Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Share
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 774
    Points : 776
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Isos on Thu May 26, 2016 9:53 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    Isos wrote:

    He does not like that video or how it is advertized.

    He is a fanat of his own believes, i doubt he will be convinced of actual footage of either.



    In this one, you can see the impact. I don't speak russian, so I'm sure if it's real or not.

    Seems to be effective against active protection.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16281
    Points : 16912
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  GarryB on Fri May 27, 2016 8:17 am

    This is not a discussion, it is an argument, and it is going around in circles.

    There are also rather more personal attacks than I am happy with so this thread is going to be locked.

    DO NOT START ANOTHER THREAD ON THIS TOPIC.

    After some time has passed I will unlock this thread and we can have a civil conversation about this topic.

    Reason, considered debate.

    We clearly need time to calm down and think about why we come here and what our goals and objectives are.

    Regards
    GarryB


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

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

    Posts : 2979
    Points : 3011
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    How the Pentagon is Preparing for a Tank War With Russia

    Post  max steel on Sun May 29, 2016 9:57 pm

    How the Pentagon is Preparing for a Tank War With Russia

    Reactive armor and cross-domain fire capabilities are just some of the items on the Army’s must-have list.

    When Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster briefs, it’s like Gen. Patton giving a TED talk — a domineering physical presence with bristling intellectual intensity.

    These days, the charismatic director of the Army’s Capabilities Integration Center is knee-deep in a project called The Russia New Generation Warfare study, an analysis of how Russia is re-inventing land warfare in the mud of Eastern Ukraine. Speaking recently at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., McMaster said that the two-year-old conflict had revealed that the Russians have superior artillery firepower, better combat vehicles, and have learned sophisticated use of UAVs for tactical effect. Should U.S. forces find themselves in a land war with Russia, he said, they would be in for a rude, cold awakening.

    “We spend a long time talking about winning long-range missile duels,” said McMaster. But long-range missiles only get you through the front door. The question then becomes what will you do when you get there.

    “Look at the enemy countermeasures,” he said, noting Russia’s use of nominally semi-professional forces who are capable of “dispersion, concealment, intermingling with civilian populations…the ability to disrupt our network strike capability, precision navigation and timing capabilities.” All of that means “you’re probably going to have a close fight… Increasingly, close combat overmatch is an area we’ve neglected, because we’ve taken it for granted.”

    So how do you restore overmatch? The recipe that’s emerging from the battlefield of Ukraine, says McMaster, is more artillery and better artillery, a mix of old and new.

    Cross-Domain Fires

    “We’re out-ranged by a lot of these systems and they employ improved conventional munitions, which we are going away from. There will be a 40- to 60-percent reduction in lethality in the systems that we have,” he said. “Remember that we already have fewer artillery systems. Now those fewer artillery systems will be less effective relative to the enemy. So we need to do something on that now.”

    To remedy that, McMaster is looking into a new area called “cross domain fires,” which would outfit ground units to hit a much wider array of targets. “When an Army fires unit arrives somewhere, it should be able to do surface-to-air, surface-to-surface, and shore-to-ship capabilities. We are developing that now and there are some really promising capabilities,” he said.

    While the full report has not been made public, “a lot of this is available open source” said McMaster, “in the work that Phil Karber has done, for example.”

    Karber, the president of the Potomac Foundation, went on a fact-finding mission to Ukraine last year, and returned with the conclusion that the United States had long overemphasized precision artillery on the battlefield at the expense of mass fires. Since the 1980s, he said last October, at an Association for the United States Army event, the U.S. has given up its qualitative edge, mostly by getting rid of cluster munitions.

    Munitions have advanced incredibly since then. One of the most terrifying weapons that the Russians are using on the battlefield are thermobaric warheads, weapons that are composed almost entirely of fuel and burn longer and with more intensity than other types of munitions.

    “In a 3-minute period…a Russian fire strike wiped out two mechanized battalions [with] a combination of top-attack munitions and thermobaric warheads,” said Karber. “If you have not experienced or seen the effects of thermobaric warheads, start taking a hard look. They might soon be coming to a theater near you.”

