Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+75
Isos
Hole
limb
Mir
ALAMO
lyle6
thegopnik
Tolstoy
Gomig-21
Dr.Snufflebug
T-47
marcellogo
Kiko
Scorpius
Belisarius
sepheronx
ludovicense
diabetus
Azi
caveat emptor
Backman
Podlodka77
Krepost
pukovnik7
AlfaT8
Lennox
Broski
Arrow
Russian_Patriot_
galicije83
TMA1
Atmosphere
lancelot
Tingsay
PhSt
The_Observer
mnztr
LMFS
RTN
kvs
kopyo-21
Sujoy
Big_Gazza
AJ-47
Austin
Mindstorm
ahmedfire
hoom
nero
medo
ultimatewarrior
calripson
magnumcromagnon
DerWolf
Cyrus the great
Cyberspec
ult
0nillie0
Nibiru
flamming_python
william.boutros
Walther von Oldenburg
JohninMK
higurashihougi
miketheterrible
xeno
franco
George1
KomissarBojanchev
The-thing-next-door
Interlinked
GarryB
KoTeMoRe
Werewolf
PapaDragon
79 posters

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    avatar
    ALAMO


    Posts : 6528
    Points : 6618
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  ALAMO Sun Jun 04, 2023 8:41 am

    lyle6 wrote:
    Daily reminder that Duplet is a dupe for brainlet. It simply doesn't work as advertised.
    You can remove the shaped charge liners and it would work the same or even better, its basically Kontakt-5 with double the explosive content...

    And since Ukraine has no access to advanced Uranium and Tungsten monocrystal growing techniques they have no way of testing this Duplet ERA against the actual threat. Its claimed performance is suspect at best.

    (On another note I find it hilarious that the Russian 125 mm 2A82 - the original one, not the Armata version, is actually as powerful as the Ukrainian developed 140 mm Vityaz. These guys can only be way behind the Russians in metallurgy for this to happen.)

    The reverse speed is again, not an issue since the T-90M has LWR that can automatically discharge smokescreens in case of an attack.

    To put the things into a proper perspective, Nozh is Soviet era project.
    And Duplet is doubling the Nozh up to two layers.
    It was declined a further development in the SU, because they already have more perspective projects.
    Nozh is brilliant on paper, and should be deadly effective against a variety of threats, including even bizarre ones like triple charged HEAT projectiles.
    That nobody other than Soviets had, and still does not have Laughing
    As I have said multiple times, Russkie were always notorious in creating solutions to their own medicine.
    That is why we face such an overkill systems, when you combine something made to stop/intercept a Mach4 5 ton heavy and armored missile being used against some kids toy taken directly from commercials.
    So what was the issue with Nozh, is that nobody could properly project the sequence of detonation - it is too much complicated. Tons of factors, most of which are impossible to simulate, will ignite it.
    So in tests, it turned out that Nozh does work, however, the disturbed ignition sequence interferes with its own effectiveness, and at the end you get nothing better than K5. While being remarkably heavier.
    Now we have another brilliant on paper project, consisting of doubling the Nozh layers to improve protection.
    Brilliant, isn't it?
    In practice, you have only doubled the mass, and doubled the interference ratio while retaining almost the same level of general effectiveness.

    What is the Russian answer? Well, Relikt that is a NERA/ERA combination, and Malachit, that is a multi-stage ERA where segments detonates one by one by physics.

    What Russkie have and Ukroisis don't have, is existing chemical and material bodies, that can deliver new types of materials needed to construct more effective main armor packages. I highly doubt if there is any protection increase comparing T-80UD and Bulat M, because Ukraine didn't have industry keen to improve it. I can bet that Bulat M retained the basic steel/resine/poliethylen/ceramic armor fillers at best. The difference Russkie made here is enormous. You can't beat that, and even if Duplet would work as desired in 100%, Russian base armor package is much better than the Ukrainian, making a claim about better armor package questionable at least.

    Going further, Bulat uses Ukro made 2A46M1 gun named KBA-3. This gun is made with 80s technology, and is 40 years behind Russian equivalent, as lyle6 pointed out. There are huge differences in withstanding pressures, chamber volume, heat resistance, and finally, a quality of a gun itself.

    To be fair, Bulat was already better than any tank the west can provide to Ukraine, and Bulat M is a light years ahead - yet does not match Russian 90Ms for sure. I would hardly call it an equivalent of 90A.

