Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Share
    avatar
    Interlinked

    Posts : 160
    Points : 162
    Join date : 2017-11-07

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Interlinked on Wed Nov 22, 2017 6:14 am

    GarryB wrote:
    They could simply extend the length of the Sabot or move the APDS projectile further out of the case...

    You're replying to an unrelated statement, but disregarding that:

    Doing stuff like that is not straightforward. If you dig deep into how stuff works, you would realize that everything is riddled full of silly little mistakes that may or may not have a good reason. Why didn't they elongate OG-15V HE shells so that they could fit into the BMP-1 autoloader? Why didn't they put two long tungsten alloy rods into 3BM-42 instead of one short rod and one long rod? Why did they use a conical nose on 100, 115 and 125mm HEAT rounds instead of a flat nose which is more aerodynamic? Why did they decide not to put armour plating around the autoloader carousel on the T-72 Ural and T-72A and only start doing it in the T-72B?

    Your optimism really shines through. "just extend the length of the sabot" "just install APS later" "just replace Kontakt-5 later"

    It's really not so simple.

    GarryB wrote:

    Or simply a case of they clearly have other anti armour options.

    Amusing that you keep banging on about corruption...


    Oh sure, they do. They have 3UBR-6 APBC-T shells with a blunt steel penetrator that is worthless against anything with more armour than a jeep. The U.S Army has been using M791 APDS for the 25mm chain gun on the M2 since it was introduced in 1982. They've switched to M919 APFSDS since the 90's, and APDS is all but gone from their arsenal. The Germans were using DM43 APCR rounds for the Rh202 on the Marder 1 since it was introduced, and they switched to DM63 APDS in the early to mid 80's, and the British used APDS for the RARDEN since it was introduced in the 70's. On the other hand, BMP-3s are still mostly firing 3UBR-6 AP-T even today. You could argue that it can use its 100mm gun for anti-armour purposes, but it can only fire low velocity rounds and it's not efficient against moving targets, so it needs to use ATGMs for practically everything it comes across. It's that what you mean by "other anti armour options"?



    GarryB wrote:

    Velocity is not critical for interception of small fast targets... I realise the US believes this to be false as their 20mm cannon fitted to their fighter planes all use very high velocity rounds, but their (Air Forces) 23mm cannon actually use low velocity low recoil rounds for shooting down aerial targets at close range.

    High velocity is good for extending range but most air to air shooting involves very close ranges.


    Read what I said carefully please.

    \"Interlinked wrote:
    I give you evidence that APDS is more accurate than full caliber rounds, and you just ignore it all

    Why did you change accuracy to velocity?

    Besides, the U.S Air Force doesn't use the 23mm caliber; I believe you are referring to the 25mm caliber, which is not used in any U.S AF fighter except the F-35. All others use a 20mm Vulcan. Still, this is a pretty poor example to use, because dogfights are nothing like intercepting ASMs. I don't think you appreciate how big fighters are. I've seen and felt an Su-30MKM up close... It's not a small target, nor is it as maneuverable as an ASM, nor is it as fast as an ASM. How many dogfights occur at Mach 2? Actually, that's a bit generous. How many dogfights occur where one aircraft is going faster than the other plane by Mach 2? Besides, newer fighters like the F-35 use a 25mm cannon because the plane is supposed to have some ground support capability, so its cannon is supposed to be reasonably effective against ground targets as well as air targets.

    GarryB wrote:
    Kashtan has deck penetration for the missiles it uses.

    My mistake. I was thinking about the AK-630.

    GarryB wrote:

    The reason the Russians are looking at 57mm AAGs is because 30mm rounds are not good enough for very small targets like UAVs or munitions.

    Tightening the group or increasing the number of rounds within the group an be done a number of ways, but with most high speed targets you still need to cover a cube of air space where the target might move into in the time it takes for the rounds to arrive to the intercept point, so very tight little groups are not that useful.

    Shotguns are used to cover an area with lethal pellets, the spread is to compensate for any moves the target might make after the shot is fired.

    A tighter spread extends effective range, but if the rounds are more expensive, then you need to decide whether you want to fire a 200 round burst at each target or if a larger calibre that fills that interception box by exploding nearby and filling it with shrapnel might not be a better idea.


    If the rounds you fire are faster, the target has less time to move away and thus, a lower chance of dodging them. You said that the Western navies had to deal with more advanced Russian anti-ship missiles, whereas the Russian navy only has to deal with old stuff like Exocet and Harpoon. Apply that thinking here. The U.S Navy uses APDS because it gives a better likelihood of hitting and defeating fast and maneuvering ASMs (both Russian and Chinese ASMs), and the Russians expect to mostly face subsonic ASMs, so they rely on an inferior but cheaper type of ammunition. Make sense?

    GarryB wrote:

    After the shells are fired the target is free to speed up or slow down or climb or descend or turn left or turn right.

    Given the time it would take for the rounds to reach the interception point a given target has a box in 3D space where it could be when the rounds arrive... the Kashtan is designed specifically to fill that box with 30mm rounds so that no matter what change in direction or speed the target manages to perform in the few seconds between fired and impacted there will still be some rounds headed its way.

    Most anti ship missiles don't manouver so the box is rather small, but the target is also very small too.


    See previous answer.


    GarryB wrote:

    They are hardly going to be sending 10,000 tanks to any conflict. If the enemy turn out to be well supported then action will be taken.

    Ie at the start the Russians clearly assumed the Turks would not shoot down their aircraft and therefore let Su-24s operate on their own without a SAM umbrella.

    After the attack by the Turkish air force they changed their tactics to suit.

    If they send tanks to an area they will likely do the same.


    Not needing 10,000 tanks does not mean that a few hundred is enough.


    Last edited by Interlinked on Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:30 pm; edited 2 times in total
    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3982
    Points : 3999
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Thu Nov 23, 2017 1:24 am

    Interlinked wrote:
    GarryB wrote:
    They could simply extend the length of the Sabot or move the APDS projectile further out of the case...

    You're replying to an unrelated statement, but disregarding that:

    Doing stuff like that is not straightforward. If you dig deep into how stuff works, you would realize that everything is riddled full of silly little mistakes that may or may not have a good reason. Why didn't they elongate OG-15V HE shells so that they could fit into the BMP-1 autoloader? Why didn't they put two long tungsten alloy rods into 3BM-42 instead of one short rod and one long rod? Why did they use a conical nose on 100, 115 and 125mm HEAT rounds instead of a flat nose which is more aerodynamic? Why did they decide not to put armour plating around the autoloader carousel on the T-72 Ural and T-72A and only start doing it in the T-72B?

    Your optimism really shines through. "just extend the length of the sabot" "just install APS later" "just replace Kontakt-5 later"

    It's really not so simple.

    GarryB wrote:

    Or simply a case of they clearly have other anti armour options.

    Amusing that you keep banging on about corruption...


    Oh sure, they do. They have 3UBR-6 APBC-T shells with a blunt steel penetrator that is worthless against anything with more armour than a jeep. The U.S Army has been using M791 APDS for the 25mm chain gun on the M2 since it was introduced in 1980. They've switched to M919 APFSDS since the 90's, and APDS is all but gone from their arsenal. The Germans were using DM43 APCR rounds for the Rh202 on the Marder 1 since it was introduced, and they switched to DM63 APDS in the early to mid 80's, and the British used APDS for the RARDEN since it was introduced in the 70's. On the other hand, BMP-3s are still mostly firing 3UBR-6 AP-T even today. You could argue that it can use its 100mm gun for anti-armour purposes, but it can only fire low velocity rounds and it's not efficient against moving targets, so it needs to use ATGMs for practically everything it comes across. It's that what you mean by "other anti armour options"?



    GarryB wrote:

    Velocity is not critical for interception of small fast targets... I realise the US believes this to be false as their 20mm cannon fitted to their fighter planes all use very high velocity rounds, but their (Air Forces) 23mm cannon actually use low velocity low recoil rounds for shooting down aerial targets at close range.

    High velocity is good for extending range but most air to air shooting involves very close ranges.


    Read what I said carefully please.

    \"Interlinked wrote:
    I give you evidence that APDS is more accurate than full caliber rounds, and you just ignore it all

    Why did you change accuracy to velocity?

    Besides, the U.S Air Force doesn't use the 23mm caliber; I believe you are referring to the 25mm caliber, which is not used in any U.S AF fighter except the F-35. All others use a 20mm Vulcan. Still, this is a pretty poor example to use, because dogfights are nothing like intercepting ASMs. I don't think you appreciate how big fighters are. I've seen and felt an Su-30MKM up close... It's not a small target, nor is it as maneuverable as an ASM, nor is it as fast as an ASM. How many dogfights occur at Mach 2? Actually, that's a bit generous. How many dogfights occur where one aircraft is going faster than the other plane by Mach 2? Besides, newer fighters like the F-35 use a 25mm cannon because the plane is supposed to have some ground support capability, so its cannon is supposed to be reasonably effective against ground targets as well as air targets.

    GarryB wrote:

    The reason the Russians are looking at 57mm AAGs is because 30mm rounds are not good enough for very small targets like UAVs or munitions.

    Tightening the group or increasing the number of rounds within the group an be done a number of ways, but with most high speed targets you still need to cover a cube of air space where the target might move into in the time it takes for the rounds to arrive to the intercept point, so very tight little groups are not that useful.

    Shotguns are used to cover an area with lethal pellets, the spread is to compensate for any moves the target might make after the shot is fired.

    A tighter spread extends effective range, but if the rounds are more expensive, then you need to decide whether you want to fire a 200 round burst at each target or if a larger calibre that fills that interception box by exploding nearby and filling it with shrapnel might not be a better idea.


    If the rounds you fire are faster, the target has less time to move away and thus, a lower chance of dodging them. You said that the Western navies had to deal with more advanced Russian anti-ship missiles, whereas the Russian navy only has to deal with old stuff like Exocet and Harpoon. Apply that thinking here. The U.S Navy uses APDS because it gives a better likelihood of hitting and defeating fast and maneuvering ASMs (both Russian and Chinese ASMs), and the Russians expect to mostly face subsonic ASMs, so they rely on an inferior but cheaper type of ammunition. Make sense?

    GarryB wrote:

    After the shells are fired the target is free to speed up or slow down or climb or descend or turn left or turn right.

    Given the time it would take for the rounds to reach the interception point a given target has a box in 3D space where it could be when the rounds arrive... the Kashtan is designed specifically to fill that box with 30mm rounds so that no matter what change in direction or speed the target manages to perform in the few seconds between fired and impacted there will still be some rounds headed its way.

    Most anti ship missiles don't manouver so the box is rather small, but the target is also very small too.


    See previous answer.


    GarryB wrote:

    They are hardly going to be sending 10,000 tanks to any conflict. If the enemy turn out to be well supported then action will be taken.

    Ie at the start the Russians clearly assumed the Turks would not shoot down their aircraft and therefore let Su-24s operate on their own without a SAM umbrella.

    After the attack by the Turkish air force they changed their tactics to suit.

    If they send tanks to an area they will likely do the same.


    Not needing 10,000 tanks does not mean that a few hundred is enough.


    Oh wow, please explain me why the Soviets did that, because as sure as I know my way home, the Soviets knew the limitations of their systems.

    I am very intrigued on how an 18 year old kid, is trying to explain us that the 30mm used on the 2A42 is useless, however I have seen firsthand what 23mm freaking useless rounds do to Cat 3 Maxxpro's in Yemen. I have also seen what the UAE's 30mm's mounted on their BMP's make on T-55's. Granted maybe not that better than a "jeep" but not that worse off.

    A lot of the numbers that get thrown around for Soviet armament are absurd and DO not

    Also why the soviets didn't do this or that. Maybe because their armament however theoretically sound was not put into its paces. A clever idea with a flaw, is judged on its luck.

    Soviets would have less luck their clients. The US more. However, and we are looking at a much more equal playing field, Soviet armament is as useful as the US one and the APDS overkill comes mostly from the fact that the Bushmasters were also required to take care of the Red Sea of Soviet armor that would go round in a case of hot war.

    Funny thing though the 30mm apcr round was more than enough for most US Infantry purposed vehicles/threats. It would take 15 years for the US to promptly kit up their Bradley's with NERA.

    Meanwhile in the dead 80's a LAV 25 would be as dead as anything if targeted by bmp-2.

