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


    TOR Air Defence system

    medo
    medo

    Posts : 3918
    Points : 4002
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    TOR Air Defence system - Page 15 Empty Re: TOR Air Defence system

    Post  medo on Sat May 09, 2020 6:18 pm

    4 TELAR is a battery, 12 TELAR is a division (battalion) having three batteries. 16 TELAR could be a regiment with two divisions each with two batteries. But in that case a brigade consisting of two regiments will have 32 TELARs. But if regiment have two divisions with 12 TELARs, than regiment have 24 TELARs and brigade with two regiments have 48 TELARs. It well depend on the size of a division (battalion) and if they have a regiment in structure between division (battalion) and brigade.
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 6116
    Points : 6267
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    TOR Air Defence system - Page 15 Empty Re: TOR Air Defence system

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Wed Jun 17, 2020 3:38 am

    The development of a wheeled floating version of the Tor-M2 air defense system has begun in Russia
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25982
    Points : 26528
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    TOR Air Defence system - Page 15 Empty Re: TOR Air Defence system

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jun 17, 2020 10:50 am

    Would make it much cheaper to operate and offer rather better mobility in places with good road systems.

    The system itself has a sophisticated radar, but the cheap simple command guided missiles would make it an excellent system for a lot of roles as a short range defence weapon.

    The original model missiles had a range of 12km with 8 missiles per vehicle, but that has been replaced with 16km range missiles half the size allowing 16 ready to launch missiles in the original tracked vehicle. The current models have a range of up to 32km and an altitude capacity of 15km altitude, which is rather impressive for a single stage missile.
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 6116
    Points : 6267
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    TOR Air Defence system - Page 15 Empty Re: TOR Air Defence system

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Wed Jul 08, 2020 10:07 pm

    9M331 w/ EM payload(proposal), Tor-M1/M2U SR SAMS.

    TOR Air Defence system - Page 15 EcZTDMoXgAYOVfM?format=jpg&name=medium

    Cyberspec, George1, dino00 and thegopnik like this post

    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1953
    Points : 1953
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    TOR Air Defence system - Page 15 Empty Re: TOR Air Defence system

    Post  LMFS on Sat Jul 25, 2020 10:45 am

    Book about Tor-M1 in Russian

    http://library.voenmeh.ru/cnau/09ZffWX1yllVMet.pdf
    Cyberspec
    Cyberspec

    Posts : 2889
    Points : 3044
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    TOR Air Defence system - Page 15 Empty Re: TOR Air Defence system

    Post  Cyberspec on Sat Jul 25, 2020 11:43 am

    magnumcromagnon wrote:9M331 w/ EM payload(proposal), Tor-M1/M2U SR SAMS....

    Interesting...is this seriously considered?
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 6116
    Points : 6267
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    TOR Air Defence system - Page 15 Empty Re: TOR Air Defence system

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sat Jul 25, 2020 1:06 pm

    Cyberspec wrote:
    magnumcromagnon wrote:9M331 w/ EM payload(proposal), Tor-M1/M2U SR SAMS....

    Interesting...is this seriously considered?

    It was a proposal, but not much word on it. Does that mean it isn't or couldn't be in service in the near future? History has shown us that Ru MOD doesn't have to publicly state a weapons in service, for it to be in service. Before 2015 there were many doubters that said R-77-1 were never to be put in service, only for VKS fighters to show up over Syrian skies with them.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6219
    Points : 6211
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    TOR Air Defence system - Page 15 Empty Re: TOR Air Defence system

    Post  Isos on Sat Jul 25, 2020 4:58 pm

    EW is a solution against the new threat that are the drones. They already have bigger EW systems but that can't follow the army on the front. So they will need something similar to this.

