Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16077
    Points : 16768
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  GarryB on Thu Feb 09, 2017 10:32 am

    DU is genotoxic... if it gets into your body the body treats it like calcium and puts it in your bones.

    Outside the body its very weak radioactivity wont even penetrate skin but inside your bones the radiation mutates genetic code at the cellular level... and not comic book cool mutations like X Men... bad mutations like no arms or no legs or no brain type mutations.

    The very low level of radioactivity means they remain dangerous for thousands of years... vastly worse than any chemical or bio weapon.


    _________________
    “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
    Big_Gazza
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 581
    Points : 605
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  Big_Gazza on Thu Feb 09, 2017 2:38 pm

    GarryB wrote:DU is genotoxic... if it gets into your body the body treats it like calcium and puts it in your bones.

    Outside the body its very weak radioactivity wont even penetrate skin but inside your bones the radiation mutates genetic code at the cellular level... and not comic book cool mutations like X Men... bad mutations like no arms or no legs or no brain type mutations.

    The very low level of radioactivity means they remain dangerous for thousands of years... vastly worse than any chemical or bio weapon.
    Agreed 100%. DU is a filthy material, just about the most unethical and immoral material that one could use, short of actual nukes. The fact that the Yankistani military is so keen on its use, despite the horrendous & well documented impact it has on public health, is a great example of the intrinsic evil nature of the Western globalists and their paid enforcer class. If should only be used in very sparing circumstances, and promoting it because it is perceived as "inexpensive" is not good enough. If that is an example of the Wests guiding morality, its only a short step to underground V2 factories using slave labour...
    avatar
    eehnie
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 938
    Points : 963
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  eehnie on Thu Feb 09, 2017 6:26 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    But how about launching a laser guided round in high trajectory like howitzer round .

    But why?

    Surely it makes more sense to leave hitting targets behind the enemy front line to actual artillery vehicles where heavier calibres like 152mm shells can hit targets 70km distant.

    Infantry or uav can illuminate target tank . Range can be 15 km . But need to design tank barrel to be capable of high elevation . Design problem .

    Why bother when artillery can already do this?

    Also like howitzer . Shells can be stored in towed armored trailer behind tank . And fed into tank by small reciprocating conveyor . Many round can be carried . This trailor discarded when tank closes with enemy .

    During the Soviet conflict in Afghanistan vehicles often had trailers... though not armoured trailers, that carried extra HE shells for the use of the vehicles against unarmoured targets... they basically used them as heavily protected artillery vehicles. I suspect it would make more sense to use artillery vehicles or indeed IFVs in that role with either high velocity 57mm main guns or medium pressure larger calibre weapons like 100mm rifled guns like the 100mm gun from the BMP-3 or a 120mm gun/mortar or the Vena or other mortar carrier.

    I see very interesting for tanks to have ammunition that allows them to fight outside the range of the portable/man-portable weapons, which limit is marked by 120mm light mortars with rocket assisted ammunition.

    Why? Because it would allow to the tanks to attack infantry formations without support of heavy weapons from outside the range of every weapon that they have, without risk, and would reinforce very significantly the action of the artillery and the Surface-Surface weapons (both habitually present in much lower amounts).

    While I tend to think that the 152mm caliber is very interesting for the tanks in the armata platform and will succeed, I expect also rocket assisted ammunition for the 125mm caliber and the current tanks. 125mm ammunition always should have bigger range than the 120mm ammunition of the same type (also of other countries), and this would mean a range of around 17-18 Km.
    avatar
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5364
    Points : 5409
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  Militarov on Thu Feb 09, 2017 7:30 pm

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    Benya wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    Project Canada wrote:
    Rosatom to create ammunition for Armata tanks

    http://tass.com/defense/929501

    Ahhhh good old depleted uranium APDS.

    Nothing packs bigger punch. I like it.

    DU again? Mad

    I don't want to restart the argument about the DU-tipped ammo, but I think that in the future they (or anyone) will develop a Tungsten alloy tip to APDS rounds (, let's say Tungsten-carbide/Chrome/Vanadium alloy) which would be cheaper and easier to produce/handle, unlike DU.

    Tungsten is not much healthier than DU tbh, dust they both produce upon penetration is not good for you, either is or surroundings. Also DU is basically a waste, useless mass of crap they would have to store somewhere instead of turning them into new product that costs shitloads. Tungsten costs shitloads, its very valuable material for industry, DU is not.
    Except tungsten isn't radioactive

    Fresh concrete or ashes from powerplant are more radioactive than depelted uranium fyi Smile. Also we are talking mainly about U-235 which basically radiates alpha particles which are harmless for living as they cant penetrate our skin at all. It becomes dangerous after its used, as it makes cloud of very fine U-235 dust which can be inhaled, now that is not something you want.

    Tungsten-nickel-cobalt alloy which was proposed for rod penetrators is carcinogenic if you somehow end up exposed to it for prolonged periods of time like inhaling its dust or swallowing it etc, so it basically comes to same thing.

    Only difference is in the price and availability, where DU wins... big time.
    avatar
    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2787
    Points : 2918
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  kvs on Fri Feb 10, 2017 12:45 am

    GarryB wrote:DU is genotoxic... if it gets into your body the body treats it like calcium and puts it in your bones.

    Irrelevant to my point. You first have to consume enough of it to matter. The civilian population is not going to be packed around every
    DU shell impact to breathe in the DU aerosol particles. Over 99% of the DU mass will sediment out in the vicinity of the impact. The
    tiny nanometer scale fraction will dilute rapidly in the turbulent atmospheric boundary layer. So the exposure to civilians is minimal.
    The problem in the middle east is that everything is one big desert so that the wind can recycle some fraction of the DU aerosol back
    into the air and increase civilian exposure. This is not going to happen in Europe and Russia.


