Russian Army ATGM Thread

Werewolf wrote:A "Top-Attack" capability would do nothing good for the Kornet with its current warhead of 1200-1400mm RHAe penetration value. Those values are armor penetration, the top side of tanks has literally no armor, just enough to keep the missiles body and pressure of the HE part of the shaped charge outside of the tank, meaning it will not matter if you have a Top Attack Bazooka of WW2 with its 275mm RHAe or a Kornet-D with 1400mm RHAe, the penetrator will be formed will pierce the roof armor which is less than 40-70mm and with very little spalling enter the crew compartment, do little damage in a very narrow cone of shrapnels/spalling and the penetrator itself. If there is no one in this narrowed cone of spalling or in the way of the penetrator itself it will do much less damage than a Kornet-D penetrating frontal armor of any MBT and it will do so with ease. If you would use a Kornet-D as a Top attack weapon the only thing you would achieve with its powerful penetrator is to penetrate top armor, entire hull and 2 meters of ground beneath the tank. Good thing if you want to kill groundhoges, but complete resource waste for much lower effect than a frontal penetration.

The best thing i could think off as an cheap upgrade for Kornet is making it equal to Vikhr by adding proximity fuze to have better capability to engage infantry formations with HE-Frag warheads instead of searching Obstacles to slam the missile against to set it off. The problem with that is that the missile hits a wall or a car and the wall/car absorbs quite big junk of the fragments so weakening its maximal potential lethality.
There are different technologies how to make a proximity fuze, an expensive way with precision laser around the warhead, a very cheap one like a laser rangefinder measures distance, provides it to missile and missile measures its own speed and explodes when it reaches the distance, very easy method with good accuracy.

Thanks for all of this information, mate. I knew that the top of the tank wasn't as well armoured as other parts of the tank but I had no idea that the upper turret was so lightly protected. If you program the top-attack missile to hit precisely where the crew compartment is, wouldn't that be more effective than a frontal penetration? The ability to not only penetrate the upper turret but also its hull and 2 meters of soil beneath it is something I would want -- to completely demoralise my enemies. That's a great selling point, mate. A proximity fuse for the Kornet-D is a bloody good idea.

Militarov wrote:

Thats why my idea of having appliable modular guidance sensors on top of the warhead depending on target, launcher itself can be made to work with 2 types of guidance is not much of a fuss. Now imagine making 10.000 warheads for certain ATGM, and you make 2-3 types of seekers making naturally the most expencive and least used one to be built in some amount of 1-2k. That would be both fairly economical and would increase general performance of ATGMs. I am again saying this is just an idea, and if Russians do not make it, someone else will, there are alot smarter people than both me and you sitting somewhere in Darpa, Rheinmetall, Samsung, Rafale...

Looking at the current Top of the line technology when it comes to Rockets and Missiles especially for Anti Tank purposes we know who is much "smarter" or doing the job that has to be done instead of designing "wunderwaffen" that cost a lot but have little virtual use and effeciency. Russians with KBP Tula making already the best.

Militarov wrote:
I agree there with you, but ill say that Americans very often evade using disposable AT weapons aganist such targets coz they are scared of casualties. Matador AT even has switch mode that optimises fuse for use aganist walls,  sandbags and fortifications. So they very often end up using Javelin on 900m range aganist non armored, and non fortified targets. There is video of them in Afganistan using Javelin aganist 3-5 Talibans on nearby hill and they had plenty of HMGs and grenade launchers around on vehicles.

They are certainly not. If they want they will call an airstrike in a highly populated area in urban warfare just so their soldiers can cheer when things explode. They do not give a jackshit about that.

Militarov wrote:
Hey, if high enough numbers are being produced and if you make it simple enough it doesnt have to be very expencive. Americans tend to build things very complicated and overpriced, so dont judge instantly by looking at Javelin.

