Russian Army ATGM Thread

Werewolf wrote:The side armor of turrets, depending on origin and therefore their design philosophy, are usually based on the 30+-° of the frontal projection which represent the "safe" maneuvering angles in tank engagements, within this "safe" maneuvering angles the tank provides sufficient protection from frontal engagement against other tanks. That is a tank warfare and design philosphy decades old. The side armor is only thick enough to further enhance its capability against relative flat trajectory of incoming rounds from this 30°+- from the front. The armor itself on most tanks is very weak when looking at it from 90° similiar to the engagement and destruction of the first Abrams with the iranian Konkurs. It came in a very flat trajectory and hit the tank where the armor is less than 150-300mm RHAe (with its already slopped angle) from that angle and if you would use RPG-43 with its 75mm penetration or better a RKG-3 with 220mm RHAe you could penetrate it when using 90°, but of course it is rather unrealistic due the armor slope and such grenades are used against roof armor, easier to throw it on the huge turret.

All of this has been a revelation to me.  I’ve got to buy some books on battle tanks so that I can better understand tank design philosophies, like you all have presumably done. Thank you so much for this wealth of information, Werewolf. It’s really useful, mate. Unless the Iranian backed Houthis just fired at the M1A2 tank wherever they could and got incredibly lucky, it really does seem as though Iran trained and directed them well.

Werewolf wrote:Old method of war propaganda. First ridicule the enemies army to boast your soldiers moral to fight, to let them believe the enemy has only junk and after the enemy was defeated boast the enemies war strategy, capabilities and technologies to "Wunderwaffen" and "best Air Defense System" like US boasted Iraqis Air Defense System to the "world's best" to make them look even better, just like the Nazi Germany Wunderwaffen here and there bullshit, used to glorify USA since it is propagating that it won WW2 and Soviet Union would be wiped out without the mighty US.

You know this is precisely what I saw in American documentaries on the first gulf war; they made it seem as though Saddam’s Iraq was a super power, furnished with superior artillery and a world class air defence system that could only have been breached with the ever incredible Apache helicopter from close range.

I’m guilty of deriding the fighting capabilities of the Afghans by terming them goat-herders in the AK-12 thread despite the fact that people like that are hardy and resourceful, making them formidable opponents.

Werewolf wrote:
I do not dispute that, he is usually very well read on that matter, however when someone critizes or puts information like the destroyed Abrams in Iraq and Yemen, he starts distorting the truth to protect his favorite tank against his better knowledge, meaning he lies to create a perception. He unnecessary tries to defend the Abrams being downgraded, even tho no hit on the Saudi destroyed M1A2S was even hit at a place where Depleted Uranium was used. The tanks are most probably downgraded aka monkey models but for those two Saudi tanks it would not matter if it is an US Army M1A2 Sep2 or Saudi M1A2S version, they obviously lack crew training and most other tanks that do not have ERA or APS would be penetrated aswell, question is only would there be the same effect or did the ATGM operator knew where to hit to cause a cook off and not just damage tank or kill one or two occupants. During Iraq war insurgents learned very quickly of the weak points of the Abrams tank and used those with weak old PG-7 warheads to penetrate tanks flanks which resulted in US buying patents which is alledgley patents from NII Stali Kontakt-1, at least what BitnikGr mentioned, to develope TUSK.

Anyway, that is the only problem i have with Damian he isn't honest with himself and people can see through it, since he is one of the polish guys that see the west more modern and precious due the anti slavic propaganda in his country i see that to be blamed for his and many poles attitudes and bias towards russia/russians or anything linked to it.

The Abrams does seem to be Damian’s favourite tank, and he has defended it even against legitimate criticism, especially with regard to its gas guzzling gas turbine engine. If he is purposely presenting inaccurate information on the Abrams than that is terribly disappointing. The Saudis have never seemed competent and their acquisition of flashy toys has done nothing to temper this fact. They still need the Pakistanis to operate and maintain their equipment.

It’s not surprising that the Americans acquired ERA technology from Russia, seeing as how Russia is the undisputed leader in this field. The question is will American fanboys admit it? They always accuse Russia of copying them and will dismiss evidence demonstrating that they have copied Russians in relation to a number of platforms.