    Last but not least, Ukraine is not capable of producing any ammo keen to effectively penetrate Russian tanks, and that applies not to the latest ones, but 30 y/o 90s as well. With all bells&whistles, they can operate an imported rounds that can engage 72B, and BM under some circumstances.

    GarryB, Big_Gazza, Hole, lancelot and Mir like this post

    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 2147
    Points : 2141
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  lyle6 Sun Jun 04, 2023 5:25 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    HE is the same... and different HE rounds spread the fragments differently... most artillery and tank HE Frag rounds spread fragments sideways along the walls of the shells with the nose carrying the fuse...
    And not all HE is the same. Russia's newest HE shell has hundreds of preformed splinters in the nose so it might end up that its the front not the sides give out the densest fragmentation cloud.

    ALAMO wrote:
    Nozh is brilliant on paper, and should be deadly effective against a variety of threats, including even bizarre ones like triple charged HEAT projectiles.
    Er, no its not.

    The main charge of tandem HEAT weapons sit really far from the nose. There is also a significant delay between the precursor and main charge initiation. It is literally impossible for Duplet's shaped charge flux to affect the main charge.

    Against APFSDS its the same story. The subcaliber shaft moves too fast and the shaped charge flux gets smeared along the side instead of continuously pitting a hole in the same spot...

    And like most things Ukrainian these are Soviet developed. Nii Stalii would have all the data required to fabricate Duplet but they didn't. Ever wonder why Nii Stalii opted for a multi-flyer plates instead of sequential shaped charges?

    GarryB and jon_deluxe like this post

    avatar
    ALAMO


    Posts : 6528
    Points : 6618
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  ALAMO Sun Jun 04, 2023 9:23 pm

    lyle6 wrote:
    Er,  no its not.
    The main charge of tandem HEAT weapons sit really far from the nose. There is also a significant delay between the precursor and main charge initiation. It is literally impossible for Duplet's shaped charge flux to affect the main charge.
    Against APFSDS its the same story. The subcaliber shaft moves too fast and the shaped charge flux gets smeared along the side instead of continuously pitting a hole in the same spot...
    And like most things Ukrainian these are Soviet developed. Nii Stalii would have all the data required to fabricate Duplet but they didn't. Ever wonder why Nii Stalii opted for a multi-flyer plates instead of sequential shaped charges?

    Well, it is - if you dig into the original project details.
    It is what I have said.
    What Soviets tried to achieve, was an effect of explosive formed penetrator applied into a micro scale.
    Nozh bars were nothing else that battons with multiple EFP.
    The idea is brilliant.
    If fired with demanded sequence, it will disturb any penetrating stream and destruct any penetrator rod.
    It would just cut that into pieces, deprive the geometry, crack the penerator integrity - you name it.
    If you have a multiple EFP on the route of a cumulative stream, it will be severely disrupted - no other way.
    And it is really hard to resolve, openly speaking.
    But "demanded sequence" is a hint here.
    Soviets didn't manage to get it to explode in a programmed condition.
    Single cells cooked off randomly, and there was not much to be done with that. It was ignited by a pressure, heat, blast wave, different for a different temperatures etc.
    And that's the point.
    Russians moved into a different solutions, leaving the Nozh conceptual behind.
    But not Ukrainians, who were kind off desperate.
    Without any substantial different feature, and after the Pak delivery drama, they have lost all the position on the arms market.

    GarryB likes this post

    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 2147
    Points : 2141
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  lyle6 Sun Jun 04, 2023 10:14 pm

    And I'm telling you, the concept just doesn't work like that in real life. Even if you can solve the initiation sequence problem the Nozh tiles are simply set at too shallow an angle to affect most tandem warheads effectively and there is simply no solving the incoherence issue against fast moving penetrators. I'm not even sure if the shaped charges in Nozh all properly develop the desired flux - the detonation of one charge is supposed to initiate the primer for all charges, but wouldn't it also be enough to disturb the nearest charges...

    GarryB likes this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38765
    Points : 39261
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  GarryB Mon Jun 05, 2023 6:48 am

    And not all HE is the same. Russia's newest HE shell has hundreds of preformed splinters in the nose so it might end up that its the front not the sides give out the densest fragmentation cloud.

