Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


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

    Share

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

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

    Post  medo on Mon Mar 07, 2011 4:06 pm

    I would like to ask, how is progressing equipping tanks, IFVs, APCs, etc with data links to be integrated into C4ISR, or it is still only to the level of brigade commander CP or battalion commander CP?

    The article said, that army will get Khrizantema-S ATGM this year in units. What about Kornet-S ATGM, based on BMP-3 chassis? Will army use both or only Khrizantema? Any ino if VDV will get this yar any new BMD-4/BMD-4M?

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

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

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

    Post  IronsightSniper on Mon Mar 07, 2011 4:17 pm

    AFAIK, the Russian Army isn't going to use the Kornet en masse, so I don't think that BMP-3-Kornets are going to run around. Besides, Khrizantema provides better target acquisition and prosecution systems.

    In honor to Austin's tradition of posting nifty PDFs and scans for us to read and enjoy, an 82 page, 3 mb book about the RPG:

    http://www.filesonic.com/file/41063637/O...#

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Tue Mar 08, 2011 4:47 am

    Overall, the Leopard 2 has better obstacle clearance and there's really nothing too bad about that.

    I am not disputing that or disagreeing with you, I just think in practical terms it is about as important as which one has the nicest paint finish, or whether the crew can plug their Ipods into the intercom system in the tank.

    I just don't think being able to climb over a slightly taller obstacle is as important as total weight which will restrict how the vehicle can be transported by air or rail and what bridges it can use etc etc.

    To find air-gaps, one only needs to clank his hand on the armor array and if it echos, there's an air gap.

    The performance of a real air gap would be minimal... surely it would make more sense to fill air gaps in spaced armour with material that further reduces penetration? Even if it is filled with sand it will effectively defeat a HESH warhead by dispersing the shock wave sideways. A compressible fluid would also do the trick too.

    There's a lot of ways to do this.

    But that is the point however isn't it? There are so many materials that could be used in so many combinations that most of these guesses could easily simply be wrong.

    I don't like India. Sorry Austin. :v

    It is not about liking India, it is about liking money... and you call yourself an American!!! Twisted Evil Twisted Evil (Sorry... just playing with you... Smile )

    You really don't need a wall of text to reanswer the question, "Why not make a Track-seeking warhead?".

    You don't know me very well yet do you... Smile

    There are many weapons that are manually aimed so the track could be directly targetted without the need to develop a whole new weapon.

    I would like to ask, how is progressing equipping tanks, IFVs, APCs, etc
    with data links to be integrated into C4ISR, or it is still only to the
    level of brigade commander CP or battalion commander CP?


    Only talk has been revealed so far, but talk involves a digital high bandwidth communication infrastructure by the end of 2012, and command and control systems have already been tested a couple of times... lots of problems to work out, but this is understandable. Look at my post above ...number 201, and especially the YeSU TZ link.

    The article said, that army will get Khrizantema-S ATGM this year in
    units. What about Kornet-S ATGM, based on BMP-3 chassis? Will army use
    both or only Khrizantema? Any ino if VDV will get this yar any new
    BMD-4/BMD-4M?

    Kornet is a different family of missiles and is at the upper edge of the man portable range.
    Together with the Metis-M1 the Kornet will be the long range and the Metis-M1 will be the shorter range... the European comparison would be the HOT (Kornet) and Milan (Metis M1). The Russian missiles being replaced are the AT-4/AT-5 combination replaced by the Kornet and the Metis being replaced by the Metis M1.
    The Krisantema isn't man portable because its radar guidance system is pretty bulky and it will replace the Shturm-S which could also fire the ATAKA.

    Now the Krisantema has a range of 6km day or night or heavy snow in the ground launched model while the Kornet reaches 5.5km during the day the real difference is that Kornet weighs about 30kgs with the launcher weighing another 26 kgs and a further 11kgs for the thermal sight.
    The Krisantema missile alone I don't have weight figures for, but the ATAKA it replaced was just under 50kgs... and would never be man portable.

    The future structure will be old obsolete MANPADs are replaced with METIS M1 and KORNET while vehicle and air launched ATGMs ie Shturm and ATAKA will be replaced with Krisantema.
    HERMES is a whole new class of ATGM that will replace Vikhr.
    The air launched Krisantema is credited with a range of 8km, which is 2km further than the ATAKA and 3kms further than SHTURM, but its penetration figures are significantly better... 1,250mm compared to 800mm and 560mm respectively.