    You can try and have a Pee-Pee contest based on numbers, but i see a contest of matches.

    And I am willing to bet a lot of cash on mutual destruction under TRE circumstances.

    Also fast moving targets? Such as? Even at full speed CC any target the 2A70 would engage would be way too slow to hit compared to a calibrated shot.

    Just to make you understand, 18 year old pro, a Bradley at full speed would go 15m/s CC, the Basnya or Dragoon would lock at anything going slower than 60m/s with a typical non ATGM round going 400m/s

    However the primary charge would be HE-Frag, which would do basically nothing above 200mm armor CE. So why are you even bringing up this topic.

    I would like you to take a step aside and stop cherrypicking and start having a look in the most recent head on of Western hardware and Soviet or Soviet derived ammunition and weapons.

    The main issue however is this, APS like ERA/XERA is available, and this is mostly due to a production capability, not related to a spending capability.

    Crunch less numbers, more scenarios.
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 2575
    Points : 2557
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  miketheterrible on Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:15 am

    Listen assholes, the 18 year old has lots of experience and knowledge clearly, and learned from the best - those two jackasses from mp.net.

    If you cant tell my sarcasm. It was sarcasm.
    avatar
    Interlinked

    Posts : 160
    Points : 162
    Join date : 2017-11-07

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Interlinked on Thu Nov 23, 2017 6:13 am

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Oh wow, please explain me why the Soviets did that, because as sure as I know my way home, the Soviets knew the limitations of their systems.

    I am very intrigued on how an 18 year old kid, is trying to explain us that the 30mm used on the 2A42 is useless, however I have seen firsthand what 23mm freaking useless rounds do to Cat 3 Maxxpro's in Yemen. I have also seen what the UAE's 30mm's mounted on their BMP's make on T-55's. Granted maybe not that better than a "jeep" but not that worse off.

    Was waiting for someone to catch that age  Laughing

    MRAPs are meant to withstand large IEDs and mines, not autocannon fire. In that regard, they are not much better than the latest modifications of the HMMWV. 23mm would be useless against serious IFVs like the Marder 1A3 and M2A2 Bradley.

    30mm HE-I can be useful against tanks and IFVs because it can damage or destroy external equipment, including the sights, but it isn't reliable. I'd wager that that T-55 you "saw" was damaged by HE-I and not AP. Also, the UAE is one of the export customers for 3BR-8 APDS, so unless you can say what exactly it was you saw, your anecdote is pointless.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    A lot of the numbers that get thrown around for Soviet armament are absurd and DO not

    Also why the soviets didn't do this or that. Maybe because their armament however theoretically sound was not put into its paces. A clever idea with a flaw, is judged on its luck.

    You have an unfinished sentence there.

    What exactly do you mean by "put into its paces"? Would they have realized to lengthen OG-15V grenades once the upgraded BMP-1 was tried out in combat? That's the kind of thing you catch and correct during the initial development stage, or during bench testing at the latest. Would they have realized to put a flat tip on the spike nose of their HEAT shells once they fired off a few of them? That's the kind of thing they find out during the testing phase in wind tunnels and by comparing lots of promising experimental designs.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Soviets would have less luck their clients. The US more. However, and we are looking at a much more equal playing field, Soviet armament is as useful as the US one and the APDS overkill comes mostly from the fact that the Bushmasters were also required to take care of the Red Sea of Soviet armor that would go round in a case of hot war.

    That is completely true, and also completely unrelated.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Funny thing though the 30mm apcr round was more than enough for most US Infantry purposed vehicles/threats. It would take 15 years for the US to promptly kit up their Bradley's with NERA.

    Meanwhile in the dead 80's a LAV 25 would be as dead as anything if targeted by bmp-2.

    3UBR-6 is not APCR. It's APBC-T with a blunt steel penetrator. The Bradley has never used NERA in its entire combat history, but it has been upgraded with steel appliqué armour. The M2 Bradley entered service in 1981, and was upgraded to the M2A2 standard in 1988. The BMP-2 entered service in 1980. I don't see where "15 years" comes from. I think you may want to stop throwing around abbreviations if you don't know what they mean.

    LAV 25 should be considered to be an up-gunned APC, like the BTR-80A.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    You can try and have a Pee-Pee contest based on numbers, but i see a contest of matches.

    And I am willing to bet a lot of cash on mutual destruction under TRE circumstances.

    NATO armour is not used by NATO alone...

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Also fast moving targets? Such as? Even at full speed CC any target the 2A70 would engage would be way too slow to hit compared to a calibrated shot.

    Just to make you understand, 18 year old pro, a Bradley at full speed would go 15m/s CC, the Basnya or Dragoon would lock at anything going slower than 60m/s with a typical non ATGM round going 400m/s

    However the primary charge would be HE-Frag, which would do basically nothing above 200mm armor CE. So why are you even bringing up this topic.

    I think you may need to rephrase your statement. It's completely unintelligible.

    I brought up the 100mm 2A70 because GarryB mentioned that there were "other anti tank options" (which is interpreted to mean "anti-armour", for obvious reasons). The primary weapon against lighter vehicles like IFVs and APCs is still the 30mm cannon, and it's still dependent on 3BR-6. If you do not understand the context behind the conversation between Garry and I, then perhaps you should refrain from sharing your thoughts until you are certain.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    I would like you to take a step aside and stop cherrypicking and start having a look in the most recent head on of Western hardware and Soviet or Soviet derived ammunition and weapons.

    The main issue however is this, APS like ERA/XERA is available, and this is mostly due to a production capability, not related to a spending capability.

    Crunch less numbers, more scenarios.

    What cherrypicking? It's not like I'm picking the oldest and least effective ammunition for the 2A42 and 2A72 and saying that it can't defeat modern IFVs. 3BR-6 is the standard AP-T shell. On the other hand, the inverse is true. You were cherrypicking the least armoured Western IFV and saying that 3BR-6 is more than enough for it, which misses the point completely. The BMP-2 and BMP-3 don't always fight in favourable conditions where the enemy has nothing but MRAPs and LAV-25s...


    Last edited by Interlinked on Thu Nov 23, 2017 8:45 am; edited 4 times in total
    avatar
    Interlinked

    Posts : 160
    Points : 162
    Join date : 2017-11-07

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Interlinked on Thu Nov 23, 2017 6:16 am

    miketheterrible wrote:Listen assholes, the 18 year old has lots of experience and knowledge clearly, and learned from the best - those two jackasses from mp.net.

    If you cant tell my sarcasm.  It was sarcasm.

    I wonder why nobody is comfortable revealing their age in this forum Wink
    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3982
    Points : 3999
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Thu Nov 23, 2017 1:50 pm

    Interlinked wrote:
    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Oh wow, please explain me why the Soviets did that, because as sure as I know my way home, the Soviets knew the limitations of their systems.

    I am very intrigued on how an 18 year old kid, is trying to explain us that the 30mm used on the 2A42 is useless, however I have seen firsthand what 23mm freaking useless rounds do to Cat 3 Maxxpro's in Yemen. I have also seen what the UAE's 30mm's mounted on their BMP's make on T-55's. Granted maybe not that better than a "jeep" but not that worse off.

    Was waiting for someone to catch that age  Laughing

    MRAPs are meant to withstand large IEDs and mines, not autocannon fire. In that regard, they are not much better than the latest modifications of the HMMWV. 23mm would be useless against serious IFVs like the Marder 1A3 and M2A2 Bradley."

    MRAps are 50% heavier armored in all aspects and have a better volume to armour ratio than the M1511A2/A4 which also happen to be less than resistant to KPV fire. As Iraqis demonstrated. CAT 3/Cat4 Maxxxpro's have 80mm rating against KE. Unfortunately I don't know who did that rating.

    Marder A3? Really? Literally 25mm side armour? Metis-A wasn't supposed to dent the Leopard 2A4...Either.

    30mm HE-I can be useful against tanks and IFVs because it can damage or destroy external equipment, including the sights, but it isn't reliable. I'd wager that that T-55 you "saw" was damaged by HE-I and not AP. Also, the UAE is one of the export customers for 3BR-8 APDS, so unless you can say what exactly it was you saw, your anecdote is pointless.

    It was damaged by Aramco AP-T (Bulgarian copy of Russian AP-T).
    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    A lot of the numbers that get thrown around for Soviet armament are absurd and DO not

    Also why the soviets didn't do this or that. Maybe because their armament however theoretically sound was not put into its paces. A clever idea with a flaw, is judged on its luck.

    You have an unfinished sentence there.

    What exactly do you mean by "put into its paces"? Would they have realized to lengthen OG-15V grenades once the upgraded BMP-1 was tried out in combat? That's the kind of thing you catch and correct during the initial development stage, or during bench testing at the latest. Would they have realized to put a flat tip on the spike nose of their HEAT shells once they fired off a few of them? That's the kind of thing they find out during the testing phase in wind tunnels and by comparing lots of promising experimental designs.

    No a lot of issues with autoloaders comes from real combat, not theoretical testing. And Even raw combat can be an outlier. GW1 was basically an outlier of a campaign. Nothing that could have been used properly by Iraq was used. However with a largely less competent force, yet better equipped and supplied the same weapons deement obsolescent in the early 1990's proved to be more than enough in the current Syrian and Iraqi theatres.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Soviets would have less luck their clients. The US more. However, and we are looking at a much more equal playing field, Soviet armament is as useful as the US one and the APDS overkill comes mostly from the fact that the Bushmasters were also required to take care of the Red Sea of Soviet armor that would go round in a case of hot war.

    That is completely true, and also completely unrelated.

    Not unrelated. It is simply the cost effectiveness derivated from a different paradigm. The 2A42 was more than enough to take care of the US threats it would face. The volume was on the Soviet side. Why would the Soviets then invest on an overkill asset.

    You don'tget war. Obviously.


    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Funny thing though the 30mm apcr round was more than enough for most US Infantry purposed vehicles/threats. It would take 15 years for the US to promptly kit up their Bradley's with NERA.

    Meanwhile in the dead 80's a LAV 25 would be as dead as anything if targeted by bmp-2.

    3UBR-6 is not APCR. It's APBC-T with a blunt steel penetrator. The Bradley has never used NERA in its entire combat history, but it has been upgraded with steel appliqué armour. The M2 Bradley entered service in 1981, and was upgraded to the M2A2 standard in 1988. The BMP-2 entered service in 1980. I don't see where "15 years" comes from. I think you may want to stop throwing around abbreviations if you don't know what they mean.
    LAV 25 should be considered to be an up-gunned APC, like the BTR-80A.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    You can try and have a Pee-Pee contest based on numbers, but i see a contest of matches.

    And I am willing to bet a lot of cash on mutual destruction under TRE circumstances.



    this is 2008. NERA was used since 2004, that wasn't operational, Da?


    NATO armour is not used by NATO alone...

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Also fast moving targets? Such as? Even at full speed CC any target the 2A70 would engage would be way too slow to hit compared to a calibrated shot.

    Just to make you understand, 18 year old pro, a Bradley at full speed would go 15m/s CC, the Basnya or Dragoon would lock at anything going slower than 60m/s with a typical non ATGM round going 400m/s

    However the primary charge would be HE-Frag, which would do basically nothing above 200mm armor CE. So why are you even bringing up this topic.

    I think you may need to rephrase your statement. It's completely unintelligible.

    I brought up the 100mm 2A70 because GarryB mentioned that there were "other anti tank options" (which is interpreted to mean "anti-armour", for obvious reasons). The primary weapon against lighter vehicles like IFVs and APCs is still the 30mm cannon, and it's still dependent on 3BR-6. If you do not understand the context behind the conversation between Garry and I, then perhaps you should refrain from sharing your thoughts until you are certain.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    I would like you to take a step aside and stop cherrypicking and start having a look in the most recent head on of Western hardware and Soviet or Soviet derived ammunition and weapons.

    The main issue however is this, APS like ERA/XERA is available, and this is mostly due to a production capability, not related to a spending capability.

    Crunch less numbers, more scenarios.