    That is true... rounds specifically designed to project fragments forward like a Claymore mine will of course will be more effective for the purpose, but for a large shell like a tank round that means a ballistic nose for aerodynamics and a pretty flat nose the calibre of the round so how many fragments do you think will fit across there?

    If you can track down the episode of mythbusters where they put explosives in a tin of paint to see how it would perform spreading paint onto a wall (from a Mr Bean episode where he put a stick of explosives into a tin of paint to paint a room) it clearly showed the "spread" was random and patchy and not effective at all at covering the walls with paint.

    While fragments are not paint they are distributed by explosive blast which is random and not evenly deployed and that the fragmentation pattern would not be consistent enough to assure damage especially when the detonation point can't be guaranteed either... if the HE round hits the surface of the tank then the fragments are unlikely to hit optics because you would have to hit them directly or explode the round in front of the optics to take them out.

    ie hitting the front of the turret would mean the fragments would have to go around the surface of the turret front to reach the optics, which are generally in their own little armoured boxes.

    Protection for optics isn't 100% obviously but you would need to be accurately targeting them to even have a chance of getting them.

    And how difficult will that be... you are shooting at his eyes and he is concentrating on killing you... you will need multiple shots to damage you and he just needs one.

    avatar
    ALAMO


    Posts : 6528
    Points : 6618
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  ALAMO Mon Jun 05, 2023 6:57 am

    lyle6 wrote:And I'm telling you, the concept just doesn't work like that in real life. Even if you can solve the initiation sequence problem the Nozh tiles are simply set at too shallow an angle to affect most tandem warheads effectively and there is simply no solving the incoherence issue against fast moving penetrators. I'm not even sure if the shaped charges in Nozh all properly develop the desired flux - the detonation of one charge is supposed to initiate the primer for all charges, but wouldn't it also be enough to disturb the nearest charges...

    And that is what I was talking Laughing

    The concept is great. On paper.
    Russians stopped evolving it by a reason.
    One of the reasons was a fact, that in some way this ERA started to be overcomplicated and close to the APS in concept.
    My guess is that Nozh is much more expensive than Relikt.
    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 2147
    Points : 2141
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  lyle6 Wed Jun 07, 2023 6:57 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    That is true... rounds specifically designed to project fragments forward like a Claymore mine will of course will be more effective for the purpose, but for a large shell like a tank round that means a ballistic nose for aerodynamics and a pretty flat nose the calibre of the round so how many fragments do you think will fit across there?
    Quite a bit, actually. Better heat treatment of the shell body + precision scoring of the inside + preformed fragments means a HE shell can be consistently relied upon to generate thousands of small even fragments with regular patterning.

    GarryB wrote:
    If you can track down the episode of mythbusters where they put explosives in a tin of paint to see how it would perform spreading paint onto a wall (from a Mr Bean episode where he put a stick of explosives into a tin of paint to paint a room) it clearly showed the "spread" was random and patchy and not effective at all at covering the walls with paint.
    The spread was "random" because he put a stick of explosives in a tin of paint.

    This is not a tin of paint with a stock of explosives in it:


    GarryB wrote:
    While fragments are not paint they are distributed by explosive blast which is random and not evenly deployed and that the fragmentation pattern would not be consistent enough to assure damage especially when the detonation point can't be guaranteed either... if the HE round hits the surface of the tank then the fragments are unlikely to hit optics because you would have to hit them directly or explode the round in front of the optics to take them out.
    That's why you airburst well ahead of the threat, so the shell initiates more or less intact and generate the optimum fragmentation cloud.

    GarryB wrote:
    ie hitting the front of the turret would mean the fragments would have to go around the surface of the turret front to reach the optics, which are generally in their own little armoured boxes.
    A direct impact with a HE shell to the front of the turret is a guaranteed firepower kill, actually. The gun barrel would be shredded and if it isnt outright torn off it further shooting would be impossible.

    GarryB wrote:
    Protection for optics isn't 100% obviously but you would need to be accurately targeting them to even have a chance of getting them.
    And an airburst 125 mm shell exploding at 10 m away should do the trick.

    GarryB wrote:
    And how difficult will that be... you are shooting at his eyes and he is concentrating on killing you... you will need multiple shots to damage you and he just needs one.
    He needs more actually, since he has to exhaust your complement of APS interceptors before can even do some damage.

