Russian Army ATGM Thread

Cyrus the great wrote:
That's a very good and detailed write up.

A range of different anti-armour tools at Russia's disposal is impressive.

The reason I think that a top attack Kornet variant is important is because modern tanks can't be destroyed from the front -- limiting operational options; I understand that tanks would ideally be attacked from the sides.

There's about a tiny handful of the newest MBT models that can maybe take a Kornet even at their most protected turret front. And they aren't serving in numbers that you can encounter them in the wild. Everything else, gets holed front to back.

Israeli Merkava tanks have a rear entrance as well.

In terms of armour protection the weakest armour on most tanks is the belly and roof area... the sides and rear of the hull and the turret are generally better protected but not massively so.

There's about a tiny handful of the newest MBT models that can maybe take a Kornet even at their most protected turret front. And they aren't serving in numbers that you can encounter them in the wild. Everything else, gets holed front to back.

Depends on whether you believe the bullshit or not.

With Leopards claiming 2.5m equivalent turret frontal armour that turns out to be spaced armour and therefore probably bullshit then you have to take claims with a grain of salt.

GarryB wrote:

Depends on whether you believe the bullshit or not.

With Leopards claiming 2.5m equivalent turret frontal armour that turns out to be spaced armour and therefore probably bullshit then you have to take claims with a grain of salt.

Tank designers aren't morons. Given enough resources armor can keep pace with developments in anti-armor. That has not been the case, for nearly 30 years now. Quite unfortunate for tanks, as their counters have not shared the same fate. So we're really looking at tanks that are at best 20 years behind current threats.