I have noticed that Damian has a superiority complex in relation to Russians; like a lot of Poles, he still views Russia in a negative light; he seems convinced that Poland is well and truly part of the ostensibly superior ‘west’ now.  I read somewhere that Poland is the most anti-Russian country on earth and that this anti-Russian stance has increased following the hysteria over Crimea and the events in eastern Ukraine.

Aren’t Poles Slavs as well? As I understand it the Poles are cousins of the Russians and Ukrainians and Belarusians are brothers of the Russians with Kiev being the original capital of the Rus people. Countries that hate each other always seem to be those that are most closely related to one another.

Werewolf wrote:Well, i am not the most educated person about scram-jet technology but the issue here is that shaped charges need a very specified probe (distance between shaped charge itself and to the armor to form an optimal penetrator). You use an ATGM which already has a warhead connected to a guidance section which is in your case CCD/IIR seeker which usually occupies almost a 3rd of the missile maybe just a 4th, if you would want to add a scram-jet to your missile it would mean that the missile needs to be made longer to accomodate the scram-jet, fuel, fuel-lines, electronic etc infront of the warhead meaning, your shaped charge gets further away from the armor when it detonates, that is already something you could consider as a design flaw. The other point is the added mass infront of the shaped charge can further have an effect on the forming penetrator by reducing its penetrative capability. Speed is crucial i aggree but maybe not the best way to achieve better speeds and i do not think Mach 2.5-3 is even necessary and would make technology very expensive while being an overkill in capability. Why waste money on making a to potent weapon which you can have only in limited numbers and designing it with a technology like scramjet while most of the targets for ATGM's were always not tanks but infantry, light armored vehicles, fortifications and then followed by tanks. You don't need scramjet technology for non of those targets and IIR seeker will be useless in many situations, especially when necessary to fight infantry with over expensive and less performing ATGM like a shaped charged Javelin that was very often used against isolated infantry, taking minutes to lockon via SACLOS and leaving launching soldier exposed to enemy LOS and therefore open to counter fire.

You guys have educated me on CCD/IIR seekers, especially on just how incredibly expensive they are, and so I wanted to see if it would be cheaper and more effective to incorporate scramjets onto ATGMs instead of CCD/IIR seekers. As you pointed out it would be unnecessary, difficult, expensive and ineffectual to use them in conjunction. To forego the use of expensive electronics and rely on speed instead with an upgrade to rocket motors seems really attractive to me. This technology may not be viable now but it should be viable in 10 years when the technology matures, with the costs going down because of it. I agree that using a sophisticated and more expensive weapon on infantry and fortifications would be wasteful, and this is why I think the RPO-M Shmel-M should take the place of ATGMs currently in use; I assume that it’s cheaper than even the Metis-M. The newest RPO-M has a range of 1.7 km. That’s impressive.

Werewolf wrote:The other issue with Top attack weapons is dealt with Armata plattform, T-14/15 and even Kurganetz have vertical launched decoys (smoke screen). IIR seeker need an IR target source otherwise they are less useful than unguided SPG recoiless rifles.


The technology against top attack weapons is very simple and used by radar detecting the incoming threat from extended range and deploying a smoke screen of the uper hemisphere above the tank camoflauging it and its IR spectrum to the IIR seeker of such missiles, helps to defend against Helicopters, Javelin like ATGM's and Jet launched IIR seeking missiles.

You are right about top-attack missiles… they seem far slower than conventional ones.  It’s incredible that top-attack missiles will not work against Russia’s newest IFVs and MBTs and other countries may eventually follow Russia’s footsteps here, and so I’m reconsidering top-attack missiles.

Werewolf wrote:
Do not know the exact reason but the doctrine for ATGM's was always to be capable to destroy any foreign MBT on its hardest protected part, aiming for weak zones is all fine, but what when the enemy takes easy, cost effecient measures to make his weak points not anymore weak? Top attack weapons in IIR guidance become useless with such easy methods like stated above, the tank and APS do not need to waste even hardkill grenades to counter ASM/ATGM weapons.

