

    Energy released by explosive filling of 122mm HE round is 12-20MJ depending on type. While its muzzle energy at full charge is only 5,2MJ

    Already explained how fuzes on artillery shells work especially for HE shells with their purpose of destruction of fortifications. Delayed fuze or soft detonation fuze. Their kinetic energy destroys  turret ROOF armor of all vehicles in existense. There is no fucking 20-40mm RHA sheet that could withstand even half of the kinetic energy.


    MarshallJukov wrote:
    Says the guy that believes gun breech can take an explosion from a 152mm artillery shell that explodes outside the barrel

    Yes it perfrectly can. EVEN IF it will explode right in front of the bore, pressure it will deliver through the tube to the gunbreach will be well below 10atm. Meanwhile 2A46 chamber and tube DESIGNED to have ***600+ atm*** as its NORMAL mode of operation.

    HAha, a 152mm with 38kg explosives which is 4 times more than the propellant charge for a 120/125mm shell is going to do only 10atm, while a the propellant already achieves 380atm? You have no understanding of the entire matter.

    The subject of target is a tank lets assume t-72 which uses a 125mm smoothbore gun, the gun uses a 10kg propellant charge filler of explosive 5kg. The propellant charge is 4Zh52 which is filled with pyroxilon with brisance of 1.47 TNT with explosive velocity of 6300m/s while the filler for HE is A-IX-2 which has 8400m/s explosive velocity and brisance is 1.62. The force of a 5kg 1.47 brisance explosive is certainly much less violently than a 20-38kg explosive with brisance of 1.5 trytol or A-IX-2 with 1.62. You can however believe that guns, gun breeches or the propellant chambers can withstand unlimited amount of pressure, it does not matter what you believe 152mm artillery shells with direct hits regardless if they are HEAT or HE will kill a tank, at minimum a mobility kill, most probably a destruction of the tank and at least one probably more of the crew, depending where it hits and its post detonation effects.

    MarshallJukov wrote:
    The kinetic energy of a single 122mm artillery shell will crack any turret roof armor

    No. It can not. 5,2MJ it can have even in theory is nothing in that case. 122mm is basicaly WW2 era caliber. BR-471 AP round fired by D-25T gun used in IS tanks penetrated 97mm at 2km at 60 degree. As you may imagine artillery barrages are made at FAR GREATER range, so very same round at, say 8km and 45 degree impact angle will not penetrate even 30mm armor.
    Now, you still going to tell me that 122mm HE round for very same gun can penetrate more armor than 122mm AP round?

    Cut the BS already.

    The only one bullshiting here is you while ignoring all evidence and claiming to have presented EMPIRICAL data while you only claim to have presented it but this horseshit of US american't way of claiming to have some empirical data is not going to work nor accepted here, presented it or stfu! This isn't some paid horseshit media outlet that lets you tell them bullshit and they will fabricate a shit story out of it. Empirical data right now or stfu!

    MarshallJukov wrote:
    However when you place mines in the middle of the road

    If you place contace fuse AT mine in the middle of the road it will NOT EXPLODE, genius. In order to have its fuse triggered you need tank tracks pressing it!

    I see, we have a total idiot without a single clue, experience nor training in such matters. I had training in mines especially russian once since that is what NATO is trained for, but even without the training i know and the average guy would now how to place AT mines with simple trigger mechanism to let it detonate under the belly of a vehicle.

    You dig a small trench into the dirt road, place one or several mines in the middle of the road, place a wooden plank of some few cm thickness so it gets pressed down all together and not just at the immidiate location of the passing tracks and then... Kabiim the entire tank. Common pracise since the entire history of AT mines.

    You are certainly a genius if you can not even imagine the most simple solutions. You know one of the most valuable attributes individuals in military can have are innovative character to deal with problems, that is a russian attribute, clishee or not, you do not have it or you are far to young.

    MarshallJukov wrote:
    place a plank above it so the tracks drive over it

    Facepalm...

    Yes, facepalm because you are uneducated while the rest of humanity seems far more intelligent than you.



