Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    flamming_python
    flamming_python

    Posts : 3482
    Points : 3566
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour - Page 12 Empty Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  flamming_python on Mon Aug 13, 2012 9:07 pm

    Kommisar I noticed that you talk about fanboi's 24/7. Well I can sure appreciate that coz in places like youtube or mp.net there are a lot of them. But if you take a look around this forum - you won't find any. And this is because this is a place for serious/literate people, many of whom you'll find have extensive knowledge of various domains of Russian and foreign weaponry and can write you a book on the subject. So you can relax, you are in good hands. And as for the fanboi's - just let it go; it's not really worth wasting your time in conversation with them in any case.

    You see, that saying about idiots really does apply to them more than to anyone else I know - they first bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience Very Happy
    avatar
    SWAT Pointman

    Posts : 153
    Points : 161
    Join date : 2012-08-10

    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour - Page 12 Empty Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  SWAT Pointman on Mon Aug 13, 2012 9:22 pm

    What does it prove? Nothing. American tanks and European tanks can be destroyed also.
    Stealthflanker
    Stealthflanker

    Posts : 872
    Points : 952
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 31
    Location : Indonesia

    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour - Page 12 Empty Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Stealthflanker on Mon Aug 13, 2012 9:34 pm

    flamming_python wrote:Kommisar I noticed that you talk about fanboi's 24/7. Well I can sure appreciate that coz in places like youtube or mp.net there are a lot of them. But if you take a look around this forum - you won't find any. And this is because this is a place for serious/literate people, many of whom you'll find have extensive knowledge of various domains of Russian and foreign weaponry and can write you a book on the subject. So you can relax, you are in good hands. And as for the fanboi's - just let it go; it's not really worth wasting your time in conversation with them in any case.

    And i wish it will keep that way..especially that We have someone like SOC and Austin here..and real serviceman as well.


    You see, that saying about idiots really does apply to them more than to anyone else I know - they first bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience Very Happy

    well said

    Problem however they're annoying.. very annoying..unfortunately.. i'm not always have the patience to ignore them.. usually i hammered them to oblivion. And they seem quite happy anyway to see how i react.
    Zivo
    Zivo

    Posts : 1488
    Points : 1514
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour - Page 12 Empty Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Zivo on Tue Aug 14, 2012 7:48 am

    Sujoy wrote:This below video shows how ordinary IED's have destroyed Abram Tanks in Iraq.

    BTW - If you are in the US or UK this video is probably blocked


    The interesting thing about that video is that the three main problems with the M1 are obviously resulting in losses. Flammability, Almost every tank destroyed by enemy fire or IED is engulfed in flames. Second, exposed ammo, most of the tanks lost by enemy fire were clearly hit in the bustle, causing a catastrophic explosion and resulting in an inferno. Third, lack of mobility, many of the tanks just get outright trapped in soft terrain.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21148
    Points : 21696
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour - Page 12 Empty I just decided to share this video I stumbled across that tried to make soviet tanks

    Post  GarryB on Tue Aug 14, 2012 8:48 am

    The real problem is that many people have been brought up on Disney movies that tell them that the little tweety bird can run rings around the putty tat, or that the cute bunny wabbit can outwit and outsmart a hunter.

    In other words they are brought up with stories about how good wins over evil and good things happen to people who do good things. The bad guy wears a black hat and the good guy wears white.

    Then when they are old enough to learn about weapons they watch programs on Discovery and the History Channel which are very shallow and not well researched. At first I thought they were biased but I have seen a documentary about the Akula class (NATO codename Typhoon) where it was claimed it was the quietest sub in the world. Now I like Soviet and Russian subs, and there is an enormous double hull design with plenty of space for sound damping material in the Akula, I don't think anyone other that someone who serves on that vessel would say that, so I really think the claims that this, that, or the other piece of kit "is the best in the world" is just the documentary makers listening to the users and not having any knowledge or research on the subject themselves.