This makes a lot of sense. Relying on top-attack alone is dangerous.  You need to be able to threaten armour from all angles not just on the top. It seems that versatility would be lost to using just top-attack missiles and IIR seekers may take a long time to acquire a lock. You mentioned that it sometimes takes minutes for the Javelin to lock onto a target… would it be safe to assume that this is the same case for the Spike missile? I can't find anything on lock on time for either the Javelin or Spike Missile, but assuming that the Spike missile is superior to the Javelin, would a 20 second lock on time be too optimistic?

Garry B wrote:
The sad fact of the matter is that tank armour is mainly the frontal 60 degree angles most of the time.

The basic rule of thumb is that the design should have frontal armour able to stop enemy main tank gun ammo and main enemy atgms from the front 60 degrees, while the sides should stop the enemy standard IFV light cannon calibre and the rear should stop HMG fire... that was the same during WWII as it is now... the main difference is that a vehicle in WWII that had that performance was a heavy tank... no light or medium tank could hope for that sort of performance most of the time... the exception being the T-34, which was a medium to light tank that was protected frontally from the standard german anti armour systems of the time... they had to redirect 88mm anti aircraft guns to deal with them and rush the 88mm gun into service on the Tiger and then later the high velocity 75mm gun of the Panther into service to deal with T-34s.

Also keep in mind that anti tank hand grenades had fairly large shaped charges and were basically hand thrown Bazooka charges.

This is very enlightening. Thank you, Garry. I guess I was being melodramatic when I expressed disappointment in modern MBT armour; most tanks are hit on the frontal section and so it’s understandable that this would be a place of priority in terms of armour placement. Like Werewolf said, having a tank that is impervious to all forms of attacks on all sides would make it terribly heavy and difficult to deploy and defend against cost-effective weapon systems that will render it useless on the battlefield.

Garry B wrote:

Ironically gas turbines are widely used for electricity generation and are efficient for being rather compact generators. the problem with using them as engines in tanks is that they don't do torque very well and variable throttle changes are terrible for fuel consumption. A future arrangement where the gas turbine is just connected to a generator and is run at a constant efficient rate to generate electricity and the wheels are propelled by electric motors drawing charge from the generator and batteries and capacitors it will be a very simple and cheap and efficient way of propelling large vehicles.

Such propulsion is already used on Buses and trains using diesel fuel.

I understand that gas turbine engines are light and compact, but they are currently just gas guzzlers. Gas turbine engines cannot be justified logistically at this point in time. They are inferior in this regard, unless they undergo the modification that you spoke off. It takes something like 10 gallons to just start the engine of the Abrams.

Garry B wrote:

Actually it is funny you suggest this because one of the things behind the idea of the Hermes/SA-19/SOSNA-R missile systems is high speed and low flight time to target.

There are plenty of current Russian rocket ramjet missiles... SA-6, AS-17, and various anti ship missiles that have a rocket accelerating a missile and when that rocket burns out the empty internal volume is used as a ramjet to propel the missile the rest of the way to the target. For a shoulder or launcher mounted weapon the solid rocket booster would need to be pretty substantial, though an APFSDS round fired at high speed from a 125mm tank main gun could just have a scramjet sustainer motor... of course the irony is that unlike standard APFSDS rounds where the main effective range is up to about 2-3km where it is most effective, with a scramjet accelerating the round to higher and higher speeds then extended range hits become more likely and more effective.

With jet exhaust splayed out so a rear looking sensor to detect a laser beam can be fitted you could carry two stage rockets on UCAVs flying at 4-5,000m altitude looking for targets 10km away... the first stage solid rocket booster as used on SOSNAR could accelerate the front section of the missile to 1.5km/s and when it falls away the front section could light up a scramjet and accelerate the front section to who knows what speed... id Kornet EM can use a laser beam riding guidance to 10km there should be no reason this system oouldn't use it to 10-15km.

Impact speed alone would be sufficient for hard armour targets.

This is why I love the Hermes missile. Its incredible speed is unmatched and adds a new capability onto the battlefield. The prospect of Russia developing and deploying scramjet assisted APFSDs excites me. To have weapons that have longer range and power on a platform like the T-14 Armata would be devastating on the enemy in any battlefield. The Russians already have long range GLATGMs like Sokol-1 but scramjets would add a whole new dimension and capability that nobody else has.