    What cherrypicking? It's not like I'm picking the oldest and least effective ammunition for the 2A42 and 2A72 and saying that it can't defeat modern IFVs. 3BR-6 is the standard AP-T shell. On the other hand, the inverse is true. You were cherrypicking the least armoured Western IFV and saying that 3BR-6 is more than enough for it, which misses the point completely. The BMP-2 and BMP-3 don't always fight in favourable conditions where the enemy has nothing but MRAPs and LAV-25s...
    avatar
    Interlinked

    Posts : 160
    Points : 162
    Join date : 2017-11-07

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Interlinked on Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:17 pm

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    MRAps are 50% heavier armored in all aspects and have a better volume to armour ratio than the M1511A2/A4 which also happen to be less than resistant to KPV fire. As Iraqis demonstrated. CAT 3/Cat4 Maxxxpro's have 80mm rating against KE. Unfortunately I don't know who did that rating.

    MRAPs are generally rather heavy, but that does not necessarily mean that they are heavily armoured.

    Nobody uses RHA in millimeters to rate armour protection. STANAG levels are used. MRAPs usually offer STANAG 4569 level 2 to 3 protection from ballistic threats and level 3b to 4b for mine protection. That means that most MRAPs are only proofed against 7.62mm fire, and sometimes to KPV fire to a limited extent. What's so surprising about 23mm rounds going through an MRAP?

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Marder A3? Really? Literally 25mm side armour? Metis-A wasn't supposed to dent the Leopard 2A4...Either.

    The vast majority of shots come from the frontal 70-degree arc of the vehicle. This includes tanks, APCs, and anything else operating in a conventional battlefield. While there are many cases of heavily armoured vehicles being defeated by shots directed at their side or rear armour, it doesn't happen reliably. You can't count on always hitting the side of your enemies at the best possible angle, because the enemy is always going to try to do the same to you. Just to illustrate this point more clearly: The T-54, T-62, T-64, T-72 and T-80 all have 80mm of side armour. That's the same as a Tiger from WW2 era, but it doesn't mean that NATO did not need to move past 76mm guns. By your logic, 76mm APCBC rounds are more than enough against a T-72, but you and I both know that it isn't.

    Marder 1A3 has a spaced steel plate in front of the 15mm side hull armour, which is angled at 30 degrees. According to Rolf Hilmes, this was enough against 14.5mm rounds (probably B-32), but he did not give specific details. 30mm 3BR6 could easily go through that kind of armour on a straight shot (0 degree side angle), but not if the hull is slightly angled to the side. 3BR6 can penetrate 16mm at 60 degrees at 1.5 km, so it should be able to defeat the side armour of a Marder 1A1/A2 at a 30 degree side angle at 1.5 km, but this range would be much lower for a Marder 1A3.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    It was damaged by Aramco AP-T (Bulgarian copy of Russian AP-T).


    And what kind of damage was sustained? Was the commander's cupola torn off from a direct hit? Was the engine compartment holed from behind? Was the tank still operable after the shooting?

    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    No a lot of issues with autoloaders comes from real combat, not theoretical testing. And Even raw combat can be an outlier. GW1 was basically an outlier of a campaign. Nothing that could have been used properly by Iraq was used. However with a largely less competent force, yet better equipped and supplied the same weapons deement obsolescent in the early 1990's proved to be more than enough in the current Syrian and Iraqi theatres.  


    No, you misunderstand. The BMP-1 model 1973 (Object 765 sp.3) was produced without its autoloader. It wasn't that they introduced the BMP-1 and then tried using OG-15V grenades in there and found that it didn't work, because OG-15V grenades did not enter service until 1973.


    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    Not unrelated. It is simply the cost effectiveness derivated from a different paradigm. The 2A42 was more than enough to take care of the US threats it would face. The volume was on the Soviet side. Why would the Soviets then invest on an overkill asset.

    You don'tget war. Obviously.


    You're missing the point entirely.

    The volume was on the Soviet side, but the other side got thicker armour in the late 80's, so it simply wasn't feasible to keep on using old ammunition. 3BR6 was sufficient for almost a decade, but the armour on NATO IFVs evolved, and no new ammunition was fielded to deal with that. Even when the BMP-3 was formally adopted in 1990, there was no new APDS round to go with it. No new ammunition has been fielded for the 2A42 or the 2A72 in the 37 years since the introduction of the BMP-2 in 1980, and during that time, the armour on foreign IFVs and APCs has only gotten thicker.

    It's pretty much the same with tanks. The steel ammunition for the 125mm D-81T was enough for more than a decade, since NATO was only fielding tanks with plain steel armour, but do you think that 3BM-9 or 3BM-15 is enough against the Leopard 2 or the Abrams? Obviously not. New ammunition was needed. It's also the same from the Western perspective. Why evolve beyond APDS when the vast majority of tanks from the USSR and from Warpac nations were the T-54 and its derivatives? Wouldn't it be more cost effective to just keep on using APDS? Why even bother developing a 120mm gun when it would be more economical to keep on using the L7? Why develop bigger and more powerful missiles? Not to mention the fact that APDS would be more than enough against the 80mm sides of a T-64/72/80...

    KoTeMoRe wrote:



    this is 2008. NERA was used since 2004, that wasn't operational, Da?


    That's a BUSK kit with ERA boxes. Yes, it's ERA, not NERA. You'll be shocked to find out that the word "EXPLOSIVE" is written on the back of every one of those boxes. A full set consists of 105 tiles of five types, each meant for a different part of the vehicle. The one in the photo below is an M6A1 tile.



    Frankly, I didn't expect you to double down on a statement that was so obviously incorrect...
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 1062
    Points : 1062
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Thu Nov 23, 2017 11:25 pm

    Interlinked wrote:
    miketheterrible wrote:Listen assholes, the 18 year old has lots of experience and knowledge clearly, and learned from the best - those two jackasses from mp.net.

    If you cant tell my sarcasm.  It was sarcasm.

    I wonder why nobody is comfortable revealing their age in this forum Wink

    Pal your 18 and you cheery picking and posting tons of incorrect biased information.

    You are the very thing the term "Armchair Expert" was created for.

    Yes buddy I also think that of people here, however at least they don't come up with half of the crooked stuff you do.

    I know your type, your the type that will argue and argue and argue despite the fact you are wrong and try and present numbers to make you look right.

    This is why I stopped bothering with you, your types just want to ramble and ramble and ramble.

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 808
    Points : 975
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Mindstorm on Thu Nov 23, 2017 11:33 pm

    Oh my.....

    Ok , here we have another guy with a work (if any....) leaving to it too much time at its disposition:roll:


    Interlinked wrote:Luckily for you, I am familiar with all of those photos, and I can tell you that you are sorely mistaken.

    Oh yes sure Laughing

    Interlinked wrote:According to Gurkhan, it is a "naked" T-90S turret tested in Russia at the NTIIM training grounds. Some time ago, I analysed the photo for my upcoming article on the T-90 and came to the conclusion that either BM-32 or BM-42 was used.

    You.....YOU have "analysed" that pics and YOU came to any conclusion ? Oh Please An article about T-90 MBT by YOU would not reach the value of the paper on which it is produced.

    Obviously it is a naked T-90 turrett Razz, but to the contrary of you phantasious "analysys" it was exactly a ballistic test of the turrett composition, without ERA, against KE penetrators with performance representative of foreign samples.

    Ghur Khan " Знаю что стрельба на таких испытаниях обычно ведется с расстояния 100-150м. При этом специально рассчитывается энергия выстрела таким образом, что-бы соответствовать параметрам вражьих бпс с определенных ттз дистанций. Это называется "приведенные условия стрельбы". "

    http://gurkhan.blogspot.it/2011/11/90_14.html


    Interlinked wrote:Oblique penetration produces large entrance hole. This is a well known phenomena. See the photo below

    Razz Razz Razz

    Angle of attack of the KE penetrator (that obviously would have an effect on the hole produced by any KE round has nothing to do with that and several other photografic and video evidence that such penetrators produce in several kind of targets holes several times bigger than its diamater.









    It has instead to do with tunneling inizialization and it is strongly dependant on the composition of the target, distance of fire, and penetrator and fin's spin at impact and AoA.
    Observe those two video of the same round



    and this one



    When delivered at very short range and/or against some kind of targets (like some alluminium alloy surfaces or.......paper made fire-range targets ) where tip's deformation do not occur or spin momentum has not chance to trasfer enough energy you will observe relatively small star-shaped APFSDS holes while in others like in actual penetration of high density or reinforced plywood targets you observe almost circular entry holes (entry hole and exit hole is identical)


    Interlinked wrote:And let's not forget about this famous photo of a telephone pole in Ukraine

    Maybe observed.......entirely you could even realize how APFSDS round tunneling work Razz



    The same exact shot delivered from 1600/2000 would have produced in the same tree an almost circular entry hole similar to those (no trace of fin would have been visible) and exit hole would have been even bigger and out-axis.

    Interlinked wrote:Usually this would be done with the main gun of an Abrams using M830A1 MPAT with a proximity fuse, and at ranges much further than 800-1000 m. You know, tanks usually don't sit still in front of enemy attack helicopters at that distance, and attack helicopters don't normally hover in front of tanks at that distance either.

    You have a true iron face to attempt to climb mirror in this way Laughing Laughing Laughing
    Domestic MBT have since '80 years vastly more advanced and efficient options with theirs main weapon against low flying target still at today outside the engineering possibilities of western tank designers such as supersonic long range laser-beam-riding gun-launched missiles (not conceding attached helicopter even the chance to realize to being under attack) or ammunition time of detonation programming system «Айнет».

    Fact is that MBT formations ,both in open and in urbanized area, must mantain capability to engage low flying targets both when near to morphological masking elements of the environment (at example low hills or promontory usuable by hovering helicopters to get a partial radar picture of the enemy units positions ) or when hiding near to tall buildings.
    In both instances tank is virtually Always the outside radar footprint coverage of must mounted radar but elevation of main gun do not allow the engagement; it is a very important capability even more today with the increased presence on the battlefield of light/mini UAVs.

    But now let me briefly resume your ever changing hallucinations :

    1) You presenting some pics (that anyone here perfectly know since several yeras including its diseased origin) of some targets of live-fire tank training in Poland with a series of allegation about the modality of fire totally unsubstantiated coming from another odd visionary attempting to pass the thing (exactly like the phantasious author of this hypothesis) as proof that those western badly conceived was not so inferior to coeval domestic products like a strictly rational analysis of their cardinal parameter would suggest.

    2) When challenged on the subject you "shift" suddenly to another ridiculous mantra ( mostly used in the west to justify the inability of theirs designers to engineerize an efficient and mass-produceable long range multipurpose GLM) sustaining that LOS fire in Europe would be limited to 1,6 km - a true idiocy for what concern the area interested in an eventual armoured offensive/counteroffensive in the North and Eastern European Plain that was already debated here several years ago including the citation of domestic specialized publications explaing the concept of operation and employment of GLM and the capitalization of the huge range of engagement advantage against NATO mechanized and armoured forces just in those geographic area ) and to the score achieved by participants one more time totally unrelated to parameters of execution.

    3) When pointed out that the best polish crew in much more up to date Leo-2A5 has been overcome, just this year, in the most important western tank competion -the Strong Europe Tank Challenge 2017- by prehistoric Т-64БМ manned by Ukrainian crew at theirs first attendance, you attempt grossly to "shift" the question sustaining that therefore also low proficiency polish crew have managed to achieve those unbelievable results in live fire thanks to the..... older FCS of Leo-2A4 Laughing The most ridiculous of the non-sequitur

    4) At this point i hilight that the odd polish guy, with a serious inferiority complex problem, from which you have taken wide majority of those strange "ideas", attempt to use the video of shooting at Tank Biathlon where exclusively training HEAT rounds are used (with the exception of second year for the China team, a thing that allowed them to shoot on the move at significantly higher speed causing the usual amount of comical allegations among the typical scarcely informed western people) with the results, obviously only in score Laughing , of similar competitions in the west where instead APFSDS-T are employed

    From 2.32 you can see DM78A1



    From 1:44



    obviously heroic polish tank crew is the unique to train at shooting against tanks targets with anything except KE penetrator rounds (representing not only the type of ammunition by far more present in MBT loadout but also the unique western type with real anti-armor capabilities) Laughing Laughing Laughing

    avatar
    Interlinked

    Posts : 160
    Points : 162
    Join date : 2017-11-07

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Interlinked on Fri Nov 24, 2017 7:23 am

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:

    Pal your 18 and you cheery picking and posting tons of incorrect biased information.

    You are the very thing the term "Armchair Expert" was created for.

    Yes buddy I also think that of people here, however at least they don't come up with half of the crooked stuff you do.