    Personally I think the biased beliefs of the Russians and Soviets (the start is calling Russians Soviets and Soviets Russians... which is akin to calling Mexicans or Canadians Americans, or Scottish, Welsh, or Irish people English because British means English) came from the imposed isolation with communism. This was amplified and exacerbated by WWII where the west had very little idea at the time what happened on the eastern front during the war. Most westerners believed the Polikarpov I-16 was based on an American fighter, that it was pure numbers that kept the Soviets going and it was lend lease that saved their bacon. The main problem for the west was that western europe was occupied relatively quickly and at the time Britains greatest victory was an evacuation at Dunkirk, but they consider the retreat of the Soviets to be evidence of their backwardness and lack of preparation.

    In terms of western understanding of what happened on the eastern front then took a turn for the worst because at the end of the war when the west might learn more about the struggles and sacrifice of the Soviets the interests changed. There is talk of the allies, but really the only thing in common between the Soviets and the rest (which included Poland) was the destruction of Hitler... once that issue was dealt with each side found they had little in common and we pretty much know what happened next. For the next 50 odd years of the cold war information in the west about the eastern front came from the West Germans... not the best source of accurate information really, but it was all they had. They were hardly going to offend their new allies by ignoring what they said, and they were hardly going to give credit to their new enemies, so lend lease, strategic bombing and D-Day won the war in Europe, and boy were the Soviets bad fighters who don't care about their soldiers and just continued frontal blind assaults on MG positions.

    The cold war was not a military conflict, though there was a lot of hot aspects to it... it was a propaganda war... a marketing war, and the main reason they won was because the "other side" knew they were being lied to and didn't believe their governments. In the west however while most westerners like to pretend to be well informed, the vast majority will say they don't trust their own politicians and they know that their own politicians tell lies, but if you present them with a situation... say the invasion of South Ossetia... most westerners will believe the western/georgian version that it was really a Russian invasion that the heroic georgians managed to stop.

    It seems Putins powers have no limits... he can poison people with pollonium in London from Moscow... because while most westerners know politiicans lie they actually believe their media roots out the truth so if the politicians were lying that the media would find out and expose them. The problem is that modern media outlets are controlled by rich powerful people. People who owe their wealth and power to the existing system... and the people behind the scenes. They don't want any radical changes to the system that made them rich... they like it just the way it is.

    BTW the average person can think Soviet and Russian tanks are rubbish. They can also believe in macro economics and any religion they want. Don't think you can change their minds... don't think you need to.
    Viktor
    Viktor

    Posts : 5650
    Points : 6283
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 38
    Location : Croatia

    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour - Page 12 Empty Russian/western tanks comparison

    Post  Viktor on Mon Jan 14, 2013 8:29 pm

    Very interesting article about debates raging over internet over Russian/western tanks comparison from

    site "Gur Khan attacks!"
    GUR KHAN!
    collegeboy16
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1145
    Points : 1146
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 22
    Location : Roanapur

    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour - Page 12 Empty Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  collegeboy16 on Tue Jan 15, 2013 5:56 am

    Viktor wrote:Very interesting article about debates raging over internet over Russian/western tanks comparison from

    site "Gur Khan attacks!"
    GUR KHAN!
    Hmm, I see now why MRM-KE, X-rod et al. were canceled. Not to spoil the post but faster rounds do worse when it comes Russian dynamic protection. So if this trend continues, the Russians would just have to opt for faster and larger rods, which are just perfect for countering nato armor.
    Zivo
    Zivo

    Posts : 1488
    Points : 1514
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour - Page 12 Empty Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Zivo on Tue Jan 15, 2013 6:18 am

    I haven't checked Mr. Khlopotov's blog in a few days, thanks for the heads up. I really enjoyed his commentary on this topic.
    avatar
    Austin

    Posts : 7303
    Points : 7700
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour - Page 12 Empty Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Austin on Tue Jan 15, 2013 6:38 am

    I dont find Translation helpful , Can some one sumarries the key point Gur Khan is trying to put ?
    avatar
    Mindstorm

    Posts : 838
    Points : 1005
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour - Page 12 Empty Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Mindstorm on Tue Jan 15, 2013 9:46 am



    I dont find Translation helpful , Can some one sumarries the key point Gur Khan is trying to put ?

