Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Share
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5358
    Points : 5587
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

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

    MarshallJukov wrote:

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

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

    MarshallJukov wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

    Posts : 20
    Points : 20
    Join date : 2015-02-22

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

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

    Werewolf wrote:
    MarshallJukov wrote:

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

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

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



    Werewolf wrote:
    MarshallJukov wrote:

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

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

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

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

    No. Thats exactly what you need.


    Werewolf wrote:Shockwaves can pass through the armor

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



    Werewolf wrote:experience some aquashock to their entire bodies.

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



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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

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

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

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

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

    Not true.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    A direct hit is required.

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

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

    Even a HMG burst can blow off the tracks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    TheArmenian

    Posts : 1729
    Points : 1886
    Join date : 2011-09-14

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

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

    @MarshalJukov

    Dear Comarade Field Marshal,

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

    Posts : 20
    Points : 20
    Join date : 2015-02-22

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

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

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

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

    GarryB wrote:Not true.

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



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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


    A direct hit is required.

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

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

    With great luck involved.

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

    Luck needed here too.

    Even a HMG burst can blow off the tracks.

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

    You understanding of physics is seriously 4ucked up.


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

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

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

    KV-2 never intended for anti-tank roles.


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

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


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

    You do know the difference between APHE and HE?

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

    Not the case for many many decades.

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

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

    Posts : 20
    Points : 20
    Join date : 2015-02-22

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

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

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

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

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

    122mm, 152mm, 220mm and 300mm

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

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

    Posts : 1729
    Points : 1886
    Join date : 2011-09-14

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

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

    @ marshalJukov

    Stop distorting what Garry and myself are saying.

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

    Posts : 20
    Points : 20
    Join date : 2015-02-22

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

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

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

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

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

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


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

    Useless you might say.

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

    Only with submunitions or 152mm+

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

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

    Posts : 1729
    Points : 1886
    Join date : 2011-09-14

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Posts : 20
    Points : 20
    Join date : 2015-02-22

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

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

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

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

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

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

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



    Also i was talking about both sides using it.


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

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

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

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

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

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

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Real world experience shows otherwise.

    With great luck involved.

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

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

    AP 152mm rounds defeated Tigers and Panthers...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    What?

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

    You understanding of physics is seriously 4ucked up.

    In what way?

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

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

    Or a serial killer that keeps trophies...

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

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

    KV-2 never intended for anti-tank roles.

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


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

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

    You do know the difference between APHE and HE?

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


    Not the case for many many decades.

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

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

    And what was the heaviest nazi tank in 1941?

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

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

    Top armour of most armoured vehicles is pathetic.

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

    That is all we have been saying.

    End of off topic.





    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    MarshallJukov

    Posts : 20
    Points : 20
    Join date : 2015-02-22

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

    GarryB wrote:Real world experience shows otherwise.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Those where APHE not HE. A big difference.


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

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


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

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

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

    All of them, except non-newtonian.

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

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


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

    That too.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

    Posts : 5358
    Points : 5587
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Vann7

    Posts : 3471
    Points : 3583
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

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

    New Armata video..





    and with a pretty model as host.
    avatar
    MarshallJukov

    Posts : 20
    Points : 20
    Join date : 2015-02-22

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

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

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

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

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

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


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


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



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

    Yes it does.
    Just made some calculations for you:


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

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

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

    Mines that are used against tanks are all exclusivley HE mines






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

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

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

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


    That is why all MRAPS today

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


    vibrational created pressure passing

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


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

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

    Posts : 5358
    Points : 5587
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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



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

    Yes it does.
    Just made some calculations for you:


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

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

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

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

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




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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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


    MarshallJukov wrote:
    That is why all MRAPS today

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

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


    MarshallJukov wrote:
    vibrational created pressure passing

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

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


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

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

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

    Posts : 20
    Points : 20
    Join date : 2015-02-22

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  MarshallJukov on Mon May 23, 2016 11:26 am

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

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


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

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


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

    I already did.



    You are lucky that i am not on my rig otherwise i could show you footage what a S-13 rocket can penetrate roof armor of most vehicles and rip open tank turret armor.

    Sure it can. But not S-13OF

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

    Actualy it does.

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

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


    I clearly stated without confusion possible to anyone, that ONLY and exclusivley mines with HE filler are used to crack tanks with a DIRECT CONTACT SET OFF.

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

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



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

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

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

    TM-89

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

    No they are not.

    can start to vibrate and pass on that pressure inside

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

    HE shells, if not penetrate, do neither.

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

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


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

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

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

    Posts : 5358
    Points : 5587
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I already did.

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

    MarshallJukov wrote:
    You are lucky that i am not on my rig otherwise i could show you footage what a S-13 rocket can penetrate roof armor of most vehicles and rip open tank turret armor.