    I know your type, your the type that will argue and argue and argue despite the fact you are wrong and try and present numbers to make you look right.

    This is why I stopped bothering with you, your types just want to ramble and ramble and ramble.

    That's the thing - I'm not 18.

    I did not present photos of T-54 turrets bombarded by 100mm APCBC and claim that it was hit by APFSDS. I did not claim that an APFSDS shell hitting the lower glacis of a T-72 would go out the belly and hit the ground. I did not say that the Bradley has NERA when it actually has ERA Laughing And you think that I am the "armchair expert" in this forum? Laughing Where are your complaints on the idiotic things that GarryB has said? Or the obviously incorrect claims made by Mindstorm?

    I know why people like you don't like me. All you want to hear is "Russia is *****!!!11one1!1". The reality is that there are flaws in everything, including the T-72. Some minor, some serious. You just have to accept that fact.
    avatar
    Interlinked

    Posts : 160
    Points : 162
    Join date : 2017-11-07

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Interlinked on Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:08 am

    Mindstorm wrote:
    You.....YOU have "analysed" that pics and YOU came to any conclusion ? Oh Please  An article about T-90 MBT by YOU would not reach the value of the paper on which it is produced.

    Obviously it is a naked T-90 turrett Razz, but to the contrary of you phantasious "analysys" it was exactly a ballistic test of the turrett composition, without ERA, against KE penetrators with performance representative of foreign samples.

    Ghur Khan  " Знаю что стрельба на таких испытаниях обычно ведется с расстояния 100-150м. При этом специально рассчитывается энергия выстрела таким образом, что-бы соответствовать параметрам вражьих бпс с определенных ттз дистанций. Это называется "приведенные условия стрельбы". "

    http://gurkhan.blogspot.it/2011/11/90_14.html


    I am quite sure that if I wrote "T-90 is the best modern tank in the world" it would get 10/10 review from you  Wink

    "performance representative of foreign samples", not actual foreign samples. Can you give me an example of a modern foreign APFSDS round that has five fins? No, you can't. Germany exports DM33, and the U.S exports KEW-A2. Both have six fins. The marks in the photo show five, which hints that it was made by domestic APFSDS, and this was what I was saying all along. Are you disputing this?

    Gurkhan is referring to the normal procedure of simulating long range by reducing the propellant charge of the shot. A hit from a shell fired at 2 km can be simulated by reducing the propellant charge and firing the shell at 100 m at a reduced velocity.

    Mindstorm wrote:

    Angle of attack of the KE penetrator (that obviously would have an effect on the hole produced by any KE round has nothing to do with that and several other photografic and video evidence that such penetrators produce in several kind of targets holes several times bigger than its diamater.

    It has instead to do with tunneling inizialization and it is strongly dependant on the composition of the target, distance of fire, and penetrator and fin's spin at impact and AoA.

    When delivered at very short range and/or against some kind of targets (like some alluminium alloy surfaces or.......paper made fire-range targets ) where tip's deformation do not occur or spin momentum has not chance to trasfer enough energy you will observe relatively small star-shaped APFSDS holes while in others like in actual penetration of high density or reinforced plywood targets you observe almost circular entry holes (entry hole and exit hole is identical)


    You talk so lot, but say so little. Try telling everyone here that APFSDS made these holes in that thin sheet metal target.




    Mindstorm wrote:

    Maybe observed.......entirely you could even realize how APFSDS round tunneling work  Razz



    The same exact shot delivered from 1600/2000 would have produced in the same tree an almost circular entry hole similar to those (no trace of fin would have been visible) and exit hole would have been even bigger and out-axis.


    Ah, so you know that that shot was not delivered from 1600-2000 m? Of course you don't. I'm rather tired of all the bullshit that you are trying to peddle, especially since it's so easy to disprove.

    Size of the holes made by M1002 MPTP-T. It's a saboted shell, but it's still quite big, so it makes big holes. Easy to understand.



    Size of the holes made by KEW-A2 APFSDS at 1.7 km. By your "tunneling" theory, it should have made big holes as well. Hmmm. Must have been those damn NATO dogs falsifying those holes by actually firing at short range...



    Here's an even better photo of the holes made by M830A1 MPAT shells at 1.7 km. Same size of target as the one fired upon using KEW-A2.




    Each square is 1 m^2, so just put the photos side by side and see which holes are bigger. When firing at plywood, sheet steel, or whatever, big shells make big holes, and small shells make small holes. Therefore, Polish Leopard 2A4s were firing training HEAT and not APFSDS in that exercise. Case closed.

    Mindstorm wrote:

    You have a true iron face to attempt to climb mirror in this way Laughing Laughing Laughing
    Domestic MBT have since '80 years vastly more advanced and efficient options with theirs main weapon against low flying target still at today outside the engineering possibilities of western tank designers such as supersonic long range laser-beam-riding gun-launched missiles (not conceding attached helicopter even the chance to realize to being under attack) or ammunition time of detonation programming system «Айнет».  

    Fact is that MBT formations ,both in open and in urbanized area, must mantain capability to engage low flying targets both when near to morphological masking elements of the environment (at example low hills or promontory usuable by hovering helicopters to get a partial radar picture of the enemy units positions ) or when hiding near to tall buildings.
    In both instances tank is virtually Always the outside radar footprint coverage of must mounted radar but  elevation of main gun do not allow the engagement; it is a very important capability even more today with the increased presence on the battlefield of light/mini UAVs.


    I'm not even going to bother replying to the first part, because you're just ranting off-topic.

    Second part: If the helicopter is at an altitude high enough that the main gun cannot elevate enough to reach it, then rest assured that the helicopter is either a few feet away from the tank, or the helicopter is high enough that it is not covered by terrain features. Simple exercise: At a distance of 1000 m, a gun elevation angle of 15 degrees like on the T-72 is able to cover an altitude of 268 m. The altitude of the helicopter target in the TB was 12 m.

    Is it realistic to use a machine gun on a helicopter at that altitude and at that range? Well, I think that you already know the answer...


    Mindstorm wrote:

    But now let me briefly resume your ever changing hallucinations :

    1) You presenting some pics (that anyone here perfectly know since several yeras including its diseased origin) of some targets of live-fire tank training in Poland with a series of allegation about the modality of fire totally unsubstantiated coming from another odd visionary attempting to pass the thing (exactly like the phantasious author of this hypothesis) as proof that those western badly conceived was not so inferior to coeval domestic products like a strictly rational analysis of their cardinal parameter would suggest.

    2) When challenged on the subject you "shift" suddenly to another ridiculous mantra ( mostly used in the west to justify the inability of theirs designers to engineerize an efficient and mass-produceable long range multipurpose GLM) sustaining that LOS fire in Europe would be limited to 1,6 km - a true idiocy for what concern the area interested in an eventual armoured offensive/counteroffensive in the North and Eastern European Plain that was already debated here several years ago including the citation of domestic specialized publications explaing the concept of operation and employment of GLM and the capitalization of the huge range of engagement advantage against NATO mechanized and armoured forces just in those geographic area ) and to the score achieved by participants one more time totally unrelated to parameters of execution.

    3) When pointed out that the best polish crew in much more up to date Leo-2A5 has been overcome, just this year, in the most important western tank competion  -the Strong Europe Tank Challenge 2017- by prehistoric Т-64БМ manned by Ukrainian crew at theirs first attendance, you attempt grossly to "shift" the question sustaining that therefore also low proficiency polish crew have managed to achieve those unbelievable results in live fire thanks to the..... older FCS of Leo-2A4  Laughing   The most ridiculous of the non-sequitur

    4) At this point i hilight that the odd polish guy, with a serious inferiority complex problem, from which you have taken wide majority of those strange "ideas", attempt to use the video of shooting at Tank Biathlon where exclusively training HEAT rounds are used (with the exception of second year for the China team, a thing that allowed them to shoot on the move at significantly higher speed causing the usual amount of comical allegations among the typical scarcely informed western people) with the results, obviously only in score   Laughing , of similar competitions in the west where instead APFSDS-T are employed  

    obviously heroic polish tank crew is the unique to train at shooting against tanks targets with anything except KE penetrator rounds (representing not only the type of ammunition by far more present in MBT loadout but also the unique western type with real anti-armor capabilities)  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing
       

    1) Don't mix flowery language with bad grammar and sentence structure.

    2) It's so funny that you accusing me of "shifting" to another "mantra", because this is exactly what you are doing. I was just minding my own business talking about how unrealistic it is in the TB for a T-72B3 to fire at a stationary hovering helicopter with its 12.7mm machine gun at 800-1000 m, and that better options were available, and now you are talking about how great Soviet GLATGMs are.  Off Topic

    3) I think you do not understand what a non-sequitur is.

    Interlinked wrote:
    Mindstorm wrote:
    Naturally my advice for Polish tank crews would be to first attempt at least to best with theirs most advanced Leo-2A5 the largely outdated T-64BM manned by Ukraine crews that have beated them at theirs first attendance in the Strong Europe tank challenge of this year, before even think to sign-up with the top of world crew and equipment.
    Since Polish crews aren't that great, it makes that shot group from the photo even more impressive, eh?

    Disregarding the fact that the Strong Europe Challenge is a holistic challenge and isn't focused on any one aspect (so Polish crews could have been better at gunnery but suffered in the other events), and disregarding the fact that the original intent of the photo of the shot grouping was to illustrate the need for Relikt due to the weakness of the turret ring of the T-72B3...

    Advanced FCS from the Leopard 2A5 gave a worse result than the T-64BM, which we know to be mostly obsolete. Therefore, Polish crew training is not so good. Logical enough? Moving on; Polish crew using Leopard 2A4 managed to get good results during training. Polish training is not so good, so results are considered bad compared to the shooting accuracy of German, American, Austrian and even Ukrainian crews. Therefore, the fact that all shots landed near the center of mass of the dummy targets in that Polish firing exercise is actually only an average result.

    It's not a strong argument, of course, because there are too many leaps of faith that need to be made, but the thing is, my original argument was about the fact that most shots land near or at the center of mass of the target, and that better results could be obtained using APFSDS. You were the one who brought up the Poles and how badly they did at the Challenge, which is completely unrelated to our topic, so now you are here trying to accuse me of using non-sequiturs scratch

    The reality is completely different, of course. We cannot disregard so many other factors. The results of the teams in the Challenge are somewhat clear. Poles did fine at defensive shooting (stationary hull down position shooting at moving targets). T-64BM was bad all-round. All the other teams got 400+ marks out of 500 for shooting, and the Ukrainian team got 300+.



    And not to mention that the Polish team got 3rd place in the 2016 Challenge, which was higher than the U.S team. So really, there is nothing more to be said here. The original point remains: The T-72B3 needs Relikt, because the number and size of weakpoints at its center of mass are just too huge with Kontakt-5, and Kontakt-5 itself is already outdated. Enemy fire gas a very high chance of hitting the center mass of their targets, so T-72B3 needs to add protection to that area. It's just that simple.

    4) I feel sorry for you. No


    Last edited by Interlinked on Wed Nov 29, 2017 3:45 am; edited 4 times in total
    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3982
    Points : 3999
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:21 am

    That's the thing you are not 18, but you don't get to understand the paradigm between war and spreadsheets. BTW that's misleading people.


    Now i have some time, i will reply in a more focused fashion.

    1. Sorry indeed i used a wrong term NERA carelessly, because I was a bit annoyed and hurried to reply.
    2. You are looking at this equation in a very narrow way and i am willing to take your "70° arc protection" as a sounding absurdity. The Enemy will not attack you on your strongest side, that's nonsense.
    3. JRVV's use a 65mm base plate at 1° and a secondary "insulation foil" that varies from 15 to 45 mm at 0 or 15° depending on the slots available. In Afghanistan the median foil was 25mm, that makes a total armor value of 90mm. Compared to the M1511A2's 45mm bolt on that is indeed a better value at the get go. This doesn't take into account structural weaknesses of the MRAP's (tires/Windshield,Joints). However the fact is that better armored the MRAP's are.
    5. Which side had thicker armor? Do yo know what the values of the M1 or M1A1 were in the dying days of the CW? According to the Iraqi feats on the BF, not nearly enough to make a dent. An Iraqi M1A1 was even penetrated live wy a tandem warhead fired from ISIS goons on it's right front side. There, the armor is theoretically at 500mm vs CE. Furthermore the mass armor that the US had in Europe was still M60A3's. That too proved to be less than resilient to even baseline Metis (Crusty or Kurdish bidi bidi).