    The unique point made by Alexey is only in its introduction ,where it point out the well known PR campaign in the net, aimed at discredit any Russian made product and create ,also in Russian people, a self-defeating mindset (the so called counter-will propaganda).
    Naturally it point the light on the bashing propaganda ,going on today, against efficiency of Russian ERA


    The "article" in itself is the translation of an old forum debate where an US tanker (Bluewing12) respond pointing out the horrible results obtained, in live firing tests at Fort Knox, not only by M829A1 but also M829A2 against K5 ERA (naturally those tests perfectly collimate with the live tests results already obtained and validated by M. Held and L. Ness's staff in '90 years).

    In particular it point out that ,when hitting the ERA tile from an angle of incidence favourable for the ERA's defeating mechanism, those APFSDS was effectively totally destroyed and fractured in 5-6 parts, to the point that the very tiny residual penetration potential was barely capable to scratch the main armor of the tank on which it was mounted !!! (it point out also that DU ,in interaction with those type of ERA, is worse than Tungsten. )

    Even hitting from the most advantageous angle of incidence for the APFSDS ,the K-5 ERA shown the capability to deflect the main fragment of the rod at an angle of about 30 degrees ,in this way enormously lowering its residual penetration potential.
    It continue talking of the impact that even merely the introduction of those ERA could have had in Gulf War.

    After it point out factors of incidence generating ricochet in modern APFSDS with high L/D ratio.
    After it point out the huge advantage in engagement range and PHit at great distances by enemy Russian MBT thanks to "Reflex" GLATGM and how laser designation by Abrams at 4 km required 4-5 attempts (in spite it was one of the best both in ESim than in live fire exercises at Fort Knox) while Russian MBTs ,thanks just to the integration of the guidance for theirs Reflex missile, don't had this problem.

    The last point is on problems of manual loading (with a little extract from Abrams operative manual).




    In substance that only confirm ,for the umpteenth time and by part of a western insider of the sector, all the points made here several times in the past on those subjects, also in this same thread Wink

    avatar
    Austin

    Posts : 7303
    Points : 7700
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour - Page 12 Empty Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Austin on Tue Jan 15, 2013 10:06 am

    Mindstorm my vote for Translating this excellent piece.

    So M829A1 and M829A2 are not effective against K-5 ERA even in favourable firing angle for APFSDS , BTW are these for export model ERA K5 or Russian ones ? I believe the Russians K-5 ERA has better potential.

    So the answer to this as Yanks found when both APFSDS was not effective is to develop a longer M829A3 APFSDS but considering its higher L:D ratio of M829A3 wonder if it ricoches.

    So all both the APFSDS that failed are the Tungsten or DU types ?
    avatar
    Mindstorm

    Posts : 838
    Points : 1005
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour - Page 12 Empty Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Mindstorm on Tue Jan 15, 2013 4:40 pm



    So M829A1 and M829A2 are not effective against K-5 ERA even in favourable firing angle for APFSDS , BTW are these for export model ERA K5 or Russian ones ? I believe the Russians K-5 ERA has better potential

    Likely Soviet era (original) K-5 ERA coming from ex-DDR (the first tests conducted in '90 years on those kind of ERA tiles and theirs alarming results was just obtained in Germany by M. Held's group) and Ukraine.


    So the answer to this as Yanks found when both APFSDS was not effective is to develop a longer M829A3 APFSDS but considering its higher L:D ratio of M829A3 wonder if it ricoches.