    AFAIK, the Russian Army isn't going to use the Kornet en masse, so I
    don't think that BMP-3-Kornets are going to run around. Besides,
    Khrizantema provides better target acquisition and prosecution systems.

    I think the Krisantema on a BMP-3 chassis has beaten the Kornet BMP-3 rival system to get into service, but there is no competition for replacement of long range man portable ATGM as the Krisantema is not an option due to its weight and the weight of the guidance systems needed to use it.

    BTW thanks for the book.

    I just started reading it and am amused by some of the comments... like the RPG-2 being like a Panzerfaust when in practical terms it only shares the external warhead and in most respects is actually more like the Bazooka in operational terms.

    I also find it amusing they play down the usefulness of Soviet anti tank rifles... during fighting in built up areas a rifle that can shoot through concrete walls and kill snipers can't be under estimated. They were never long range weapons but in relatively close combat can be used to shoot down into hatches or through hatches on even very heavy tanks, and of course for every tank there are dozens of other light vehicles they are very useful against.
    Needless to say the most popular weapons in Stalingrad for the Soviet soldiers were the PPSH series submachineguns, hand grenades, and anti tank rifles.

    Also regarding anti tank guns, specifically the 45mm towed guns... they were in the same category except their HE shell made them very useful close support weapons for Soviet Infantry. Being direct fire they were accurate and powerful enough for most tasks, though ineffectual against tanks the Soviets had plenty of artillery and their own tanks to deal with that most of the time. Dealing with MG nests and snipers a 45mm HE shell was rather effective and with a team of men moving it around wasn't that hard... it was lighter than most artillery pieces of the time by a wide margin.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:43 am

    Oh dear... I just got to the part of that RPG book where it talks about the 100s of tanks destroyed in Chechnia and how the much vaunted T-90 was so easily defeated by Chechen tactics and only three or four hits from RPG-7s during the height of the conflict.

    Wonder what his sources are... the Washington Post? The BBC?

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5671
    Points : 6077
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

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

    Post  Austin on Tue Mar 08, 2011 9:30 am

    The Russian Book on T-90 vs T-80 I had put up some time back , in one of the subjects it posts in chechnia on an average each tank suffered a RPG hit to a ratio of 8:1 for RPG vs Tank

    Many didnt have ERA and some didnt have explosive in the ERA.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5671
    Points : 6077
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

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

    Post  Austin on Tue Mar 08, 2011 11:05 am

    Really nice video of Abrams vs T-90 with English subtitles


    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

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

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

    Post  IronsightSniper on Tue Mar 08, 2011 12:09 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    To find air-gaps, one only needs to clank his hand on the armor array and if it echos, there's an air gap.

    The performance of a real air gap would be minimal... surely it would make more sense to fill air gaps in spaced armour with material that further reduces penetration? Even if it is filled with sand it will effectively defeat a HESH warhead by dispersing the shock wave sideways. A compressible fluid would also do the trick too.

    The protection offered by Spaced armor is both cheap and quite effective. From Paul Lakowski's Armor basics:

    "One of the first methods to enhance the armor of tanks was the spaced plate arrangement. It was discovered the combination of air gap and plate detonated shaped charges before impact on the main armor. Where the air gap was large enough, the standoff of the shaped charge helped to defeat the warhead. This is because shaped charges have an optimum detonation range. If the standoff distance is too little or too much, this reduces the jet efficiency. All mod- ern tanks have spaced armor somewhere over the design, like the rear hull and turret or the skirts over the side hull.

    In addition, the spaced plates themselves also help to defeat the shaped charge by erosion. Test on thin spaced plate’s show that the collapse of the plate flows into the path of the jet, leading to a large disrupted zone. Since the jet has little strength, it too is disrupted and the plate will offer a resistance 2—3 times the LOS thickness.