    MarshallJukov wrote:
    Except that side armor with side skirts and incoming at an angle

    Such mines are set exactly to hit their target at most favorable angle.

    Mines are placed to be a hinderance, often placed obviously just to avoid or direct enemy mobile formations to halt or to use a different road, the other part is, yes they try to to do it optimal, but the keyword for all mine laying and placing is time, you need to do it within 20 minutes no more. Mine laying for AT purpose is done in fast and short pace in retreat or defensive means, not taking long. The compromises are obviously that they are often done and placed in easy to place ways rather do every AT mine optimal positioned and even if it is, it does not garantee penetration nor after armor effects, to small damage comes from EFP's against tanks even tho they are placed on height of hull and ammunition/fuel storage.

    Most EFP's can not determine where the middle of the vehicle is, they explode on the height of the driver after instant breaking of optical wire or laser triggering, some can determine the length of vehicle that has already passed to detonate at the rough center of the vehicle, they are few.


    MarshallJukov wrote:
    does not exceed by far the armor rating


    It does.

    EFP's are not shaped charges, they are inferior in penetration dozen fold.


    MarshallJukov wrote:
    and a penetration does not ensure a mobility or the destruction of the vehicle

    In most cases, it does.

    shaped charges do, EFP's do not.

    MarshallJukov wrote:
    They are less effective and less distributed.

    They are much more effective for tactical role they been created. And its not the same as dumb contact fuse AT mine at all.

    They exist in different versions and with different fuzes. Most of them have self destruction after a hours/days, makes them less effective for a more unpredictable pace of enemy mobility and progress. There are opticalwire (contact fuze) among them also the much more effective  PARM (shaped charges warheads like DP-12).


    MarshallJukov wrote:
    I do not confuse anything here, i think i am more then well educated on how both of them work.

    Yes you confused. No, you are not well educated.

    You have not spend enough time on this forum to know nor have read, just ignorantly claim things that are not true.

    MarshallJukov wrote:

    The EFP is effected by air gap aswell,

    No, they are not even remotely affected by gap, and they do not need to sustain FOCUS which is critical for shaped charge jet efficiency.

    They are affected by air friction, since EFP's do not form a neddle like penetrator but a bulb light like looking "slug" that creates a huge amount of airfriction which slows down over range and slows further down after penetrating side skirts, passing air gap, passing armor and passing more air before hitting anything vital or catastrophic causing inside the tank. On its way of passing side skirts this bulb like projectile deforms and becomes less optimal for penetration aswell. If it comes at an angle to the armor it further decreases its shape and speed,trajectory and so on. All that decreases the chances of effectivley penetrate armor and causing after armor effects. You seem to be the only one suggesting all that plays no role.

    MarshallJukov wrote:
    and at what distances they are not.

    Their range limit is determined more by their ability to accurately hit target rather than drain of power.

    Since they fly at already quite low velocity compared to an actual shaped charge, it is indeed a question how they are placed to actually hit a vehicle that drives at even 100km/h or at 20km/h, they are assuming 40-60km/h  for tanks of road, the position is usually at 25-50m, if the environment allows it, if not they have to improve the environment to their needs and place such mines on rods and camoflauge them.


    MarshallJukov wrote:
    I am probably the only one who was trained here for AT mines among them i also was trained for among the best AT mine in use DP-12 PARM which is basically a small TOW like warhead propelled towards the side of a tank and penetrates between 400-550mm RHA.

    Considering mountain of nonsense you posted your experience is limited to videogames and this forum.

    So you have nothing but insults and no valuable information of actual deals of the real world with own experience?

    Just because you do assume out of whatever reasons it is not in the real world like that.

    MarshallJukov wrote:
    No your claim was a  152mm can not kill a tank with direct hit like KV-2

    I claimed it from very start. 152mm ***HE*** rounds can not destroy tanks like KV when hit them to their FRONT ARMOR.