    When the defence becomes a bit overwhelming you have to be a bit creative. Its like when plate armor become the vogue - everyone went for polearms not because they can crush steel in one blow - that is silly, but they can easily trip up an armored opponent by hooking his arms and legs from a safe distance. And when he's down on his back you can then easily dispatch him like you would an animal in a trap.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38765
    Points : 39261
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  GarryB Thu Jun 08, 2023 5:59 am

    This is not a tin of paint with a stock of explosives in it:

    Interesting video... a multipurpose round that isn't... unless they screwed up the video... the airburst round would be intercepted by an APS before it showered the target tank with fragments, the impact HE round would not damage the optics because the fragments can't go around corners, and the penetrating delay HE round seemed to explode on impact each time instead of penetrating into the target and exploding on the other side of the outer wall it hit.

    Then it showed videos of TOS and Russian cruise missile launches and artillery... mixed up just a little...

    That's why you airburst well ahead of the threat, so the shell initiates more or less intact and generate the optimum fragmentation cloud.

    Except if it ever became any sort of threat you could link you APS system tracking such incoming rounds and have them close protective shutters on the optics and sensitive equipment as it approaches and also intercept it at a greater standoff distance... which would also make it more useful against HEAT warhead equipped weapons too.

    A direct impact with a HE shell to the front of the turret is a guaranteed firepower kill, actually. The gun barrel would be shredded and if it isnt outright torn off it further shooting would be impossible.

    Yet no country on the planet loads its tanks up with HE rounds... except the British with their obsolete HESH which they are now dropping too.

    And an airburst 125 mm shell exploding at 10 m away should do the trick.

    I am really not convinced.


    When the defence becomes a bit overwhelming you have to be a bit creative. Its like when plate armor become the vogue - everyone went for polearms not because they can crush steel in one blow - that is silly, but they can easily trip up an armored opponent by hooking his arms and legs from a safe distance. And when he's down on his back you can then easily dispatch him like you would an animal in a trap.

    Using that logic all anti armour weapons should cease production and be replaced by air delivered mobile mines that drive around in the tall grass to drive under the tracks of enemy tanks or into trenches with enemy troops... Smile
    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 2147
    Points : 2141
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  lyle6 Thu Jun 08, 2023 9:19 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Interesting video... a multipurpose round that isn't... unless they screwed up the video... the airburst round would be intercepted by an APS before it showered the target tank with fragments, the impact HE round would not damage the optics because the fragments can't go around corners, and the penetrating delay HE round seemed to explode on impact each time instead of penetrating into the target and exploding on the other side of the outer wall it hit.
    Then you set a slightly shorter delay so the APS is duped. Or you intentionally shoot to around the target to get the APS to disregard your shot as a near miss and not engage.

    Thr new Russian programmable OF82 HE shell is designed to generate a fragmentation spray cone ahead of it apart from the traditional side fragmentation so there should be plenty of angles to choose from.

    And if the turret is facing away that you can't harm the multichannel gunner and commander's optics - that is great. You have the element of surprise. You can have 2 shots lined before the victim even realizes he's under attack. One to disable the defences, one to kill.

    GarryB wrote:
    Except if it ever became any sort of threat you could link you APS system tracking such incoming rounds and have them close protective shutters on the optics and sensitive equipment as it approaches and also intercept it at a greater standoff distance... which would also make it more useful against HEAT warhead equipped weapons too.
    Sounds like a bad idea to blind yourself in the heat of a firefight. The APS sensors can't be blinded in the middle of an attack by the by, so its should still serve my point.

    GarryB wrote:
    Yet no country on the planet loads its tanks up with HE rounds... except the British with their obsolete HESH which they are now dropping too.
    The Russians do. Most missions they roll with almost purely HE against fortifications and light targets out in the open.

    GarryB wrote:
    Using that logic all anti armour weapons should cease production and be replaced by air delivered mobile mines that drive around in the tall grass to drive under the tracks of enemy tanks or into trenches with enemy troops... Smile
    We call them AT landmines and they are hell on armor. Honestly I'm quite confused why nobody has had the idea of strapping a TM-46 with a tilt rod fuze to one of those larger RC toy cars. Drive them past the belly and boom the tank is fucked.
    Podlodka77
    Podlodka77


    Posts : 2589
    Points : 2591
    Join date : 2022-01-06
    Location : Z

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  Podlodka77 Thu Jun 22, 2023 9:23 am