    If the spaced plate arrangement is layered, the disrupted zone and shaped charge loss of penetration is larger. A steel–aluminum–steel arrangement offers a resistance 7 times the LOS thickness of the plates. The ‘Wedge armor’ added to the Leopard 2A5 seems to be of this construction with several plates of steel, probably of different hardness [triple hardness steel?]18 Sufficiently large enough spaced plates can also offer increase resistance to kinetic energy attack [APFSDS], increasing plate resistance ~10% as well as 10% for slanted impact.

    If the layer includes an elastic material the plates will bulge at considerable speed [200—500 m./s], increasing the effectiveness of the plate in much the same way ERA works (see below). These kind of arrangements could offer ~10 times the LOS thickness against shaped charges. The Israeli EKKA armor added to M113 and AAVP–7 are examples of this armor."

    After referring to some more text from Vasiliy Folfanov, the T-72B's glacis does have Spaced armor with an elastic material (rubber).

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5671
    Points : 6077
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

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

    Post  Austin on Tue Mar 08, 2011 2:06 pm

    Did K6 or Kaktus doubled the performance figures of K5 or Kontact ? Do we have some basic performance figures for both ?

    Where does NERA stand in the over all picture along with ERA ? Do Russians have any development happening on NERA , read its effective against Tandem warhead.

    Can they place two tiles over each other like NERA + ERA ? The first one takes care of Tandem Warhead while the ERA takes care of KE and HEAT type ?

    Thanks

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5629
    Points : 6282
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

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

    Post  Viktor on Tue Mar 08, 2011 3:23 pm

    Austin wrote:Did K6 or Kaktus doubled the performance figures of K5 or Kontact ? Do we have some basic performance figures for both ?

    Where does NERA stand in the over all picture along with ERA ? Do Russians have any development happening on NERA , read its effective against Tandem warhead.

    Can they place two tiles over each other like NERA + ERA ? The first one takes care of Tandem Warhead while the ERA takes care of KE and HEAT type ?

    Thanks

    NERA is long ago integrated in both T-80U/T-90/T-72B.



    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

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

    Post  medo on Tue Mar 08, 2011 4:39 pm

    It is logical, that khrizantema-S will replace Sturm-S ATGM, but Kornet-SP on BMP-3 could be a replacement for Konkurs-S ATGM placed on BRDM-2 vehicle. Khrizantema and Kornet could work in different levels of army formations.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

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

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

    Post  IronsightSniper on Tue Mar 08, 2011 4:51 pm

    Austin wrote:The Russian Book on T-90 vs T-80 I had put up some time back , in one of the subjects it posts in chechnia on an average each tank suffered a RPG hit to a ratio of 8:1 for RPG vs Tank

    Many didnt have ERA and some didnt have explosive in the ERA.

    I looked through some pages of your posts but was unable to find it, would you be so kind to repost it?

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5671
    Points : 6077
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

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

    Post  Austin on Tue Mar 08, 2011 5:51 pm

    IronsightSniper wrote:I looked through some pages of your posts but was unable to find it, would you be so kind to repost it?

    This is the book i wrote about T-80 vs T-90

    This is a very nice book i believe but unfortunately this is in Russian.

    If some one takes an effort to translate it to English , this would be a great book considering the subject is very interesting.

    Make sure when you click the link ,it adds an extra link over the original link , the full link should look like

    http://www.4shared.com/document/y7rFsSl9/OBT_Rossii.html

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5671
    Points : 6077
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

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

    Post  Austin on Tue Mar 08, 2011 6:26 pm

    I was looking at Shotra-1 EO/IR Jammer and I found some weak areas to it that perhaps needs to be addressed.

    For one Shotra is provided on frontal side of the gun , which means its jamming capability is complete on the frontal arc but tanks are vulnerable on the back and side ways , that does not make sense to me , because it leaves a big area vulnerable.

    Second is for a system that uses passive systems and uses F&F missile that uses MMW/IIR seeker , Shotra will not be aware of the missile approaching it , which makes me believe Shotra-1 has to be ON all the time , which is not ideal and defeats the purpose.

    Any thoughts ?

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

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

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

    Post  IronsightSniper on Wed Mar 09, 2011 12:30 am

    The Shtora system has Laser warning sensors so it knows when it's being painted by say, a Hellfire missile. The system will then automatically turn the turret to face the missile, Shtora activates, and the missile goes nuts and blows up some dirt and makes a nice sandbox for the kids to play in later.