    Outside the body its very weak radioactivity wont even penetrate skin but inside your bones the radiation mutates genetic code at the cellular level... and not comic book cool mutations like X Men... bad mutations like no arms or no legs or no brain type mutations.

    The very low level of radioactivity means they remain dangerous for thousands of years... vastly worse than any chemical or bio weapon.

    Sorry but that is a misleading statement. The soil already emits radiation from natural uranium. The tank shell DU will contaminate battle zones but
    to a degree much less than the Chernobyl fallout. BTW, DU has less radiation than natural uranium since the concentration of 235 is lower due to
    processing (natural uranium has over 0.72% of isotope 235 while DU has less than 0.4%.) The concentration of Uranium in soils varies between 0.4 mg/kg
    and 12 mg/kg. The low end is not typical.

    http://www.scitechnol.com/uranium-fixation-and-removal-from-different-soil-types-review-9t8A.pdf

    This reference suggest 2 mg/kg is a typical concentration. Say I have 1000 kg or 1 million mg of DU and I spread it around. The soil density is about
    1.3 kg/L so the upper 0.5 cm will need to have an area of 2000 cm^2 to contain 1.3 kg and a 1530 cm^2 area will hold 1 kg. This about a 39 cm x 39 cm patch.
    To contaminate the soil to the background average of 2 mg/kg I need to spread it over 500,000 such patches. So a 277 km x 277 km wasteland is needed.

    But wait.

    Who said 2 mg/kg is even worthy of discussion. I would only care about 200 mg/kg. So now we are talking about a wasteland of 27.7 km x 27.7 km.

    http://www.laka.org/info/publicaties/vu/where-how-much-01/main.html

    The US fired off around 386,000 kg of DU at its testing ranges as of the year 2000. This highlights my main points:

    1) Dispersion of DU is very limited, otherwise it would have escaped as nanoparticulate far from the testing ranges

    2) Why talk about battlefield contamination as if people will growth their food there.

    The exaggerated impact of DU is yet another example of anti-nuclear hysteria.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16077
    Points : 16768
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  GarryB on Thu Feb 16, 2017 9:21 am

    I see very interesting for tanks to have ammunition that allows them to fight outside the range of the portable/man-portable weapons, which limit is marked by 120mm light mortars with rocket assisted ammunition.

    Why? Because it would allow to the tanks to attack infantry formations without support of heavy weapons from outside the range of every weapon that they have, without risk, and would reinforce very significantly the action of the artillery and the Surface-Surface weapons (both habitually present in much lower amounts).

    Dude... when a tank is facing portable anti tank weapons it wont be firing DU rounds... it will be firing HE rounds... a T-72 can fire HE shells to about 9km based on elevation limitations of the main gun... park on a hill and you could probably fire rounds three or four times further.

    While I tend to think that the 152mm caliber is very interesting for the tanks in the armata platform and will succeed, I expect also rocket assisted ammunition for the 125mm caliber and the current tanks. 125mm ammunition always should have bigger range than the 120mm ammunition of the same type (also of other countries), and this would mean a range of around 17-18 Km.

    In theory a 125mm gun should be more powerful than a 120mm gun, but then the difference wont actually have that much practical difference.

    It is like 7.62 x 54mm ammo compared with 7.62 x 51mm. When loading for hunting you can load heavier bullets in the Soviet round because its case is bigger but in terms of effect on target I very much doubt the target would actually notice the difference in bullet weight or speed.

    Fresh concrete or ashes from powerplant are more radioactive than depelted uranium fyi

    Very true but if you ingest them the human body does not confuse them with Calcium and use them to build bone structure in your body with them. Being near your bones or inside your bones that puts the radiation right next to your bone marrow... you don't want that near your bones... or I should say your future offspring don't want it there... it leads to tragedies like things called jelly babies... it is heart breaking to see...

    Also we are talking mainly about U-235 which basically radiates alpha particles which are harmless for living as they cant penetrate our skin at all. It becomes dangerous after its used, as it makes cloud of very fine U-235 dust which can be inhaled, now that is not something you want.

    So you are saying it is bad but OK as long as it is not used.

    Obvious problem is that we are talking about armour penetration rounds used in enormous numbers... we are not talking about nuclear warheads locked up and stored somewhere for Armageddon.


    Tungsten-nickel-cobalt alloy which was proposed for rod penetrators is carcinogenic if you somehow end up exposed to it for prolonged periods of time like inhaling its dust or swallowing it etc, so it basically comes to same thing.

    Giving you cancer is not the same as condemning your children and their children to mutations and deformities.

    Only difference is in the price and availability, where DU wins... big time.

    Doubly so because you don't need to pay to get rid of it.

    Of course that only applies to an evil user who takes no steps to clean up the messes they make... like the US and all the chemical agents including orange for example in Vietnam.

    Irrelevant to my point. You first have to consume enough of it to matter.

    In the fine powder created when it is used it enters the food chain... whether you breathe it in at the impact point or it gets in the ground water, or a dog eats it and brings it to your town. The stuff has a half life of millions of years... in a million years 500 grammes becomes 250 grammes.

    Over 99% of the DU mass will sediment out in the vicinity of the impact. The
    tiny nanometer scale fraction will dilute rapidly in the turbulent atmospheric boundary layer. So the exposure to civilians is minimal.
    The problem in the middle east is that everything is one big desert so that the wind can recycle some fraction of the DU aerosol back
    into the air and increase civilian exposure. This is not going to happen in Europe and Russia.


    Sediment into the ground water...

    So what you are saying is that instead of burying uranium waste it should just be burned into a fine powder and left to sediment into the ground? That would be much cheaper than sealing it in drums and burying it deep underground... I wonder why they dont do that?


