Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Share
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  IronsightSniper on Tue Mar 01, 2011 7:36 am

    Actually, no. The Abram's M829A3 APFSDS projectile loses about, 100 cm of penetration out to 3km+, but it can still reliably penetrate, say, a T-72M1 from 5km away. It's just that the range finders on Abrams are governed not to go over 2,999 m, hence why it's max range is 3km.

    But I should pull the same argument many people have pulled, that most combat ranges don't go over 2km, at least, not flat ones.

    Austin

    Posts : 6373
    Points : 6773
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Austin on Tue Mar 01, 2011 8:58 am

    Just a hypothetical question.

    If you fire a Top Attack Anti-Tank missile with Tandem Warhead at M1A2 Abrams,T-90,Leopard or any modern western tank , assuming they dont have any Active Hard Kill mechanism can the Tandem Warhead penetrate the turret and kill the crew of these tanks ?

    BTW Reflex does not have a Top-Attack Capability , so the guy would have to point the beam at the turret of tanks , will then it penetrate the modern western turret.

    I came to know from d_berwal that IA regularly practices firing the Reflex at its max effective range of 5 km and it works quite well at max without loosing its speed or dropping etc.

    Here is a video of India's Nag 3rd Gen ATGM with Top Attack capability in action ,lot of slow motion there.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9VN4sXJbTo
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16688
    Points : 17296
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  GarryB on Tue Mar 01, 2011 9:08 am

    Actually, no. The Abram's M829A3 APFSDS projectile loses about, 100 cm
    of penetration out to 3km+, but it can still reliably penetrate, say, a
    T-72M1 from 5km away.

    If it did lose 100cm penetration past 3km range then there is no way in hell it could penetrate any tank.

    I think you mean 100mm because 100cms is 1m.

    It's just that the range finders on Abrams are governed not to go over 2,999 m, hence why it's max range is 3km.

    Are you sure? That is ridiculous! The 125mm gun of the T-80 has a point blank range of 2,100m and I would expect the Abrams to have a similar point blank range.

    Note I am using the technical term point blank range, not the western media use of the term.
    The meaning has been corrupted to mean firing from a range so close that you can't miss... is muzzle of weapon within very close range of the target so if you fired you could not miss even if you wanted to.
    The term actually means the range at which you can fire at a target where the highest point of the projectiles trajectory does not exceed the height of the target so even if you get the range to the target horribly wrong you will still hit it.

    Now the Soviet and Russian tanks are quite small but I would assume with a 120mm gun and APFSDS rounds that if you fired at it while it was within 2km you would still get a hit with a bore sighted shot.

    This pretty much means the Abrams laser range finder is only of use for its MGs...

    But I should pull the same argument many people have pulled, that most
    combat ranges don't go over 2km, at least, not flat ones.

    I agree, but think that the laser beam of the rangefinder doesn't actually stop at 3km so it is not like you are making it harder to detect or anything. Sounds like a pointless idea that limits performance... I bet that was a real pain in the desert.

    They clearly don't intend to fire HE frag rounds then?

    If you fire a Top Attack Anti-Tank missile with Tandem Warhead at M1A2
    Abrams,T-90,Leopard or any modern western tank , assuming they dont have
    any Active Hard Kill mechanism can the Tandem Warhead penetrate the
    turret and kill the crew of these tanks ?

    Penetrate... yes, without question. Kill all the crew depends on where it hits and what it hits as crews in modern tanks have all sorts of protection vests etc etc. If the penetrating beam of plasma hits a crewman they are probably dead or lose what is hit like an arm. If it hits fuel tanks or ammo there will be a fire which could be more lethal.
    Could just as easily hit the engine compartment and disable the tank without killing or injuring anyone.

    BTW Reflex does not have a Top-Attack Capability , so the guy would have
    to point the beam at the turret of tanks , will then it penetrate the
    modern western turret.

    Could just as easily aim for the side of the tank or the joint between turret and hull or the lower glacis plate.

    The current development SOKOL-1 is a diving top attack round that can penetrate 750mm of armour designed to be fired from standard 125mm guns.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  IronsightSniper on Tue Mar 01, 2011 9:24 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Actually, no. The Abram's M829A3 APFSDS projectile loses about, 100 cm
    of penetration out to 3km+, but it can still reliably penetrate, say, a
    T-72M1 from 5km away.

    If it did lose 100cm penetration past 3km range then there is no way in hell it could penetrate any tank.

    I think you mean 100mm because 100cms is 1m.

    Yes, I did meant 100 mm of penetration loss unshaven

    It's just that the range finders on Abrams are governed not to go over 2,999 m, hence why it's max range is 3km.

    Are you sure? That is ridiculous! The 125mm gun of the T-80 has a point blank range of 2,100m and I would expect the Abrams to have a similar point blank range.

    Note I am using the technical term point blank range, not the western media use of the term.
    The meaning has been corrupted to mean firing from a range so close that you can't miss... is muzzle of weapon within very close range of the target so if you fired you could not miss even if you wanted to.
    The term actually means the range at which you can fire at a target where the highest point of the projectiles trajectory does not exceed the height of the target so even if you get the range to the target horribly wrong you will still hit it.