    Read it again, HE rounds and FRONT ARMOR

    Your claim was refused by 3 people since you did not state anything else but were talking out of fucking nowhere about indirect hits. 152mm are killer for all vehicles fired from artilleries at all common angles incoming on tanks at all ranges.


    MarshallJukov wrote:
    you changed it that no 152 or 122mm can kill a tank from top

    No. I always said 152mm HE rounds CAN kill a tank when hit their top armor. And any LIGHTER HE ROUNDS can not.
    I never changed my story. Yet you keep comming with more nonsense.

    The comments are documented here, keep consistency in the future if you want to have a future here and not end up as ignored troll just like the karl flagship solncopek clown.


    MarshallJukov wrote:
    events in ukraine caused by mainly D-30 artillery shells.

    And neither of those D-30 ever killed a tank with HIGH EXPLOSIVE ROUND

    Penetrated roof armor, detonation of ammunition and kill of tank. Yes they did. It is like claiming a fall from the 10th floor did not cause his death, but the sudden stop. One causes the other genius.


    MarshallJukov wrote:
    The fuze of shaped charged mines is very rare and magnetic or seismic fuses also have faulty and time related reliability issues.

    They do not have any reliability issues. In fact they are more reliable than contact fuse AT mines.

    mangetic fuses can be set off by a formation of soldiers with equipment in small pace to each other. Happened before, also they are always time related fuzes and to not extent hours few days. Reliability issues also come from the environmental mangetic field, which is rare unless it is dug and placed near urban environments with lot of wiring along streets which are common standards in europe to dig powerlines near streets.

    MarshallJukov wrote:
    That assumption i base directly on the sentence above based on your exclusion of bottom from top recieved pressure

    HE round exploding on top of tank or near it will NEVER deliver even 1/1000000th fraction of pressure to its belly needed to anyhow damage it.

    Physics by an 18 year old. So i can stand on a mine with a ballistic shield and be totally safe since it reduces the "damage 1.000.000 times, your claim of energy transfer.

    MarshallJukov wrote:

    they will assure penetration beyond injury level to the occupants

    Nothing lighter than 152mm HE round has any chance to penetrate top armor, PERIOD.

    Your claim, you proof. You refused entire fucking donbass evidence without proofing anything of your own claims or the type of ammunition that was according to you never ever fucking shever a HE round. So proof is on you.


    MarshallJukov wrote:

    Very funny claim.

    Nothing funny. As those mines barely capable to damage the tracks. Never reach the belly and have zero chance to damage anything behind side armor.

    Yes indeed funny. You claim AT mines which were designed specifically to blow up tracks and roadwheels to be ineffective to the exact job and barely even manage to DAMAGE the tracks. You are an idiot, that is now evident and that is not an insult just an observation.


    MarshallJukov wrote:
    Your prior claim and exclusion of bottom recieved floor of a tank from tank mines

    Contact fuse AT mines explode under TRACKS and NEVER belly.

    Someone who has absolutley zero knowledge of Anti tank tactics of how to place mines has obviously no clue. Mines are only placed without preperations in short time reaction. Ambush tactics or high priority objects are always properly mined with underbelly explosions by CONTACT FUZES and in ambushes they are wired and detonated to assure convoys obliteration and cutting them off from moving back or forward.

    Please educate yourself on tactics on how roads are mined before you talk shit.

    MarshallJukov wrote:
    And 122mm artillery shell has NO CHANCE to penetrate top armor of the tank at that range EVEN if it is 122mm AP round.

    Dumb claim without proof, half dozen times already claimed never proven anything.

    MarshallJukov wrote:
    So  now they can?

    Yes genius. 152mm HE rounds can. And thats EXACTLY whay i am telling you from very start. Slowpoke much?

    You are just inconsistent that is your problem you have changed claims already a few times.

    MarshallJukov wrote:
    That is based on the shockwave that travels through almost solid objects

    No. That is ONLY because explosion DIRECTLY UNDER vehicle floor DEFORMS IT. If its not strong enough to DEFORM it that "shockwave" of yours alone can do nothing.

    Again edited quote and taken out of context. Mods do your job for once.