A Kornet-D with a scramjet would just be beyond belief. It would send shivers done the spines of tankers worldwide. A system that is almost impossible to jam -- and with such an increase in speed, it would be virtually impossible to confront. This would be a fire and forget missile without expensive CCD/IIR seekers that at times struggle to acquire a lock.

Garry B wrote:

But you would not need fire and forget capability with a scramjet... you would be talking about less than 5 seconds from launch to impact with targets 10km away.

Equally with top attack capability there would be no need for Kornet level penetration of armour penetration. Make the plasma beam less focused and widen the penetration to make a bigger hole rather than a narrower deeper hole.

Precisely. That’s what I’m arguing, mate. The incredible speed of a scramjet assisted missile would achieve the fire and forget function. It would achieve it differently, but achieve it nonetheless.

Garry B wrote:
As you can imagine an explosive formed projectile is not made of hard materials, and the material formed looks round nosed like a shuttle cock as used in badminton rather than a razor nosed penetrator. Very simply HEAT warheads offer much better performance but they have to be right up against the armour they penetrate.

EFPs can be detonated dozens of even hundreds of metres from the target and still penetrate armour... EFPs are widely used in submunitions from either bombs or rockets in the Soviet inventory.

This is interesting. This is probably why countries have not gone down the EFP route in their ATGMs. Like all things it has advantages as well as disadvantages, but conventional warheads seem to be more versatile.

Garry B wrote:


the Metis-M1 got a range increase with reduced weight electronics in the missile and improved rocket propellent... it got to 2km range instead of 1.5km range of the older model. It also got rather more armour penetration with a newer warhead.

If you demand even more range then it will be at the cost of the warhead, and I think they should keep it the way it is... unless they could manage to get top attack capability, in which case the warhead would not need to be so big and heavy...

I think you’re right. Until a light and fuel efficient scramjet is incorporated onto a Metis-M, it would be best to maintain it as it is. If they do manage to develop a light and fuel efficient scramjet with a range out to 5.5 km like the 9M133 Kornet, a slight increase of 2 kg would be acceptable.

Garry B wrote:
It is all about weight... the roof and belly are generally weakest with the sides next weakest... if you want 1,000mm armour on front sides and rear and roof then you will have the worlds first 1,000 ton tank... a real land monitor.

I see your point. This is why I like Russian tanks; they achieve comparable [if not superior] armour protection compared to ‘western’ tanks while being far lighter which makes them easier to deploy.

Garry B wrote:
Only for the US Stong fanboys. Most people know any piece of equipment is only as good as the person using it. A 20 million dollar Stradivarius (spelling) violin would not be so valuable in a place like the jungles of New Guinea where no one could play it properly...

That’s a very good analogy. Now that we have video evidence of an M1A2 Abrams being destroyed by a last generation Russian derived ATGM, the Americans will no longer be able to subject the rest of us to their nauseating chest-thumping and arrogance. I read that the United States downplayed how many Abrams were destroyed during the recent Iraq war.

Garry B wrote:
Work on scramjets is becoming more intense... it will not be too long before they start appearing in lots of different places... perhaps even large calibre rifle bullets and long range artillery rounds.

And this has got me excited like a child. The possible applications are almost endless. I am particularly excited about the possibilities in the ATGM field.

Cyrus the great wrote:
I’m guilty of deriding the fighting capabilities of the Afghans by terming them goat-herders in the AK-12 thread despite the fact that people like that are hardy and resourceful, making them formidable opponents.

And you do them unjust in respect to their fighting capabilities. Asymmetric warfare was only invented to counter the inparrity in firepower,menpower, logistics, money etc and to achieve maximal firepower with attacking only key points and with many ambushes. It is the only tactic that works against armies and not for a single brief time in history afghanish insurgents/terrorists have ever been beaten. With asymmetrical warfare, the right and good balanced personal and doctrine among very few numbered people even local civilians could strike hard on real militaries, it isn't that hard. What is hard is to sustain this level over longer period of time like Afghans did over centuries of rivaling against various empires, that is something you can't take away from them and i kind of admire their fighting spirit.