    They also should have some GPS jammers that follow troops so that it protect against gps guided munitions. That would oblige the use of laser guided munition which are released from higher altitude thus putting them in daner of s-400 or the nearby buk-m3.
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 6116
    Points : 6267
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    TOR Air Defence system - Page 15 Empty Re: TOR Air Defence system

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sat Jul 25, 2020 6:19 pm

    Isos wrote:EW is a solution against the new threat that are the drones. They already have bigger EW systems but that can't follow the army on the front. So they will need something similar to this.

    They also should have some GPS jammers that follow troops so that it protect against gps guided munitions. That would oblige the use of laser guided munition which are released from higher altitude thus putting them in daner of s-400 or the nearby buk-m3.

    Looking at the infographic, it clearly shows it being used against aircrafts. Small drones can be defeated with a handheld device (that could be optionally attached on to defense systems), the EMP warhead would likely disable the munitions on the aircraft as a whole or perhaps the aircraft's avionics itself.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6219
    Points : 6211
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    TOR Air Defence system - Page 15 Empty Re: TOR Air Defence system

    Post  Isos on Sat Jul 25, 2020 7:45 pm

    I don't read russian. From what I guess they replace missiles with EW antenna.

    EMP can be blocked by a faraday cage and most munition should be ok against them just like the aircraft. Maybe not 100% but solutions to defend against them already exist.

    Also EMP disable electronics for a short periode so the munition can be reused after some days.
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 6116
    Points : 6267
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    TOR Air Defence system - Page 15 Empty Re: TOR Air Defence system

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sat Jul 25, 2020 9:08 pm

    Isos wrote:I don't read russian. From what I guess they replace missiles with EW antenna.

    EMP can be blocked by a faraday cage and most munition should be ok against them just like the aircraft. Maybe not 100% but solutions to defend against them already exist.

    Also EMP disable electronics for a short periode so the munition can be reused after some days.

    1.) It doesn't replace a explosive with an antenna, it still requires explosive.

    Weapons of the Future - EW Warheads

    TOR Air Defence system - Page 15 Reb_20042020_001.t

    Will artillery shells and missiles with warheads for electronic warfare appear in the RF Armed Forces?

    Modern warfare is the realm of electronics, information wireless networks, swarms of smart unmanned reconnaissance and strike UAVs. It would be nice to destroy enemy systems of this kind with powerful EMP - electromagnetic pulses. But how? Put stationary emitters at the forefront - burn your electronics. To explode over the positions of the enemy or among the swarms of his drones nuclear charges with electromagnetic radiation? It is dangerous, and not every war should develop into an atomic massacre.

    Another way is possible: to beat the enemy with seemingly ordinary warheads of missiles and shells, which turn the power of their explosions into striking electromagnetic pulses.

    "Sakharov bomb" for electronic warfare

    To combat swarms of light drones and unmanned aerial platforms, warheads with fragmentation and ready-made striking elements (GGE) have been created. Shards and GGEs hit enemy equipment that is within sight. But this is not always possible to do, especially if the UAV is “hiding” in shelter or behind building envelopes. But such means, which are available for destruction and visible, and sheltered enemy technical equipment (including ammunition with electronic and electric detonators), are electronic warfare.


    Electronic warfare (EW) is a set of agreed measures and actions to:

    - electronic defeat of the enemy’s electronic objects (functional defeat, electronic defeat, defeat by radiation-homing weapons);

    - information support (collection, analysis and synthesis of data on the electronic environment, technical reconnaissance of the enemy’s electronic objects, comprehensive technical monitoring of the state and protection from technical means of reconnaissance of their objects);

    - electronic protection (protection against electromagnetic weapons, protection against unintentional interference (ensuring electromagnetic compatibility), protection of troops and objects from reconnaissance equipment).

    Taking into account the state of the electronic warfare equipment produced for the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, it is customary to talk about integrated electronic warfare systems that combine about 50 systems and means for various purposes. (“Scientific principles of electronic warfare”, “Kommersant-Nauka”, No. 1, 2017).