    Sorry but that is a misleading statement. The soil already emits radiation from natural uranium. The tank shell DU will contaminate battle zones but
    to a degree much less than the Chernobyl fallout. BTW, DU has less radiation than natural uranium since the concentration of 235 is lower due to
    processing (natural uranium has over 0.72% of isotope 235 while DU has less than 0.4%.) The concentration of Uranium in soils varies between 0.4 mg/kg
    and 12 mg/kg. The low end is not typical.

    the human body does not use soil to build bone structure so it never gets anywhere near the human bones.

    The US fired off around 386,000 kg of DU at its testing ranges as of the year 2000. This highlights my main points:

    1) Dispersion of DU is very limited, otherwise it would have escaped as nanoparticulate far from the testing ranges

    2) Why talk about battlefield contamination as if people will growth their food there.

    The exaggerated impact of DU is yet another example of anti-nuclear hysteria.


    Hahahahaa... so information about increases in mutation and birth defects in places where DU is used is because what they started eating soil?

    If DU is so safe then why did the Germans develop a new tank gun with a longer barrel so their Tungsten shells would perform to a similar level to DU shells from the older shorter barrel?

    Why does the Royal Navy not use DU rounds in their Phalanx CIWS?



    _________________
    “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
    eehnie
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 938
    Points : 963
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  eehnie on Fri Mar 31, 2017 10:40 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    I see very interesting for tanks to have ammunition that allows them to fight outside the range of the portable/man-portable weapons, which limit is marked by 120mm light mortars with rocket assisted ammunition.

    Why? Because it would allow to the tanks to attack infantry formations without support of heavy weapons from outside the range of every weapon that they have, without risk, and would reinforce very significantly the action of the artillery and the Surface-Surface weapons (both habitually present in much lower amounts).

    Dude... when a tank is facing portable anti tank weapons it wont be firing DU rounds... it will be firing HE rounds... a T-72 can fire HE shells to about 9km based on elevation limitations of the main gun... park on a hill and you could probably fire rounds three or four times further.

    While I tend to think that the 152mm caliber is very interesting for the tanks in the armata platform and will succeed, I expect also rocket assisted ammunition for the 125mm caliber and the current tanks. 125mm ammunition always should have bigger range than the 120mm ammunition of the same type (also of other countries), and this would mean a range of around 17-18 Km.

    In theory a 125mm gun should be more powerful than a 120mm gun, but then the difference wont actually have that much practical difference.

    It is like 7.62 x 54mm ammo compared with 7.62 x 51mm. When loading for hunting you can load heavier bullets in the Soviet round because its case is bigger but in terms of effect on target I very much doubt the target would actually notice the difference in bullet weight or speed.

    In overall terms a rocket assisted system would be compatible with every type of ammunition. Here little problem.

    Also, on land, the maximum limit of the portable/man-portable weapons is done by light mortars, portable 120mm mortars, that have also rocket assisted projectiles and guided ammunition that can be used vs tanks, from outside of the range of the tanks, and the tank would not be able to answer except if the tank is provided with 125mm rocket assisted ammunition.

    In the game of ranges the tanks must be winner at every range over infantry weapons. No excuses.

    avatar
    eehnie
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 938
    Points : 963
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  eehnie on Fri Mar 31, 2017 11:10 pm

    Some news about the BMP-T Terminator 3, developed on the Armata platform with an interesting 57-2 configuration.

    Russia seems to go to 57mm weapons on BMP-T because they have more power to break some point, and can be combined with other weapons like anti tank missiles, and high rate of fire weapons of smaller caliber (likely of 12.7mm like in the T-14). According to the news the 57mm weapon would have also some anti-air capability (basically vs helicopters and drones), that is very important because it allows the vehicle to work also outside of the range of the portable/man-portable weapons of the adversary.

    http://putin24.info/sobran-opytnyy-ekzemplyar-bmpt-terminator-3-s-dvumya-57-mm-pushkami.html

    http://vpk-news.ru/news/33827Подробнее: http://vpk-news.ru/news/33827

    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16077
    Points : 16768
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 01, 2017 11:01 am

    In the game of ranges the tanks must be winner at every range over infantry weapons. No excuses.

    It really is not a question of range... park a T-90 on a slope and it could fire its 125mm HE Frag rounds to 25-30knm or so... with rocket assistance it could probably go even further.

    The problem for the tank crew is that threats are not always direct line of sight threats... a UAV directly above at 5km altitude and point a laser target marker laser beam directly down on the top of the turret of that tank and 6km away behind a line of hills several hundred metres high a mortar crew can fire off a 120mm Gran mortar bomb that will fly in the general direction of that tank and then as it starts falling pop the optical cap from its nose and fly to hit the tank turret roof and there is nothing the tank crew can do to either the UAV or the Mortar crew.

    What it can do of course is direct a laser jammer at the UAV and pass its coordinates to the air defence units supporting the tank force. It can also use SHTORA to pop smoke so the laser dot is hovering 200m away from the actual position of the tank on the surface of the smoke cloud the system generated and also the ARENA-2 system can deploy and try to intercept the incoming 120mm round.

    The artillery radars of course would have detected the incoming 120mm round and a volley of 122mm rockets would be on their way to the general area the 120mm guided round was fired from... and man portable 120mm team would be in trouble...

    To quote from one of the articles you linked to:

    Military experts took this ambiguous information, there are opinions that the weapons "Terminator 3" is redundant and one 57-mm cannon on the combat module type "Baikal" is enough. In any case, the new version of the combat vehicle fire support firepower will have no equal.

    If the rate of fire is only 120 rounds per minute then having two barrels might be needed to get the fire rate up to a higher level for ground targets... against aerial targets guided shells would be used so a low rate of fire would not be a problem.