The differnce is that most of what US MIC produces is always money makers and not the best solution to military needs on a massive quantitive and qualitaty needs, but some technologies are still expensive and CCD/IIR seekers are usually one of those things. The problem right there is how do you gonna make a fire and forget ATGM reliable and accurate but without CCD/IIR seekers? Some technologies are freakish expensive, just in year 2012 russia produced GOES-451 for freakish 3 mln per single FLIR, while today they produce them for less than half the costs of increased performance.

Thanks for all of this information, mate. I knew that the top of the tank wasn't as well armoured as other parts of the tank but I had no idea that the upper turret was so lightly protected. If you program the top-attack missile to hit precisely where the crew compartment is, wouldn't that be more effective than a frontal penetration? The ability to not only penetrate the upper turret but also its hull and 2 meters of soil beneath it is something I would want -- to completely demoralise my enemies. That's a great selling point, mate. A proximity fuse for the Kornet-D is a bloody good idea.

The roof side of all tanks are to put it plain and simple, easily defeatable by WW2 Anti tank hand grenades like the russian RPG-43 which can penetrate 75mm RHAe while the RKG-3 from 1950 can penetrate 220mm RHAe of armor. The roof of tanks are made of RHA steel so the values are no magic and even at an angle those grenades will penetrate the weak roof. The weak armor itself for shaped charges is a little problem, due the lack of material to create spalling to kill crew and take tank out of order as a threat.

To add image processing or an image matrix to a missile will add massive costs and will make no difference in its performance like they are today against tanks. The thing here is if your Top attack missile hits the ammunition bustle = tank destroyed, if it hits the upper glacis of the hull, due the high angling it will penetrate with ease since there is no more than 200-300mm RHAe armor from such angles there (at most) and the tank driver or ammunition/fuel next to him will do the rest, or the ATGM hits the engine compartment, which again is a mobility destruction of the tank and when you have already an existing ATGM team there the tank is automatically destroyed, little survivale chances.

ATGM's with Top attack weapons usually have a very weak shaped charge like the Bill2, the problem is that it has little of use after the armor has passed and the crew is not directly hit, unless you fit the entire tank with TNT for PR purposes. The solution to this problem was already found but appaerantly not put to use so far. A simple EFP that penetrates a large enough in diameter hole into the roof armor and then a followed charge will shoot a little small grenade charge through the punched hole, very similiar concept like on Panzerfaust 3 "Bunkerfaust" version, such a method would assure the destruction of the turret occupants by 99% with little explosive charge, relative low tec technology needed to develop such an ATGM and would entirely devestate any tank without APS or turret roof ERA.

Garry B wrote:
If MMW radar technology improves and becomes cheaper and lighter perhaps some time in the future it might become an option... and we are all hear to learn new stuff...

This forum has made learning an absolute pleasure for me. MMW radars do seem bulky and so their incorporation on powerful, light and portable ATGMs like the Metis-M would defeat the purpose of the whole thing. I saw the MMW radar seeker on the Brimstone and boy did it look heavy.



How much do you think this Brimstone MMW radar weighs? It seems heavy. Would 10 kg be too optimistic?

Garry B wrote:
I suspect it would be possible, but without speeding up the missile I don't think I would want to remain in one position long enough for my missile to reach 4km. My priority would be to fire... get a kill and then move to a new position and fire again at a new target.

Oh I agree that increasing range by a factor of 2 without increasing speed would be suicide for operators. The original 9M133 Kornet had a speed of 550m/s and that's more than twice as fast as the Metis-M, but I have absolutely no idea what kind of modification to the rocket motor of the Metis-M would be required and what weight penalties would be incurred. I agree that keeping costs and weight down to a minimum is the only thing that makes sense for a multipurpose, cheap, portable and powerfully effective ATGM.

Garry B wrote:
If I fire from the window of a building... anyone who can see the front of the building will see me. If I withdraw back into the room my field of fire is greatly narrowed but also the angles I can be seen from is also greatly reduced. Out at 2km away I should still be able to see perhaps 500m or more on either side of the target, which is more than the target will move in the time it takes my missile to hit him. but the number of enemy positions that can see me are greatly reduced making me rather safer from return fire.