    MarshallJukov wrote:
    it is your poor understanding of military differences between gunbreech designed for much lower brisance

    Artillery shells can not deliver their brisance to any gunbreach, genius. Their brisance ends right after their tear apart their own shell. After this PRESSURE drops  EXPONENTALY with range! It will be LESS than 500atm at 1,5 meters from center of detonation, 50atm at 3 meters and less than 3-5atm at 6 meters!!!! I told you already, NORMAL tube pressure in tank guns is OVER 600atm!!!!

    5kg propellant versus 20kg++ higher brisance explosive. Pressure is fur beyond what a gunbreech or the surrounding barrel which goes into the turret goes. The detonation occurs exactly next to barrel and will grill everything inside.

    MarshallJukov wrote:

    When you understand the difference come back to discuss real things.

    Get back to your school, boy. You are far under my league.

    Haha. Aren't you the 16-18 year old on youtube MarshalZhukov that was constantly on BitnikGr's videos and acting all like an expert? The current bitching here would make it seem so.

    Like the 10-25mm thick turret roof or engine compartment?

    MarshallJukov wrote:
    T-72 Ural top turret armor starts at 40mm, genius, same with engine bay plate. That does not even adding ERA modules here.

    Subject are usually enemy tanks, but would not make any difference with direct hits to this spots just like side armor is almost non existent for such calibres even for HE shells with hard fuze setting.

    MarshallJukov wrote:
    Actually it does, but it is the lack of your knowledge nor the experience

    Facepalm....

    Go ahead tell us your military profession, training and expertice? Very interested.

    MarshallJukov wrote:

    122mm shells do penetrate by sheer kinetic force the ROOF ARMOR

    122mm HE shells will NEVER penetrate 40mm of RHA at THAT range and THAT angle. In fact they will NEVER penetrate it even POINT BLANK.

    I told you kid, even BR-471 ARMOR PIERCING round penetrates 97mm at 2000m and 60 degrees impact angle.

    Stop playing WoT so much. Jesus.....

    Your claims and constant insults have no ground versus the reality of the fucking dozen times what happened in ukropian formations with D-30 guns with exactly the standard OF rounds.

    MarshallJukov wrote:
    Tula KBP 120mm Gran precision ammunition with OF warhead (HE) designed to engage tanks as one of its purposes.

    No where it said to be able to engage tanks, genius. Its said to be able to engage armoured targets. And thats it.

    I am done, your endless waves of stupidity simlply gives me headache.

    That is a term and all absolutley all fucking tanks and armored targets are thin on the roof makes no difference for such rounds, you are the only one to claims otherwise without proof. Proof is on you kid.

    Isos
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 304
    Points : 308
    Join date : 2015-11-06

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

    Post  Isos on Thu May 26, 2016 5:47 pm


    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

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

    Post  Werewolf on Thu May 26, 2016 6:58 pm

    Isos wrote:

    He does not like that video or how it is advertized.

    He is a fanat of his own believes, i doubt he will be convinced of actual footage of either.

    Isos
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 304
    Points : 308
    Join date : 2015-11-06

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

    Post  Isos on Thu May 26, 2016 9:53 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    Isos wrote:

    He does not like that video or how it is advertized.

    He is a fanat of his own believes, i doubt he will be convinced of actual footage of either.



    In this one, you can see the impact. I don't speak russian, so I'm sure if it's real or not.

    Seems to be effective against active protection.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15450
    Points : 16157
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Fri May 27, 2016 8:17 am

    This is not a discussion, it is an argument, and it is going around in circles.

    There are also rather more personal attacks than I am happy with so this thread is going to be locked.

    DO NOT START ANOTHER THREAD ON THIS TOPIC.

    After some time has passed I will unlock this thread and we can have a civil conversation about this topic.

    Reason, considered debate.

    We clearly need time to calm down and think about why we come here and what our goals and objectives are.

