Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Share
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 965
    Points : 963
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  Isos on Thu Aug 25, 2016 8:53 pm

    GarryB wrote:Very few have the radar range to detect their target at launch and so the general location is given to the missile and it flys to the target location and turns on its own radar to scan for the target.

    Some can be fed the targets general location, while others have to climb and scan for the target and then drop down to very low altitude for the flight to the target area.

    As long as the island is not between the missile and the target when it turns on its radar to scan for the target it should be able to fly past islands and other items to get to a position to scan for the target.

    Some longer range missiles can have way points so they actually approach their target from an unexpected direction.


    Some new missiles have GPS guidance to hit the target in its base. Because their are lot of buildings and ships there, they can't use radar.

    nastle77

    Posts : 210
    Points : 276
    Join date : 2015-07-25

    Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  nastle77 on Thu Aug 25, 2016 10:21 pm

    Isos wrote:
    GarryB wrote:Very few have the radar range to detect their target at launch and so the general location is given to the missile and it flys to the target location and turns on its own radar to scan for the target.

    Some can be fed the targets general location, while others have to climb and scan for the target and then drop down to very low altitude for the flight to the target area.

    As long as the island is not between the missile and the target when it turns on its radar to scan for the target it should be able to fly past islands and other items to get to a position to scan for the target.

    Some longer range missiles can have way points so they actually approach their target from an unexpected direction.


    Some new missiles have GPS guidance to hit the target in its base. Because their are lot of buildings and ships there, they can't use radar.
    did the 80's version of harpoon have that feature ?

    nastle77

    Posts : 210
    Points : 276
    Join date : 2015-07-25

    Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  nastle77 on Thu Aug 25, 2016 10:24 pm

    GarryB wrote:Very few have the radar range to detect their target at launch and so the general location is given to the missile and it flys to the target location and turns on its own radar to scan for the target.

    Some can be fed the targets general location, while others have to climb and scan for the target and then drop down to very low altitude for the flight to the target area.

    As long as the island is not between the missile and the target when it turns on its radar to scan for the target it should be able to fly past islands and other items to get to a position to scan for the target.

    Some longer range missiles can have way points so they actually approach their target from an unexpected direction.
    Thanks for the explanation, was 80s version of harpoon capable of distinguishing targets in the littorals if there is a lot of rocks coves and cliffs ?
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 965
    Points : 963
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  Isos on Thu Aug 25, 2016 11:17 pm

    nastle77 wrote:
    Isos wrote:
    GarryB wrote:Very few have the radar range to detect their target at launch and so the general location is given to the missile and it flys to the target location and turns on its own radar to scan for the target.

    Some can be fed the targets general location, while others have to climb and scan for the target and then drop down to very low altitude for the flight to the target area.

    As long as the island is not between the missile and the target when it turns on its radar to scan for the target it should be able to fly past islands and other items to get to a position to scan for the target.

    Some longer range missiles can have way points so they actually approach their target from an unexpected direction.


    Some new missiles have GPS guidance to hit the target in its base. Because their are lot of buildings and ships there, they can't use radar.
    did the 80's version of harpoon have that feature ?

    I don't think so. However they made new stocks of harpoons today. You will not found a harpoon from the 80s in US stock. Even if they don't really use them. Few ships of the US navy are armed with anti ship missile. They use their f18 with air lunched harpoons for anti ship missions.

    nastle77

    Posts : 210
    Points : 276
    Join date : 2015-07-25

    Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  nastle77 on Fri Aug 26, 2016 1:10 am

    Isos wrote:
    nastle77 wrote:
    Isos wrote:
    GarryB wrote:Very few have the radar range to detect their target at launch and so the general location is given to the missile and it flys to the target location and turns on its own radar to scan for the target.

    Some can be fed the targets general location, while others have to climb and scan for the target and then drop down to very low altitude for the flight to the target area.

    As long as the island is not between the missile and the target when it turns on its radar to scan for the target it should be able to fly past islands and other items to get to a position to scan for the target.

    Some longer range missiles can have way points so they actually approach their target from an unexpected direction.


    Some new missiles have GPS guidance to hit the target in its base. Because their are lot of buildings and ships there, they can't use radar.
    did the 80's version of harpoon have that feature ?