A 2 km range would be more than effective in an urban environment like Syria's Aleppo and Idlib. The Metis-M would be effective in almost 100% of its likely battlefield applications. I realise now that costs and numbers matter. If I can get 20 Metis-M missiles for the same price of one similarly range Javelin than I would be far better armed than the guy with an incredibly expensive missile that is cumbersome, process slow and less effective  in most battlefield situations.  

Garry B wrote:The original Metis (NATO AT-7) only had a range of 1.5km, while the Metis-M1 (AT-13) has a range of 2km... it might come as a shock but Metis entered service in the early 1980s and pretty much took over from the AT-4 as short range man portable ATGM, so it replaced the AT-4 and the AT-3.

It's remarkable that they are still so potent even after decades in service.

Garry B wrote:To be honest I don't think it needs more range... if you use it properly it already performs the required role... and if Konkurs can kill an Abrams then Metis should be able to do it too.

If an increase in range creates an unreasonable increase in costs than it would be best to maintain the Metis-M as it is. Your idea of incorporating a wireless direct link in the Metis-M is a great idea; it would increase the safety of operators and its overall effectiveness without increasing cost beyond reason. I also love Werewolf's idea of incorporating a proximity fuse in the Kornet, which should be incorporated into the Metis-M. I still can't believe that the Konkurs was able to penetrate an M1A2 Abrams considering that it's been in service for almost half a century. I wonder if Americans will still maintain that the M1A2 cannot be penetrated by the latest Russian ATGMs now that a last generation Russian ATGM has achieved just that.

Americans are now saying that the Saudi M1A2 that was taken out by the Konkurs Missile was a monkey model and that therefore its evisceration is not indicative of a true M1A2's armour credentials. What the hell!? Why didn't they accept this basic fact when people were telling them that Iraqi tanks in the first gulf war didn't have composite armour, lacked FCS, lacked passive night vision and used ammo that the Russians wouldn't use for training?

Garry B wrote:The new models have upgraded launchers and are pretty much like the Vikhr/Ka-50/Su-25TM combination where the crew selects the target and the missile is launched and the autotracker follows the target to impact with no further input from the operator.

You still have to keep the launcher pointed at the target, but no further guidance commands are needed and the operator does not need to keep the crosshairs on the target.

Having to keep the launcher pointed at the target is a bit dangerous in a dynamic and ever changing environment, and so I'm not really a fan of this system, but there doesn't seem to be a cost-effective alternative that doesn't also increase complexity and so I understand why the Russians have taken this route. ATGMs are unlikely to be as important as Russia's imperative to upgrade its ICBMs, air defence, aircraft and armoured vehicles.

Werewolf wrote:The roof side of all tanks are to put it plain and simple, easily defeatable by WW2 Anti tank hand grenades like the russian RPG-43 which can penetrate 75mm RHAe while the RKG-3 from 1950 can penetrate 220mm RHAe of armor. The roof of tanks are made of RHA steel so the values are no magic and even at an angle those grenades will penetrate the weak roof. The weak armor itself for shaped charges is a little problem, due the lack of material to create spalling to kill crew and take tank out of order as a threat.

To add image processing or an image matrix to a missile will add massive costs and will make no difference in its performance like they are today against tanks. The thing here is if your Top attack missile hits the ammunition bustle = tank destroyed, if it hits the upper glacis of the hull, due the high angling it will penetrate with ease since there is no more than 200-300mm RHAe armor from such angles there (at most) and the tank driver or ammunition/fuel next to him will do the rest, or the ATGM hits the engine compartment, which again is a mobility destruction of the tank and when you have already an existing ATGM team there the tank is automatically destroyed, little survivale chances.