    Regards
    GarryB


    _________________
    “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

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9422
    Points : 9914
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

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

    Post  George1 on Sun Jul 31, 2016 4:47 pm

    High-Tech Face Off: Russia's New 'Super Tank' Armata Vs US-Made TOW Missiles

    Russia's new "super tank," the T-14 Armata, appears to be well-protected against one of the most commonly used anti-tank missiles in the world, the "stalwart" US-made BGM-71 TOW, defense analyst Sebastien Roblin wrote for the National Interest, but there is a twist.

    The expert compared Armata's defensive capabilities with technical characteristics of two TOW variants, 2A and 2B. The first uses a wire-guidance system that allows the operator to correct the course of the missile while it is in the air.

    "The wire-guidance system has the advantage of being immune to most forms of jamming. However, it requires the firer to remain in place, aiming the missile for its entire flight time until it hits the target. Countermeasures that make the target hard to see – such as plain old-fashioned smoke – can mess up the firer's aim," he explained.

    The TOW-2A's chances to hurt Russia's new generation main battle tank (MBT) are slim. The tank has the Afganit Active Protection System that is capable of misdirecting missiles via its soft kill capabilities or shooting down missiles if the former does not work.

    "Against a wire-guided system, the T-14's soft kill system will work if the Armata's radars are effective and the crew is quick enough to move the tank to a new position while the missile is in flight. The active-kill system, however, might have a good chance of taking out the missile if it's as good as it's cracked up to be," the expert noted.

    If the Afganit system fails to protect the Armata, the T-14 has the Relikt Explosive Reactive Armor (ERA) which will complicate matters for the TOW-2A even further. In total, Roblin concluded that several TOW-2A missiles will have to be launched so that one of them could penetrate the tank's armor.

    Armata apparently does not have to worry about the wire-guided TOW-2A, but the top-attack TOW-2B that employs wireless-guidance using a stealth frequency is a different story.

    The TOW-2B is capable of penetrating the tank's top armor, disabling its unmanned turret and negating its offensive capabilities because the Afganit system is not meant to protect the MBT from this type of attack. In addition, the Relikt ERA does not provide sufficient protection against top-attack missiles.

    Nevertheless, the tank's crew will not be affected by the TOW-2B strike even if it is successful and will most likely leave the battlefield intact.

    "In the end, the T-14 appears to boast some decent defenses against the TOW, particularly the TOW-2A, but how well they will work in combat is a question even the American and Russian manufacturers can only guess at," Roblin observed.

    http://sputniknews.com/military/20160731/1043806497/t14-armata-tow-missiles.html


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3547
    Points : 3582
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

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

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Sun Jul 31, 2016 7:17 pm

    George1 wrote:High-Tech Face Off: Russia's New 'Super Tank' Armata Vs US-Made TOW Missiles

    Russia's new "super tank," the T-14 Armata, appears to be well-protected against one of the most commonly used anti-tank missiles in the world, the "stalwart" US-made BGM-71 TOW, defense analyst Sebastien Roblin wrote for the National Interest, but there is a twist.

    The expert compared Armata's defensive capabilities with technical characteristics of two TOW variants, 2A and 2B. The first uses a wire-guidance system that allows the operator to correct the course of the missile while it is in the air.

    "The wire-guidance system has the advantage of being immune to most forms of jamming. However, it requires the firer to remain in place, aiming the missile for its entire flight time until it hits the target. Countermeasures that make the target hard to see – such as plain old-fashioned smoke – can mess up the firer's aim," he explained.

    The TOW-2A's chances to hurt Russia's new generation main battle tank (MBT) are slim. The tank has the Afganit Active Protection System that is capable of misdirecting missiles via its soft kill capabilities or shooting down missiles if the former does not work.

    "Against a wire-guided system, the T-14's soft kill system will work if the Armata's radars are effective and the crew is quick enough to move the tank to a new position while the missile is in flight. The active-kill system, however, might have a good chance of taking out the missile if it's as good as it's cracked up to be," the expert noted.

    If the Afganit system fails to protect the Armata, the T-14 has the Relikt Explosive Reactive Armor (ERA) which will complicate matters for the TOW-2A even further. In total, Roblin concluded that several TOW-2A missiles will have to be launched so that one of them could penetrate the tank's armor.