    I don't think so. However they made new stocks of harpoons today. You will not found a harpoon from the 80s in US stock. Even if they don't really use them. Few ships of the US navy are armed with anti ship missile. They use their f18 with air lunched harpoons for anti ship missions.
    reason I asked was because I was interested in the capabilities of harpoon in service with Japanese navy in the 80s
    avatar
    GarryB

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

    Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 26, 2016 11:16 am

    Some new missiles have GPS guidance to hit the target in its base. Because their are lot of buildings and ships there, they can't use radar.

    Actually launching a Harpoon or other AShM at a target in port surrounded by other things like fishing boats or Piers etc would be a very rare thing that most AShMs will never have to deal with.

    If you can find a target in a cluttered environment... identify it, and calculate its coordinates to use GPS guidance then good on you... with the flight time of missiles and the fact that targets can move I don't think GPS would be the sole method of guidance.

    did the 80's version of harpoon have that feature ?

    I rather doubt it. Harpoon finds its targets with its radar... which isn't perfect but should be good enough to distinguish a target ship compared with an island or sand bar.

    Thanks for the explanation, was 80s version of harpoon capable of distinguishing targets in the littorals if there is a lot of rocks coves and cliffs ?

    Lots of radar reflectors would make locating the target difficult but not totally impossible. The missiles brain would be not particularly sophisticated, but as shown in the Falklands war one problem not often discussed is that in war time you often put into service non military vessels... ie civilian vessels are put to use as troop transports or supply vessels and when the enemy start firing missiles at your ships like exocets then when you military vessels fire off chaff and decoys and jammers and the incoming missiles lose lock it is all together possible they might acquire those undefended civilian vessels and blow up your supply of heavy helicopters or ammo or your troop ships...

    reason I asked was because I was interested in the capabilities of harpoon in service with Japanese navy in the 80s

    Being subsonic it would have trouble against the Soviet navy, but against the Chinese navy of the period or pretty much any other navy in the region they should be capable.

    Again... with the Falklands... the UK had Exocets in their own inventory so they should have been familiar with its capabilities yet they suffered.


    _________________
    “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

    Posts : 965
    Points : 963
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  Isos on Fri Aug 26, 2016 3:34 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Some new missiles have GPS guidance to hit the target in its base. Because their are lot of buildings and ships there, they can't use radar.

    Actually launching a Harpoon or other AShM at a target in port surrounded by other things like fishing boats or Piers etc would be a very rare thing that most AShMs will never have to deal with.

    If you can find a target in a cluttered environment... identify it, and calculate its coordinates to use GPS guidance then good on you... with the flight time of missiles and the fact that targets can move I don't think GPS would be the sole method of guidance.

    You are wrong. With observation sattelites you can easily identify and find coordinates of a ship in a port. Military ships are not parked with fishing boats in ports so it's not a problem. Even with Google earth you can do that.

    If they are in port it means their radars are off. 1 missile per ship is enough. And in a surprised and coordinated attack you can make lot of dammage to a navy as your sattelite will give you real time situation and your ships can go like 20km (international waters) from a country.
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3245
    Points : 3331
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  medo on Fri Aug 26, 2016 6:20 pm

    If the ship is in port, that it is better to use TV guided missile like Kh-59MK2, where the operator will recognize correct ship on his TV screen.

    nastle77

    Posts : 210
    Points : 276
    Join date : 2015-07-25

    Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  nastle77 on Fri Aug 26, 2016 7:43 pm

    Isos wrote:
    GarryB wrote:
    Some new missiles have GPS guidance to hit the target in its base. Because their are lot of buildings and ships there, they can't use radar.

    Actually launching a Harpoon or other AShM at a target in port surrounded by other things like fishing boats or Piers etc would be a very rare thing that most AShMs will never have to deal with.

    If you can find a target in a cluttered environment... identify it, and calculate its coordinates to use GPS guidance then good on you... with the flight time of missiles and the fact that targets can move I don't think GPS would be the sole method of guidance.

    You are wrong. With observation sattelites you can easily identify and find coordinates of a ship in a port. Military ships are not parked with fishing boats in ports so it's not a problem. Even with Google earth you can do that.