    Sure it can. But not S-13OF

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

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

    Actualy it does.

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


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

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

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

    MarshallJukov wrote:
    I clearly stated without confusion possible to anyone, that ONLY and exclusivley mines with HE filler are used to crack tanks with a DIRECT CONTACT SET OFF.

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

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



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

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

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

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

    TM-89

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

    No they are not.

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


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

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

    HE shells, if not penetrate, do neither.

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


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

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

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

    Sort your thaughts before engaging in discussions.

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

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

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

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

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

    You are not consistent with what you claim or believe.
    avatar
    MarshallJukov

    Posts : 20
    Points : 20
    Join date : 2015-02-22

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  MarshallJukov on Mon May 23, 2016 1:20 pm

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

    2 meters is not 5 meters


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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



    EFP mines are less effective against tanks

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


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

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

    the air gap afterwards

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


    ave to hit something vital or fuel/ammunition


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


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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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



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

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



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


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

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

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

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




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

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

    The kinetic force is still enermous

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


    Exactly CLAIMS, while enough footage of ukraine proof otherwise

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

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

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

    avatar
    TheArmenian

    Posts : 1729
    Points : 1886
    Join date : 2011-09-14

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

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

    Jukov,

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

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

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

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

    Posts : 20
    Points : 20
    Join date : 2015-02-22

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  MarshallJukov on Mon May 23, 2016 1:44 pm

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

    No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

    Posts : 5358
    Points : 5587
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

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

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

    2 meters is not 5 meters

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

    MarshallJukov wrote:
    EFP mines are less effective against tanks

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


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

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

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


    ave to hit something vital or fuel/ammunition


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

    ave to hit something vital or fuel/ammunition


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

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


    MarshallJukov wrote:
    the air gap afterwards

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

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



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


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

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

    Again you are not consistent with what you claim.


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

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

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



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

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

    So to recapture your claims.

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

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



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

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

    Very funny claim.

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

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

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






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

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




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

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

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



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

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

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



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


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


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



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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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



    MarshallJukov wrote:
    The kinetic force is still enermous

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

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



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

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

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



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

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

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

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


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

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


    Edit:

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

    avatar
    MarshallJukov

    Posts : 20
    Points : 20
    Join date : 2015-02-22

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  MarshallJukov on Mon May 23, 2016 6:28 pm

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

    angle they go in on ground 90° to ground

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

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

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

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

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

    And never by any HE rounds.

    and the tanks were ripped apart violently beyond recognition.

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

    The main force comes from the HE shells not the propellants

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

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


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

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



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

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


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

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

    Cut the BS already.

    You mentioend KV-2 and a german tankers

    I mentioned KV-1 and german field artillery.

    However when you place mines in the middle of the road

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


    place a plank above it so the tracks drive over it

    Facepalm....


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

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

    does not exceed by far the armor rating


    It does.

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

    In most cases, it does.

    They are less effective and less distributed.

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



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

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

    The EFP is effected by air gap aswell,

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

    and at what distances they are not.

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

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

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


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

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

    Read it again, HE rounds and FRONT ARMOR

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

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


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

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



    Their fuse will not affect their devestation against armor

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

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

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

    You claimed 152mm can not destroy roof armor

    I never claimed that.

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

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

    they will assure penetration beyond injury level to the occupants

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


    Very funny claim.

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


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

    Contact fuse AT mines explode under TRACKS and NEVER belly.


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

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

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


    So  now they can?

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

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

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

    I can't drop things that are correct

    Only in your Wonderland, Alice.


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

    Facepalm....


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5358
    Points : 5587
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

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

    MarshallJukov wrote:

    angle they go in on ground 90° to ground

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

    And never by any HE rounds.

    Always and exclusivley HE shells for 122mm.


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

    Cut the BS already.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Facepalm...

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



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

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

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

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


    MarshallJukov wrote:
    does not exceed by far the armor rating


    It does.

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


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

    In most cases, it does.

    shaped charges do, EFP's do not.

    MarshallJukov wrote:
    They are less effective and less distributed.

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

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


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

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

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

    MarshallJukov wrote:

    The EFP is effected by air gap aswell,

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

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

    MarshallJukov wrote:
    and at what distances they are not.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

    Read it again, HE rounds and FRONT ARMOR

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

    MarshallJukov wrote:

    they will assure penetration beyond injury level to the occupants

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

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


    MarshallJukov wrote:

    Very funny claim.

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

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


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

    Contact fuse AT mines explode under TRACKS and NEVER belly.

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

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

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

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

    MarshallJukov wrote:
    So  now they can?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    MarshallJukov wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Facepalm....

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

    MarshallJukov wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Posts : 966
    Points : 964
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

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


    Sponsored content

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Dec 15, 2017 1:19 pm