    _________________
    “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
    eehnie
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 938
    Points : 963
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  eehnie on Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:16 pm

    When we talk about positions hidden to direct fire is necessary to think in the tanks as formations of multiple units, not in a single one. What is hidden for one, maybe not for other. In fact in the distribution of the formations of tanks it is necessary to take this into account, to leave not safe positions for the adversary. To have 125mm with rocket assisted projectiles would be cheap and easy, and would put the 125mm tanks above the 120mm caliber weapons making the infantry formations lose its alone advantage of the tanks today.

    The use of drones is also positive, but must be rational. Drones are expensive and vulnerable. Sometimes to expose a drone to destroy a 120mm light mortar can make at the end that the loses in the side of the drone become bigger than in the side of the mortar in economical terms. If the drone is destroyed, the drone is likely more expensive than the 120mm light mortar.
    avatar
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5364
    Points : 5409
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  Militarov on Sat Apr 01, 2017 9:53 pm

    eehnie wrote:
    GarryB wrote:
    I see very interesting for tanks to have ammunition that allows them to fight outside the range of the portable/man-portable weapons, which limit is marked by 120mm light mortars with rocket assisted ammunition.

    Why? Because it would allow to the tanks to attack infantry formations without support of heavy weapons from outside the range of every weapon that they have, without risk, and would reinforce very significantly the action of the artillery and the Surface-Surface weapons (both habitually present in much lower amounts).

    Dude... when a tank is facing portable anti tank weapons it wont be firing DU rounds... it will be firing HE rounds... a T-72 can fire HE shells to about 9km based on elevation limitations of the main gun... park on a hill and you could probably fire rounds three or four times further.

    While I tend to think that the 152mm caliber is very interesting for the tanks in the armata platform and will succeed, I expect also rocket assisted ammunition for the 125mm caliber and the current tanks. 125mm ammunition always should have bigger range than the 120mm ammunition of the same type (also of other countries), and this would mean a range of around 17-18 Km.

    In theory a 125mm gun should be more powerful than a 120mm gun, but then the difference wont actually have that much practical difference.

    It is like 7.62 x 54mm ammo compared with 7.62 x 51mm. When loading for hunting you can load heavier bullets in the Soviet round because its case is bigger but in terms of effect on target I very much doubt the target would actually notice the difference in bullet weight or speed.

    In overall terms a rocket assisted system would be compatible with every type of ammunition. Here little problem.

    Also, on land, the maximum limit of the portable/man-portable weapons is done by light mortars, portable 120mm mortars, that have also rocket assisted projectiles and guided ammunition that can be used vs tanks, from outside of the range of the tanks, and the tank would not be able to answer except if the tank is provided with 125mm rocket assisted ammunition.

    In the game of ranges the tanks must be winner at every range over infantry weapons. No excuses.


    120mm mortar is not "portable". They require to be towed by motor vehicle. 60 and 81/2mm mortars are carried by infantry, 120mm no.

    Tanks lack awareness for the most part to be able to explot advantages of long range munitions, even with support of UAVs and various BMS platforms it will keep being so for long time.

    These days there are ATGMs that are reaching ranges of 10km, even more, however 95% of the time in combat its out of the question that ATGM team will be able to exploit all of its range. Battlefield is almost never, if ever plain field.
    avatar
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5364
    Points : 5409
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  Militarov on Sat Apr 01, 2017 10:24 pm

    eehnie wrote:When we talk about positions hidden to direct fire is necessary to think in the tanks as formations of multiple units, not in a single one. What is hidden for one, maybe not for other. In fact in the distribution of the formations of tanks it is necessary to take this into account, to leave not safe positions for the adversary. To have 125mm with rocket assisted projectiles would be cheap and easy, and would put the 125mm tanks above the 120mm caliber weapons making the infantry formations lose its alone advantage of the tanks today.

    The use of drones is also positive, but must be rational. Drones are expensive and vulnerable. Sometimes to expose a drone to destroy a 120mm light mortar can make at the end that the loses in the side of the drone become bigger than in the side of the mortar in economical terms. If the drone is destroyed, the drone is likely more expensive than the 120mm light mortar.

    Rocket assisted 125mm would wear out barrel even more than GLATGM-s, and they are already called "bore destroyers". Its simply not worth the trouble and cost.
    avatar
    eehnie
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 938
    Points : 963
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  eehnie on Sat Apr 01, 2017 11:21 pm

    Militarov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:When we talk about positions hidden to direct fire is necessary to think in the tanks as formations of multiple units, not in a single one. What is hidden for one, maybe not for other. In fact in the distribution of the formations of tanks it is necessary to take this into account, to leave not safe positions for the adversary. To have 125mm with rocket assisted projectiles would be cheap and easy, and would put the 125mm tanks above the 120mm caliber weapons making the infantry formations lose its alone advantage of the tanks today.

    The use of drones is also positive, but must be rational. Drones are expensive and vulnerable. Sometimes to expose a drone to destroy a 120mm light mortar can make at the end that the loses in the side of the drone become bigger than in the side of the mortar in economical terms. If the drone is destroyed, the drone is likely more expensive than the 120mm light mortar.

    Rocket assisted 125mm would wear out barrel even more than GLATGM-s, and they are already called "bore destroyers". Its simply not worth the trouble and cost.

    For many types of rockets and missiles, the aditional autopropulsion begins when the projectile is out of the launcher.
    avatar
    Isos
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 528
    Points : 532
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  Isos on Sat Apr 01, 2017 11:53 pm

    These days there are ATGMs that are reaching ranges of 10km, even more, however 95% of the time in combat its out of the question that ATGM team will be able to exploit all of its range. Battlefield is almost never, if ever plain field.