    If they are in port it means their radars are off. 1 missile per ship is enough. And in a surprised and coordinated attack you can make lot of dammage to a navy as your sattelite will give you real time situation and your ships can go like 20km (international waters) from a country.
    did Japan have GPS and satelite guidance for its ashm in the 80's ?
    avatar
    GarryB

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

    Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  GarryB on Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:49 am

    You are wrong. With observation sattelites you can easily identify and find coordinates of a ship in a port. Military ships are not parked with fishing boats in ports so it's not a problem. Even with Google earth you can do that.

    If your anti ship missile is using GPS coordinates for targeting then it is not an anti ship missile it is a cruise missile.

    the flight time of most anti ship missiles can mean quite a few minutes pass between detection and launch and impact... if the ship moves even 20m before missile impact then the missile will miss.

    You obviously have a very low opinion of radar... the Kh-35 reportedly uses a high resolution MMW radar that can not only detect ships but also identify them based on their shape/radar signature.

    As such even a large group of ships would not defeat its guidance and it could single out its target and home in on it even in a fairly cluttered environment.

    If they are in port it means their radars are off. 1 missile per ship is enough. And in a surprised and coordinated attack you can make lot of dammage to a navy as your sattelite will give you real time situation and your ships can go like 20km (international waters) from a country.

    If they are in port the ports air defence system and local air force offer rather better protection than their own air defence systems could offer.

    could it also be that the Termits export version had no IR versions and had down graded seekers ?

    Export versions of Termit were either radar or IR guided but not both. I believe India used the IR versions to good effect hitting Pakistani oil storage tanks. The sun had heated the tanks to the point where they were rather warm... when the sun went down the ground cooled faster than all that oil in those tanks so after dark the oil was still a warm target in a sea of cold land...

    did Japan have GPS and satelite guidance for its ashm in the 80's ?

    AFAIK only the Soviets had satellite guided AShMs in the late 1970s and 1980s.


    _________________
    “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
    Walther von Oldenburg

    Posts : 920
    Points : 975
    Join date : 2015-01-23
    Age : 26
    Location : Oldenburg

    Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  Walther von Oldenburg on Sun Sep 04, 2016 2:05 pm

    How much micromanagement is allowed in military command? Field Marshal Model (God bless Him) would give command to units as small as a battalion which was way below his chain of command. Is giving orders to units two ranks below your command (like, a brigade commander issuing orders to companies, preferably via his company commanders) still acceptable as a way to lead troops?
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 1747
    Points : 1787
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Sep 04, 2016 8:49 pm

    GarryB wrote:If you use Mozila Firefox as a browser there is a Yandex translator add on that adds a tool bar that includes three buttons... one button will open a popup window with a translation for highlighted text, another button will translate highlighted text within a page into a different language and a third button that will open a new page with the full page translated.

    In my experience so far the translations are better than google translate for Russian to English conversions.

    because
    Yandex translation : Russian -> English
    Google translation: Russian -> NSA -> CIA - Political Censorship Comity Word Approval board -> English
    avatar
    0nillie0

    Posts : 75
    Points : 77
    Join date : 2016-05-15
    Age : 31
    Location : Flanders, Belgium

    Question about polish MBT "PT-91" and other T-72M1 upgrades

    Post  0nillie0 on Wed Sep 07, 2016 9:59 pm

    Hi,

    *After some additional research, i have edited my original question. No answer was posted at this time*

    I have a question regarding the PT-91 Twardy polish main battle tank. I have checked the usual sources for basic information (army-guide, Wikipedia, army recognition etc.) and could not find a clear answer for my question.

    I understand that it is an upgraded version of the T-72M1, a license produced export variant of the T-72A, which was produced in Poland and ex-Czechoslovakia.
    Other such modernization examples include the T-72M4 CZ, or the M-84 from Yugoslavia, which i realize is not based on the T-72M1 but is based on the T-72 in general.

    My question is : What where the terms of this license production agreement of the T-72M1 and subsequent modernizations?

    Various sources i have found claim that production of the T-72M1 continued in Poland up untill 1994. Other countries also continued production post 1990.
    Does this mean that the T-72M1 license production and export license was unaffected by the dissolution of the Soviet Bloc?

    Also, the initial PT-91 tanks where basically T-72M1's with extensive upgrades retrofitted. However later models appear to have been newly constructed tanks.
    These tanks obviously made use of the production lines for the T-72 export variants. Where they not subjected to certain copyrights belonging to the Russians?