    Let's not start talking properly with actual facts, otherwise this will turn into a bloodbath.
    Stick to numbers, parrots are good at that.



    Real world tends to make one reconsider its facts.
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 1062
    Points : 1062
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:10 am

    Interlinked wrote:
    SeigSoloyvov wrote:

    Pal your 18 and you cheery picking and posting tons of incorrect biased information.

    You are the very thing the term "Armchair Expert" was created for.

    Yes buddy I also think that of people here, however at least they don't come up with half of the crooked stuff you do.

    I know your type, your the type that will argue and argue and argue despite the fact you are wrong and try and present numbers to make you look right.

    This is why I stopped bothering with you, your types just want to ramble and ramble and ramble.

    That's the thing - I'm not 18.

    I did not present photos of T-54 turrets bombarded by 100mm APCBC and claim that it was hit by APFSDS. I did not claim that an APFSDS shell hitting the lower glacis of a T-72 would go out the belly and hit the ground. I did not say that the Bradley has NERA when it actually has ERA  Laughing And you think that I am the "armchair expert" in this forum?  Laughing Where are your complaints on the idiotic things that GarryB has said? Or the obviously incorrect claims made by Mindstorm?

    I know why people like you don't like me. All you want to hear is "Russia is *****!!!11one1!1". The reality is that there are flaws in everything, including the T-72. Some minor, some serious. You just have to accept that fact.

    Oh you clearly know crap I have called out people on here for saying Russia is number one, you can Ask Garry, you can ask Mike, anyone here can tell you I do not consider Russia number one in areas.

    It is true there are flaws in everything however you are wrong about the flaws and using incorrect information to justify your claims.

    I have called Garry many times out and I have had words with Mindstorm. You will find I am one of the most objective people on this forum

    That doesn't change the fact you are wrong and presenting information incorrectly, the pics you posted alone prove that to me.
    avatar
    Interlinked

    Posts : 160
    Points : 162
    Join date : 2017-11-07

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Interlinked on Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:39 am

    KoTeMoRe wrote:That's the thing you are not 18, but you don't get to understand the paradigm between war and spreadsheets. BTW that's misleading people.


    Now i have some time, i will reply in a more focused fashion.

    1. Sorry indeed i used a wrong term NERA carelessly, because I was a bit annoyed and hurried to reply.
    2. You are looking at this equation in a very narrow way and i am willing to take your "70° arc protection" as a sounding absurdity. The Enemy will not attack you on your strongest side, that's nonsense.
    3. JRVV's use a 65mm base plate at 1° and a secondary "insulation foil" that varies from 15 to 45 mm at 0 or 15° depending on the slots available. In Afghanistan the median foil was 25mm, that makes a total armor value of 90mm. Compared to the M1511A2's 45mm bolt on that is indeed a better value at the get go. This doesn't take into account structural weaknesses of the MRAP's (tires/Windshield,Joints). However the fact is that better armored the MRAP's are.
    5. Which side had thicker armor? Do yo know what the values of the M1 or M1A1 were in the dying days of the CW? According to the Iraqi feats on the BF, not nearly enough to make a dent. An Iraqi M1A1 was even penetrated live wy a tandem warhead fired from ISIS goons on it's right front side. There, the armor is theoretically at 500mm vs CE. Furthermore the mass armor that the US had in Europe was still M60A3's. That too proved to be less than resilient to even baseline Metis (Crusty or Kurdish bidi bidi).

    Let's not start talking properly with actual facts, otherwise this will turn into a bloodbath.
    Stick to numbers, parrots are good at that.

    Real world tends to make one reconsider its facts.

    1. I picked 18 years because it's the minimum age to be considered an adult without disclosing my real age. Many websites and some forums about military stuff sometimes require users to be at least 18. I didn't know that the age could be left empty, as almost everyone here is doing (for some reason).

    2. In conventional warfare, the vast majority of hits land on the frontal arc of the tank, and this is a fact.





    This was known for a long time, and the shape of the turret of the T-64/72/80 was designed with this in mind. If you can read Russian, I recommend you to read the works of established experts like Baryatinsky, Suvorov and Sevchenko. To be more specific, you should read these:

    Grigoryan, V.A, Tank Armour (Защита Танков), 2007

    Grigoryan, V.A, Ammunition (Боеприпасы), 2005

    Shevchenko, Ya.V, Actual problems of protection and safety: Proceedings of the Eighth All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference (Актуальные проблемы защиты и безопасности: Труды Восьмой Всероссийской научно-практической конференции), April 4-7, 2005

    Held, M, Warhead Hit Distribution on Main Battle Tanks in The Gulf, 2000


    There are also a myriad of declassified Soviet and U.S documents that mention this. The only situation where tanks are indeed hit more often on the sides or rear is when they are used in urban locations. Unconventional warfare in an urban area like in Chechnya showed that most of the hits suffered by Russian tanks were sustained on the sides, the roof of the turret and the rear of the hull. That is undisputed. However, if you are talking about tanks shooting at other tanks, then you must recognize that the vast majority of hits land in the frontal arc, which was determined by Soviet analysts to be 70 degrees, hence the shape of the T-64/72/80 turret. A statistical model was developed by Whittake's statistical model for directional probability variation, and oval distribution models have been used since before WW2. These models were used to determine the most optimal distribution of armour and the amount of slope necessary for sufficient protection, and such models were validated by data from tank combat in WW2, and was later modified with more and more data from subsequent wars. I suggest you read up more on this. I recommend this study as an introduction to hit distribution on tanks: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/BF02477759.pdf

    BTW, I find it very strange that not a single person in this forum has the habit of providing sources for the things they are saying. Even if these debates are intended to be informal, it is good to provide sources. Otherwise, it is merely a battle of opinions and anecdotes, which leads nowhere because neither side is willing or able to substantiate their claims, so either side may be wrong or may be right, and nobody can really say for sure. Not unless sources are given.

    3. I have no idea what you are talking about, but you seem to be describing composite armour. The thickness of the armour would not properly describe its protection level. The sides of the M2A0 Bradley, for example, are technically 130mm thick according to figures from Hunnicutt, but it only provides protection against 14.5mm B-32 bullets and 155mm fragments. In other words, it's only STANAG level 4. That's because most of that 130mm-thick armour is just air. MRAP armour is usually composite, and usually incorporates layers of low and high density plates in order to attenuate blast waves from roadside IEDs while providing sufficient ballistic protection against fragments and splinters. Thickness =/= protection level in RHA, and RHA is not used anyway. Again, I must remind you that protection levels are certified by STANAG levels. There is currently no MRAP out there that has attained STANAG level 5 protection on the sides, and 23mm AP is somewhere between level 4 and 5, and 30mm AP is slightly higher. It would have no issue with any Maxxpro MRAP. However, it's not going to be easy to go through the sides of an M2A2/A3 Bradley, which has a huge 32mm steel plate draped over the sides of the hull and spaced from the base aluminium armour, one inch thick.


    4. I don't know why you are bringing this up or where you got that "500mm vs CE" figure from (if you got it from Steelbeasts, then I should remind you that that includes the front hull fuel tanks into the equation), and I don't think that RHA figures really mean that much except against specific types of ammunition. For example: early Abrams was not designed to deal with tandem warheads, so even if the claimed protection level of 800mm RHA vs CE is accurate if faced with a single warhead, it may not be true if faced with a tandem warhead. My answer to your question would be that it depends on which variant and what kind of ammunition hits it, but really, I don't know why you bring this up.


    Last edited by Interlinked on Sat Nov 25, 2017 7:34 am; edited 2 times in total
    avatar
    Interlinked

    Posts : 160
    Points : 162
    Join date : 2017-11-07

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Interlinked on Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:51 am

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:
    Oh you clearly know crap I have called out people on here for saying Russia is number one, you can Ask Garry, you can ask Mike, anyone here can tell you I do not consider Russia number one in areas.

    It is true there are flaws in everything however you are wrong about the flaws and using incorrect information to justify your claims.

    I have called Garry many times out and I have had words with Mindstorm. You will find I am one of the most objective people on this forum

    That doesn't change the fact you are wrong and presenting information incorrectly, the pics you posted alone prove that to me.

    Calling people out usually involves pointing out what exactly was incorrect. You did not do that. Right now you're just saying that I'm wrong, without evidence and without saying where I am wrong. You don't even mention which photo it was that "proved" it to you, and then you call yourself "one of the most objective people on this forum"...
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 1062
    Points : 1062
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Fri Nov 24, 2017 1:59 pm

    Interlinked wrote:
    SeigSoloyvov wrote:
    Oh you clearly know crap I have called out people on here for saying Russia is number one, you can Ask Garry, you can ask Mike, anyone here can tell you I do not consider Russia number one in areas.

    It is true there are flaws in everything however you are wrong about the flaws and using incorrect information to justify your claims.

    I have called Garry many times out and I have had words with Mindstorm. You will find I am one of the most objective people on this forum

    That doesn't change the fact you are wrong and presenting information incorrectly, the pics you posted alone prove that to me.

    Calling people out usually involves pointing out what exactly was incorrect. You did not do that. Right now you're just saying that I'm wrong, without evidence and without saying where I am wrong. You don't even mention which photo it was that "proved" it to you, and then you call yourself "one of the most objective people on this forum"...

    Simply because you have been proven wrong afew times but despite this keep inventing facts and going on and on and on a key feature of an armchair expert, when someone does this. I see no reason to enter the debate zone.

    It's wasting my time, I am not saying all you have said is wrong however you have said wrong things and then buckled down on them if I wanted to have this type of chat I could go to a youtube posting pissing contest.
    avatar
    Interlinked

    Posts : 160
    Points : 162
    Join date : 2017-11-07

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Interlinked on Fri Nov 24, 2017 2:26 pm

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:

    Simply because you have been proven wrong afew times but despite this keep inventing facts and going on and on and on a key feature of an armchair expert, when someone does this. I see no reason to enter the debate zone.

    It's wasting my time, I am not saying all you have said is wrong however you have said wrong things and then buckled down on them if I wanted to have this type of chat I could go to a youtube posting pissing contest.

    When you prove someone wrong, you usually present evidence that shows that they are wrong. So far, I have been the only person that is able to consistently provide sources for a good number of my claims. You think I'm wrong on some things? That's perfectly fine. Doesn't mean you are right until you can prove it.
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 1062
    Points : 1062
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Fri Nov 24, 2017 2:34 pm

    Interlinked wrote:
    SeigSoloyvov wrote:

    Simply because you have been proven wrong afew times but despite this keep inventing facts and going on and on and on a key feature of an armchair expert, when someone does this. I see no reason to enter the debate zone.

    It's wasting my time, I am not saying all you have said is wrong however you have said wrong things and then buckled down on them if I wanted to have this type of chat I could go to a youtube posting pissing contest.

    When you prove someone wrong, you usually present evidence that shows that they are wrong. So far, I have been the only person that is able to consistently provide sources for a good number of my claims. You think I'm wrong on some things? That's perfectly fine. Doesn't mean you are right until you can prove it.

    See right there other people have proved you wrong in areas yet you keep rambling on that you are right.

    This is why having a debate with you in pointless your to dam ignorant to realize the fallacy of your own argument truth be told half of those pictures you posted you have no idea where they came from or the conditions in which things occurred for example. you are taking them out of GRAVE context.

    So don't be shocked when I don't want to argue with someone who is blind has a bat to their own ego since it would be like trying to convince a coke addict not to do coke and god dam I just don't have that kind patience for you armchair experts anymore.
    avatar
    Interlinked

    Posts : 160
    Points : 162
    Join date : 2017-11-07

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Interlinked on Fri Nov 24, 2017 3:48 pm

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:
    See right there other people have proved you wrong in areas yet you keep rambling on that you are right.

    This is why having a debate with you in pointless your to dam ignorant to realize the fallacy of your own argument truth be told half of those pictures you posted you have no idea where they came from or the conditions in which things occurred for example. you are taking them out of GRAVE context.  

    So don't be shocked when I don't want to argue with someone who is blind has a bat to their own ego since it would be like trying to convince a coke addict not to do coke and god dam I just don't have that kind patience for you armchair experts anymore.