    Karber also noted that Russian forces made heavy and integrated use of electronic warfare. It’s used to identify fire sources and command posts and to shut down voice and data communications. In the northern section, he said, “every single tactical radio [the Ukrainian forces] had was taken out by heavy Russian sector-wide EW.” Other EW efforts had taken down Ukrainian quadcopters. Another system was being used to mess with the electrical fuses on Ukrainian artillery shells, ”so when they hit, they’re duds,” he said.

    Karber also said the pro-Russian troops in Donbas were using an overlapping mobile radar as well as a new man-portable air defense that’s “integrated into their network and can’t be spoofed by [infrared] decoys” or flares.

    Combat Vehicles and Defenses


    The problems aren’t just with rockets and shells, McMaster said. Even American combat vehicles have lost their edge.

    “The Bradley [Fighting Vehicle] is great,” he said, but “what we see now is that our enemies have caught up to us. They’ve invested in combat vehicles. They’ve invested in advanced protective systems and active protective systems. We’ve got to get back ahead on combat vehicle development.”

    If the war in Eastern Ukraine were a real-world test, the Russian T-90 tank passed with flying colors. The tank had seen action in Dagestan and Syria, but has been particularly decisive in Ukraine. The Ukrainians, Karber said, “have not been able to record one single kill on a T-90. They have the new French optics on them. The Russians actually designed them to take advantage of low light, foggy, winter conditions.”

    What makes the T-90 so tough? For starters, explosive reactive armor. When you fire a missile at the tank, its skin of metal plates and explosives reacts. The explosive charge clamps the plates together so the rocket can’t pierce the hull.

    But that’s only if the missile gets close enough. The latest thing in vehicle defense is active protection systems, or APS, which automatically spot incoming shells and target them with electronic jammers or just shoot them down. “It might use electronics to ‘confuse’ an incoming round, or it might use mass (outgoing bullets, rockets) to destroy the incoming round before it gets too close,” Army director for basic research Jeff Singleton told Defense One in an email.

    The T-90’s active protective system is the Shtora-1 countermeasures suite. “I’ve interviewed Ukrainian tank gunners,” said Karber. “They’ll say ‘I had my [anti-tank weapon] right on it, it got right up to it and then they had this miraculous shield. An invisible shield. Suddenly, my anti-tank missile just went up to the sky.’”

    The Pentagon is well behind some other militaries on this research. Israeli forces declared its Trophy APS operational in 2009, integrated it onto tanks since 2010, and has been using it to protect Israeli tank soldiers from Hamas rockets ever since.

    Singleton said the United States is looking to give its Abrams tank the Trophy, which uses buckshot-like guns to down incoming fire without harming nearby troops.

    The Army is also experimenting with the Israeli-made Iron Curtain APS for the Stryker, which works similarly, and one for the Bradley that has yet to be named. Raytheon has a system called the Quick Kill that uses a scanned array radar and a small missile to shoot down incoming projectiles.

    Anti-Drone Defenses

    One of the defining features of the war in Eastern Ukraine is the use of drones by both sides, not to target high-value terrorists but to direct fire in the same way forces used the first combat aircraft in World War I.

    The past has a funny way of re-inventing itself, says McMaster.

    “I never had to look up in my whole career and say, ‘Is it friendly or enemy?’ because of the U.S. Air Force. We have to do that now,” said McMaster. “Our Air Force gave us an unprecedented period of air supremacy…that changed the dynamics of ground combat. Now, you can’t bank on that.”

    Pro-Russian forces use as many as 16 types of UAVs for targeting.

    Russian forces are known to have “a 90-kilometer [Multiple Launch Rocket System] round, that goes out, parachute comes up, a UAV pops out, wings unfold, and they fly it around, it can strike a mobile target” said Karber, who said he wasn’t sure it had yet been used in Ukraine.