ATGM's with Top attack weapons usually have a very weak shaped charge like the Bill2, the problem is that it has little of use after the armor has passed and the crew is not directly hit, unless you fit the entire tank with TNT for PR purposes. The solution to this problem was already found but appaerantly not put to use so far. A simple EFP that penetrates a large enough in diameter hole into the roof armor and then a followed charge will shoot a little small grenade charge through the punched hole, very similiar concept like on Panzerfaust 3 "Bunkerfaust" version, such a method would assure the destruction of the turret occupants by 99% with little explosive charge, relative low tec technology needed to develop such an ATGM and would entirely devestate any tank without APS or turret roof ERA.

I always wondered why the Kornet-D was so much more powerful than the Spike-ER when they have a similar weight. This puts it all together now. A top attack missile with dual guidance would be almost twice as expensive as a direct engagement variant. How much would an ATGM with an EFP weigh in comparison to a conventional ATGM? It seems that an ATGM with an EFP would be significantly lighter.

I've learned a great deal from this post. I'll now have to read up on some of the things that you mentioned.

Those soldiers don't look as though they fight on behalf of the world's premier military power. Why weren't they told what specific weapons and warheads were capable of?

Looking at the current Top of the line technology when it comes to Rockets and Missiles especially for Anti Tank purposes we know who is much "smarter" or doing the job that has to be done instead of designing "wunderwaffen" that cost a lot but have little virtual use and effeciency. Russians with KBP Tula making already the best.

I agree that Russians are doing it "smart", fairly cheap, reliable, easy to use. However best? Thaats abit arguable if we talk about overall versatility Kornet and Metis are extraodinary, but if we talk about pure effect on tanks i would go with Javelin or Spike. If i was to buy ATGM for common infantry id go with Kornet and Metis depending on unit size Metis is company weapon, Kornet would be on batallion lvl at least thats how it work here. However i wouldnt mind either having what in Yugoslavian army was called "POČ" - basically dedicated anti tank company armed with Spikes. (Back in Yugoslavia they used mix of M79 Osa, M80 Zolja, Malytkas, Fagots, Rapira guns depending on unit).

They are certainly not. If they want they will call an airstrike in a highly populated area in urban warfare just so their soldiers can cheer when things explode. They do not give a jackshit about that.

Even Americans cant allow themself always to call air support. Cant post links still but check videos like "Javelin Missile Strike .. Bye Bye Taliban !!" or "JAVELIN MISSILE VS TALIBAN HIDING BEHIND HOUSE" our military doctrine might be wrong here, but from what i was tought we would not use something like Javelin aganist such targets.

The differnce is that most of what US MIC produces is always money makers and not the best solution to military needs on a massive quantitive and qualitaty needs, but some technologies are still expensive and CCD/IIR seekers are usually one of those things. The problem right there is how do you gonna make a fire and forget ATGM reliable and accurate but without CCD/IIR seekers? Some technologies are freakish expensive, just in year 2012 russia produced GOES-451 for freakish 3 mln per single FLIR, while today they produce them for less than half the costs  of increased performance

CCD/IIR seekers are expencive that goes for granted but in 2-3 years if orders are big enough for domestic and export? More production = lower price, thats general formula. Even that money wasteland F35 will eventually become more affordable if orders are big enough, well.. at least for US domestic purposes.

The roof side of all tanks are to put it plain and simple, easily defeatable by WW2 Anti tank hand grenades like the russian RPG-43 which can penetrate 75mm RHAe while the RKG-3 from 1950 can penetrate 220mm RHAe of armor. The roof of tanks are made of RHA steel so the values are no magic and even at an angle those grenades will penetrate the weak roof. The weak armor itself for shaped charges is a little problem, due the lack of material to create spalling to kill crew and take tank out of order as a threat.

Sadly in case of T72s it worked quite well coz ammo was just under the turret, however with tanks like Abrams, Leo2 even incoming Armata it would be abit different coz ammo is stored in the rack or separated from the crew.