    It's better to increase the warhead size and reduce the range. The best advantage of infantry anti tank team is that they can hide between houses or in the forest while the shooting won't last more than 30 sec. 3-4 km is more than enough even for a lonely guy. Equiped with a motorbike he can leave the area in 1 min.

    The thing is that for destroying a modern tank from any side you need a very big HEAT warhead. Shooting at 10km without destroying it is useless. While destroying it from 3km is much more interesting.
    avatar
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5364
    Points : 5409
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  Militarov on Sun Apr 02, 2017 12:10 am

    Isos wrote:
    These days there are ATGMs that are reaching ranges of 10km, even more, however 95% of the time in combat its out of the question that ATGM team will be able to exploit all of its range. Battlefield is almost never, if ever plain field.

    It's better to increase the warhead size and reduce the range. The best advantage of infantry anti tank team is that they can hide between houses or in the forest while the shooting won't last more than 30 sec. 3-4 km is more than enough even for a lonely guy. Equiped with a motorbike he can leave the area in 1 min.

    The thing is that for destroying a modern tank from any side you need a very big HEAT warhead. Shooting at 10km without destroying it is useless. While destroying it from 3km is much more interesting.

    Heavier warheads with shorter ranges are better idea for infantry platforms, yes. Lighter warheads with longer ranges are seemingly taking place in aerial platforms due to far easier top-attack mode implementation compared to land launchers.
    avatar
    eehnie
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 938
    Points : 963
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  eehnie on Sun Apr 02, 2017 12:41 am

    Militarov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    GarryB wrote:
    I see very interesting for tanks to have ammunition that allows them to fight outside the range of the portable/man-portable weapons, which limit is marked by 120mm light mortars with rocket assisted ammunition.

    Why? Because it would allow to the tanks to attack infantry formations without support of heavy weapons from outside the range of every weapon that they have, without risk, and would reinforce very significantly the action of the artillery and the Surface-Surface weapons (both habitually present in much lower amounts).

    Dude... when a tank is facing portable anti tank weapons it wont be firing DU rounds... it will be firing HE rounds... a T-72 can fire HE shells to about 9km based on elevation limitations of the main gun... park on a hill and you could probably fire rounds three or four times further.

    While I tend to think that the 152mm caliber is very interesting for the tanks in the armata platform and will succeed, I expect also rocket assisted ammunition for the 125mm caliber and the current tanks. 125mm ammunition always should have bigger range than the 120mm ammunition of the same type (also of other countries), and this would mean a range of around 17-18 Km.

    In theory a 125mm gun should be more powerful than a 120mm gun, but then the difference wont actually have that much practical difference.

    It is like 7.62 x 54mm ammo compared with 7.62 x 51mm. When loading for hunting you can load heavier bullets in the Soviet round because its case is bigger but in terms of effect on target I very much doubt the target would actually notice the difference in bullet weight or speed.

    In overall terms a rocket assisted system would be compatible with every type of ammunition. Here little problem.

    Also, on land, the maximum limit of the portable/man-portable weapons is done by light mortars, portable 120mm mortars, that have also rocket assisted projectiles and guided ammunition that can be used vs tanks, from outside of the range of the tanks, and the tank would not be able to answer except if the tank is provided with 125mm rocket assisted ammunition.

    In the game of ranges the tanks must be winner at every range over infantry weapons. No excuses.


    120mm mortar is not "portable". They require to be towed by motor vehicle. 60 and 81/2mm mortars are carried by infantry, 120mm no.

    Tanks lack awareness for the most part to be able to explot advantages of long range munitions, even with support of UAVs and various BMS platforms it will keep being so for long time.

    These days there are ATGMs that are reaching ranges of 10km, even more, however 95% of the time in combat its out of the question that ATGM team will be able to exploit all of its range. Battlefield is almost never, if ever plain field.

    Yes they are carried by infantry.

    Even the 2B23 120mm mortar was designed to be man-portable, divided in 4 or 5 parts. It is man-portable.

    But also other 120mm mortars are "portable" in the sense that can be transported inside vehicles without limitations or need of special designs (even in a civil car), in the same way that other infantry weapon or ammunition. "Portable" mortars, like the 2B11 and the PM-38, require not a tractor element like the heavy artillery, despite can have them in some cases.

    They are weapons of small relative size and weight. Today the portable/man-portable weapons of Russia would be the weapons under 500 Kg, taking into account that between 300 and 500 Kg Russia only has the 2B23 (man-portable in parts).

    Finally, the commented for formations of multiple units and its deployment is valid for both sides. Both sides want to leave not hidden places for the adversary. The terrain is not plain but a good positioning of the own units try to avoid to leavy positions where the adversary can be covered by the terrain.
    avatar
    Isos
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 528
    Points : 532
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  Isos on Sun Apr 02, 2017 12:48 am

    Militarov wrote:
    Isos wrote:
    These days there are ATGMs that are reaching ranges of 10km, even more, however 95% of the time in combat its out of the question that ATGM team will be able to exploit all of its range. Battlefield is almost never, if ever plain field.

    It's better to increase the warhead size and reduce the range. The best advantage of infantry anti tank team is that they can hide between houses or in the forest while the shooting won't last more than 30 sec. 3-4 km is more than enough even for a lonely guy. Equiped with a motorbike he can leave the area in 1 min.

    The thing is that for destroying a modern tank from any side you need a very big HEAT warhead. Shooting at 10km without destroying it is useless. While destroying it from 3km is much more interesting.

    Heavier warheads with shorter ranges are better idea for infantry platforms, yes. Lighter warheads with longer ranges are seemingly taking place in aerial platforms due to far easier top-attack mode implementation compared to land launchers.

