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.
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.
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?