    Although admittedly, an independent station where Shtora can turn by itself while leaving the turret to do what it wants would be more effective, but it won't give T-90's their signature "Red eyes" santa

    Shtora is pretty much crap when a Fire and forget missile that uses MMW and IIR seekers are used. Only hope then is to fire your smoke grenades (which are controlled by Shtora) and move away and hope for the best.

    Shtora is on all the time anyways, because if you're not expecting an Ambush, then you should prepare for it all the time.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Wed Mar 09, 2011 1:39 am

    Go from there and make new unmanned little tanks to put in battlefield.
    Cheap project for Russian tank maker to keep Engineers thinking new.

    Interesting idea, but I think the moon is a bit far away for observing Earth and things in Earth orbit.
    The idea of unmanned vehicles that could support tank operations and also troop operations is probably already in operation... there have been videos of armed wheeled platforms shown at various defence shows with mounted grenade launchers and machine guns. Missing is the very small recon only models, but I would guess that for many roles a small flying eye has better cross country performance than a ground based system... the advantage of the ground based system would be the ability to carry some sort of grenade launcher or MG.

    The Russian Book on T-90 vs T-80 I had put up some time back , in one of
    the subjects it posts in chechnia on an average each tank suffered a
    RPG hit to a ratio of 8:1 for RPG vs Tank

    More importantly 99% of vehicle losses were in the first conflict in the mid 90s, by the time the T-90s were even deployed to the region they had already realised that ammo in the crew compartment was bad and the vehicles were used much better.

    Of course the tactics of the first conflict were awful... Tanks and APCs rolling into a city in a nice column like they were on parade... it is clear that they expected the sight of such military force to effect the chechens and avoid a conflict, but they underestimated their enemy and paid a terrible price. The west condemned them as being weak and having useless vehicles. Of course the second time they went in and blew things up properly before sending in forces like they should have the west condemned them for warcrimes against innocent civilians. It is like the events in Libya right now with the west condemning Gaddafi for murdering innocent civilians... except the innocent civilians I have seen are armed with assault rifles, machineguns... including 14.5mm anti aircraft heavy machineguns and RPG rocket launchers and I wonder how these very well armed innocent civilians get their innocent or their civilian status from.
    I think what I find most annoying from the book is that it talks at length about how 7-8 direct hits are needed to defeat an M113 in Vietnam and then suggest that the T-90 needs 3 hits to kill. Ignoring the fact for a start that very few T-90s were actually destroyed totally, and of course the fact that the RPGs the Vietcong and NVA were using were not really comparable to the range of ATGMs the Chechens had access to.
    Another ignored factor is that the Chechens had plenty of Soviet Army training and with conscription they were taught how to use and maintain most of the weapons in the Soviet arsenal... and when they declared independance they suddenly got access to all the weapon stocks from Soviet military bases on their territory... this can only be comparable to the US civil war in terms of the enemy faced regarding training and skill and weaponry... and what sort of casualties were there in the US civil war?

    A steel–aluminum–steel arrangement offers a resistance 7 times the LOS thickness of the plates.

    Since the jet has little strength, it too is disrupted and the plate will offer a resistance 2—3 times the LOS thickness.

    So empty air is 2-3 times less effective than a steel al steel arrangement. I am not saying an empty space has no effect, I am saying that there are materials that you can put in that space to make it more disruptive to the incoming penetrator. You have a limited overall thickness of armour and within that thickness you use layers to disrupt or disperse the penetrator. Putting a 5cm air gap might increase protection by 100mm equivalent armour against HEAT rounds and make HESH rounds ineffectual, but filling some of that air gap with rubber and kevlar and nomex might result in a 300mm equivalent of armour against HEAT rounds and a 150mm equivalent against APFSDS rounds... just a totally made up example but do you understand what I mean?


    Where does NERA stand in the over all picture along with ERA ? Do
    Russians have any development happening on NERA , read its effective
    against Tandem warhead.

    http://igorrgroup.blogspot.com/2010/06/russian-nxra-for-lavs.html

    It is logical, that khrizantema-S will replace Sturm-S ATGM, but
    Kornet-SP on BMP-3 could be a replacement for Konkurs-S ATGM placed on
    BRDM-2 vehicle. Khrizantema and Kornet could work in different levels of
    army formations.