    As explained in the past is NOT the increased length of the rod (effectively representing ,to the exact contrary, for the grow of the time of interaction with the ERA's flying-plates defeating mechanism , a degrading factor for the residual penetrative potential of the KE penetrator ) at increase resilience against ERA, as sustained by ignorant contributors, but the greater diameter at increasing the resilience to flying-plates ERA's type solicitations.

    In particular , considering that some constitutive elements of western KE penetrators (namely DU-alloy composition and increased length) leading to the increased performances necessary to penetrate modern multilayered main armors are the same "working against" ,instead ,in the interaction with K-5-like heavy ERA ,US engineers chosen to search a way to don't trigger K-5 at all (M829A3's peculiar tip design together with its significantly reduced speed, are compromise's solution going just in this direction).


    So all both the APFSDS that failed are the Tungsten or DU types ?

    Tungsten in tests show marginally better performances against flying plates defeating mechanism than DU .
    DU and DU-alloys greater tendency at plastic bending, in facts, not only slightly increase time of interaction with the rear plate's action but also modify angle of incidence of a greater portion of the residual not interacting rod ,decreasing so its penetration's capability of the main enemy MBT's main armor.

    avatar
    Austin

    Posts : 7303
    Points : 7700
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour - Page 12 Empty Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Austin on Tue Jan 15, 2013 5:42 pm

    Good Post Mindstorm.
    avatar
    Austin

    Posts : 7303
    Points : 7700
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour - Page 12 Empty Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Austin on Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:59 am

    From Lidsky M.D @ link

    According to official, Armata will be essentially the same in configuration (crew placement, unmanned turret), ballistic protection, powerplant (engine, transmission...), that is directly from Ob 195. FCS requirement is not the original, but it will come from previous successess and newer developements, in fact in some aspects it will be better, (for example now there are more advanced thermal matrixes of 3rd generation level), and it is soon to say.

    In firepower it will also be the same idea, vertical autoloader within hull and new gun system with bigger chamber volume and improved ballistics, new APFSDS are of lenght of a metre (penetrator), heavier but retain highest optimal velocity, even if gun will retain 125mm caliber, which is likely, it would have nothing to do with current system, of course future is not known, same as wheter if all guided projectiles developed under ob 195 will be realised (and there were plenty of interesting programmes).
    collegeboy16
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1145
    Points : 1146
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 22
    Location : Roanapur

    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour - Page 12 Empty Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  collegeboy16 on Fri Jan 18, 2013 4:31 pm

    Austin wrote:From Lidsky M.D @ link


    In firepower it will also be the same idea, vertical autoloader within hull and new gun system with bigger chamber volume and improved ballistics, new APFSDS are of lenght of a metre (penetrator), heavier but retain highest optimal velocity, even if gun will retain 125mm caliber, which is likely, it would have nothing to do with current system, of course future is not known, same as wheter if all guided projectiles developed under ob 195 will be realised (and there were plenty of interesting programmes).
    Nice, Freud would love it. However, only Armata MBTs and towed 125mm guns could utilize such ammo.
    Zivo
    Zivo

    Posts : 1488
    Points : 1514
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour - Page 12 Empty Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Zivo on Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:43 pm

    His use of parenthesis is confusing me. Is he saying the dart is one meter, or is the entire round is one meter?

    If the dart alone is one meter, that would be the most powerful round in service.
    avatar
    Austin

    Posts : 7303
    Points : 7700
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour - Page 12 Empty Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Austin on Sat Jan 19, 2013 6:36 am

    He means the dart or penetrator will be a meter long.

    I think one of the disavantage of using 125 mm gun over 152 mm Gun is the Antitank warhead from tube launch missile can give a max of 800-900 RHA not good for any frontal turret penetration of modern western tanks

    With 152 mm Gen you can get Kornet size 1200-1300 RHA penetration and longer range.

    It seems like in future with all sides of turret getting all round good protection from ERA even on western tanks the role of Gun Lunched Missile against tanks would be doubtful in future
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21148
    Points : 21696
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour - Page 12 Empty Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jan 19, 2013 8:06 am

    His use of parenthesis is confusing me. Is he saying the dart is one meter, or is the entire round is one meter?