    Even air lunched missiles are not totaly "top Attack" like Javlin. They still hit on the side or on the top but not at 90 degrees. But they can be heavy and long range as they are carried by a an heli. They are an other class than infantry missiles. Vikhr is a long range and very powerfull missile andcan be used by infantry.

    A nice cheaper solution would be guided S-2/8/13/24 rockets mounted on the small and cheap Ansat 2RC. French gazelle which is as small and as armoured  as the 2RC did very well anywhere when it was employed.


    120mm mortar is not "portable". They require to be towed by motor vehicle. 60 and 81/2mm mortars are carried by infantry, 120mm no.

    Tanks lack awareness for the most part to be able to explot advantages of long range munitions, even with support of UAVs and various BMS platforms it will keep being so for long time.

    Put a small mortar in the tank like on Merkava. When you detect the lunch with afghanit system it gives you the position of the guys and you fired at them with the mortar. But Russian tank will be assisted by salvos of BM-21 grad when they suspect presence of enemy troops. so no need for that.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16077
    Points : 16768
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  GarryB on Sun Apr 02, 2017 9:11 am

    Vikhr is a long range and very powerfull missile andcan be used by infantry.

    There is no ground launched version of Vikhr in service AFAIK.

    Kornet is man portable and there are ground launched ATAKA and Shturm missiles, but that is about it for Russian missiles.

    A tank has very limited ability to detect enemy ground forces at more than 2-3kms or so most of the time... as you increase the distance you greatly increase the volume of space an enemy can hide.

    Next gen tanks will have tethered UAVs with radar and EO systems to search for targets but they still wont see everything.

    The smoke and noise and natural and unnatural cover on a modern battlefield means it is unlikely a tank crew will even know it is under attack most of the time.

    Automatic systems like Afghantsi and battlefield radar and acoustic systems to determine enemy fire and the location of the threat will help but the advantage is always with the enemy in that regard.


    _________________
    “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
    Isos
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 528
    Points : 532
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  Isos on Sun Apr 02, 2017 3:37 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Vikhr is a long range and very powerfull missile andcan be used by infantry.

    There is no ground launched version of Vikhr in service AFAIK.

    Kornet is man portable and there are ground launched ATAKA and Shturm missiles, but that is about it for Russian missiles.

    A tank has very limited ability to detect enemy ground forces at more than 2-3kms or so most of the time... as you increase the distance you greatly increase the volume of space an enemy can hide.

    Next gen tanks will have tethered UAVs with radar and EO systems to search for targets but they still wont see everything.

    The smoke and noise and natural and unnatural cover on a modern battlefield means it is unlikely a tank crew will even know it is under attack most of the time.

    Automatic systems like Afghantsi and battlefield radar and acoustic systems to determine enemy fire and the location of the threat will help but the advantage is always with the enemy in that regard.

    I meant to write "can't" be carried by infantry. My bad.

    I agree with you. We saw how leopard and T-90 faced ATGMs. No one actually saw it coming and no one used defensive mesures like lunching smoke grenades or using shtora. And they were used by well trained crews. The laser used by Kornet are not easy to detect too.

    At least some countries like Israel and Russia are investing in active defence but NATO countries are not doing Nothing against ATGMs, they introduce less and less tanks and more and more Under-armourd vehicles which are easy target for even 1st generation ATGM.
    avatar
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5364
    Points : 5409
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  Militarov on Sun Apr 02, 2017 6:14 pm

    eehnie wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    GarryB wrote:
    I see very interesting for tanks to have ammunition that allows them to fight outside the range of the portable/man-portable weapons, which limit is marked by 120mm light mortars with rocket assisted ammunition.

    Why? Because it would allow to the tanks to attack infantry formations without support of heavy weapons from outside the range of every weapon that they have, without risk, and would reinforce very significantly the action of the artillery and the Surface-Surface weapons (both habitually present in much lower amounts).

    Dude... when a tank is facing portable anti tank weapons it wont be firing DU rounds... it will be firing HE rounds... a T-72 can fire HE shells to about 9km based on elevation limitations of the main gun... park on a hill and you could probably fire rounds three or four times further.

    While I tend to think that the 152mm caliber is very interesting for the tanks in the armata platform and will succeed, I expect also rocket assisted ammunition for the 125mm caliber and the current tanks. 125mm ammunition always should have bigger range than the 120mm ammunition of the same type (also of other countries), and this would mean a range of around 17-18 Km.

    In theory a 125mm gun should be more powerful than a 120mm gun, but then the difference wont actually have that much practical difference.

    It is like 7.62 x 54mm ammo compared with 7.62 x 51mm. When loading for hunting you can load heavier bullets in the Soviet round because its case is bigger but in terms of effect on target I very much doubt the target would actually notice the difference in bullet weight or speed.

    In overall terms a rocket assisted system would be compatible with every type of ammunition. Here little problem.

    Also, on land, the maximum limit of the portable/man-portable weapons is done by light mortars, portable 120mm mortars, that have also rocket assisted projectiles and guided ammunition that can be used vs tanks, from outside of the range of the tanks, and the tank would not be able to answer except if the tank is provided with 125mm rocket assisted ammunition.

    In the game of ranges the tanks must be winner at every range over infantry weapons. No excuses.


    120mm mortar is not "portable". They require to be towed by motor vehicle. 60 and 81/2mm mortars are carried by infantry, 120mm no.

    Tanks lack awareness for the most part to be able to explot advantages of long range munitions, even with support of UAVs and various BMS platforms it will keep being so for long time.

    These days there are ATGMs that are reaching ranges of 10km, even more, however 95% of the time in combat its out of the question that ATGM team will be able to exploit all of its range. Battlefield is almost never, if ever plain field.

