And if you shot the lower glacis while the tank is going over a bump in the road the shell will come out the roof of the turret.
Exactly my point.
The vast majority of the time we can assume both vehicles are on level ground and the gun barrel of the NATO tank will be 1 metre or more above the line of the Russian tank, and the APFSDS rounds have a very flat trajectory but it is not a laser, so assuming the round hits the lower front hull it is more likely traveling at a downward angle and not a perfectly horizontal angle...
Oh yeah, about how the shell doesn't fly through the lower glacis, through the floor and into the ground, because we always assume that the shell is impacting the armour at 0 degrees for the sake of simplicity.
You can make assumptions for the sake of simplicity, but I prefer to make assumptions to allow for reality.
The aim point will be the enemy turret front and the ballistic computer will deflect the angle of the barrel upwards to a point several metres above the turret so that at 2km distance the round will fall back down to the point of aim through the sights.
Assuming no deceleration of the round in flight (for the sake of simplicity) a 125mm APFSDS round travels about 1.7km per second and gravity acts at 9.8m/s/s so a target 1.7km away hit by a round traveling at i.7km/s/s will be effected by a 9.8m drop from the boresight of aim.
The gun barrel will therefore be pointing at a position slightly less than 9.8m above the target tank which means the penetrator wont be heading straight through but will have a slightly downward path through the target.
Of course in the real world that round will start to decelerate as soon as it leaves the muzzle.
Trajectory: Of course. Dispersion: No. Dispersion is random. You can't program the dispersion into a ballistic computer...
Which is why those hits on that target are scattered and no one point of a target can be "aimed" for which makes any weak point no more or no less serious than those you can't do anything about like the gun barrel.
The Soviets were not producing very accurate HEAT rounds, they were just producing not-so-accurate APFSDS rounds.
Of course, those stupid commies can't design accurate guns.... only weapons produced in the west can be accurate.
I'm afraid that you misunderstand how muzzle reference systems work. MRSs detect minute bends in the barrel, not the oscillations at the muzzle during firing.
Be as afraid as you want. The muzzle reference system on the 2S38M 30mm cannon measures muzzle velocity in real time and uses that information to make further bursts of fire more accurate. The radar also tracks outgoing rounds to also further improve aim.
The current new Russian tank uses radar both for APS and for local awareness, but guided rounds are much easier and they already have a range of gun tube launched missiles.
That is the thing about the Russians though.. they don't put all their eggs in one basket so they have composite armour and ERA and APS and anything else they think might make their vehicles safer...
Reasonably accurate sabot rounds exist, like SLAP. APDS and APFSDS rounds for autocannons (20mm, 23mm, 25mm, 30mm, 37mm, 40mm and more) are also more accurate than full bore rounds.
The fact that you say they are reasonably accurate suggests you don't even believe that they are accurate.
Flechette rounds have low recoil and flat trajectory but that does not make them accurate in any sense of the word.
Can you even tell if the tank is facing the front of back at 8.5 km? No. Of course not
Hahahahaha... of course you can... you just compare the width of the turret with the width of the hull... if the turret and hull are narrow it is likely the vehicle is heading directly at you or away from you... even with poor optics.
A weapon designed to engage non armoured targets at 10km and armour at 8.5km however should allow the operator to see what they are firing at to prevent friendly fire errors.
Can you at least agree that Iraqi tankers have displayed poor coordination and not much personal skill?
I am not going to tarnish all of them with one brush. So you think all American tankers are amazing?
Why not just attribute that rear shot to the poor tactics used by that Iraqi Abrams crew? For most situations, the most of the hits to a tank will be on the front 70-degree arc.
Yes, because all Iraqi tankers are idiots too.
We could not possibly consider the attackers set up a situation where side and rear shots were possible and took advantage of the situation that was created?
Tank turrets don't automatically turn to present the frontal armour to ATGM teams they can't possibly see... the turret is attached to the gun so the front armour points where the gun points so a tank crew shooting at one target could easily be attacked from a different angle with a missile to hit the side or rear of the turret no matter where the vehicle is pointing.
But really, I'm not just talking about short range man-portable systems. I'm talking about the power of the warhead.
The 125mm warhead of the RPG-28 is rather more powerful than any old generation ATGM from AT-3/-4/-5 or even -6.
Perhaps because new 73mm HEAT warheads had as much penetration as Malyutka missiles?
It does not matter what sort of weapon you have... when fighting tanks you always try to hit it from the side or the rear... that is where the weaker armour is...
How cheap is Arena? You said it yourself. APS is not cheap. Better to replace the old and outdated Kontakt-5 with Relikt, because that would reduce the size of the weak points at the center mass of the tank, and improve e its chances of survival against all types of threats.
ARENA2 is not cheap because it is not in mass production. New technologies and mass production will make it more affordable and its ability to cover a wide range of angles of a vehicle makes it rather more effective than adding a few extra blocks or changing to different ERA types.
For all we know the new NERA developed for the new vehicles might be even better but they want to keep it secret.. for a real combat use how hard wiould it be to unbolt the old ERA and replace it with much more effective material?
During an exercise it really doesn't matter what they fit... fit the stuff they already have in stock that is already paid for and in a real conflict get the good stuff out.
The gunner "had no control over where the rounds were going", so he just aims at center mass and hopes that he hits...
No gunner has control over unguided rounds, if they did have control they would all hit in the same spot.
Or do you think he scattered them on purpose?
Why is Armata being brought up? Maybe you can't really see the turret of a T-14 through thermal sights because it has a special shell on the turret that has low to no thermal signature and a low RCS? There is a different thread where this can be discussed further if you want. Please don't try to derail the topic.
Because over the next 20 years Armata is going to be replacing a portion of those upgraded T-72s and who is to say that once it is in full production they wont start adding Afghan APS systems to older upgraded vehicles?
And APS system that can be used against these superior super accurate western APFSDS rounds...
You are basing your assumption on another assumption. It's assumption^2.
No it isn't.
All any gunner can do with unguided rounds is aim for centre of mass and fire and hope.