Cyrus the great wrote:
The Abrams does seem to be Damian’s favourite tank, and he has defended it even against legitimate criticism, especially with regard to its gas guzzling gas turbine engine. If he is purposely presenting inaccurate information on the Abrams than that is terribly disappointing. The Saudis have never seemed competent and their acquisition of flashy toys has done nothing to temper this fact. They still need the Pakistanis to operate and maintain their equipment.

Well everyone has their bias and we are usually not so eager to admit that i am not unbiased myself but i think i can aggree on criticism where it belongs and if it is plausible and not this Arm eating garbage, seriously if i ever have to hear that again in a real life conversation i will probably pound the guy and his arm eating autoloader mumbling with one of Tom Clancy's russohpbic crap books.

Cyrus the great wrote:
It’s not surprising that the Americans acquired ERA technology from Russia, seeing as how Russia is the undisputed leader in this field. The question is will American fanboys admit it? They always accuse Russia of copying them and will dismiss evidence demonstrating that they have copied Russians in relation to a number of platforms.

As to this day there is nothing in russian tanks that copies or follows any western "technologies" or philosophies in tank procurement/technologies. Actually it is the exact opposite, they started to use smoothbore guns after the russians, meaning they copied their philosophy despite accusing initially smoothbore guns as "inaccurate", they then followed using APFSDS rounds which the russians have invented, later they started using after the russians composite armor, later ERA and today they are going with GLATGM and APS systems. The russians were also the first to camofluage their tanks with Nakidka's to lower IR and RCS spectrum to sustain the old and very dominant russian war philosphy for ground forces and army aviation of "longer arm" who strikes first, wins first.

Cyrus the great wrote:
I have noticed that Damian has a superiority complex in relation to Russians; like a lot of Poles, he still views Russia in a negative light; he seems convinced that Poland is well and truly part of the ostensibly superior ‘west’ now.  I read somewhere that Poland is the most anti-Russian country on earth and that this anti-Russian stance has increased following the hysteria over Crimea and the events in eastern Ukraine.

Aren’t Poles Slavs as well? As I understand it the Poles are cousins of the Russians and Ukrainians and Belarusians are brothers of the Russians with Kiev being the original capital of the Rus people. Countries that hate each other always seem to be those that are most closely related to one another.

Yes, to many poles are getting brainwashed with anti-russian and anti slavic propaganda despite being a slavic population and which can be seen from history, their military traditions, style of weapons of century long documented history, culture itself, music, clothing, architecture of the past centuries they are through and through slavic and you couldn't figure out a pole and a russian centuries ago and today you can only do it as a non slavic person by hearing either polish slurs or russian slurs to differ one from another. The old tactic of divide et impera is still used to devide us slavs from each other, but fortunatley there is an annual festival of "vikings" were poles, russians, (mainly slavics) but also germans, scandinavian people met to live for a few days the lifestyle of our ancestors, to have fun at duels and wargames in old and very distinguish armors of our slavic warriors. The thing i find really remarble about this festival is that the people there are understanding that they are brothers and poles and russians and other slavs are knowing and seeing it that way, something i do miss in normal life. Some day i will go there, like such stuff and sooner or later want to buy an authentic functioning slavic fashioned armor, but mainly as a mannequin outfit for my flat.  

Cyrus the great wrote:
You guys have educated me on CCD/IIR seekers, especially on just how incredibly expensive they are, and so I wanted to see if it would be cheaper and more effective to incorporate scramjets onto ATGMs instead of CCD/IIR seekers. As you pointed out it would be unnecessary, difficult, expensive and ineffectual to use them in conjunction. To forego the use of expensive electronics and rely on speed instead with an upgrade to rocket motors seems really attractive to me. This technology may not be viable now but it should be viable in 10 years when the technology matures, with the costs going down because of it. I agree that using a sophisticated and more expensive weapon on infantry and fortifications would be wasteful, and this is why I think the RPO-M Shmel-M should take the place of ATGMs currently in use; I assume that it’s cheaper than even the Metis-M. The newest RPO-M has a range of 1.7 km. That’s impressive.