    If the dart alone is one meter, that would be the most powerful round in service.

    He is talking about the penetrator, so the projectile could actually be longer.

    (Think of the dart used for playing the game darts... the front weighted part and pointed bit are metal but the rear is wooden or plastic fins... the rear fins are normally not part of the penetrator and would shear off in the instance of a penetration.)

    I think one of the disavantage of using 125 mm gun over 152 mm Gun is the Antitank warhead from tube launch missile can give a max of 800-900 RHA not good for any frontal turret penetration of modern western tanks

    The 125mm warhead of the RPG-28 can do better than that and a Missile could contain two full calibre warheads (one at the front and one at the rear) to double the performance on target if need be.

    Most importantly equipping the missile with guidance should allow a diving top attack profile... for which even a 300mm penetration performance is perfectly adequate.

    With 152 mm Gen you can get Kornet size 1200-1300 RHA penetration and longer range.

    The larger calibre gives an enormous increase in internal volume for a missile.

    It seems like in future with all sides of turret getting all round good protection from ERA even on western tanks the role of Gun Lunched Missile against tanks would be doubtful in future

    With the volume a 152mm calibre gun could offer you could have a small missile which can easily penetrate the roof of any operational tank and penetrate its engine deck to reach the engine and take the tank out of operation.
    avatar
    Austin

    Posts : 7303
    Points : 7700
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour - Page 12 Empty Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Austin on Sat Jan 19, 2013 4:41 pm

    Currently the 125 mm missile lack the top attack capability because they are beamriders and follow the beam unless they lase the tank from higher position.

    The top attack capability is reserved for F&F anti tank missile having IIR or MMW seeker.

    I think if they can get the electronics fit into 125 mm missile with IIR seeker then they can get this capability without the need to keep the beam engaging till end of engagement.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21148
    Points : 21696
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour - Page 12 Empty Very interesting article about debates raging over internet over Russian/western tanks comparison from

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jan 20, 2013 7:41 am

    The only target they need top attack capability is heavy armoured vehicles so I think a MMW radar seeker would be relatively cheap to design and make and offer all the accuracy needed.

    I rather suspect however that as QWIP sensors get cheaper to mass produce an IIR model should be available shortly too.

    Of course with modern tanks basically being small computer networks... perhaps an EMP warhead that fries the electronics including in the engine and communications and stabilisation etc etc an EMP warhead would provide a functional kill without penetrating any armour at all...
    RTN
    RTN

    Posts : 204
    Points : 183
    Join date : 2014-03-24
    Location : Fairfield, CT

    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour - Page 12 Empty Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  RTN on Tue Jun 24, 2014 5:30 pm

    Main Battle Tanks are basically a useless investment .

    They cost a Ton and millions have to be spend on their MRO .

    Yet , they are not effective .

    All that you need to do is to aim for the Main Gun with a Kornet or RPG 30 and the Tank will go kaput .

    This has been proved in both Iraq and Syria .
    Werewolf
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5253
    Points : 5458
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour - Page 12 Empty Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Werewolf on Tue Jun 24, 2014 5:52 pm

    RTN wrote:Main Battle Tanks are basically a useless investment .

    They cost a Ton and millions have to be spend on their MRO .

    Yet , they are not effective .

    All that you need to do is to aim for the Main Gun  with a   Kornet or RPG 30 and the Tank will go kaput .

    This has been proved in both Iraq and Syria .

    And how easy is it to aim, undetected , from the front at combat relevant distance, a range that is close enough to have a high hit probability to hit the gun and still far enough away that gives you at least some chance to stay undetected at least until you fired your shot?

    You have to be damn close to the tank if you are gonna try to hit certain spots and weakened zones on a tank and at such distances the chance is rather high that you gonna go kaputt before the tank goes.