    For any vehicles that use AT-4/AT-5 external launchers like BMP-2 and even BMP-1 still in service and vehicles like the BMD models without the 100mm rifled gun of the BMP-3 it would make sense to replace the older missiles with KORNET. Krizantema also uses laser beam riding guidance but at 50kgs it is just too heavy to man handle up to a launcher for a reload.

    For one Shotra is provided on frontal side of the gun , which means its
    jamming capability is complete on the frontal arc but tanks are
    vulnerable on the back and side ways , that does not make sense to me ,
    because it leaves a big area vulnerable.

    With a four vehicle unit you will generally have a tank turret looking forward, back, to the left and the right.

    This gives 360 degree coverage. Also a commander will try to keep his turret turned in the direction of the most serious threat to his vehicle so a TOW missile system 2km away with a missile in flight might be considered a greater threat so he will direct his gun at the threat which also directs his SHTORA lamps at it too. One HE Frag shell later he can turn his turret to the next threat.

    Second is for a system that uses passive systems and uses F&F
    missile that uses MMW/IIR seeker , Shotra will not be aware of the
    missile approaching it , which makes me believe Shotra-1 has to be ON
    all the time , which is not ideal and defeats the purpose.

    What is wrong with having it on all the time?

    Shtora is on all the time anyways, because if you're not expecting an Ambush, then you should prepare for it all the time.

    Exactly... ambushes are most effective when they are unexpected so having it on all the time makes a lot of sense.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

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

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

    Post  IronsightSniper on Wed Mar 09, 2011 2:36 am

    GarryB wrote:

    A steel–aluminum–steel arrangement offers a resistance 7 times the LOS thickness of the plates.

    Since the jet has little strength, it too is disrupted and the plate will offer a resistance 2—3 times the LOS thickness.

    So empty air is 2-3 times less effective than a steel al steel arrangement. I am not saying an empty space has no effect, I am saying that there are materials that you can put in that space to make it more disruptive to the incoming penetrator. You have a limited overall thickness of armour and within that thickness you use layers to disrupt or disperse the penetrator. Putting a 5cm air gap might increase protection by 100mm equivalent armour against HEAT rounds and make HESH rounds ineffectual, but filling some of that air gap with rubber and kevlar and nomex might result in a 300mm equivalent of armour against HEAT rounds and a 150mm equivalent against APFSDS rounds... just a totally made up example but do you understand what I mean?


    But then you have to think about price and or weight. Empty air is free and light relative to the Earth's magnetic field.

    Using Ballistic Kevlar as an example (density - 1440-1610 kg/m3), the T-90's Glacis is about 150 cm long and 81 cm tall. Assuming the air gap is 5 cm (although, in real life, part of the T-72B's glacis composition has an 5mm rubber/3mm steel/19mm air/3mm steel/5mm rubber configuration), the total weight of the Kevlar would be almost 100 kg, which is pretty light, but cost wise, high-strength Kevlar (Spectra) can cost over $500 USD per kg, so that extra layer of Kevlar (ballistically speaking, Kevlar is only good for spall liner) could cost over $50,000, which isn't too much when you put the total price tag next to it, but for a 5 cm thick piece of kevlar, it's not worth it.

    However, if you used a 25 mm layer of DU or Tungsten (Tungsten is 144% more effective than RHA), and then mount a 25 mm layer of Boron Carbide over that layer of Tungsten, the tungsten plate itself should have an increased effectiveness of 190% more effective than RHA. This new layer will weigh about 650 kg, and will cost about $30,000 USD, plus provide actual protection.

    Of course, air is both free and light.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5671
    Points : 6077
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

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

    Post  Austin on Wed Mar 09, 2011 5:51 am

    T-90 vs Abrams

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Wed Mar 09, 2011 10:57 pm

    Of course, air is both free and light.

    And much less effective...

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

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

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

    Post  IronsightSniper on Thu Mar 10, 2011 12:21 am

    So why not put a DU layer instead >.>

    It all goes back to the Russian philosophy of small, cheap, and smart. Air works fine for it's size and isn't as exotic, heavy, and costly as something like DU, or WHA, or Boron Carbide.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Thu Mar 10, 2011 12:45 am

    Air is cheap but not as effective as a range of other materials that could be put in there even if it is lighter.