    Armata apparently does not have to worry about the wire-guided TOW-2A, but the top-attack TOW-2B that employs wireless-guidance using a stealth frequency is a different story.

    The TOW-2B is capable of penetrating the tank's top armor, disabling its unmanned turret and negating its offensive capabilities because the Afganit system is not meant to protect the MBT from this type of attack. In addition, the Relikt ERA does not provide sufficient protection against top-attack missiles.

    Nevertheless, the tank's crew will not be affected by the TOW-2B strike even if it is successful and will most likely leave the battlefield intact.

    "In the end, the T-14 appears to boast some decent defenses against the TOW, particularly the TOW-2A, but how well they will work in combat is a question even the American and Russian manufacturers can only guess at," Roblin observed.

    http://sputniknews.com/military/20160731/1043806497/t14-armata-tow-missiles.html

    WTF is this...We already know that TOW-2A has issues with T90 frontal Arc...so what good is it to "test" the 2A which is obsolete for the tip of the spear action, with a tank that in all aspects IS better than the one we know impervious (in part) to the BGM71-E1 variant.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 733
    Points : 916
    Join date : 2011-07-20

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

    Post  Mindstorm on Sun Jul 31, 2016 7:29 pm

    "High-Tech Face Off: Russia's New 'Super Tank' Armata Vs US-Made TOW Missiles"

    Relikt ERA on T-14 ? TOW (in any shape and version) against a T-14 ?

    Oh please......Razz Razz Razz


    Sometime i ask myself if a similar absurd ignorant truly believe to be an "expert" or reference authority ,or is aware to tarnish, with each word it profere, its image and, more in general, that of western geo-political and military analyst community.

    Its pathetic attempt to confront, or even only put in the same league, the simply outstanding capabilities of the multilayered defense suit of T-14/T-15 (that is in those hours in the process to deprive western weapon designers of theirs sleep because not simply theirs perspective weapon programs in advanced stage of development but also those even only in the early feasibility stage conceived to be introduced within 10-15 years from now, has been suddenly rendered almost completely obsolete by the integrated battallion level protection of Armata based heavy brigades) and TOW ATGM is clearly a product of an emotional imbalance and childish wishful thinking.

    If it could boast any real, specific knowledge in those subjects (instead of a self humiliating propaganda script....) ,it would be aware that НИИ Стали already in plain Cold War proved to be always at least five-six step head of western anti-tank weapon designers therefore i should more interested to know if the bulk of NATO ATGM stock would achieve even a mediocre level of success against domestic model of end of '80 years.

    About 4С23 "Реликт" on Armata platform, it is better to leave space to the same "words" of the insigned Institute :

    " НИИ стали одним из первых в мире начал исследования таких систем и сегодня имеет новый универсальный комплекс ДЗ на новых принципах, с эффективностью вдвое превышающей эффективность традиционных комплексов ДЗ типа «Реликт».
    Комплекс уже используется на перспективной боевой технике («Армата», «Курганец»).
    В прессе он уже получил название «Малахит»"









    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15450
    Points : 16157
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Mon Aug 01, 2016 6:47 am

    hahahaha... Afghanistan is a new generation APS system to replace Drozd and Arena... did they forget to give it capability against top attack munitions?

    The main reason the drozd and arena were not adopted was because they could not engage diving top attack missiles or missiles that fly over the defended tank...

    Does this western expert think the Russians forgot?


    _________________
    “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

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 733
    Points : 916
    Join date : 2011-07-20

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

    Post  Mindstorm on Mon Aug 01, 2016 10:25 am


    GarryB wrote:hahahaha... Afghanistan is a new generation APS system to replace Drozd and Arena... did they forget to give it capability against top attack munitions?

    Yes Garry, but i believe that the level of understanding of similar subjects by part of that "expert" is better highlighted by its certainty that T-14 will have integrated "Relikt" ERA !!!