    If you already gonna shoot with a Kornet than it does not matter if you aim for Gun itself or anywhere else, the chance to destroy the tank is rather high regardless where it hits, turret,hull or a weakened zone.
    RTN
    RTN

    Posts : 204
    Points : 183
    Join date : 2014-03-24
    Location : Fairfield, CT

    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour - Page 12 Empty Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  RTN on Tue Jun 24, 2014 6:19 pm

    Werewolf wrote:And how easy is it to aim, undetected , from the front at combat relevant distance, a range that is close enough to have a high hit probability to hit the gun and still far enough away that gives you at least some chance to stay undetected at least until you fired your shot?


    Why do you need to aim from the front ? In both Iraq & Syria the main gun has been targeted with RPGs from distance of 50m to 100m  .

    If shooting the tracks of an MBT can bring it to a halt why can't RPGs do the same to the Main Gun ?

    Werewolf wrote:If you already gonna shoot with a Kornet than it does not matter if you aim for Gun itself or anywhere else, the chance to destroy the tank is rather high regardless where it hits, turret,hull or a weakened zone.

    Kornet cannot hit the turret unless of course you have placed yourself at an elevated position . The cage armor will protect the tank from Kornet or RPGs.

    Mindstorm wrote: destroy scarcely manoeuvrable/limited speed PGMs at enormous ranges of engagements [/b]

    GPS/INS and electro-optical guidance PGMs like the High Performance Penetrator (HOPE) and High Performance Explosive Bomb (HOSBO) are highly maneuverable . They can hit basically any moving target .
    collegeboy16
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1145
    Points : 1146
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 22
    Location : Roanapur

    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour - Page 12 Empty Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  collegeboy16 on Tue Jun 24, 2014 6:26 pm

    RTN wrote:
    All that you need to do is to aim for the Main Gun  with a   Kornet or RPG 30 and the Tank will go kaput .
    funny, but i think with the amount of explosives HEAT missiles/rokets are packing nowadays next gen APS designers would want the intercept to happen much farther from the tank.
    preferably just after the missile/rocket leaves the tube.

    RTN wrote:
    GPS/INS and electro-optical guidance PGMs like the High Performance Penetrator (HOPE) and High Performance Explosive Bomb (HOSBO) are highly maneuverable . They can hit basically any moving target .
    but can they dodge incoming 57mm airbursters.
    Werewolf
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5253
    Points : 5458
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour - Page 12 Empty Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Werewolf on Tue Jun 24, 2014 6:30 pm

    RTN wrote:

    Why do you need to aim from the front ? In both Iraq & Syria the main gun has been targeted with RPGs from distance of 50m to 100m  .

    If shooting the tracks of an MBT can bring it to a halt why can't RPGs do the same to the Main Gun ?

    That is a horrible way to destroy any tank, especially Abrams tanks in iraq.

    If go in Urban warfare 50-100m close to a tank from the SIDE, why risking missing your target and trying to hit its gun, why not trying to hit very weak armor such as hull, or in case if that RPG was only Mono HEAT, why not hitting turret side. Actually if they were using old weak PG-7 warheads which are existing in masses why not shooting two at same spot, i mean if he is able to hit such small object as the main gun why not tryint to hit ERA panels of Abrams, those panels are quite big compared with K-5 ERA on T-72 tanks.

    RTN wrote:
    Kornet cannot hit the turret unless of course you have placed yourself at an elevated position . The cage armor will protect the tank from Kornet or RPGs.

    What cage armor, Abrams don't have any cage armor and such armor is usually only used on very light armored vehicles to give them some protection against RPGs.

    No M1 Abrams, no T-72 like any other MBT would have using cage armor from the front. I don't even know any genuine MBT using cage armor at all, except those Syrians that are missing ERA they try to compensate it with self build cage armor and bricks and steel plates to compensate the missing ERA tiles.


    Sponsored content

    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour - Page 12 Empty Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Jul 23, 2019 4:41 pm