    I guess the real question here is : If a country purchased the license to manufacture the T-72M1 in the 80's, would it still be allowed to produce these tanks post 1990, without compensating Russia or renewing the license?
    Furthermore, would that country be allowed to build a new tank (like the PT-91) which borrows heavily from the design of the T-72, and also utilizes the T-72 production line, again without compensating Russia or renewing the license?

    Or were countries like Poland free to do as they pleased with the T-72M1 production license, including developing their own variants and producing these freely?

    Sorry if this all sounds incoherent. I did my best try and make sense. English is not my mother language.
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10764
    Points : 11243
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  George1 on Mon Sep 12, 2016 3:28 pm

    0nillie0 wrote:Hi,

    *After some additional research, i have edited my original question. No answer was posted at this time*

    I have a question regarding the PT-91 Twardy polish main battle tank. I have checked the usual sources for basic information (army-guide, Wikipedia, army recognition etc.) and could not find a clear answer for my question.

    I understand that it is an upgraded version of the T-72M1, a license produced export variant of the T-72A, which was produced in Poland and ex-Czechoslovakia.
    Other such modernization examples include the T-72M4 CZ, or the M-84 from Yugoslavia, which i realize is not based on the T-72M1 but is based on the T-72 in general.

    My question is : What where the terms of this license production agreement of the T-72M1 and subsequent modernizations?

    Various sources i have found claim that production of the T-72M1 continued in Poland up untill 1994. Other countries also continued production post 1990.
    Does this mean that the T-72M1 license production and export license was unaffected by the dissolution of the Soviet Bloc?

    Also, the initial PT-91 tanks where basically T-72M1's with extensive upgrades retrofitted. However later models appear to have been newly constructed tanks.
    These tanks obviously made use of the production lines for the T-72 export variants. Where they not subjected to certain copyrights belonging to the Russians?

    I guess the real question here is : If a country purchased the license to manufacture the T-72M1 in the 80's, would it still be allowed to produce these tanks post 1990, without compensating Russia or renewing the license?
    Furthermore, would that country be allowed to build a new tank (like the PT-91) which borrows heavily from the design of the T-72, and also utilizes the T-72 production line, again without compensating Russia or renewing the license?

    Or were countries like Poland free to do as they pleased with the T-72M1 production license, including developing their own variants and producing these freely?

    Sorry if this all sounds incoherent. I did my best try and make sense. English is not my mother language.

    i think licensed production meant that the T-72s that were produced in other countries were assembled from some parts from USSR/Russia so even after the dissolution of USSR, Russia should provide some basic elements for the production of the tanks (if the license production had to be continued)


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

    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3939
    Points : 3966
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Mon Sep 12, 2016 4:01 pm

    George1 wrote:
    0nillie0 wrote:Hi,

    *After some additional research, i have edited my original question. No answer was posted at this time*

    I have a question regarding the PT-91 Twardy polish main battle tank. I have checked the usual sources for basic information (army-guide, Wikipedia, army recognition etc.) and could not find a clear answer for my question.

    I understand that it is an upgraded version of the T-72M1, a license produced export variant of the T-72A, which was produced in Poland and ex-Czechoslovakia.
    Other such modernization examples include the T-72M4 CZ, or the M-84 from Yugoslavia, which i realize is not based on the T-72M1 but is based on the T-72 in general.

    My question is : What where the terms of this license production agreement of the T-72M1 and subsequent modernizations?

    Various sources i have found claim that production of the T-72M1 continued in Poland up untill 1994. Other countries also continued production post 1990.
    Does this mean that the T-72M1 license production and export license was unaffected by the dissolution of the Soviet Bloc?

    Also, the initial PT-91 tanks where basically T-72M1's with extensive upgrades retrofitted. However later models appear to have been newly constructed tanks.
    These tanks obviously made use of the production lines for the T-72 export variants. Where they not subjected to certain copyrights belonging to the Russians?

    I guess the real question here is : If a country purchased the license to manufacture the T-72M1 in the 80's, would it still be allowed to produce these tanks post 1990, without compensating Russia or renewing the license?
    Furthermore, would that country be allowed to build a new tank (like the PT-91) which borrows heavily from the design of the T-72, and also utilizes the T-72 production line, again without compensating Russia or renewing the license?

    Or were countries like Poland free to do as they pleased with the T-72M1 production license, including developing their own variants and producing these freely?