    You can find data on the technical and overall dimensions of all types of electronic warfare equipment of the Russian Federation and a list of companies that produce them. But nowhere is it said about one wonderful device for electronic warfare - the Sakharov bomb, which converts powerful direct current from storage batteries into electromagnetic radiation due to explosive energy. While the use of this device in combat conditions does not allow weight of hundreds of kilograms, the duration of preparation for use, the danger of use at the forefront due to "friendly fire". In addition, an advanced bomb for enemy electronic warfare can be delivered by aircraft.

    The EW bomb quite efficiently converts the explosive energy into the damaging factor of electromagnetic radiation, thereby damaging the elemental base and the circuits of electronic devices and devices. EW modules - powerful generators of electromagnetic radiation (EMP) of impressive dimensions mounted on various media (ground, water, air) - are available in the RF Armed Forces. The emf induced by them closes the electric circuits, burns out the element base, destroys the chargers, batteries, batteries and displays of any gadgets (displays certainly cannot be protected by any Faraday cages), which makes the enemy deaf and blind. But such a weapon cannot be called convenient, since there is a very significant drawback: they cannot be used at the forefront without the risk of instant loss of electronic warfare. And far from the front end.

    Front Edge EW Bomb

    The task of suppressing enemy electronic weapons can be successfully solved if an ordinary soldier is armed with an electronic warfare device with a mass and size similar to a hand grenade launcher, the charge of which can be thrown to the enemy. The same technological, cheap and reliable as the ammunition for the RPG-7, capable of generating a broadband spectrum of EMP with a capacity of tens of kilowatts.

    To "burn out" the elemental base and electrical circuits, you can create a product in which the chemical energy of the explosive will be directly converted into an electromagnetic pulse. It is only necessary to take advantage of the scientific achievements of recent years in the field of construction of permanent magnets, suspensions and liquids based on them. The chemical energy of detonating explosives can be converted into a powerful pulse of EM radiation by creating a high-speed relative motion of the magnetic field of permanent magnets and a beam of charged particles of easily ionizing substances. And what is very important for the reliability, reliability, ease and speed of use of such a product is the absence in its design of any charging, storage devices for electric current. Just like in Sakharov’s bomb.

    The cumulative effect is widely used in military science to give high speeds to damaging elements (PE) - a quasi-liquid metal jet, impact core, in engineering and mining - to cut cables, rods, crushing rocks, concrete. The proposed method is characterized in that substances and components are placed in the cumulative cavity, which due to the cumulative effect (due to the collapse of the walls of the cumulative cavity and extrusion of the substance therein) are given a high speed. It is in the direction of motion of the group velocity of the front of detonation waves of the explosive charge. The speed of a substance placed in a cumulative cavity in the form of a suspension of neodymium micromagnets, magnetic fluid MG-131, or other magnetic fluid on a silicone or other basis, flowing out in a narrow beam in the direction of the group velocity of detonation waves,

    Vв = Vдв / sinα,

    where Vв is the velocity of the outflowing substance,

    Vdv is the velocity of the detonation wave front,

    2α is the angle of the top of the cumulative funnel.

    When the velocity of the detonation wave front Vdv equal to 7–8 km / s, the velocity of the outflow of matter Vb can reach tens of kilometers per second.

    Explosive suspensions

    The cumulative effect can be used to create a flow of ionized particles with high kinetic energy and to mechanically move the magnetic field of the magnetic fluid towards the flow of charged particles. What for? To get a powerful short-term pulse of EM radiation of a wide spectrum. Looking ahead, I’ll say: you can create charges that destroy the enemy with powerful EMP, and like ordinary "explosive" ammunition.

    The device necessary for this can consist of two cumulative cavities in which accelerated substances are located, located at a distance of the order of the length of the cumulative jet of 10-15 cm along one axis. Moreover, the cavity is directed towards each other. A suspension of neodymium micromagnets or a magnetic fluid with strong magnetization is placed in one. For example, MG-131 is a colloidal solution of nanometer solid-state ferromagnets. In the other, an easily ionizable substance, such as barium oxide, BaO. With simultaneous undermining of the charges, the magnetic field of a suspension of neodymium micromagnets or magnetic fluid rushes towards each other and the flux of ions and electrons formed as a result of thermal ionization of barium oxide with a relative velocity of more than 20 km / s, which generates a powerful electromagnetic pulse similar to magnetron radiation.