    Yes they are carried by infantry.

    Even the 2B23 120mm mortar was designed to be man-portable, divided in 4 or 5 parts. It is man-portable.

    But also other 120mm mortars are "portable" in the sense that can be transported inside vehicles without limitations or need of special designs (even in a civil car), in the same way that other infantry weapon or ammunition. "Portable" mortars, like the 2B11 and the PM-38, require not a tractor element like the heavy artillery, despite can have them in some cases.

    They are weapons of small relative size and weight. Today the portable/man-portable weapons of Russia would be the weapons under 500 Kg, taking into account that between 300 and 500 Kg Russia only has the 2B23 (man-portable in parts).

    Finally, the commented for formations of multiple units and its deployment is valid for both sides. Both sides want to leave not hidden places for the adversary. The terrain is not plain but a good positioning of the own units try to avoid to leavy positions where the adversary can be covered by the terrain.

    120mm M75 mortar we use here is 262Kg with its transport mount, that is not, by any means portable. Portable is when you can divide our M57 mortar and two-three men and carry it for 20 miles into mountain.

    Our M-74 was lighter version which was desiegned to be carried by horses or donkeys for mountain units, again, not men. However it was very rare i doubt any remain in service up to this time, lower weight had in return far lower rate of fire and general lifespan.

    M-75 is attached to TAM-110 for towing, or some other motor vehicle in that class, by standard it was TAM-110, again i never saw it being handled by hands for more than 100-200m tops, where someone prepared firing position. 81/82mm mortars yes.

    Let alone fact that 120mm mortar detachment consists of 2 com officers, scout, sighter, ballistics calculator, then for each of 4 mortars there is aimer, two shell handlers and fuser.
    avatar
    eehnie
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 938
    Points : 963
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  eehnie on Mon Apr 03, 2017 6:36 am

    Militarov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    GarryB wrote:
    I see very interesting for tanks to have ammunition that allows them to fight outside the range of the portable/man-portable weapons, which limit is marked by 120mm light mortars with rocket assisted ammunition.

    Why? Because it would allow to the tanks to attack infantry formations without support of heavy weapons from outside the range of every weapon that they have, without risk, and would reinforce very significantly the action of the artillery and the Surface-Surface weapons (both habitually present in much lower amounts).

    Dude... when a tank is facing portable anti tank weapons it wont be firing DU rounds... it will be firing HE rounds... a T-72 can fire HE shells to about 9km based on elevation limitations of the main gun... park on a hill and you could probably fire rounds three or four times further.

    While I tend to think that the 152mm caliber is very interesting for the tanks in the armata platform and will succeed, I expect also rocket assisted ammunition for the 125mm caliber and the current tanks. 125mm ammunition always should have bigger range than the 120mm ammunition of the same type (also of other countries), and this would mean a range of around 17-18 Km.

    In theory a 125mm gun should be more powerful than a 120mm gun, but then the difference wont actually have that much practical difference.

    It is like 7.62 x 54mm ammo compared with 7.62 x 51mm. When loading for hunting you can load heavier bullets in the Soviet round because its case is bigger but in terms of effect on target I very much doubt the target would actually notice the difference in bullet weight or speed.

    In overall terms a rocket assisted system would be compatible with every type of ammunition. Here little problem.

    Also, on land, the maximum limit of the portable/man-portable weapons is done by light mortars, portable 120mm mortars, that have also rocket assisted projectiles and guided ammunition that can be used vs tanks, from outside of the range of the tanks, and the tank would not be able to answer except if the tank is provided with 125mm rocket assisted ammunition.

    In the game of ranges the tanks must be winner at every range over infantry weapons. No excuses.


    120mm mortar is not "portable". They require to be towed by motor vehicle. 60 and 81/2mm mortars are carried by infantry, 120mm no.

    Tanks lack awareness for the most part to be able to explot advantages of long range munitions, even with support of UAVs and various BMS platforms it will keep being so for long time.

    These days there are ATGMs that are reaching ranges of 10km, even more, however 95% of the time in combat its out of the question that ATGM team will be able to exploit all of its range. Battlefield is almost never, if ever plain field.

    Yes they are carried by infantry.

    Even the 2B23 120mm mortar was designed to be man-portable, divided in 4 or 5 parts. It is man-portable.

    But also other 120mm mortars are "portable" in the sense that can be transported inside vehicles without limitations or need of special designs (even in a civil car), in the same way that other infantry weapon or ammunition. "Portable" mortars, like the 2B11 and the PM-38, require not a tractor element like the heavy artillery, despite can have them in some cases.

    They are weapons of small relative size and weight. Today the portable/man-portable weapons of Russia would be the weapons under 500 Kg, taking into account that between 300 and 500 Kg Russia only has the 2B23 (man-portable in parts).

    Finally, the commented for formations of multiple units and its deployment is valid for both sides. Both sides want to leave not hidden places for the adversary. The terrain is not plain but a good positioning of the own units try to avoid to leavy positions where the adversary can be covered by the terrain.

    120mm M75 mortar we use here is 262Kg with its transport mount, that is not, by any means portable. Portable is when you can divide our M57 mortar and two-three men and carry it for 20 miles into mountain.

    Our M-74 was lighter version which was desiegned to be carried by horses or donkeys for mountain units, again, not men. However it was very rare i doubt any remain in service up to this time, lower weight had in return far lower rate of fire and general lifespan.

    M-75 is attached to TAM-110 for towing, or some other motor vehicle in that class, by standard it was TAM-110, again i never saw it being handled by hands for more than 100-200m tops, where someone prepared firing position. 81/82mm mortars yes.

    Let alone fact that 120mm mortar detachment consists of 2 com officers, scout, sighter, ballistics calculator, then for each of 4 mortars there is aimer, two shell handlers and fuser.