    Sorry if this all sounds incoherent. I did my best try and make sense. English is not my mother language.

    i think licensed production meant that the T-72s that were produced in other countries were assembled from some parts from USSR/Russia so even after the dissolution of USSR, Russia should provide some basic elements for the production of the tanks (if the license production had to be continued)

    Most of the countries that kept the T72 lines open tried to cheat to some extent. Poland wanted to contract cheaper Soviet parts, then Bumar Labedy would re-export the Twardies at more expensive price making a profit. The idea for Poland (and for countries like Slovakia and the Czech Rep) initially was to keep a token force of these tanks, but to move as fast as possible out of the Soviet standards. This meant that most of the T72's were on the chopping block. Basically the Poles idea at the time was to modernize the force as much as possible while getting all the Soviet pieces out when it was possible. This was guided by the alleged dismal performance of the T-family in Kuwait and Iraq. Also license means that a huge number of parts and their subsequent ToT are obtained, thus making it easier to counterfeit parts. With the Russian State in the gutter, who wa going to collect those fines for counterfeited goods.

    BTW PT-91 is not a new tank...
    avatar
    franco

    Posts : 2716
    Points : 2754
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  franco on Mon Sep 12, 2016 11:25 pm

    Walther von Oldenburg wrote:What would be the best sources to learn about conduct of land warfare , from small unit tactics up to operational (brigade and above) level? I have some intuitive understanding of this but it's not comprehensive enough I think.

    There was a book written back in the 1990's documenting an American unit's participation at the National Training Center at Fort Irwin. Excellent look at the whole picture, operations to logistics, of a combined tank - mechanized infantry combat group. Believe the author was Stoddard and a quick look at Amazon reveals one used paperback copy for $100. Now where in blazes did I put my copy cry
    avatar
    0nillie0

    Posts : 75
    Points : 77
    Join date : 2016-05-15
    Age : 31
    Location : Flanders, Belgium

    Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  0nillie0 on Tue Sep 13, 2016 12:40 pm

    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    Most of the countries that kept the T72 lines open tried to cheat to some extent. Poland wanted to contract cheaper Soviet parts, then Bumar Labedy would re-export the Twardies at more expensive price making a profit. The idea for Poland (and for countries like Slovakia and the Czech Rep) initially was to keep a token force  of these tanks, but to move as fast as possible out of the Soviet standards. This meant that most of the T72's were on the chopping block. Basically the Poles idea at the time was to modernize the force as much as possible while getting all the Soviet pieces out when it was possible. This was guided by the alleged dismal performance of the T-family in Kuwait and Iraq. Also license means that a huge number of parts and their subsequent ToT are obtained, thus making it easier to counterfeit parts. With the Russian State in the gutter, who wa going to collect those fines for counterfeited goods.

    BTW PT-91 is not a new tank...

    First : thanks to you and George1 for the answer !

    So the PT-91's are all based on converted T-72M1's ? Meaning the "youngest" PT-91 actually dates back to like '94 or something?

    Secondly :
    The reason i asked all this is because i was thinking (after reading up on projects like the PT-91 and the Croatian M-84D or M-95 Degman) :

    Hypothetically : Would it be possible for a NATO (or NATO aligned) country that had previously license manufactured a T-72 tank (for example like Poland in the early 90's), to at present day restart the production line (provided that it had the needed parts and ToT and facilities etc. ) for a modernized version of the T-72 based on the original chassis (again, with improvements). Keep in mind i am not asking if it would be a good idea to do so, just if it where possible. I realize that even IF such a thing was even possible, it would be easier and cheaper to just buy stored T-72's from wherever and just upgrade them.

    And also : what would be the "obligations" that this country would have to present day Russia, if it went ahead and restarted such a production line.

    Finaly : Which country was the last to halt indigenous production of NEW T-72's and what year was this?

    Thanks again for the good information guys.

    13th_Warrior

    Posts : 1
    Points : 1
    Join date : 2016-09-14

    question

    Post  13th_Warrior on Wed Sep 14, 2016 8:46 am

    hello every one,
    any one has a clue what kind of equipment fixed on ka 52 & mi 28 wings ?



    its clearly not a fuel tank or an anti ship missile or any kind of missiles
    thanks in advance for your answer
    glad to be here respekt
    avatar
    GarryB

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

    Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  GarryB on Wed Sep 14, 2016 10:57 am

    It is a storage container.