    The power is due to the short duration of the flow interaction (the distance between the cumulative charges flows are covered in fractions of a microsecond). An impulse is obtained not only when an inhomogeneous magnetic field interacts with positively and negatively charged particles moving with high kinetic energy from collisions with magnetic fluid elements, metal micromagnets, but also with each other. Ion bombardment excites interconnected processes. The main ones are volume and surface scattering of bombarding ions (including those with a change in their charge state), emission from various condensed matter of charged and neutral particles and their complexes (ion-ion, ion-electron, sputtering), emission of electromagnetic radiation with a wide spectrum frequencies, ion-luminescence, ion-photon emission.

    TOR Air Defence system - Page 15 Reb_20042020

    The first stage is an elementary act of collision of an ion with an atom of another body, the result of which is the redistribution of energy and momentum of the bombarding ion between the scattered ion and the target atom. This leads to the appearance of extended sequential and cascades of atomic collisions, as well as the processes accompanying the rearrangement of the electron shells of the collision partners, which determines the totality of the secondary processes caused by ion bombardment. The energy of a fast primary particle (ion) during surface bombardment goes to a number of secondary processes: part of the energy is spent on sputtering the target lattice, emission of electrons, ions, photons, fast neutral particles. This energy is carried out from the solid, another part of the energy remains and goes to the formation of radiation effects, various electronic and phonon excitations of the lattice, luminescence, structural transformations. For large values ​​of the energy of colliding particles (tens and hundreds of eV), ion-photon emission (IPE) proceeds according to the kinetic mechanism, when external electrons are excited by the shell of a knocked out atom due to inelastic energy transfer during collision. Depending on the energy, type of incident ion, angle of bombardment, and type of target, one or several groups of velocities of flying away excited atoms and the same number of energy thresholds for excitation of IPEs arise. upon excitation of external electrons of the shell of a knocked out atom due to inelastic energy transfer upon collision. Depending on the energy, type of incident ion, angle of bombardment, and type of target, one or several groups of velocities of flying away excited atoms and the same number of energy thresholds for excitation of IPEs arise. upon excitation of external electrons of the shell of a knocked out atom due to inelastic energy transfer upon collision. Depending on the energy, type of incident ion, angle of bombardment, and type of target, one or several groups of velocities of flying away excited atoms and the same number of energy thresholds for excitation of IPEs arise.

    Calculations show that at a relative velocity (the velocity of barium oxide ions relative to the counter magnetic flux) of 20 km / s, the barium oxide ion has a translational kinetic energy of 31.83 eV, which allows a broad-spectrum EM pulse to appear, and the kinetic electron energy at that the same speed will be equal to 18.2x10-23 j. Then the upper limit of the radiation excited by such an electron will be 2.75x1011 Hz. And this corresponds to a radiation wavelength of the order of one millimeter. The processes that occur when the proposed device is activated are so diverse that it is a difficult task to take into account and calculate all the effects. However, the simplest calculations show the fidelity of the proposed method and the possibility of obtaining the desired effect at the lowest possible cost.

    This method and the proposed device will find application in science. For example, when radiosounding in GPR. In military affairs - to disable the enemy’s electronic and electrical devices. The simplicity of the device, the low cost and accessibility of technologies and materials already used and mastered, the ability to deliver EM ammunition in a salvo of barreled artillery or rocket launch, or by the forces of an ordinary soldier make it an insidious and dangerous weapon.

    EW warheads have a feature associated with a sufficient mass of explosive charge to perform the function of a shell explosive device. If the shell is made of solid segmented radio-transparent material, then such ammunition will successfully play the role of a high-explosive fragmentation shell.