    At the sight of the T-90M, the enemy burrows into the ground, said the tank commander
    The commander of the T-90M with the call sign "Perun": at the sight of Russian tanks, the enemy burrows into the ground

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 29 18757610


    MOSCOW, June 22 - RIA Novosti. The firepower of Russian T-90M tanks, which support assault units during a special military operation, is so great that it forces the enemy to burrow into the ground in the hope of not falling under his attack, said the commander of such a vehicle with the call sign "Perun".
    "
    "The T-90M" Proryv "is a very serious firepower. From radio intercepts, we heard more than once that when we leave for work, the enemy simply began to burrow somewhere in the ground so that we would not see him," Perun said in a Defense Ministry press release. video.

    He added that due to the heat-shielding casing, the enemy "poorly notices" this tank in their thermal imaging sights.
    The Russian Defense Ministry showed a video of the combat work of the crews of these tanks of the Western Military District. The video shows how the tank leaves for a firing position, moving along rapeseed fields, then along dirt roads, or along trampled ruts. Moreover, the servicemen move part of the route sitting in an armored vehicle.

    Fire work is shown both outside and inside the tank. You can see how the 125mm cannon is loaded. Several shots are shown taken from various points.
    The task of the tankers is to destroy the enemy infantry in the strongholds and suppress its firing points. The crews of the T-90M use the terrain and natural shelters to successfully hit targets at a considerable distance and out of line of sight. In this they are helped by calculations of drones that transmit coordinates.

    "In the course of carrying out tasks from closed firing positions, the crew had to advance to the route, obtain the coordinates of the enemy's stronghold and use 125-mm cannon fire to inflict high-explosive fragmentation shells," the Defense Ministry said.
    "Perun" also told how duties are distributed in the crew. The commander, according to him, coordinates actions, receives tasks from the command and transfers them to subordinates. According to the data received from the commander, the gunner-operator aims and fires the required type of ammunition.

    The driver must promptly bring the tank to the point, and after the commander and gunner have worked out, just as quickly withdraw the crew so that the enemy does not have time to hit the tank. "Perun" noted that they have to work at almost any time of the day, both late in the evening or at night, and early in the morning. They hit manpower from closed firing positions, they work on combat vehicles with direct fire.
    The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation showed footage of destroyed tanks
    "Burning for a sweet soul": Putin

    https://ria.ru/20230622/tank-1879697884.html

    GarryB, T-47 and Broski like this post

    lancelot
    lancelot


    Posts : 2642
    Points : 2640
    Join date : 2020-10-18

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  lancelot Thu Jun 22, 2023 10:18 am

    The next generation of tanks needs to further continue to improve long range sensors, automatic target tracking, and IR stealth. There is no good reason why a vehicle mounted system should have less or similar sensor and weapons range than an infantry mounted one.

    You also have the issue that vehicle mounted ATGMs like Kornet-M have like 10km range while stated range of Refleks is 5km. I think it is kind of clear that tank weapon systems currently suffer from a lack of technological development.

    GarryB likes this post

    avatar
    ALAMO


    Posts : 6528
    Points : 6618
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  ALAMO Thu Jun 22, 2023 10:25 am

    It is not a lack of technology development, but dimensional physics.
    Kornet i 152mm, and can be made with any desired length - you can make it 100 km range if you insist.
    All GLATMS are limited to 125 mm and the carousel size, so about 760 mm max at the moment. Might be longer for T-14.
    lancelot
    lancelot


    Posts : 2642
    Points : 2640
    Join date : 2020-10-18

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  lancelot Thu Jun 22, 2023 11:04 am

    How about the cancelled US XM1111 Mid-Range Munition? That had more range.
    Hole
    Hole


    Posts : 10504
    Points : 10482
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 47
    Location : Scholzistan

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  Hole Thu Jun 22, 2023 11:30 am

    Isn´t there a new GLATMS for the T-14 with a range of 20km under testing for 2 years or so?
    There was a report that a T-80 is being used for test shots.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38765
    Points : 39261
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  GarryB Thu Jun 22, 2023 2:49 pm

    Then you set a slightly shorter delay so the APS is duped.

    As APS systems get better I would think the distance they can stop rounds or intercept rounds will only increase, replaceable armoured glass sections could be used to cover all optical ports so if they are hit and damaged they can be replaced.

    The Russians do. Most missions they roll with almost purely HE against fortifications and light targets out in the open.