    To be fully effective against modern weapons you need about 2.5 metres of air to be effective on its own... now I know it is not being used on its own but your own numbers above show that layers of different materials yield better performance than empty air alone in a particular layer.

    Air increases volume without increasing protection as much as a smaller volume of layered material would increase protection.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

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

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

    Post  IronsightSniper on Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:27 am

    But as I posted, the T-72B's Glacis isn't relying on just air. It has that NERA layer and not to mention the several hundred millimeters of solid Steel of varying hardness that's sandwiching it all in.

    The air was just a cheap and quick addition that does enough v.s. Shape charge compared to just putting something solid in.

    Remember, from Armor basics, "If the layer includes an elastic material the plates will bulge at considerable speed [200—500 m./s], increasing the effectiveness of the plate in much the same way ERA works (see below). These kind of arrangements could offer ~10 times the LOS thickness against shaped charges. The Israeli EKKA armor added to M113 and AAVP–7 are examples of this armor"

    And also remember:

    "part of the T-72B's glacis composition has an 5mm rubber/3mm steel/19mm air/3mm steel/5mm rubber configuration"

    Between the two layers of Rubber are those said several hundred millimeters of solid steel, so the effectiveness of this arrangement equates to about 350 mm of RHAe v.s. HEAT alone, not including those thick steel plates in front of and behind this arrangement. The total protection was estimated to be approaching 700 mm RHAe v.s. HEAT, and that's without ERA.

    Although you are right that a filler instead of air would only increase it's effectiveness (unless it was flammable), but in general, filling that 0.23 m^3 air gap with something besides air adds to either weight, cost, or maybe even manufacturability.


    Anyways, another book I found, this time about the T-80. It's from the same publisher that published that M1A1 v.s. T-72 book Austin posted and that RPG book I posted a few posts back.

    http://www.megaupload.com/?d=4Z4XNBS3

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5671
    Points : 6077
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

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

    Post  Austin on Fri Mar 11, 2011 7:40 am

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

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:19 am

    Even if its penetration is 2m it wouldn't guarantee penetration of any tank.

    The fact is that penetration figures are variable with the main factor being angle of impact.

    The old story is that a 120mm shell that takes your little finger off as it passes will not kill you but a .22lr round through the eye socket and into the brain will kill you dead.

    Shot placement is key.

    The only missile I know of that is a sure fire kill of any tank ever made or ever planned is a Kh-29T.

    315kgs of shaped charge HE will kill with blast force alone.

    In desert storm one of the most commonly used anti tank weapon was a Mk82 bomb with a laser guidance kit fitted... which equates to a FAB-250 with a laser guidance kit fitted would do a similar job even without the shaped charge warhead.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5671
    Points : 6077
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

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

    Post  Austin on Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:29 am

    Garry how about a Top Attack missile like Indian Nag ,US Javelin, Europe PARS they all have top attack capability and attacks the most vulnerable position of the armour which is the center top , isnt that a sure kill ?

    Thanks

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:37 am

    Garry how about a Top Attack missile like Indian Nag ,US Javelin, Europe
    PARS they all have top attack capability and attacks the most
    vulnerable position of the armour which is the center top , isnt that a
    sure kill ?

    Their trajectory takes them to hit the thinnest armour except belly armour but they are not perfect either... they could easily hit the turret frontal armour or other non vulnerable part of the tank where there is no crew or ammo or fuel.
    For instance a Javelin hitting an Abrams in a diving attack might hit the rear turret bustle... which will set off the stored ammo but will not take out the tank.

    I have seen a test of a Javelin where they had an array of hair dryers on a rack to heat an old model T series tank. They did that to give the tank that was used as a target an IR signature to lock on to.
    After heating it and locking on and firing the missile looking at the video the missile didn't even hit the top of the vehicle, it hit the side of the tank at a very steep angle... if the tank was facing the Javelin instead of a side shot the missile could just as easily hit the main frontal armour at a shallow angle that wouldn't have penetrated either the hull or turret front.


    Last edited by GarryB on Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:56 am; edited 1 time in total

    Sponsored content

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

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 3:09 pm


      Current date/time is Tue Dec 06, 2016 3:09 pm