    The versatility and ease of use in a combat situation makes this weapon especially formidable, since EW warheads will also be effective in firing at squares. This is what will allow any fighter to destroy the enemy and his equipment as many times as he sees it.

    One can easily imagine such a “clean” weapon in the form of warheads of various missiles and long-range artillery shells that beat columns of enemy equipment, swarms of drones, squadrons at sea, planes and even enemy cities at the far approaches. And what new qualities will acquire anti-aircraft missile systems! Without a doubt, it is necessary to deploy work on weapons of a new era in our country.

    https://vpk.name/news/395544_oruzhie_budushego_boegolovki_reb.html

    2.) A sufficient Faraday Cage would interfere with aircraft to PGM guidance. A PGM or an aircraft would still need a power source within it's body to operate, a Faraday cage would divert power from vital electronic components making their subsystems useless. Besides like I said it still requires an explosive to induce the EMP effect, a Faraday cage isn't explosive-proof and the EMP would be emitted at point-blank range.

    Cyberspec likes this post

    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1953
    Points : 1953
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    TOR Air Defence system - Page 15 Empty Re: TOR Air Defence system

    Post  LMFS on Sat Jul 25, 2020 9:13 pm

    Isos wrote:EMP can be blocked by a faraday cage and most munition should be ok against them just like the aircraft.

    Any aperture like those used for radars, antennas or sensors are wide open to EMP effects.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6219
    Points : 6211
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    TOR Air Defence system - Page 15 Empty Re: TOR Air Defence system

    Post  Isos on Sat Aug 22, 2020 6:21 pm

    Russian made vehicle for Tor M2 which will replace Belorussian made one.


    TOR Air Defence system - Page 15 Egbwkj10
    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 819
    Points : 867
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Uranus

    TOR Air Defence system - Page 15 Empty Re: TOR Air Defence system

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Sun Aug 23, 2020 8:55 am

    Isos wrote:Russian made vehicle for Tor M2 which will replace Belorussian made one.


    TOR Air Defence system - Page 15 Egbwkj10

    Well it is nice to see some design bureaus still maintaining the Russian aesthetics over the poorly conceived western abominations.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 9381
    Points : 9463
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    TOR Air Defence system - Page 15 Empty Re: TOR Air Defence system

    Post  PapaDragon on Wed Aug 26, 2020 1:27 am

    The-thing-next-door wrote:
    Isos wrote:Russian made vehicle for Tor M2 which will replace Belorussian made one.
    TOR Air Defence system - Page 15 Egbwkj10

    Well it is nice to see some design bureaus still maintaining the Russian aesthetics over the poorly conceived western abominations.

    Oh yeah, they are maintaining the Russian aesthetics so hard I'm surprised Oshkosh Corporation still hasn't sued them for copyright fees lol1

    TOR Air Defence system - Page 15 Oshkosh-M1074A1-PLS

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25982
    Points : 26528
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    TOR Air Defence system - Page 15 Empty Re: TOR Air Defence system

    Post  GarryB on Wed Aug 26, 2020 8:09 am

    I am sure the US Army would wave that money in return for a SAM 1/10 as good as the TOR missile system that entered service in the 1980s...

    It looks similar so obviously must be a copy Rolling Eyes

    So the F-22 is a copy of a MiG-25...
    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 819
    Points : 867
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Uranus

    TOR Air Defence system - Page 15 Empty Re: TOR Air Defence system

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Wed Aug 26, 2020 12:06 pm

    Russian vehicles generally have a subtle but distinct type of geometry, they typically also take the extra time to add bevels and slight angles.

    I am not saying that this new vehicle is a good example of the Russian style, what I am saying is that it is good that it does not look like a shitty western box or plastech abomination.

    The Russian style is one of the best and to abandon it would be nothing short of treason.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 9381
    Points : 9463
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    TOR Air Defence system - Page 15 Empty Re: TOR Air Defence system

    Post  PapaDragon on Wed Aug 26, 2020 1:50 pm

    The-thing-next-door wrote:...
    The Russian style is one of the best and to abandon it would be nothing short of treason.