    So basically it's "You are wrong but I won't say why and I can't prove it". Isn't that what armchair experts do? Laughing Despite saying that you "have no patience", you seem to be intent on hounding me for being wrong, yet you refuse to say where, when and why. It shouldn't be difficult for you to select just one example and then prove that I am wrong by giving a source for your counterclaim.

    If you can't even find one example, at least have something productive to say along with your criticism. Otherwise, you are the one wasting people's time here.
    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3982
    Points : 3999
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:17 am

    Interlinked wrote:
    The-thing-next-door wrote:As far as APFSDS vs paper does this count?

    That hole is much too big to be APFSDS. Definitely HEAT or HE-Frag.

    That's a dummy round...they weren't going to use live ammunition on pokazuha.

    The idea that you could be an analyst while not even knowing Soviet history of using "black rounds" in these stunts is nothing short of amazingly unbelievable.

    What's your back ground, aside from internet may i ask.

    avatar
    Interlinked

    Posts : 160
    Points : 162
    Join date : 2017-11-07

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Interlinked on Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:45 am

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Interlinked wrote:
    The-thing-next-door wrote:As far as APFSDS vs paper does this count?

    That hole is much too big to be APFSDS. Definitely HEAT or HE-Frag.

    That's a dummy round...they weren't going to use live ammunition on pokazuha.

    Well duh.. Laughing I didn't think that The-thing-next-door meant live APFSDS rounds either. Why would you assume that I meant live HEAT or HE-Frag? Looking for an excuse to antagonize me?

    I'm not telling my background to you, just as I'm not telling my age, because you are clearly a very hostile individual.


    Last edited by Interlinked on Sun Nov 26, 2017 9:44 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3982
    Points : 3999
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Sun Nov 26, 2017 9:35 am

    Interlinked wrote:
    KoTeMoRe wrote:That's the thing you are not 18, but you don't get to understand the paradigm between war and spreadsheets. BTW that's misleading people.


    Now i have some time, i will reply in a more focused fashion.

    1. Sorry indeed i used a wrong term NERA carelessly, because I was a bit annoyed and hurried to reply.
    2. You are looking at this equation in a very narrow way and i am willing to take your "70° arc protection" as a sounding absurdity. The Enemy will not attack you on your strongest side, that's nonsense.
    3. JRVV's use a 65mm base plate at 1° and a secondary "insulation foil" that varies from 15 to 45 mm at 0 or 15° depending on the slots available. In Afghanistan the median foil was 25mm, that makes a total armor value of 90mm. Compared to the M1511A2's 45mm bolt on that is indeed a better value at the get go. This doesn't take into account structural weaknesses of the MRAP's (tires/Windshield,Joints). However the fact is that better armored the MRAP's are.
    5. Which side had thicker armor? Do yo know what the values of the M1 or M1A1 were in the dying days of the CW? According to the Iraqi feats on the BF, not nearly enough to make a dent. An Iraqi M1A1 was even penetrated live wy a tandem warhead fired from ISIS goons on it's right front side. There, the armor is theoretically at 500mm vs CE. Furthermore the mass armor that the US had in Europe was still M60A3's. That too proved to be less than resilient to even baseline Metis (Crusty or Kurdish bidi bidi).

    Let's not start talking properly with actual facts, otherwise this will turn into a bloodbath.
    Stick to numbers, parrots are good at that.

    Real world tends to make one reconsider its facts.

    1. I picked 18 years because it's the minimum age to be considered an adult without disclosing my real age. Many websites and some forums about military stuff sometimes require users to be at least 18. I didn't know that the age could be left empty, as almost everyone here is doing (for some reason).

    2. In conventional warfare, the vast majority of hits land on the frontal arc of the tank, and this is a fact.





    This was known for a long time, and the shape of the turret of the T-64/72/80 was designed with this in mind. If you can read Russian, I recommend you to read the works of established experts like Baryatinsky, Suvorov and Sevchenko. To be more specific, you should read these:

    Grigoryan, V.A, Tank Armour (Защита Танков), 2007

    Grigoryan, V.A, Ammunition (Боеприпасы), 2005

    Shevchenko, Ya.V, Actual problems of protection and safety: Proceedings of the Eighth All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference (Актуальные проблемы защиты и безопасности: Труды Восьмой Всероссийской научно-практической конференции), April 4-7, 2005

    Held, M, Warhead Hit Distribution on Main Battle Tanks in The Gulf, 2000


    There are also a myriad of declassified Soviet and U.S documents that mention this. The only situation where tanks are indeed hit more often on the sides or rear is when they are used in urban locations. Unconventional warfare in an urban area like in Chechnya showed that most of the hits suffered by Russian tanks were sustained on the sides, the roof of the turret and the rear of the hull. That is undisputed. However, if you are talking about tanks shooting at other tanks, then you must recognize that the vast majority of hits land in the frontal arc, which was determined by Soviet analysts to be 70 degrees, hence the shape of the T-64/72/80 turret. A statistical model was developed by Whittake's statistical model for directional probability variation, and oval distribution models have been used since before WW2. These models were used to determine the most optimal distribution of armour and the amount of slope necessary for sufficient protection, and such models were validated by data from tank combat in WW2, and was later modified with more and more data from subsequent wars. I suggest you read up more on this. I recommend this study as an introduction to hit distribution on tanks: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/BF02477759.pdf

    BTW, I find it very strange that not a single person in this forum has the habit of providing sources for the things they are saying. Even if these debates are intended to be informal, it is good to provide sources. Otherwise, it is merely a battle of opinions and anecdotes, which leads nowhere because neither side is willing or able to substantiate their claims, so either side may be wrong or may be right, and nobody can really say for sure. Not unless sources are given.

    3. I have no idea what you are talking about, but you seem to be describing composite armour. The thickness of the armour would not properly describe its protection level. The sides of the M2A0 Bradley, for example, are technically 130mm thick according to figures from Hunnicutt, but it only provides protection against 14.5mm B-32 bullets and 155mm fragments. In other words, it's only STANAG level 4. That's because most of that 130mm-thick armour is just air. MRAP armour is usually composite, and usually incorporates layers of low and high density plates in order to attenuate blast waves from roadside IEDs while providing sufficient ballistic protection against fragments and splinters. Thickness =/= protection level in RHA, and RHA is not used anyway. Again, I must remind you that protection levels are certified by STANAG levels. There is currently no MRAP out there that has attained STANAG level 5 protection on the sides, and 23mm AP is somewhere between level 4 and 5, and 30mm AP is slightly higher. It would have no issue with any Maxxpro MRAP. However, it's not going to be easy to go through the sides of an M2A2/A3 Bradley, which has a huge 32mm steel plate draped over the sides of the hull and spaced from the base aluminium armour, one inch thick.


    4. I don't know why you are bringing this up or where you got that "500mm vs CE" figure from (if you got it from Steelbeasts, then I should remind you that that includes the front hull fuel tanks into the equation), and I don't think that RHA figures really mean that much except against specific types of ammunition. For example: early Abrams was not designed to deal with tandem warheads, so even if the claimed protection level of 800mm RHA vs CE is accurate if faced with a single warhead, it may not be true if faced with a tandem warhead. My answer to your question would be that it depends on which variant and what kind of ammunition hits it, but really, I don't know why you bring this up.

    Hum Which real world scenario stacks up the odds of a face off head on at 70%?

    Base scenario of the three last world wars I know has been that armored threats have always been targeted on their weakest points.

    The fact the defending or attacking force would like to show their strongest side, means literally nothing. While the Frontal glacis may have a relevance in a mechanized push along a front (hint check why there are arcs of fire to cover when moving), in any other scenario (especially indirect fire support, especially against an asymmetrical force) that is garbage.

    Do you happen to know about Frag kits or are you REALLY that dense? Have you actually even sat into an uparmoured vehicle or is this another one of, i am willing to show as little as possible blabla?

    B-kits on the M1151 and Frag Kits (5/6/7) on the M1114 were not "composite" armor but bolt on armor with slots for anti EFP charges. without the Slots (that looked like huge radios) the bolt-on armor was 45mm RHA. It added between 1 and 1.5 tons to the M1114 and proved crappy. Mostly because the vehicles were already struggling with the power and also because bolt on is not always a safe bet.

    Here what a bolt on FRAG kit looks like on previous variants (M1165 Frag 3)



    The JRVV's they have a baseline 65mm on RHA that should not be penetrated by 23mm, but still, shit happens.

    The insulation foil for the B-kit that is also applied to the MATV/LATV/JRVV depends on requirements but it is never under the 15mm.

    The point however still stands, the 2A42 and 2A72 will have no issue whatsoever with the main threats they will be facing, infantry carrying vehicles, heavy APCS (with AP-T/ATGM/LATW carried on board) and trucks.

    500mm against CE? That's the minimum value if I take the angle. You can search for the Video which was posted during the battle for Mosul Hospital by Daesh. The Tandem Bulgarian warhead used went through the tank's front right hull at an angle of 20° give or take, If i have to trust this :



    It hit dead in the overlap between the front capsule and the mainstay of the hull. Basically in both cases it did something It should have not been possible to do. But it did.

    Now we have, omg the initial description is crap.

    Sources? Which ones?

    Let me tell you one thing that you might fucking get through you ears.

    Tank fire in WW2 killed less than 17% of the other armored vehicles. For the US tanks it was 7.5%. Which means that 83% of the the vehicles put out of combat were probably engaged elsewhere than in their frontal 70°, by something else than tanks. The round turrets of the T-series were made to cover flanks when showing front (skirting) but see how the hull wasn't made in a round shape, guess why? Oh I know stupid, incapable Soviet engineers. And they also tried to have an ovoidal hull as well, no need to tell me. However that skirting used on the turret, was done so to save both weight and material, by having the maximum amount of coverage WHILE SHOWING FRONT. However SHOWING FRONT is not a god given right.

    Now as for AT immobilization hits, the US found out of their sample, that most of the hits by AT guns (i stress out this) were on rear and tracks. Most in this case being 69%. So 69% were hit on weaker spots and Flanks/rear.

    So which is this source that shows that you are going to get hit frontally on 70% of the time. The idea of head on attack works if you have a careful situational awareness and positional skill. However it is VERY rare that you get to lead an assault through head on. The actual very idea of conventional mechanized warfare is one of pivot and covering your damn flanks. WHY? Because at some point you are going to have three things happening to your damn attack.

    1. Break through & Focus on exploitation. This causes you to have the brunt of the enemy on your back. Yes a kettle will open the way for enemy reinforcements to hit you on your back.
    2. Wood and icing. Your attack hits hard wood and it starts to stall, you get pinned and the enemy WILL ABSOLUTELY try to go around.
    3. Transition period after break through that will see you and the enemy in limbo. Looking for each other.


    In a nutshell, you will be able to get the enemy in front of your sights if you manage other areas of combat that do not need your tank have super duper Sabot rounds. Those areas will allow you to maintain a high percentage of advantage and initiative (ergo showing the strongest part of the armor to the enemy). There's a causality there, but it is not automatic.

    With the new portable threats, the very strength of the armored vehicle is being challenged, especially in an exploitation movement. A light vehicle, with an ATGM provides, more mobility, less footprint and detectability than the said tank. There is no sense to bringing tank to tank combat idiocy when we are talking about how the Marder M1A3 is ill suited into a discussion as a far superior APC/IFV than the BMP2. If you are going to box the BMP to front only then you are indeed cherry picking.

    Once again, you are very good at parroting stuff, but it is becoming evident that you do not have real time with warfare.
    avatar
    Interlinked

    Posts : 160
    Points : 162
    Join date : 2017-11-07

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Interlinked on Sun Nov 26, 2017 11:46 am

    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    Hum Which real world scenario stacks up the odds of a face off head on at 70%?

    Base scenario of the three last world wars I know has been that armored threats have always been targeted on their weakest points.


    I didn't say that 70% of shots landed on the front of tanks and IFVs. I politely said that the majority of shots landed on a 70 degree frontal arc.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    The fact the defending or attacking force would like to show their strongest side, means literally nothing. While the Frontal glacis may have a relevance in a mechanized push along a front (hint check why there are arcs of fire to cover when moving), in any other scenario (especially indirect fire support, especially against an asymmetrical force) that is garbage.