    They load up HE rounds because the vast majority of targets on a normal battlefield are not tanks most of the time and HE rounds are more often useful than armour penetrating rounds.

    They don't carry lots of HE rounds intending on engaging armoured vehicles...

    Honestly I'm quite confused why nobody has had the idea of strapping a TM-46 with a tilt rod fuze to one of those larger RC toy cars. Drive them past the belly and boom the tank is fucked.

    Or equally putting TM-83 roadside mines all over the place and attacking the sides of vehicles...

    All GLATMS are limited to 125 mm and the carousel size, so about 760 mm max at the moment. Might be longer for T-14.

    To be fair you could split the missile into two 760mm sections and have them joined together in the gun barrel for firing...
    avatar
    ALAMO


    Posts : 6528
    Points : 6618
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  ALAMO Thu Jun 22, 2023 3:12 pm

    They are already split in two sections, with a weakened charge and the missile itself.

    GarryB likes this post

    Hole
    Hole


    Posts : 10504
    Points : 10482
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 47
    Location : Scholzistan

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  Hole Thu Jun 22, 2023 5:10 pm

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 29 3ubk2010
    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 29 Reflek10
    Missile + propellant

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 29 0001106
    Sokol-V which can be fired directly and indirectly, max. range some 20km

    ALAMO, T-47, Sprut-B, LMFS, lancelot, Broski, Belisarius and Podlodka77 like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38765
    Points : 39261
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  GarryB Fri Jun 23, 2023 4:50 am

    They are already split in two sections, with a weakened charge and the missile itself.

    I know, but the two parts are not connected as one piece to increase the volume of the missile.

    You could redesign it to make both parts of equal length with the two pieces being connected together as the second piece is rammed into the chamber to add more length and mass to the missile that can be extra fuel or an extra rear mounted warhead and replace the small rear looking laser beam sensor with a front looking optical port so the missile can hunt targets out of line of sight of the vehicle firing the round.

    Another key regarding the Sokol-V is that it can be lofted at the target because it can be fitted with an optical seeker to look for laser target marking spots... fired at max elevation.

    Fitting it with wings to allow it to glide, its range could be easily extended with the wings allowing it to remain airborne and effective even when it slows down to lower flight speeds where lack of wings would make it fall like a rock.
    avatar
    ALAMO


    Posts : 6528
    Points : 6618
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  ALAMO Fri Jun 23, 2023 7:50 am

    There is no space.
    Missile itself is the longest round that fits the carousel of 64A/72B/80B etc.
    Assembled with "ejection charge" it is about 1015 mm in total.
    The point is that this charge does not give any significant momentum, it just pushes it out of a barrel.
    A whole missile lifts with its own rocket engine after leaving the barrel.
    I can spot one chance for a range increase, and that would be higher ejection speed.
    But that gives enormous challenge to the missile itself - even the reduced charge poses a threat to laser beam receiver. That is why propellant charge is so weirdly constructed, with a piston. Pistons role is not just being a spacer, but to cover the missile components from the charge - even reduce one.
    My guess is, that by trying to add an extra momentum would inflict a whole missile to be redesigned.

    My other thought is, that the piston could have been replaced with some kind of a rocket stage, clicking into the missile round itself after loading into the barrel - pushed out, it could ignite and add some extra speed effecting range.
    But again - we talk about tanks with FCS that is designed to operate up to 5000 range. So adding an extra 1-2km range would put a stress to a whole system, again.
    So why not to leave the whole job to the others Laughing ?
    LEt the boys with Kornet-D or those with Vichrs/Atakas some fun Laughing Laughing
    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 2147
    Points : 2141
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  lyle6 Fri Jun 23, 2023 9:05 am

    Hole wrote:
    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 29 0001106
    Sokol-V which can be fired directly and indirectly, max. range some 20km
    This is Kobra. Note the snap-on joint in the middle so it can fit in MZ autoloaders.

    Sokol-V is old news anyhow. The real fun starts with the new Sprinter GLATGM specifically developed with the T-14's vertical autoloader which allows very long projectiles and propellant charges.

    I'd imagine something broken with >20km range, dual-mode IIR seeker, and a tandem HEAT warhead. By moving to an IIR seeker head, its possible to use a full-power charge to eject the missile from the barrel, saving the onboard rocket motor for trajectory control (and further range).