    It contains tools and some spare parts and gear for the crew to be used at forward deployment areas or during testing.

    It might contain telemetry equipment too but not sure about that.


    _________________
    “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

    DerWolf

    Posts : 60
    Points : 62
    Join date : 2015-12-06

    Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  DerWolf on Sat Sep 17, 2016 10:51 pm

    Why modern tanks use a smoothbore gun instead of a rifeld one? What advantages does it has?
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2191
    Points : 3083
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  Vladimir79 on Sun Sep 18, 2016 12:01 am

    DerWolf wrote:Why modern tanks use a smoothbore gun instead of a rifeld one? What advantages does it has?

    Rifling wears out meaning the barrel has to be changed more often. Fin stablisation of modern rounds no longer requires the accuracy generated by rotation used in rifled barrels.


    _________________
    The true value of life knows only the paratrooper. For he is more likely to look death in the eye.  -- Vasily Margelov
    avatar
    GarryB

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

    Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  GarryB on Sun Sep 18, 2016 11:17 am

    The most effective rounds for a MBT are APFSDS and HEAT.

    Neither of which like being spun rapidly by rifling.

    A dart projectile like an APFSDS round cannot be spun fast enough to stabilise it... that is why there is an FS in the designation... fin stabilised.

    For HEAT rounds the plasma jet of molten material it blasts at the target is dispersed when it spins rapidly.

    the only rounds that benefit from spinning are full bore rounds like HE shells and full bore armour piercing rounds... of which the latter are no longer used.

    HE shells are used against point targets but hitting bunkers accurately is not as important as hitting enemy armour accurately.

    A rifled gun is heavier and thicker than a smoothbore. It also is harder to clean properly.

    The rifling slows the round down as it imparts spin so for a given length a smoothbore allows a higher muzzle velocity than an equivalent rifled gun of the same length.

    This means a smoothbore can have a higher velocity or can be shorter.

    Smoothbores are cheaper and easier to make... and as I mentioned above the most important rounds a modern MBT fires prefer smoothbore guns.

    The main country sticking to the rifled main gun is the British and they do so because of the HESH round.

    This is a full calibre HE round that is designed to flatten against a target tanks armour on impact and then detonate with a base mounted fuse. The large surface area of the HE sends shockwaves through the armour plate and makes large metal fragments scab off (called spall) inside the armour to shred the crew and internal fittings.

    It doesn't penetrate the armour but it is very effective and lethal.... on WWII tanks that don't have spaced armour.

    In Desert Storm a Challanger tank accidentally fired upon a Warrior IFV, and at the time it was claimed the Warrior had super armour that could shrug off tank main gun ammo.

    The reality is that the round fired was a HESH and it flattened and exploded on the addon armour on the side of the Warrior, which included spaced armour, so of course the vehicle was not damaged by spall which was contained inside the addon armour box.

    Not a super IFV... just a crap anti armour round.

    Being full calibre it needs a rifled gun.

    Against soft targets it is still a very effective round but a delay fuse on a standard HE round that explodes inside the target is even more effective.


    _________________
    “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

    moskit

    Posts : 25
    Points : 85
    Join date : 2016-05-19

    Us strike on syrian army unit, s 400

    Post  moskit on Tue Sep 20, 2016 1:53 pm

    Hi, The American air strike on the Syrian army, killing 62 soldiers and wounding 100 more according to the Russian defense ministry. What happened to the deployed full alert ready to fire s 400 units? What could have happened to the active air defence units around the site attacked?
    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3939
    Points : 3966
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Wed Sep 21, 2016 9:26 am

    It was 300 km away. Locked up on the other direction. Furthermore US command lied about strike coordinates i'm 100% sure. Also ADS on position was a couple of Shilkas and SA-3. The US had never gone bombing there, so the troops weren't affraid of air raids. This was typical american accident or not.
    avatar
    GarryB

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

    Re: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  GarryB on Wed Sep 21, 2016 11:35 am

    The role of the S-400 battery is not to defend ground targets from air attack.

    Its purpose is to prevent an air attack against friendly aircraft, or to deal with any potential attacker if they choose to attack a Russian aircraft.

    As such they will monitor air traffic and activity but wont track ground strikes...


    _________________
    “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: Μilitary Questions & Answers

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:52 pm