The problem with such predictions of when certain weapons get cheaper to be fielded in large numbers so we can see them appear across the world, is rather very short sighted. I've seen enough predictions from very educated people like Garry but from my perception it tends to be 5-10 years longer than the usual 10 years predictions. Why? The issue is usual with many things just like we can see at this current modernisation point, the government asks for new plattforms and weapons, they need few years to research and develope them, then the government realizes they are to expensive as right now and then remembers they have certain weapons already in inventory but in low numbers and plop, they then going the money/bargain game and are procuring a huge load of the older generation but very potent ATGM's and are trying to weight out untill the company either achieves to procure them for cheaper unit price or untill their hardlining on the cost softens.

We saw that with Kornet, a very rare weapon 10 years back today we see it roasting tanks in many countries and mass fielded for military with next modernisation upgrades already in procurement. We saw that with Armata now the government tries to soften their cost per unit by trying to get T-90A/AM and T-72B3. Those predictions of when weapons start going in mass production due cheaper cost of technology or just the unit price due whatever reasons, is very well visible at ammunition, since ammunition is not a weapon per se, but just a type of projectile and even ATGM's are seen as that and even tho russia has ZUBR-10 since 1998 it still uses ZUBR-8 30mm APS rounds, while due the new plattforms they are jumping already next to ZUBR-11 APFSDS rounds. Hermes-A is the same thing, it is in field tests since 2014 and the government asked for getting the Vikhr production back up again and in 2019/2020 i expect that we can se Hermes-A more or less at the brink of replacing the Vikhr and Vikhr will remain for the same purpose Shturm remains despite having Ataka-V/VM missiles, as a cheaper version for lower value targets on the battlefield.

Cyrus the great wrote:
You are right about top-attack missiles… they seem far slower than conventional ones.  It’s incredible that top-attack missiles will not work against Russia’s newest IFVs and MBTs and other countries may eventually follow Russia’s footsteps here, and so I’m reconsidering top-attack missiles.

Well one problem remains, the tank needs to stop moving to stay in his cloud of smoke and that is where little algorithm for the missile guidance, when it losses its source, that it suistains its last information input and point of impact, to at least have some chances of hitting its target. Similiar can be used on Laser Beam Riding missiles since it will not matter if the target is camoflauging itself in a screen of IR isolating smoke or not, by the time the missile loses its guidance to the helicopter LBR laser it will already have enough speed to just impact on the tank that is just a 10-15 meters behind the cloud.

Cyrus the great wrote:
This makes a lot of sense. Relying on top-attack alone is dangerous.  You need to be able to threaten armour from all angles not just on the top. It seems that versatility would be lost to using just top-attack missiles and IIR seekers may take a long time to acquire a lock. You mentioned that it sometimes takes minutes for the Javelin to lock onto a target… would it be safe to assume that this is the same case for the Spike missile? I can't find anything on lock on time for either the Javelin or Spike Missile, but assuming that the Spike missile is superior to the Javelin, would a 20 second lock on time be too optimistic?

A point of doctrine is also what in case of your enemy deploying succesfully blitzkrieg tactics and preventing your ATGM teams to have even the chances to flank enemy ground forces like tanks to penetrate weaker armored sides, due their fast pace of movement into your territory which is forcing you to retreat from one echolon to another?

I've mentioned it because Mindstorm did a good post on Javelin in T-90A Thread.

The time to achieve a lockon, isn't some fixed time you can count down, it is the circumstances and average environmental temperature of obscurent that can prevent a lockon due the poor quality of the CLU unit seeker of the Javelin ATGM complex. This means the operator has to make input through the CLU's options to overcome the seekers incapability to achieve an disting IR signature of the target ie. the operator manually has to lockon a target, the CLU then process it and safes a memory of the targets IR spectrum to have the capability to guide the missile to some location. The time the Javelin needs against unidentifiable targets IR spectrum can vary from the operators skill and experience with this ATGM complex and the environmental weather dificulties which can amplify the operators input to achieve a lockon.