    You clearly ignored the part where I said this:

    Interlinked wrote:
    The only situation where tanks are indeed hit more often on the sides or rear is when they are used in urban locations. Unconventional warfare in an urban area like in Chechnya showed that most of the hits suffered by Russian tanks were sustained on the sides, the roof of the turret and the rear of the hull. That is undisputed. However, if you are talking about tanks shooting at other tanks, then you must recognize that the vast majority of hits land in the frontal arc, which was determined by Soviet analysts to be 70 degrees, hence the shape of the T-64/72/80 turret.

    If you aren't actually reading what I write, then I won't bother writing. Seems like you are only focused on boosting your own ego by trying to be right, talking about how I "don't get war" and that I "do not have real time with warfare", as if you are some super-duper strategic genius or something.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    Do you happen to know about Frag kits or are you REALLY that dense? Have you actually even sat into an uparmoured vehicle or is this another one of, i am willing to show as little as possible blabla?

    B-kits on the M1151 and Frag Kits (5/6/7) on the M1114 were not "composite" armor but bolt on armor with slots for anti EFP charges. without the Slots (that looked like huge radios) the bolt-on armor was 45mm RHA. It added between 1 and 1.5 tons to the M1114 and proved crappy. Mostly because the vehicles were already struggling with the power and also because bolt on is not always a safe bet.

    Here what a bolt on FRAG kit looks like on previous variants (M1165 Frag 3)




    What does this have to do with anything? Was I talking about Frag kits? Take a long, hard look at what I wrote before trying to respond.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    The JRVV's they have a baseline 65mm on RHA that should not be penetrated by 23mm, but still, shit happens.

    The insulation foil for the B-kit that is also applied to the MATV/LATV/JRVV depends on requirements but it is never under the 15mm.


    Once again, I would like to remind you that nobody actually expresses protection level in RHA. If you actually measured the thickness of the base armour to be 65mm of pure steel, then please share your evidence with us. I am very interested in your findings.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    The point however still stands, the 2A42 and 2A72 will have no issue whatsoever with the main threats they will be facing, infantry carrying vehicles, heavy APCS (with AP-T/ATGM/LATW carried on board) and trucks.


    It would have a big issue with an M2A2/A3 Bradley at any range worth mentioning, even if a BMP-2/BMP-3 manages to take up better positions and score multiple side hits. Sure, old M113s and Ferret scout cars aren't a challenge, or even other BMP-2s for that matter, but that's not exactly a high bar to pass.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    500mm against CE? That's the minimum value if I take the angle. You can search for the Video which was posted during the battle for Mosul Hospital by Daesh. The Tandem Bulgarian warhead used went through the tank's front right hull at an angle of 20° give or take, If i have to trust this :



    It hit dead in the overlap between the front capsule and the mainstay of the hull. Basically in both cases it did something It should have not been possible to do. But it did.

    Now we have, omg the initial description is crap.


    Many Iraqi Abrams tanks were knocked out, and I can't really visualize what happened from your description. You need to give a link so we can see it.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    Sources? Which ones?


    I gave you four. The study penned by Manfred Held is the most important one.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    Let me tell you one thing that you might fucking get through you ears.

    Tank fire in WW2 killed less than 17% of the other armored vehicles. For the US tanks it was 7.5%. Which means that 83% of the the vehicles put out of combat were probably engaged elsewhere than in their frontal 70°, by something else than tanks.


    This has absolutely nothing to do with the distribution of hits on tanks, and the sources I listed also included hits from ATGMs and other weapons. You would know if you bothered to check them, so you clearly didn't. Why should I even talk to someone who is as stubborn as you?

    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    The round turrets of the T-series were made to cover flanks when showing front (skirting) but see how the hull wasn't made in a round shape, guess why? Oh I know stupid, incapable Soviet engineers. And they also tried to have an ovoidal hull as well, no need to tell me. However that skirting used on the turret, was done so to save both weight and material, by having the maximum amount of coverage WHILE SHOWING FRONT. However SHOWING FRONT is not a god given right.


    Wow, you are so very rude. I'm pretty sure that you are breaking some forum rule right now, actually. But moving on:

    1. Hull shapes other than regular rectangles are difficult to pull off.
    2. What is "skirting"? Tank turrets don't have skirts.
    3. T-64 came with "gill" armour that flipped out and provided shaped charge protection for the hull for a 60-degree frontal arc.
    4. Soviets technical documents show that they quantified armour protection at a side angle of 30 degrees, and that one of the most important criteria for tank turrets was to be able to survive hits from a 30 degree side angle.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    Now as for AT immobilization hits, the US found out of their sample, that most of the hits by AT guns (i stress out this) were on rear and tracks. Most in this case being 69%. So 69% were hit on weaker spots and Flanks/rear.


    I don't know if you realize this, but you should should be informed that the information I shared did not contradict this at all. I said that the frontal arc of 70 degrees of the tank received the majority of hits, but it seems that you saw the word "front" and lost your shit thinking that I said that the majority of hits landed on the front of the tank. The frontal arc includes the sides of the tank, but side shots do not necessarily mean hitting the side of the tank at a perpendicular angle. Most shots impact at an angle to the side, and the distribution of hits at different angles is what I am referring to.


    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    So which is this source that shows that you are going to get hit frontally on 70% of the time. The idea of head on attack works if you have a careful situational awareness and positional skill. However it is VERY rare that you get to lead an assault through head on. The actual very idea of conventional mechanized warfare is one of pivot and covering your damn flanks. WHY? Because at some point you are going to have three things happening to your damn attack.

    1. Break through & Focus on exploitation. This causes you to have the brunt of the enemy on your back. Yes a kettle will open the way for enemy reinforcements to hit you on your back.
    2. Wood and icing. Your attack hits hard wood and it starts to stall, you get pinned and the enemy WILL ABSOLUTELY try to go around.
    3. Transition period after break through that will see you and the enemy in limbo. Looking for each other.


    In a nutshell, you will be able to get the enemy in front of your sights if you manage other areas of combat that do not need your tank have super duper Sabot rounds. Those areas will allow you to maintain a high percentage of advantage and initiative (ergo showing the strongest part of the armor to the enemy). There's a causality there, but it is not automatic.


    I never asked for your opinion on head on attacks, nor did I say that head on attacks are where tanks are going to get hit frontally. I also didn't say that tanks get hit from the front 70% of the time. I said that the 70-degree frontal arc of a tank receives the majority of hits. You are utterly confused, you poor, poor man.

    I already listed the sources that I referred to. Your eyesight must be absolutely terrible...

    Grigoryan, V.A, Tank Armour (Защита Танков), 2007

    Grigoryan, V.A, Ammunition (Боеприпасы), 2005

    Shevchenko, Ya.V, Actual problems of protection and safety: Proceedings of the Eighth All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference (Актуальные проблемы защиты и безопасности: Труды Восьмой Всероссийской научно-практической конференции), April 4-7, 2005

    Held, M, Warhead Hit Distribution on Main Battle Tanks in The Gulf War, 2000


    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    With the new portable threats, the very strength of the armored vehicle is being challenged, especially in an exploitation movement. A light vehicle, with an ATGM provides, more mobility, less footprint and detectability than the said tank. There is no sense to bringing tank to tank combat idiocy when we are talking about how the Marder M1A3 is ill suited into a discussion as a far superior APC/IFV than the BMP2. If you are going to box the BMP to front only then you are indeed cherry picking.


    It's pretty clear that you are confused, because you think that I said "70% of hits land on the front of a tank", and that the BMP is going to be hit from the front only. I'm really surprised, because you definitely acknowledged that I said "70 degree arc" in an earlier comment, as you can see:

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    2. You are looking at this equation in a very narrow way and i am willing to take your "70° arc protection" as a sounding absurdity. The Enemy will not attack you on your strongest side, that's nonsense.


    Come back to talk once you are sober, or just PM me. This is getting a little off topic, especially if you continue to ramble on like you did.

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 808
    Points : 975
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Mindstorm on Mon Nov 27, 2017 12:34 pm

    Interlinked wrote:I am quite sure that if I wrote "T-90 is the best modern tank in the world" it would get 10/10 review from you

    The most correct sentence would be: " T-90 represent at today the most technically/cost efficient mass produced MBT at world conceived for large scale conflicts"
    But you would never get so much intellectual honesty Smile

    You are too busy using half-facts , constructed cases, false inferences while contemporaneously attempting to focus other’s attention on some details of vehicle's design or weapon suits, in your opinion, "favouring" western-built types ,- like your debate here around KE ammunitions for IFV - to ever notice that domestic samples show very often features and capabilities ,immeasurably more decisive in actual large scale conflict against a peer/near-peer opponent, not having ANY western counterpart to even render possible to execute a comparison
    Only to remain in the above mentioned debate about IFVs :

    - Where is the western IFV equivalent of the domestic amphibious capability of БМП/БМД family allowing them to pass and attack from : rivers, lakes, canals and even sea ? This capability singlehandedly allow to achieve force concentration overmatch both on the offensivee than in the defensive operations against enemy forces self-channeled around bridges ,engineering companies or elevated coast sectors and complicate enormously placement of defensive area defense assets -such as minefields-.

    - Where is the western IFV equivalent of the domestic БМП-3/БМД-4 capability to shoot 100 mm ammunition (both in direct and indirect fire ) while retaining capability to shot medium caliber 30 mm autocannon ?
    This capability allow to destroy enemy installations, radars, bunkers, FOB, or infantry ATGM fire positions stationing safely from well outside their engagement footprint  - including any version of BGM-71 or FGM-114 - while retaining full mobility to evade artillery fire barrage.

    - Where is the western IFV counterpart of the domestic БМП-3/БМД-4 capability to shoot long range GLMs ,at any extend immune to know ECM systems, on the move ?  

    - Where is the western IFV counterpart of the domestic БМП-3/БМД-4 capability to allow transported soldiers to shoot MANPADS directly from the moving ?
    A capability always most important in modern UAV-rich battlefield.

    -Where is an enemy IFV offering a similar so small target area to enemy LOS fire like БМП-3/БМД-4 ?
    A defensive feature truly decisive in maneuvering battlles against enemy MBT/IFV/APC.

    -Where is western-built IFV that can be air-dropped directly behind enemy defensive lines with the crew within like БМД-4 ?
    -Where is a western-buit IFV with the same strategic mobility БМП-3/БМД-4?  (mostly thanks to theirs very low volume and weight)

    - Where is a western-buit IFV with a medium-caliber cannon with similar rate of fire of domestic 2A42/2A72 ?

    This feature allow not only a reliable engagement ,at vastly greater range in comparison with cannons with lower RoF, of helicopters and UAVs but also of enemy IFV/APC (that obviously never maintain a constant speed and direction in actual battles.  
    And so on……

    Said that is important to remember that any choice in military systems design is a compromise (for example employing the same materials you cannot reach the same level of ballistic protection of a Puma IFV with a vehicle within the weight class of БМП-3/БМД-4); but is clearly evident that any western designer would have rushed to integrate in theirs IFV design the previously mentioned features ,producing immeasurably greater impact on battle efficiency  (instead of enormously increase internal volume and weight to obtain in return only a middle increase of ballistic protection or invest in costly ammunitions only for partially off-set the lower caliber/rate of fire of theirs IFV autocannons in comparison with those standard of theirs likely enemies) owning the technological and engineering base to do that.


    But i image that for an enthusiast with a “weakness” for western-built military systems is better to focus the attention on the characteristics of M791 or M919 round (conceived clearly to offset the hard limitations produced by projectile mass/muzzle energy/rate of fire of theirs 25 mm cannon against the standard gun 30 mm of the OPFOR) against 3УБР-6 sustaining that 3УБР-8 (domestic version) is not produced for Federation forces Razz

    Just for the chronicle that is what offer today for export Rosoboronexport (export version)







    Interlinked wrote:"performance representative of foreign samples", not actual foreign samples. Can you give me an example of a modern foreign APFSDS round that has five fins? No, you can't. Germany exports DM33, and the U.S exports KEW-A2. Both have six fins. The marks in the photo show five, which hints that it was made by domestic APFSDS, and this was what I was saying all along. Are you disputing this?



    Obviously this photo represent a simulation with domestic APFSDS  Very Happy  (tests employing actual foreign samples of any kind, collected from both from theatre of conflicts of foreign Armies or by operatives of the illegal spy network, are obviously covered by strict State secrets to prevent potential opponents to get any hint on the level of our knowledge about the specifics of theirs sytems. The same is true aboard).