    Now the Soviet and Russian tanks are quite small but I would assume with a 120mm gun and APFSDS rounds that if you fired at it while it was within 2km you would still get a hit with a bore sighted shot.

    This pretty much means the Abrams laser range finder is only of use for its MGs...

    It's just a Governed range, like the Governed top speed of an Abrams, it can be removed.

    And if you noticed, I got that info from the book Austin posted. cheers

    But I should pull the same argument many people have pulled, that most
    combat ranges don't go over 2km, at least, not flat ones.

    I agree, but think that the laser beam of the rangefinder doesn't actually stop at 3km so it is not like you are making it harder to detect or anything. Sounds like a pointless idea that limits performance... I bet that was a real pain in the desert.

    They clearly don't intend to fire HE frag rounds then?

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

    BTW Reflex does not have a Top-Attack Capability , so the guy would have to point the beam at the turret of tanks , will then it penetrate the modern western turret.

    No. Reflex's current penetration rating is almost 1m of solid steel. Fortunately, the Turret armor of tanks like the M1A2 or Leo 2A6, have between 1.6m - 2m of RHAe v.s. HEAT rounds.

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16688
    Points : 17296
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  GarryB on Tue Mar 01, 2011 9:34 am

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

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

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

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

    Austin

    Posts : 6373
    Points : 6773
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Austin on Tue Mar 01, 2011 10:08 am

    GarryB wrote:The current development SOKOL-1 is a diving top attack round that can penetrate 750mm of armour designed to be fired from standard 125mm guns.

    What is the status of SOKOL-1 development ? I havent heard any thing on that front , is it in works or cancelled ?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16688
    Points : 17296
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  GarryB on Tue Mar 01, 2011 10:32 am

    Just reading its design specs that describe it as able to be fired at distinct battlefield targets or moving ones it sounds like it might use the same optics as the Ugroza rocket upgrade package for unguided rockets.

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

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

    Austin

    Posts : 6373
    Points : 6773
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

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

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

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

    Posts : 676
    Points : 846
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

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

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


    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2189
    Points : 3081
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

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

    ahmedfire wrote:


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

    Posts : 16688
    Points : 17296
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

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

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

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

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

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



    The shell.

    [quote]

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

    Posts : 16688
    Points : 17296
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

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




    Austin

    Posts : 6373
    Points : 6773
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

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

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

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

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

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

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

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

    Austin

    Posts : 6373
    Points : 6773
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

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

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

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

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

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

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

    I suspect the same thing.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16688
    Points : 17296
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

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

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

    Look at the drawing on page two.

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

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

    Austin

    Posts : 6373
    Points : 6773
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

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

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

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

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

    So what happens once Sokol-1 is fired ?

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

    Posts : 3229
    Points : 3315
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

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

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

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

    Posts : 16688
    Points : 17296
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Austin

    Posts : 6373
    Points : 6773
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

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

    Thanks Garry , another question that comes to my mind is

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

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

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

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

    Posts : 16688
    Points : 17296
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Austin

    Posts : 6373
    Points : 6773
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

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

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

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

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

    Austin

    Posts : 6373
    Points : 6773
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Austin on Sun Mar 06, 2011 7:55 am

    Ok some questions

    1 ) How has the performance of Kornet ATGM been again Israel Merkava3/4  , Has Korner been effective most of the times or just dud ?

    2 ) How well T-90 turret is minus the ERA viz a viz protection it offers ? I understand the basic turret is RHA or composite armour , can it fend against RPG or small/medium arms ?

    3 ) Will T-90M has blow off panels ? Does Blow Off panels offer significant level of protection to the crew of tanks and how does it work ?

    Thanks
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sun Mar 06, 2011 12:02 pm

    1. The Kornet is proving to be one of the most effective weapons in their arsenal, and have caused many casualties to the Israelis. That incident where that Kornet didn't explode but instead got lodged into the Merkava was a rarity.

    2. From: http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/MBT/t-90_armor.html


    Steve Zaloga's new book1 suggests the T-72B MBT has BDD-type armor in the turret along the lines of T-55M and T-62M MBTs. T-72B(M) and T-90 turret reportedly have BDD type armor as well. The array has 380mm cast steel and 435mm insert, but the composition is probably improved. The probable upgrade path is the replacing of Aluminum bulging plates with Titanium. Building on the figures for previous BDD equipped tanks we get

    TE vs KE TE vs HEAT
    T-72B Aluminum/rubber sandwhiched between cast steel 0.41 0.34
    T-72B(M)/T-90 Titanium/rubber sandwhiched between cast steel + air gap 0.56 0.79

    T-90 turret projection without Kontakt-5 could thus be 38cm x 0.92 + 43.5cm x 0.56 = 59cm KE (the free edge effect will reduce this further to 0.95 x 59cm or 56cm KE) and 38cm + 43.5cm x 0.79 = 72cm HEAT.

    For the Weaker part of the Front turret:

    70-72cm LOS x 0.72 [Cast/Ti-BDD] = 50-52cm x 0.993 = 49-51cm plus K-5 = ~67-69±2cm KE4
    70-72cm LOS x 0.88 [Cast/Ti-BDD] = 61-63cm plus K-5 = 104±5cm HEAT4

    Sponsored content

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:39 pm