    The T-14 would sling Sprinter missiles at targets detected by other sensors beyond line of sight, and rack up kills with total impunity.

    Totally inverts the dynamic between armor and attack helicopters.


    GarryB, Regular, Sprut-B, LMFS, Hole, Mir and Belisarius like this post

    Regular
    Regular


    Posts : 3868
    Points : 3842
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Ukrolovestan

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  Regular Fri Jun 23, 2023 11:34 am

    Sorry, what does it mean “it can be fired indirectly”? As in explained above? Launched in general direction and guided by other systems, or we talking firing up like an artillery shell and guided from there. Thanks
    avatar
    ALAMO


    Posts : 6528
    Points : 6618
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  ALAMO Fri Jun 23, 2023 12:40 pm

    Indirectly, as you don't see the target.
    Missile will find it.

    GarryB and Regular like this post

    Hole
    Hole


    Posts : 10504
    Points : 10482
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 47
    Location : Scholzistan

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  Hole Fri Jun 23, 2023 5:38 pm

    Like a guided artillery round.

    GarryB and Regular like this post

    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 2147
    Points : 2141
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  lyle6 Fri Jun 23, 2023 9:17 pm

    ALAMO wrote:
    Indirectly, as you don't see the target.
    Missile will find it.
    Oh the tank sees its target just fine. Just not with its own eyes.

    If you think hunting shoot and scoot MLRS launchers is hard, try hunting nomadic MBTs firing PGMs on the move and equipped with extensive electronic protection systems, physical interceptors and heavy armor.

    A Grad, HIMARS, or Uragan are just defenseless trucks really. You spot them and get a Lancet close and you're gucci.

    But a T-14? ****, you're going to have to assemble an even greater strike package just to kill one. You need to defeat the APS, both soft and hard-kill, and then pass through the physical armor. We're talking entire salvos of PGMs realistically, and the platforms that do carry enough munitions to do the job are themselves very expensive and very much vulnerable to higher order defensive assets.

    And there's going to be hundreds of them across the battlefield, constantly firing on the move sniping at targets of opportunity uncovered by the persvasive and near un-killable drone net. The sheer number of attacks alone would overwhelm the processing power of enemy command and control so most would end up getting through unpunished. Twisted Evil

    The perfect net-centric nightmare.

    GarryB, Regular, ALAMO, Sprut-B, The-thing-next-door, LMFS, Hole and like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38765
    Points : 39261
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  GarryB Sat Jun 24, 2023 5:30 am

    There is no space.
    Missile itself is the longest round that fits the carousel of 64A/72B/80B etc.
    Assembled with "ejection charge" it is about 1015 mm in total.

    Solutions can be found... look at the missile size compared to standard round size for the 100mm gun fired missile of the BMP-3, T-54/55, T-62, and the MT-12...

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 29 Bastio10

    From right to left the fired missile in flight, then the missile as a round of ammo for a BMP-3 in a medium pressure 100mm rifled gun, then the missile as a round of ammo for the T-62s 115mm smoothbore high pressure gun, and the remaining two are for the 100mm rifled gun of the T-54/55 and the 100mm smoothbore gun of the MT-12 towed anti tank gun.

    The missiles themselves are modular and divided into sections so if you were desperate you could have sections of the missile in the autoloader where more than two pieces are used that take up the position of two rounds in the autoloader.

    Excessively long rounds are terrible for rifled guns as they are too long to spin stabilise, but missiles don't use spin stabilisation... their 40mm underbarrel grenade launchers show that a low pressure propellent directed backwards can launch something from a tube at a decent velocity without even leaving a shell case behind if necessary so ejection is not really a problem, AFAIK the ejection system for missiles like SVIR etc uses a rod to push the round without needing a perfect gas seal for the munition...

    The point is that this charge does not give any significant momentum, it just pushes it out of a barrel.

    I agree and that is mostly because anti tank guided missiles often have rocket motors in the middle of the tubes pointed outwards and back which would not eject them from a gun tube... these missiles are laser beam riders and when they are clear of the barrel a rear cap falls off and fins deploy and a rear facing optical sensor is exposed to find the laser beam the missile rides to the target... not an ideal place to locate a rocket motor to accelerate the round to normal flight speed.

    Having an improved model with optical guidance in the nose means you can move the rocket motor to the rear if you want to.

    But that gives enormous challenge to the missile itself - even the reduced charge poses a threat to laser beam receiver.