    Karber’s track record for accuracy is less than perfect, as writer Jeffrey Lewis has pointed out in Foreign Policy. At various points, he has inflated estimates of China’s nuclear arsenal from some 300 weapons (based on declassified estimates) to 3,000 squirreled away in mysterious tunnels, a claim that many were able to quickly debunk. In 2014, he helped pass photos to Sen. James Inhofe of the Senate Armed Services Committee that purported to be recent images of Russian forces inside Ukraine. It turned out they were AP photographs from 2008.

    “In the haste of running for the airport and trying to respond to a last-minute request with short time fuse,” Karber said by way of explanation, “I made the mistake of believing we were talking about the same photos … and it never occurred to me that the three photos of Russian armor were part of that package or being considered.”

    No Foolproof Technological Solution

    All of these technologies could shape the future battlefield, but none of them are silver bullets, nor do they, in McMaster’s view, offset the importance of human beings in gaining territory, holding territory, and changing facts on the ground to align with mission objectives.

    As the current debate about the authorization for the use of force in Iraq shows, the commitment of large numbers of U.S. ground troops to conflict has become a political nonstarter for both parties. In lieu of a political willingness to put troops in the fight, multi-sectarian, multi-ethnic forces will take the lead, just as they are doing now in Iraq and Syria.

    “What’s necessary is political accommodation, is what needs to happen, if we don’t conduct operations and plan campaigns in a way that gets to the political accommodation,” he said. “The most important activity will be to broker political ceasefires and understandings.”

    Sometimes that happens at the end of a tank gun.
    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7255
    Points : 7555
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  sepheronx on Sun May 29, 2016 11:30 pm

    They will have to come up with something newer than Abrams Laughing
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2979
    Points : 3011
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  max steel on Sun May 29, 2016 11:34 pm

    Well M1A3SEP design is still on the board. Rest US most advanced tank till date performance among european nations : http://www.russiadefence.net/t3396p75-nato-discussion-and-news#165157
    avatar
    VladimirSahin

    Posts : 414
    Points : 432
    Join date : 2013-11-29
    Age : 26
    Location : Florida

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  VladimirSahin on Mon May 30, 2016 12:30 am

    sepheronx wrote:They will have to come up with something newer than Abrams Laughing

    Abrams is an expensive tank to maintain, and the weight makes it a bum to move around to war when it needs too. Although combat wise it is very capable, M1A2 SEPs are better than T-72B3s. T-90As would face problems fighting this tank. I was hoping the MoD would atleast buy T-90Ms but no signs of the orders. So we are kind of left with the T-14, which is a totally new design.
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2979
    Points : 3011
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  max steel on Mon May 30, 2016 12:33 am

    Then it means German tanks are much more capable than russian mbt's.
    avatar
    VladimirSahin

    Posts : 414
    Points : 432
    Join date : 2013-11-29
    Age : 26
    Location : Florida

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  VladimirSahin on Mon May 30, 2016 12:40 am

    max steel wrote:Then it means German tanks are much more capable than russian mbt's.

    That is not to say the T-72B3s cannot face it, or the T-90As cannot face it. Specs wise the T-72B3 falls under the M1A2 SEP Abrams. The T-90A can face it better so, T-90A has better armor compared to the T-72B3. The thing that is lacking on the T-72B3 is the commander's sight. Armor can be penetrated either way, the T-72B3 can destroy M1A2s as well. It is the optics that matter, as well as to a certain extent armor. In Europe the average combat range for tanks is estimated to be 1.6-2 KMs so it wont matter much, the T-72B3 should be able to fair good against NATO tanks, in the 1-2 KM range. And if it is able to spot NATO tanks first farther it can use ATGMs to engage NATO heavy armor. Let me be more specific, The T-72B3 is a capable tank. But it lacks stuff like a commanders independent viewer. It's also lacking against NATO APFDS rounds. The M1A2 can have success at penetrating the T-72B3 @ 2KM from the turret. Where as the T-72B3 has to hit the hull of the Abrams to ensure a kill at that range.


    Last edited by VladimirSahin on Mon May 30, 2016 12:45 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7255
    Points : 7555
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    How the Pentagon is Preparing for a Tank War With Russia

    Post  sepheronx on Mon May 30, 2016 12:48 am

    Heavy tanks wont fare very well in marsh land and other parts of Russia's western regions.