To have more detailed explanation about Javelin read Mindstorms post about Javelin... someone has to link it here, i really have no skill of searching specific comments on this forum via google/yandex and the search function on this forum is just simply useless. If someone would be so kind to post the link to the comment and explanation about Javelin one of Mindstorms posts how it works, if someone knows what i mean?

New Kornet ATGM;
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Ftopwar.ru%2F&sandbox=1

A new episode in the series Voennaya Priomka will be shown in a few days.
This time it will be about the Khrisantema ATGM.

Here is the trailer:

9M123 Khrizantema-S

Militarov wrote:

9M123 Khrizantema-S

no selfdefense MG on AGTM carrier?

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Militarov wrote:

9M123 Khrizantema-S

no selfdefense MG on AGTM carrier?

Depends on platform and customer request i suppose.

George1 wrote:Khrizantema-S: Why Russia's Ultimate Tank Killer Cannot Be Defeated

With a floristic name (translated as "golden daisy") that belies its deadly nature, Russia’s Khrizantema-S supersonic anti-tank missile was designed to destroy current and future main battle tanks, including those protected with explosive reactive armor, small-displacement surface vessels, low-flying aerial targets and field fortifications.

The Khrizantema’s 9M123 missile travels at an average speed of 400 m/s and has a range of between 400 and 6000 meters.

The system is also unique among Russian anti-tank guided missiles in that, depending on the variant, its missile can either be guided by laser or radar.

Each missile carries a tandem high explosive anti-tank warhead with a reported penetration of 1.2 m homogeneous armor behind explosive reactive armor – an absolute record.

By contrast, America’s much-touted Javelin anti-tank missile which the Ukrainians are so eager to get, boasts maximum penetration capacity of just 70 centimeters.

Israel’s Spike-MR/LR missile does a bit better cutting through 1 m of armor but is still no match for its Russian analogue.


Read more: http://sputniknews.com/russia/20151206/1031319158/russia-missile-features.html#ixzz3tXtXcM3C

But isn't 70cm penetration enough to basically destroy any MBT?

max steel wrote:

George1 wrote:Khrizantema-S: Why Russia's Ultimate Tank Killer Cannot Be Defeated

With a floristic name (translated as "golden daisy") that belies its deadly nature, Russia’s Khrizantema-S supersonic anti-tank missile was designed to destroy current and future main battle tanks, including those protected with explosive reactive armor, small-displacement surface vessels, low-flying aerial targets and field fortifications.

The Khrizantema’s 9M123 missile travels at an average speed of 400 m/s and has a range of between 400 and 6000 meters.

The system is also unique among Russian anti-tank guided missiles in that, depending on the variant, its missile can either be guided by laser or radar.

Each missile carries a tandem high explosive anti-tank warhead with a reported penetration of 1.2 m homogeneous armor behind explosive reactive armor – an absolute record.

By contrast, America’s much-touted Javelin anti-tank missile which the Ukrainians are so eager to get, boasts maximum penetration capacity of just 70 centimeters.

Israel’s Spike-MR/LR missile does a bit better cutting through 1 m of armor but is still no match for its Russian analogue.


Read more: http://sputniknews.com/russia/20151206/1031319158/russia-missile-features.html#ixzz3tXtXcM3C

But isn't 70cm penetration enough to basically destroy any MBT?

Depends. Where you hit, angle, does target has reactive armor... Take in mind that most of the tanks in field are equiped wih composite armors whos RHA value is very high, 700mm RHA wont be good enough for many of them especially if we talk about frontal lobe and turret armor.

Not from front or angle.

Militarov wrote:

max steel wrote:

George1 wrote:Khrizantema-S: Why Russia's Ultimate Tank Killer Cannot Be Defeated

With a floristic name (translated as "golden daisy") that belies its deadly nature, Russia’s Khrizantema-S supersonic anti-tank missile was designed to destroy current and future main battle tanks, including those protected with explosive reactive armor, small-displacement surface vessels, low-flying aerial targets and field fortifications.

The Khrizantema’s 9M123 missile travels at an average speed of 400 m/s and has a range of between 400 and 6000 meters.

The system is also unique among Russian anti-tank guided missiles in that, depending on the variant, its missile can either be guided by laser or radar.