ATGM's with Top attack weapons usually have a very weak shaped charge like the Bill2, the problem is that it has little of use after the armor has passed and the crew is not directly hit, unless you fit the entire tank with TNT for PR purposes. The solution to this problem was already found but appaerantly not put to use so far. A simple EFP that penetrates a large enough in diameter hole into the roof armor and then a followed charge will shoot a little small grenade charge through the punched hole, very similiar concept like on Panzerfaust 3 "Bunkerfaust" version, such a method would assure the destruction of the turret occupants by 99% with little explosive charge, relative low tec technology needed to develop such an ATGM and would entirely devestate any tank without APS or turret roof ERA.

I love how you indirectly refered to that T72 being filled with TNT during Javeling "PR" stunt

Cyrus the great wrote:


Those soldiers don't look as though they fight on behalf of the world's premier military power. Why weren't they told what specific weapons and warheads were capable of?

They have equipment, that is what makes them "good". They throw whatever they have on whatever target they encounter and it will eventually work coz enemy is mostly way undergunned.

Cyrus the great wrote:

If an increase in range creates an unreasonable increase in costs than it would be best to maintain the Metis-M as it is. Your idea of incorporating a wireless direct link in the Metis-M is a great idea; it would increase the safety of operators and its overall effectiveness without increasing cost beyond reason. I also love Werewolf's idea of incorporating a proximity fuse in the Kornet, which should be incorporated into the Metis-M. I still can't believe that the Konkurs was able to penetrate an M1A2 Abrams considering that it's been in service for almost half a century. I wonder if Americans will still maintain that the M1A2 cannot be penetrated by the latest Russian ATGMs now that a last generation Russian ATGM has achieved just that.

I think you are leaving out a the exact circumstances of those engagements just like many others who try to portray something in favor over something else like F-15 kill ratio against bananarepublics against obsolete 3rd generation jets without radars or similiar comparision things.
The konkurs ATGM was to be believed an Iranian produced one and since they got the plans for the common Konkurs we can put the armor penetration figure of around 500-600mm RHAe penetration value, enough to penetrate any tank WW1 till this very date (excluding ERA/APS) of its side turret armor.

If you hear or we speak about one weapon defeating another, especially when Tanks are defeated, it is important to evaluade the circumstances, where the weapon has hit and under what angle because that can increase/decrease the effeciency against the tank. Both of those instances the Saudi M1A2S was hit on its side turret where the armor is weak and could not withstand a RPG-43 hand thrown AT grenade.

Cyrus the great wrote:
Americans are now saying that the Saudi M1A2 that was taken out by the Konkurs Missile was a monkey model and that therefore its evisceration is not indicative of a true M1A2's armour credentials. What the hell!? Why didn't they accept this basic fact when people were telling them that Iraqi tanks in the first gulf war didn't have composite armour, lacked FCS, lacked passive night vision and used ammo that the Russians wouldn't use for training?

Well of course they are saying it and ignoring till his very day that Iraq did had monkey models made by Poland with no more higher quality than the already existing T-55A's they had. It is a self evident propaganda cycle jerk....anyway, those models are most probably different from the M1A2Sep2 versions but it makes absolutley no difference because not a single M1A2Sep2 be it Saudi M1A2S or american M1A2 SEP2 never recieved any armor upgrades to their side turret protection, both are absolutley equal.

It is geting really funny when Abrams fanboys like Damian90 mention Saudi M1A2 having decreased armor when speaking about those two Konkurs ATGM launches against both Saudi M1A2 and hitting side armor and destroying the first one and damaging the second one. The funny thing here is that this guy actually has not that bad of understanding about Tanks, doctrines, technology and design philosophy, but he is such a die hard fanboy that he purposely ignores,leaves out or portraits incidents to bring his agenda through. He mentioned that Saudi M1A2S Abrams do not have the american HA(Heavy Armor) Package which is the Depleted Uranium which are two big armor plates placed only in the front turret next to the gun left and right, no other place for DU armor on that tank, he knows it and still portraits it as the main reason why a Konkurs could penetrate the side armor of a Saudi M1A2 S Abrams and destroy it entirely.