    But ,as you well know, the point in question was, from the beginning, the size of those KE penetrator's holes in MBT targets im ,in mine thesis some times bigger (from 2 to 4 times) than its diameter with a variance dependant on distance of fire, yaw, residual or parassitic spin (for very long distance shots) and material composition of, it in your thesis equal to its phisical diameter.



    Interlinked wrote:Size of the holes made by KEW-A2 APFSDS at 1.7 km. By your "tunneling" theory, it should have made big holes as well. Hmmm. Must have been those damn NATO dogs falsifying those holes by actually firing at short range...




    1) You should learn to read what other write (that is also true for the documents you cite supposedly at support of your thesis  Rolling Eyes )  ....and possibly also understand...... Razz



    Mindstorm wrote:When delivered at very short range and/or against some kind of targets (like some alluminium alloy surfaces or.......paper made fire-range targets ) where.......you will obserbe small APDSFS holes"


    Obviously, as your standard, you have failed also to take into account difference in size of the target (the APFSDS target is almost 3 times bigger)
    Facts also on those kind of not dense/viscous target, physical holes of APFSDS is always bigger than diameter of the KE penetrator.
    If your theory would hold some water on each side of those 1 square meter your could put side-to-side 40-50 APFSDS holes (2/2,5 cm diameter), instead those are 3 -4 times bigger.
    Thanks to have proved mine point   Cool

       

    To be continued about the study of M. Held on hit distribution in pasted conflicts used by Interlinked to prove its thesis" in exact opposition to its finding.......


    Last edited by Mindstorm on Tue Nov 28, 2017 9:14 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    Interlinked

    Posts : 160
    Points : 162
    Join date : 2017-11-07

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Interlinked on Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:47 pm

    Mindstorm wrote:

    The most correct sentence would be: " T-90 represent at today the most technically/cost efficient mass produced MBT at world conceived for large scale conflicts"
    But you would never get so much intellectual honesty Smile


    How can I contradict you if you worded it that way?  Wink  This is, of course, a completely different can of worms that I do not want to open in a thread about the T-72, which has already been derailed by silly stuff about autocannon ammunition. We can continue this particular topic in the T-90 thread if you wish.

    Mindstorm wrote:

    You are too busy using half-facts , constructed cases, false inferences while contemporaneously attempting to focus other’s attention on some details of vehicle's design or weapon suits, in your opinion, "favouring" western-built types ,- like your debate here around KE ammunitions for IFV - to ever notice that domestic samples show very often features and capabilities ,immeasurably more decisive in actual large scale conflict against a peer/near-peer opponent, not having ANY western counterpart to even render possible to execute a comparison
    Only to remain in the above mentioned debate about IFVs :

    - Where is the western IFV equivalent of the domestic amphibious capability of БМП/БМД family allowing them to pass and attack from : rivers, lakes, canals and even sea ? This capability singlehandedly allow to achieve force concentration overmatch both on the offensivee than in the defensive operations against enemy forces self-channeled around bridges ,engineering companies or elevated coast sectors and complicate enormously placement of defensive area defense assets -such as minefields-.

    - Where is the western IFV equivalent of the domestic БМП-3/БМД-4 capability to shoot 100 mm ammunition (both in direct and indirect fire ) while retaining capability to shot medium caliber 30 mm autocannon ?
    This capability allow to destroy enemy installations, radars, bunkers, FOB, or infantry ATGM fire positions stationing safely from well outside their engagement footprint  - including any version of BGM-71 or FGM-114 - while retaining full mobility to evade artillery fire barrage.

    - Where is the western IFV counterpart of the domestic БМП-3/БМД-4 capability to shoot long range GLMs ,at any extend immune to know ECM systems, on the move ?  

    - Where is the western IFV counterpart of the domestic БМП-3/БМД-4 capability to allow transported soldiers to shoot MANPADS directly from the moving ?
    A capability always most important in modern UAV-rich battlefield.

    -Where is an enemy IFV offering a similar so small target area to enemy LOS fire like БМП-3/БМД-4 ?
    A defensive feature truly decisive in maneuvering battlles against enemy MBT/IFV/APC.

    -Where is western-built IFV that can be air-dropped directly behind enemy defensive lines with the crew within like БМД-4 ?
    -Where is a western-buit IFV with the same strategic mobility БМП-3/БМД-4?  (mostly thanks to theirs very low volume and weight)

    - Where is a western-buit IFV with a medium-caliber cannon with similar rate of fire of domestic 2A42/2A72 ?

    This feature allow not only a reliable engagement ,at vastly greater range in comparison with cannons with lower RoF, of helicopters and UAVs but also of enemy IFV/APC (that obviously never maintain a constant speed and direction in actual battles.  
    And so on……




    Just because I think that modern Russian IFVs require a decent APDS (or APFSDS) round doesn't mean that I despise Russian IFVs. My position was never to degrade Soviet or Russian arms and armoured vehicles; I provide constructive criticism where it is necessary. Does the 2A42 have a high rate of fire? Yes. All the better for the crew to choke on gunpowder fumes. They tried to solve this issue by installing the cannon in an external mount like the Marder 1, but couldn't because the turret could not maintain a seal good enough to work in a contaminated environment. I would know. I wrote a fairly extensive piece on the BMP-2.



    Speaking of the Marder 1, it has an Rh202 20mm cannon that fires at 800-1000 RPM and can fire DM63 APDS rounds that have slightly more penetration than M791 rounds for the Bradley's M242. Also, the faster 20mm and 25mm APDS rounds make it much easier to hit moving targets at long range, so saturation fire isn't the most optimal solution. It's a viable solution, but it comes with a bunch of disadvantages. Is the 2A42 really that special? It's a good, dependable and effective weapon, but it's not like it's a miracle or anything, as you were implying.

    Having a 100mm low pressure gun isn't necessarily the bee's knees. The new "Epoch" turret doesn't have one, and there have been no further developments in this direction for a long time. The current trend is larger caliber autocannons; 40mm, 57mm, etc. Indirect fire is left to hardware designed for indirect fire, and keeping a 100mm gun just to be able to conduct direct fire may not be the wisest choice if it is incompatible with other, more promising concepts, such as unmanned turrets. We can appreciate the BMP-3 and BMD-4 (and I do), but don't go around praising it like it's the second coming of Christ.

    Practically all Western IFV allows its passengers to pop out of a roof hatch to fire MANPADS at air targets while the vehicle is moving. How will BMDs parachute behind enemy lines? Wouldn't a great big cargo plane be seen from hundreds of miles away? The BMD series are good for rapid response situations, but parachuting behind enemy lines is just implausible, and has been for many years. I'm sure I missed one or two of your other points, but you have to remember that this is a thread about the T-72. If you want to talk about BMPs and BMDs, take it to the appropriate thread.



    Mindstorm wrote:

    Said that is important to remember that any choice in military systems design is a compromise (for example employing the same materials you cannot reach the same level of ballistic protection of a Puma IFV with a vehicle within the weight class of БМП-3/БМД-4); but is clearly evident that any western designer would have rushed to integrate in theirs IFV design the previously mentioned features ,producing immeasurably greater impact on battle efficiency  (instead of enormously increase internal volume and weight to obtain in return only a middle increase of ballistic protection or invest in costly ammunitions only for partially off-set the lower caliber/rate of fire of theirs IFV autocannons in comparison with those standard of theirs likely enemies) owning the technological and engineering base to do that.



    I won't bother talking about what you think about Western IFVs vs Soviet/Russian IFVs or what fantasies you have in general, but it is factually incorrect that Western autocannons lacked the technological and engineering base to produce quick-firing autocannons. Having smaller calibers and generally lower rates of fire does not indicate that there was a technological hurdle that they failed to cross. It was a question of accuracy and first round hit probabilities. That was actually one of the reasons why APDS was chosen for the M242 from the beginning. The high rate of fire of the 2A42 badly affects its accuracy, even in bursts. If you want to have a laugh, go watch a video of BMP-2 gunners trying to score even one hit at the firing range:





    Why use APDS? Because the chances of scoring a hit and doing some damage are higher than if they used AP-T. That's basically it. It's mentioned somewhere in here: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a262492.pdf

    Funnily enough, the document also says this (take note GarryB):

    "The M792 HEI-T round will not be considered. The round-to-round random dispersion of the HEI-T is significantly greater than that of APDS-T which would presumably lead to significantly different results"

    So a full caliber round has greater dispersion than an APDS round. Well, how about that...


    Mindstorm wrote:

    But i image that for an enthusiast with a “weakness” for western-built military systems is better to focus the attention on the characteristics of M791 or M919 round (conceived clearly to offset the hard limitations produced by projectile mass/muzzle energy/rate of fire of theirs 25 mm cannon against the standard gun 30 mm of the OPFOR) against 3УБР-6 sustaining that 3УБР-8 (domestic version) is not produced for Federation forces Razz

    Just for the chronicle that is what offer today for export Rosoboronexport (export version)





    Unfortunately, the facts do not entirely line up in your favour. The chamber pressure of the M242 ranges from 360-410 MPa, depending on the ammunition it fires. M919 would be at the high end, of course. Chamber pressure of the 2A42 when firing 3UBR-6 is only 353 MPa. Let's not even bother comparing the 2A42 to a 30x173mm chain gun, eh?

    Oh sure, they offer 30mm APFSDS in the 30x165mm caliber. Too bad the Russian Army doesn't get any of it.



    Mindstorm wrote:

    Obviously this photo represent a simulation with domestic APFSDS  Very Happy  (tests employing actual foreign samples of any kind, collected from both from theatre of conflicts of foreign Armies or by operatives of the illegal spy network, are obviously covered by strict State secrets to prevent potential opponents to get any hint on the level of our knowledge about the specifics of theirs sytems. The same is true aboard).

    But ,as you well know, the point in question was, from the beginning, the size of those KE penetrator's holes in MBT targets im ,in mine thesis some times bigger (from 2 to 4 times) than its diameter with a variance dependant on distance of fire, yaw, residual or parassitic spin (for very long distance shots) and material composition of, it in your thesis equal to its phisical diameter.



    The relatively large diameter of the cavity you see is - as I have patiently explained - due to the presence of a jacket. I have given you multiple examples of the types of holes created by unjacketed monoblock rounds like DM33.



    Mindstorm wrote:

    1) You should learn to read what other write (that is also true for the documents you cite supposedly at support of your thesis  Rolling Eyes )  ....and possibly also understand...... Razz

    Mindstorm wrote:
    Mindstorm wrote:When delivered at very short range and/or against some kind of targets (like some alluminium alloy surfaces or.......paper made fire-range targets ) where.......you will obserbe small APDSFS holes"


    Obviously, as your standard, you have failed also to take into account difference in size of the target (the APFSDS target is almost 3 times bigger)
    Facts also on those kind of not dense/viscous target, physical holes of APFSDS is always bigger than diameter of the KE penetrator.
    If your theory would hold some water on each side of those 1 square meter your could put side-to-side 40-50 APFSDS holes (2/2,5 cm diameter), instead those are 3 -4 times bigger.
    Thanks to have proved mine point   Cool



    Where did I misread you? You said that small APFSDS holes are created at very short range, but the photos I show are for ranges of 1.7 km, and those targets aren't exactly dense. BTW, all of the squares in all of the targets are 1 m^2. They didn't triple the size of the squares to shoot APFSDS at... How do you keep on inventing these fantasies? dunno  I am really tired of this. Here it is, all in one picture. MPAT on the left, APFSDS on the right. Take out a ruler or something and slap it on your screen, and I'm pretty sure that those holes will come out at 80mm and 24mm (give or take a few millimeters), MPAT and APFSDS respectively. EDIT: Actually I did it for you using MS Paint and comparing pixels. Size of the MPAT holes comes out to 76mm and APFSDS holes is 26mm. Close enough.



    I do not need or want to say any more.
       
    Mindstorm wrote:

    To be continued about the study of M. Held on hit distribution in pasted conflicts used by Interlinked to prove its thesis" in exact opposition to its finding.......


    To be continued indeed. I hope your theory about quantum tunneling or whatever it is isn't based on that photo of the T-54 turret hit by 100mm APCBC... If you want to rant, just PM me. Do not force these good people to suffer. No

    Sponsored content

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Sep 21, 2018 8:58 am