    Naturally as declared by the same НИИ Стали already today T-14 mount a new kind of "ERA" (even if with deep changes in its working mechanism that stress the same word ERA) that is more than two times more effcient than Relikt and it is known that is already in work a new generation of dynamic protection with efficiency on a complete another level.

    Well we have all seen the tandem warhead of advanced BGM-71E in Syria failing to overcome domestic production version of K-5 dynamic ERA mounted on first version of T-90 with cast turret not the much advanced "Relikt".

    Designers of the Institute was very pleased in getting proof directly from the operational field of the very very high level of resiliency offered by the domestic composition of K-5 ERA (in its advanced iteration) provided to Federation's armoured brigades against the tandem warhead supposedly designed by western designers to overcome it.

    In this picture 4С23 "Реликт" ERA (in its domestic iteration) already would represent an enormour leap in defensive performance......the new dynamic protection now mounted on T-14 and T-15 should not even be put in the same analysis piece.

    Benya
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 169
    Points : 173
    Join date : 2016-06-05
    Location : Budapest, Hungary

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

    Post  Benya on Mon Nov 21, 2016 6:16 pm

    Russia will develop a new generation of anti-tank missile using fire-and-forget technology.

    According Major General Mikhail Matveyevsky, commander of the Russian Missile and Artillery Troops, Russia will develop a new next-generation advanced self-propelled anti-tank missile system operating on the ‘fire-and-forget’ principle.


    Khrizantema-S anti-tank missile AT-15 Springer carrier armoured vehicle based on BMP-3 IFV chassis

    Fire-and-forget is a type of missile guidance which does not require further guidance after launch such as illumination of the target or wire guidance, and can hit its target without the launcher being in line-of-sight of the target.

    There’s no need to maintain a target lock after the missile has been fired, so the launcher can focus its attention on other enemies or withdraw into cover.

    According to Maj. Gen. Matveyevsky, new anti-tank missile systems’ development focuses on improving the missiles’ efficiency, yield and resistance to enemy countermeasures, and further automation of the anti-tank units’ control.

    Currently, the Russian armed forces use the Khrizantema-S and Shturm-S self-propelled anti-tank missile systems. These weapons are capable of engaging and destroying virtually all types of tanks and armored vehicles, and even helicopters; and their radar and laser guidance systems allow them to operate both during day and night, under any weather conditions.

    The Khrizantema-S BMP-3 (Russian name 9P157-2) based tank destroyer has been developed under the leadership of the KBM Engineering Design Bureau in Moscow and was announced for the first time in 1996

    The hull roof has been modified and, mounted on the hull roof, between the second and third road wheels, is an elevated arm which carries two Khrizantema (NATO code AT-15) anti-tank guided missile system in the ready to launch position. Missiles are re-loaded automatically by the tank destroyer from an internal magazine with 15 rounds and can also accept munitions manually loaded from outside the vehicle.

    The 9M123 (NATO code AT-15 Springer) missile itself is supersonic, flying at an average speed of 400 m/s or Mach 1.2 and a range of between 400 and 6,000 meters.


    Shturm-S anti-tank missile AT-6 Spiral carrier armoured vehicle based on MT-LB tracked chassis

    The Shturm-S (NATO code AT-6 Spiral) is a Soviet-made anti-tank missile carrier using MT-LB tracked armoured chassis. It was developed in the mid 1970s and entered service with the Soviet Army in 1979.

    The Shturm-S firing unit launches the 9M114 anti-tank guided missile which can be used against static and moving targets from 400 to 5,000 m.

    Latest generation of AT-6 missile, the 9M114M1 (AT-6B) and 9M114M2 (AT-6C) are fitted with tandem HEAT warhead which can penetrated 800 mm of explosive reactive armor. This missiles also have a range of 6 and 7 km respectively.

    Source: Arrow http://www.armyrecognition.com/november_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/russia_will_develop_a_new_generation_of_anti-tank_missile_using_fire-and-forget_technology_12111162.html

    Sponsored content

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

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 2:40 pm


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 03, 2016 2:40 pm