Each missile carries a tandem high explosive anti-tank warhead with a reported penetration of 1.2 m homogeneous armor behind explosive reactive armor – an absolute record.

By contrast, America’s much-touted Javelin anti-tank missile which the Ukrainians are so eager to get, boasts maximum penetration capacity of just 70 centimeters.

Israel’s Spike-MR/LR missile does a bit better cutting through 1 m of armor but is still no match for its Russian analogue.


Read more: http://sputniknews.com/russia/20151206/1031319158/russia-missile-features.html#ixzz3tXtXcM3C

But isn't 70cm penetration enough to basically destroy any MBT?

Depends. Where you hit, angle, does target has reactive armor... Take in mind that most of the tanks in field are equiped wih composite armors whos RHA value is very high, 700mm RHA wont be good enough for many of them especially if we talk about frontal lobe and turret armor.

We actually don't know about what's real or not. We were said a lot of crap during the post GW1 & 2 era.

Now we see Abrams taking potshots by Konkurs and brewing. War is SNAFU on a supersize. Khrizantema's superiority is the range, and as i analyzed with the JAN video on that Nujaba position, that range allows it to pick what it wants in the formation. If your axis of penetration with MBT's is less that 5km large, then you're toast, your tanks will get hit on the side, your AFV's on from every angle.

One has to understand the Kriz for what it is, a standoff weapon, same for Tamuz in the IDF. It allows a BVR engagement of armour in total blind mode. You track the threat and hit it from 10/15 km on the money. I'd take my chances defending with a Soviet/Russian ATGM company vs a mechanized US company any day NOW. I wouldn't have said this two years from now.

Great interview

the deputy managing editor of the "Independent Military Review" Oleg Odnokolenko told representatives of divisions engaged in the development of anti-tank weapons, Mikhail Andreev and Sergei MAST.

"Cornet-AM" - ATRA without complexes

Precision weapons production JSC "Instrument Design Bureau named. Academician AG Shipunova" able to hit any target on the battlefield

http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2016-03-18/10_kornet.html

hi i wonder if anyone can shed some light, about 6 weeks ago i saw a source (but can't find it now) stating that the AT-3 sagger D/2M faster speed and a improved warhead 4.2 kg tandem HEAT warhead 1,000 mm penetration RHA, improved capability against ERA and entered service mid 1990's, and that it was still in service with some Russian units, is this true i thought they were all replaced with AT-4 and AT-5.

d_taddei2 wrote:hi i wonder if anyone can shed some light, about 6 weeks ago i saw a source (but can't find it now) stating that the AT-3 sagger D/2M faster speed and a improved warhead 4.2 kg tandem HEAT warhead 1,000 mm penetration RHA, improved capability against ERA and entered service mid 1990's, and that it was still in service with some Russian units, is this true i thought they were all replaced with AT-4 and AT-5.

9M14-2M and 9M14-2F, yes, however i am not sure how many ever saw service in Russia. But if they did those were probably delivered to units that still operated BRDM-2 variant dubbed 9P122 "Malyutka" and BMP-1s that had launcher above main gun.

Best Malytka variant to my knowledge is however Serbian 9M14-2T which has 4,4kg tandem HEAT warhead.

Do Kornets really have a range of 10 km?

max steel wrote:Do Kornets really have a range of 10 km?

Kornet-M/D does, but only with thermobaric 9M133F-1 missile.

max steel wrote:Do Kornets really have a range of 10 km?

IIRC, only the thermobaric version. The HEAT variant is like 8.

There's a persistent rumour that Russia has gotten hold of a batch of Spike MR. Last Winter.

My Iz friends are insisting its through official channel.

sepheronx wrote:I doubt it. There is too much of a push on localized everything, there wouldn't be room for it. They pretty much stopped all imports of foreign military equipment, even subcomponents.

It would have had to be from before or early 2014.

It's not an import, it's a "gift"...part of the Washington paranoïa package. This pushed Washington to make Sure Israel doesn't sell anything to Russia.

Also the Chinese have already benefitted from Israeli gifts to make their own HJ-12. Which is a Chinese mix between Javelin and Spike SR.