    The laser receiver is covered by a cap at launch so more vigorous ejection should not be a huge problem.

    My guess is, that by trying to add an extra momentum would inflict a whole missile to be redesigned.

    Increasing the mass of the round would require a complete redesign anyway.

    An extension of range would also require a terminal seeker which removes the problem of the tail mounted laser beam receiver too.

    But again - we talk about tanks with FCS that is designed to operate up to 5000 range. So adding an extra 1-2km range would put a stress to a whole system, again.

    Really?

    Even a bog standard T-72 can lob HE shells to about 11km can't it... does it do that blind without any aiming at all?

    I would think sitting the tank on an incline to increase the angle of the barrel would allow greater ranges to be achieved too.

    So why not to leave the whole job to the others

    Well these tanks are operating with drones already, where the drones spot targets that might be a great distance from the vehicles... but equally might be out of line of sight and not that far away at all so being able to loft missiles up into the air so they can fly over obstacles like buildings or small hills and hit targets out of line of sight might be useful... especially targets like Javelin or mortars. These missiles don't need to retain line of sight with the tanks launching these missiles for laser beam riding guidance, they can have laser homing seekers for which the drones that found the targets can mark the targets for the engagement.

    In fact two missiles joined together could create a drone that one vehicle in a tank platoon could launch to find targets and lase them if needed.

    It would allow a drone that gets shot down to be replaced quickly by the units using the drone... we know the Russian tactics are so sophisticated that you just send drones to the front line and the local operators take control of it and operate it supporting the units operating there... the loss of the drone just leads to a fresh drone being launched and perhaps different tactics till the enemy that defeated the previous drone is dealt with.

    LEt the boys with Kornet-D or those with Vichrs/Atakas some fun

    Russia is very lucky to have a wide range of options to deal with enemy problems, but in addition to ground and air based Kornet and Vikhr and Ataka/Khrisantema and LMUR missiles a ground based armoured vehicle that is leading their attacks on enemy ground forces would be useful... out to 5-6km they have HEAT rounds and HE Frag rounds including dedicated airburst rounds, so they really only need guided rounds for moving targets at extended range.

    This is Kobra. Note the snap-on joint in the middle so it can fit in MZ autoloaders.

    That is where I remember it from.... I knew there was a gun launched missile split in two parts that was joined together as it was loaded into the gun...

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 29 300px-10

    Description from wiki:

    The 9M112 Kobra missile consists of two sections:

    9M43 head section – containing the 9M129 shaped charge warhead and the 9D129 sustainer motor
    9B447 tail section – containing a battery, the flight controls, a light source for the guidance system on the tank to track and a small antenna to receive commands from the tank

    The two separate sections are stored in the autoloader of the tank in the same way as conventional 125 mm rounds. As the round is hoisted into the gun the two halves are mated together.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K112_Kobra

    The T-14 would sling Sprinter missiles at targets detected by other sensors beyond line of sight, and rack up kills with total impunity.

    Agree, would think T-14 will be directly communicating with attack helicopters and drones and other platforms spotting targets.

    Sorry, what does it mean “it can be fired indirectly”? As in explained above? Launched in general direction and guided by other systems, or we talking firing up like an artillery shell and guided from there. Thanks

    For instance a Kornet missile rides a laser beam from the launcher directly to the target so you need a direct line of sight from launch to impact.

    You can't do what say a Krasnopol does which has a forward looking laser spot detector and lob rounds a huge distance to targets that might be over the other side of a hill or behind buildings where a laser closer to the target is pointed at the target for the missile to guide in and hit.

    A Grad, HIMARS, or Uragan are just defenseless trucks really. You spot them and get a Lancet close and you're gucci.

    Even a 2S1 and 2S3 are highly mobile and powerful, but their thin armour and the amount of fuel and ammo and propellant they carry make them very vulnerable to even a light weapon like Lancet with a shaped charge warhead that will light up the vehicle if it penetrates and starts a fire.

    T-14 will be much harder to light up.

    Of course a remote weapon station on an artillery vehicle with LIDAR should detect incoming threats like drones, or a support air defence vehicle with armament optimised for air defence like a 2S38 plus a laser armed vehicle... well it gets crazy really.

    Regular, LMFS and lyle6 like this post


    Sponsored content


    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Mar 28, 2024 3:35 pm