    Your comment looks pretty archaic, even using miles still Rolling Eyes

    About to carry the mortars, what do you mean? to carry them like in the XIX-century? walking, with horses or donkeys? or to carry them in a modern way, in their vehicles... Today even the airborne troops have their own vehicles...

    A light 120mm mortar, like those between 200 and 300 Kg are easily portable in every infantry vehicle, without adaptations, without a need of towing. They are not exactly man-portable, but I know people that can up them to inside a vehicle alone, without help. The light mortars of 120mm give not problem to be carried today, this is why I use the "portable/man-portable" formulation to talk about the weapons that need nothing aditional or specific to be transported by the infantry. There is not doubt that today these light 120mm mortars are infantry weapons.

    Other question is a mortar like the 2B9 Vasilek, with over 600 Kg, and more difficult dimensions to be transported. This is just the main reason of its decline.

    Surely the design of the PM-38/43 light mortar of 120mm has been one of the most outstanding designs of the WWII, remaining almost without changes until now. The PM-38 is a 79 years old weapon, and its design remains very actual and useful today. To transport a mortar like this today is nothing for an armata platform vehicle (very interesting fire power complement for the T-15 or even for this BMP-T Terminator-3). In fact, can be done by every infantry vehicle and civil car.
    avatar
    Isos
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 528
    Points : 532
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  Isos on Mon Apr 03, 2017 1:56 pm

    With the armies being smaller and smaller it's better to have a light self propelled mortar like 2S9 Nona or Something even lighter with all its communication systems and GPS/Glonass targeting computers and other its safety for the crew than these "normal" mortars.

    avatar
    eehnie
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 938
    Points : 963
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  eehnie on Mon Apr 03, 2017 5:05 pm

    Isos wrote:With the armies being smaller and smaller it's better to have a light self propelled mortar like 2S9 Nona or Something even lighter with all its communication systems and GPS/Glonass targeting computers and other its safety for the crew than these "normal" mortars.

    Yes, right, also self-propelled weapons of 120mm (2S9, 2S23, 2S34 and the new on the BMD-4M platform) have their own place today.

    Self-propelled weapons offer important advantages on protection of the crew, on mobility and on mechanization of parts of the firing process that allows to reduction of the crews.
    avatar
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5364
    Points : 5409
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  Militarov on Mon Apr 03, 2017 5:27 pm

    eehnie wrote:

    Your comment looks pretty archaic, even using miles still Rolling Eyes

    About to carry the mortars, what do you mean? to carry them like in the XIX-century? walking, with horses or donkeys? or to carry them in a modern way, in their vehicles... Today even the airborne troops have their own vehicles...

    A light 120mm mortar, like those between 200 and 300 Kg are easily portable in every infantry vehicle, without adaptations, without a need of towing. They are not exactly man-portable, but I know people that can up them to inside a vehicle alone, without help. The light mortars of 120mm give not problem to be carried today, this is why I use the "portable/man-portable" formulation to talk about the weapons that need nothing aditional or specific to be transported by the infantry. There is not doubt that today these light 120mm mortars are infantry weapons.

    Other question is a mortar like the 2B9 Vasilek, with over 600 Kg, and more difficult dimensions to be transported. This is just the main reason of its decline.

    Surely the design of the PM-38/43 light mortar of 120mm has been one of the most outstanding designs of the WWII, remaining almost without changes until now. The PM-38 is a 79 years old weapon, and its design remains very actual and useful today. To transport a mortar like this today is nothing for an armata platform vehicle (very interesting fire power complement for the T-15 or even for this BMP-T Terminator-3). In fact, can be done by every infantry vehicle and civil car.

    Mile is legit measurement, i dont see problem with it.

    When you say "man portable mortar", you mean mortar that can be carried around by men, those are 60 and 82mm mortars, 120mm mortar does not belong in that group, that is my point. And "tower" or "carried" by "vehicle" is not, in any case, even remotely close to "portable". You can pull D-30 howtizer with Lada Niva around, and you can push it with help of 4 men, yet it is not man fkn portable.

    I am sorry, but how is using horses or donkeys "outdated"? In mountain units around the globe that is more than common practice even at this moment.

    German 'Gebirgsjäger' Mountain Infantry using mules to carry mortars:





    Indian army:



    Austrian mountain units:



    I am sorry, but there is yet to be developed land vehicle that can offroad that much to exclude pack animals from armed forces completely.

    There are still in use even 20mm AA guns that can be disassembled and carried by 4 or 5 pack animals together with ammunition, sights etc. Heavily mechanised Yugoslav army had thousands horses and military equipment that was made for horses, and it was not that long ago.
    avatar
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5364
    Points : 5409
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  Militarov on Mon Apr 03, 2017 5:39 pm

    Isos wrote:With the armies being smaller and smaller it's better to have a light self propelled mortar like 2S9 Nona or Something even lighter with all its communication systems and GPS/Glonass targeting computers and other its safety for the crew than these "normal" mortars.


    "Normal" mortars are going nowhere as they far, far, far cheaper to be made, lighter and its easy to break such units in smaller detachments. You cant leave self propelled mortar especially not one on tracked platform on its own without support of accompanying units.

    You have today hand held BMS and Balistic computers that do exactly the same job again at fraction of the cost. You can take 60/82 mm mortar at the top of the building, down the well, under stairs, inside the building, under bridge, in sewer pipe... you cant do that with something weighting 25tons.

    When its about 120mm mortars, i am more for those semi-fixed variants that have their dedicated vehicle, but which allows mortar to be taken off and used as normal mortar at any moment. Something like simplified Thales Scorpion mortar system lets say.

    Sponsored content

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Apr 27, 2017 1:26 am