    Add to that, with their large and bulky design, they are much easier targets for atgm crew. Tanks never fight 1 on 1 anymore. That said, the tanks the west have are good, but extremely expensive and apparently maintenance hungry.
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10215
    Points : 10703
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  George1 on Sun Jul 31, 2016 4:47 pm

    High-Tech Face Off: Russia's New 'Super Tank' Armata Vs US-Made TOW Missiles

    Russia's new "super tank," the T-14 Armata, appears to be well-protected against one of the most commonly used anti-tank missiles in the world, the "stalwart" US-made BGM-71 TOW, defense analyst Sebastien Roblin wrote for the National Interest, but there is a twist.

    The expert compared Armata's defensive capabilities with technical characteristics of two TOW variants, 2A and 2B. The first uses a wire-guidance system that allows the operator to correct the course of the missile while it is in the air.

    "The wire-guidance system has the advantage of being immune to most forms of jamming. However, it requires the firer to remain in place, aiming the missile for its entire flight time until it hits the target. Countermeasures that make the target hard to see – such as plain old-fashioned smoke – can mess up the firer's aim," he explained.

    The TOW-2A's chances to hurt Russia's new generation main battle tank (MBT) are slim. The tank has the Afganit Active Protection System that is capable of misdirecting missiles via its soft kill capabilities or shooting down missiles if the former does not work.

    "Against a wire-guided system, the T-14's soft kill system will work if the Armata's radars are effective and the crew is quick enough to move the tank to a new position while the missile is in flight. The active-kill system, however, might have a good chance of taking out the missile if it's as good as it's cracked up to be," the expert noted.

    If the Afganit system fails to protect the Armata, the T-14 has the Relikt Explosive Reactive Armor (ERA) which will complicate matters for the TOW-2A even further. In total, Roblin concluded that several TOW-2A missiles will have to be launched so that one of them could penetrate the tank's armor.

    Armata apparently does not have to worry about the wire-guided TOW-2A, but the top-attack TOW-2B that employs wireless-guidance using a stealth frequency is a different story.

    The TOW-2B is capable of penetrating the tank's top armor, disabling its unmanned turret and negating its offensive capabilities because the Afganit system is not meant to protect the MBT from this type of attack. In addition, the Relikt ERA does not provide sufficient protection against top-attack missiles.

    Nevertheless, the tank's crew will not be affected by the TOW-2B strike even if it is successful and will most likely leave the battlefield intact.

    "In the end, the T-14 appears to boast some decent defenses against the TOW, particularly the TOW-2A, but how well they will work in combat is a question even the American and Russian manufacturers can only guess at," Roblin observed.

    http://sputniknews.com/military/20160731/1043806497/t14-armata-tow-missiles.html


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3905
    Points : 3936
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Sun Jul 31, 2016 7:17 pm

    George1 wrote:High-Tech Face Off: Russia's New 'Super Tank' Armata Vs US-Made TOW Missiles

    Russia's new "super tank," the T-14 Armata, appears to be well-protected against one of the most commonly used anti-tank missiles in the world, the "stalwart" US-made BGM-71 TOW, defense analyst Sebastien Roblin wrote for the National Interest, but there is a twist.

    The expert compared Armata's defensive capabilities with technical characteristics of two TOW variants, 2A and 2B. The first uses a wire-guidance system that allows the operator to correct the course of the missile while it is in the air.

    "The wire-guidance system has the advantage of being immune to most forms of jamming. However, it requires the firer to remain in place, aiming the missile for its entire flight time until it hits the target. Countermeasures that make the target hard to see – such as plain old-fashioned smoke – can mess up the firer's aim," he explained.

    The TOW-2A's chances to hurt Russia's new generation main battle tank (MBT) are slim. The tank has the Afganit Active Protection System that is capable of misdirecting missiles via its soft kill capabilities or shooting down missiles if the former does not work.