    It's called Soviet style and has long been abandoned

    Only legacy platforms like BTR still use it, everything made in this century looks nothing like it


    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6219
    Points : 6211
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    TOR Air Defence system - Page 15 Empty Re: TOR Air Defence system

    Post  Isos on Wed Aug 26, 2020 3:47 pm

    Angled armor offers no benefits. You need more material to cover a same area compared to "box" shapes and the little mm of protection value added are useless against modern heavy AT grenade/missiles or 30mm apfsds.

    The box shapes allow at least to have space inside the vehicle. Protection will still be only usefull against small arms. It is also much easier to build.

    They should also offer a light version of the tor. Not all the countries will use it to follow tanks in Europe as it was designed for soviet forces. Most countries will use it to defend key targets inside their country so they don't need the armor. A light truck can be a better option (less fuel consumption, better servicability, better manoeuvrability, faster...).
    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 819
    Points : 867
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Uranus

    TOR Air Defence system - Page 15 Empty Re: TOR Air Defence system

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Wed Aug 26, 2020 9:12 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:

    It's called Soviet style and has long been abandoned

    Only legacy platforms like BTR still use it, everything made in this century looks nothing like it



    It does linger on in some areas, you have to understand that what I am talking about is subtle tendencies in the designs of equipment and not the broad strokes dictated by the manufacturing procedures of the time.

    The T-34, T72 and T-14 all share a similar sense of elegance and style to the point where you can differentiate between Russian vehicles/vehicles derived from Russian examples from vehicles of other countries most of the time if you look carefully.

    You can also clearly see the lack of taste in western designs if you look at them carefully.

    Isos wrote:Angled armor offers no benefits. You need more material to cover a same area compared to "box" shapes and the little mm of protection value added are useless against modern heavy AT grenade/missiles or 30mm apfsds.

    The box shapes allow at least to have space inside the vehicle. Protection will still be only usefull against small arms. It is also much easier to build.

    They should also offer a light version of the tor. Not all the countries will use it to follow tanks in Europe as it was designed for soviet forces. Most countries will use it to defend key targets inside their country so they don't need the armor. A light truck can be a better option (less fuel consumption, better servicability, better manoeuvrability, faster...).

    Do the bevels on the BMP-1 serve any functional purpose? Well that is assuming you don't count the psychological benefits of good looking equipment as functional.

    My point is about aesthetics not direct function. I am concerned about some impressionable morons abandoning the historical style of Russian industry in favor of modern "aesthetics".
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6219
    Points : 6211
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    TOR Air Defence system - Page 15 Empty Re: TOR Air Defence system

    Post  Isos on Wed Aug 26, 2020 11:07 pm

    Do the bevels on the BMP-1 serve any functional purpose? Well that is assuming you don't count the psychological benefits of good looking equipment as functional.

    Soviet designed their armor to be small thus be harder targets for the optics back in the time. That's why they had such design.

    Now with thermals, digital cameras and drones on the top, the size of the vehicle doesn't matter because you will be spotted anyway. T-14 is the exemple as it shares nothing in common with t-72/80 series.

    They are adapting their design to current threats. There is no benefits of the good looking designs. Either your soldiers know their equipment and use it like masters or they don't and get destroyed.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25982
    Points : 26528
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    TOR Air Defence system - Page 15 Empty Re: TOR Air Defence system

    Post  GarryB on Thu Aug 27, 2020 8:58 am

    Angled armor offers no benefits. You need more material to cover a same area compared to "box" shapes and the little mm of protection value added are useless against modern heavy AT grenade/missiles or 30mm apfsds.

    So why don't modern HATO MBTs look like Tigers?

    The box shapes allow at least to have space inside the vehicle. Protection will still be only usefull against small arms. It is also much easier to build.

    So western design puts internal volume above the safety of the crew and troops?

    They should also offer a light version of the tor.