    "Against a wire-guided system, the T-14's soft kill system will work if the Armata's radars are effective and the crew is quick enough to move the tank to a new position while the missile is in flight. The active-kill system, however, might have a good chance of taking out the missile if it's as good as it's cracked up to be," the expert noted.

    If the Afganit system fails to protect the Armata, the T-14 has the Relikt Explosive Reactive Armor (ERA) which will complicate matters for the TOW-2A even further. In total, Roblin concluded that several TOW-2A missiles will have to be launched so that one of them could penetrate the tank's armor.

    Armata apparently does not have to worry about the wire-guided TOW-2A, but the top-attack TOW-2B that employs wireless-guidance using a stealth frequency is a different story.

    The TOW-2B is capable of penetrating the tank's top armor, disabling its unmanned turret and negating its offensive capabilities because the Afganit system is not meant to protect the MBT from this type of attack. In addition, the Relikt ERA does not provide sufficient protection against top-attack missiles.

    Nevertheless, the tank's crew will not be affected by the TOW-2B strike even if it is successful and will most likely leave the battlefield intact.

    "In the end, the T-14 appears to boast some decent defenses against the TOW, particularly the TOW-2A, but how well they will work in combat is a question even the American and Russian manufacturers can only guess at," Roblin observed.

    http://sputniknews.com/military/20160731/1043806497/t14-armata-tow-missiles.html

    WTF is this...We already know that TOW-2A has issues with T90 frontal Arc...so what good is it to "test" the 2A which is obsolete for the tip of the spear action, with a tank that in all aspects IS better than the one we know impervious (in part) to the BGM71-E1 variant.

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 771
    Points : 952
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Mindstorm on Sun Jul 31, 2016 7:29 pm

    "High-Tech Face Off: Russia's New 'Super Tank' Armata Vs US-Made TOW Missiles"

    Relikt ERA on T-14 ? TOW (in any shape and version) against a T-14 ?

    Oh please......Razz Razz Razz


    Sometime i ask myself if a similar absurd ignorant truly believe to be an "expert" or reference authority ,or is aware to tarnish, with each word it profere, its image and, more in general, that of western geo-political and military analyst community.

    Its pathetic attempt to confront, or even only put in the same league, the simply outstanding capabilities of the multilayered defense suit of T-14/T-15 (that is in those hours in the process to deprive western weapon designers of theirs sleep because not simply theirs perspective weapon programs in advanced stage of development but also those even only in the early feasibility stage conceived to be introduced within 10-15 years from now, has been suddenly rendered almost completely obsolete by the integrated battallion level protection of Armata based heavy brigades) and TOW ATGM is clearly a product of an emotional imbalance and childish wishful thinking.

    If it could boast any real, specific knowledge in those subjects (instead of a self humiliating propaganda script....) ,it would be aware that НИИ Стали already in plain Cold War proved to be always at least five-six step head of western anti-tank weapon designers therefore i should more interested to know if the bulk of NATO ATGM stock would achieve even a mediocre level of success against domestic model of end of '80 years.

    About 4С23 "Реликт" on Armata platform, it is better to leave space to the same "words" of the insigned Institute :

    " НИИ стали одним из первых в мире начал исследования таких систем и сегодня имеет новый универсальный комплекс ДЗ на новых принципах, с эффективностью вдвое превышающей эффективность традиционных комплексов ДЗ типа «Реликт».
    Комплекс уже используется на перспективной боевой технике («Армата», «Курганец»).
    В прессе он уже получил название «Малахит»"








    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16281
    Points : 16912
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  GarryB on Mon Aug 01, 2016 6:47 am

    hahahaha... Afghanistan is a new generation APS system to replace Drozd and Arena... did they forget to give it capability against top attack munitions?

    The main reason the drozd and arena were not adopted was because they could not engage diving top attack missiles or missiles that fly over the defended tank...

    Does this western expert think the Russians forgot?


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

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

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 771
    Points : 952
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Mindstorm on Mon Aug 01, 2016 10:25 am


    GarryB wrote:hahahaha... Afghanistan is a new generation APS system to replace Drozd and Arena... did they forget to give it capability against top attack munitions?

    Yes Garry, but i believe that the level of understanding of similar subjects by part of that "expert" is better highlighted by its certainty that T-14 will have integrated "Relikt" ERA !!!

    Naturally as declared by the same НИИ Стали already today T-14 mount a new kind of "ERA" (even if with deep changes in its working mechanism that stress the same word ERA) that is more than two times more effcient than Relikt and it is known that is already in work a new generation of dynamic protection with efficiency on a complete another level.

    Well we have all seen the tandem warhead of advanced BGM-71E in Syria failing to overcome domestic production version of K-5 dynamic ERA mounted on first version of T-90 with cast turret not the much advanced "Relikt".

    Designers of the Institute was very pleased in getting proof directly from the operational field of the very very high level of resiliency offered by the domestic composition of K-5 ERA (in its advanced iteration) provided to Federation's armoured brigades against the tandem warhead supposedly designed by western designers to overcome it.

    In this picture 4С23 "Реликт" ERA (in its domestic iteration) already would represent an enormour leap in defensive performance......the new dynamic protection now mounted on T-14 and T-15 should not even be put in the same analysis piece.
    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1170
    Points : 1329
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    How can a few HE shells rip apart a T-72?

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:23 am

    Apparently this happened to a T-72A.http:http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/03/04/what-an-ammo-explosion-can-do/

    How the hell can 3 125mm HE shells completely shred a tank into a crater? Seriously even if the ammo is sealed off, its simply unreal. Was it poor quality?
    The way HE shells ripped apart this tank makes me think for a moment that APSFDs isnt needed and lobbing HE at tanks will easily punch holes through them. If 3 shells can obliterate a tank into tiny pieces, can 1 shell puncture its armor?
    I also wonder that if HE shells are indeed so destructive, how can blowoff panels even hope to protect their crew? It looks like even a single HE shell will rip through the bustle barrier killing the crew.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16281
    Points : 16912
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jan 23, 2017 10:08 am

    How the hell can 3 125mm HE shells completely shred a tank into a crater?

    It is called physics.

    BTW the standard HE shell for the 125mm gun has a 23kg projectile... so practically 70kg HE shell would be devastating for any vehicle.

    Seriously even if the ammo is sealed off, its simply unreal. Was it poor quality?

    Pour powder propellent onto a table and ignite it and it will disappear in a flash and puff of smoke. Put the same amount of propellant into a shell case and enclose it in the chamber of a firearm and ignite it and you will not only get a definite bang but also accelerate a projectile to enormous speeds...

    Place explosive inside a sealed container and the pressure can build up dramatically which intensifies the explosion enormously.

    The way HE shells ripped apart this tank makes me think for a moment that APSFDs isnt needed and lobbing HE at tanks will easily punch holes through them.

    HE takes the line of least resistance... a HE shell hitting flat armour plate directs the blast away from the tank. If HE shells could defeat armour there would be no need for APFSDS and HEAT shells.

    If 3 shells can obliterate a tank into tiny pieces, can 1 shell puncture its armor?

    Standard HE shells don't penetrate armour.

    I also wonder that if HE shells are indeed so destructive, how can blowoff panels even hope to protect their crew? It looks like even a single HE shell will rip through the bustle barrier killing the crew.

    It is all about pressure. Propellent stubs burning... just burn in the open air or through an open hatch. Inside the gun barrel the pressure builds up rather more and the burning propellent blowing past the shell as it exits the muzzle appears to be exploding... but in actual fact explosives burn much faster than propellent could ever burn... a propellent powder generates a lot of pressure and pushes the projectile down the barrel... which is what it is supposed to do. Replace the propellent with HE and the projectile will not be pushed down the barrel... the chamber will be shattered by the explosive detonating.... just the way this tank was detonated.

    I have seen similar images of Tiger tanks from WWII that have driven over a mine that set off their main gun ammo and shattered the tank.

    The same ammo explosion in any western tank would have the same effect...


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

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

    Sponsored content

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Aug 18, 2017 3:19 am