    TOR has incredibly cheap but effective command guided missiles, but requires that sophisticated radar tracking systems that can't be made cheap.

    If you want simple and light then buy Pine.

    Countries that want super cheap super simple air defence end up like the US Army... MANPADS and modified AAMs from the 1960s...

    I am concerned about some impressionable morons abandoning the historical style of Russian industry in favor of modern "aesthetics".

    Yes, because it is important to have morons on your side... ?????


    T-14 is the exemple as it shares nothing in common with t-72/80 series.

    Same gun.

    And to be fair it has a hull and a turret...

    There is no benefits of the good looking designs.

    If it works well they will learn to like it... if it is pretty but useless they can learn to hate even the prettiest design...
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6219
    Points : 6211
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    TOR Air Defence system - Page 15 Empty Re: TOR Air Defence system

    Post  Isos on Thu Aug 27, 2020 10:02 am

    So why don't modern HATO MBTs look like Tigers?

    I was talking for the light vehicles. But even them, they looks more like tiger 1 than tiger 2... no angled armor, they are all boxes.

    For the tanks it still adds a good value protection because modern apfsds penetrates a lot so you need anything that can add some cm of protection value.


    So western design puts internal volume above the safety of the crew and troops?

    More space means also if it is hit their is less probability to kill everyone inside.

    Hit a bmp-2 with an APFSDS and it cuts half of the crew members.

    That's why armata based vehicles are 2 times taller and bigger than their soviet counterparts....

    Same gun.

    And to be fair it has a hull and a turret...

    You could fair a litlle bit more.

    Not the same gun. The hull has a bubble for its 3 man crew. The turret is unmanned. The size of the tank has nothing to do with the older tanks.

    TOR has incredibly cheap but effective command guided missiles, but requires that sophisticated radar tracking systems that can't be made cheap.

    If you want simple and light then buy Pine.

    I don't mean cheap but light. Light in terms of weight. The tracked and the wheeled chassis seems to be armored which isn't a recquirement for many countries that would buy it because they wouldn't use it the protect tanks on the front but like a AD system to protect other AD systems or targets inside the country.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25982
    Points : 26528
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    TOR Air Defence system - Page 15 Empty Re: TOR Air Defence system

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 28, 2020 7:16 am

    For the tanks it still adds a good value protection because modern apfsds penetrates a lot so you need anything that can add some cm of protection value.

    Ironically the reverse is probably true... steeply angled armour plate makes more difference to older full calibre APHE type rounds, because APFSDS rounds don't richochet.

    A steeply angled plate offers more material to penetrate but also reduces internal volume as well.

    The survivability of tanks during WWII had more to do with the size of the hatches and how easy they were to get out of when damaged than the thickness of armour....

    Hit a bmp-2 with an APFSDS and it cuts half of the crew members.

    A sideways through the turret shot would do that to any armoured vehicle...

    Look at the cross sections of any troop transport vehicle... Soviet or HATO and the troops are always packed in close... the new vehicles are no different... that they are bigger means more men and better comfort and more of their kit inside the vehicle but they are still sardines...

    Not the same gun. The hull has a bubble for its 3 man crew. The turret is unmanned. The size of the tank has nothing to do with the older tanks.

    A 125mm gun in a turret... the only difference is that the two crew from the turret are moved down to the front hull... everything else is exactly the same layout and design.

    The tracked and the wheeled chassis seems to be armored which isn't a recquirement for many countries that would buy it because they wouldn't use it the protect tanks on the front but like a AD system to protect other AD systems or targets inside the country.

    Air defence systems will be a very high priority target... from drones to artillery... a bit of protection is not a bad thing.
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 6116
    Points : 6267
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    TOR Air Defence system - Page 15 Empty Re: TOR Air Defence system

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Tue Sep 01, 2020 8:24 pm

    GarryB and LMFS like this post


    Sponsored content

    TOR Air Defence system - Page 15 Empty Re: TOR Air Defence system

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Oct 01, 2020 10:05 am