The Saudi M1A2S probably do have decreased armor values but certainly not the side armor and even if you could double the side protection of the turret and hull the Konkurs and even weaker Fagot would still destroy the tank when hitting exact same way. The only tanks that could survive such a blow to the side turret armor are tanks that have APS or ERA or both against a Monobloc shaped charge like common old Konkurs.

Cyrus the great wrote:
Having to keep the launcher pointed at the target is a bit dangerous in a dynamic and ever changing environment, and so I'm not really a fan of this system, but there doesn't seem to be a cost-effective alternative that doesn't also increase complexity and so I understand why the Russians have taken this route. ATGMs are unlikely to be as important as Russia's imperative to upgrade its ICBMs, air defence, aircraft and armoured vehicles.

Yes, it is dangerous but there are solutions to decrease the risk of being spotted or hit by decreasing the missile needs to reach its speed, making the ATGM launching plattform suitable to be fired from a prone position or capability to be fired remotley without being directly in physical contact of the ATGM launching plattform, this avoids direct thermal signature exposing of yourself and giving the enemy a source where to fire, along with Laser Beam Riding that provides high jamming resitance, high velocity due lack of wire guidance and a good guidance system that leaves a low chance of being alerted to the target.

I always wondered why the Kornet-D was so much more powerful than the Spike-ER when they have a similar weight. This puts it all together now. A top attack missile with dual guidance would be almost twice as expensive as a direct engagement variant. How much would an ATGM with an EFP weigh in comparison to a conventional ATGM? It seems that an ATGM with an EFP would be significantly lighter.

I've learned a great deal from this post. I'll now have to read up on some of the things that you mentioned.

Usually in the figger of a Tow2/Metis figure but with range of Kornet-E/D, but you would have to change the entire warhead/seeker section to accomodate the needs. The difference in Shaped charge warhead and the EFP warhead is that relative low amount of explosive that can surround the EFP can be present that leaves little space behind the EFP for the grenade to be fired into the hole which would be punched through by the EFP's.

To illustrate what i mean by the difference and little space with EFP configuration (Bill2) in the warhead with the solution for after armor effects in form of a Bunkerfaust princip it would need still a larger warhead section.

That is the concept of a Bill2 an Top attack EFP weapon.



The middle part is propolusion the two bodies left and right are both EFP's directed downwards. The warhead itself leaves little room above to accomodate another warhead construction to propell a small charge of explosive through the same whole the EFP creates. That leaves only one possiblity to strap a grenade launching tube right behind both EFP charges, timed in exact manner to "fire" the grenade through the roof punched holes by the time the remains of the warhead reach the space right above the holes. The time difference at what speed the missile is traveling should be very low so the explosion from the EFP's will not effect the trajectory or the position of the grenade launching devices in the warhead and leave them capable enough to fire the projectile into the tank. The Bill2 is a relative elegant way of a top attack approach with feasible costs/effeciency.

Those soldiers don't look as though they fight on behalf of the world's premier military power. Why weren't they told what specific weapons and warheads were capable of?

Very low discipline and brainwashing to believe they are liberators, they are usually very trigger happy and just do not give a shit about the weapons they have, they just want to shoot. Just like the Apache WSO said to the Operator for the permission of engagement of the camera team "Come on, let us shoot!"

Militarov wrote:
I agree that Russians are doing it "smart", fairly cheap, reliable, easy to use. However best? Thaats abit arguable if we talk about overall versatility Kornet and Metis are extraodinary, but if we talk about pure effect on tanks i would go with Javelin or Spike. If i was to buy ATGM for common infantry id go with Kornet and Metis depending on unit size Metis is company weapon, Kornet would be on batallion lvl at least thats how it work here. However i wouldnt mind either having what in Yugoslavian army was called "POČ" - basically dedicated anti tank company armed with Spikes. (Back in Yugoslavia they used mix of M79 Osa, M80 Zolja, Malytkas, Fagots, Rapira guns depending on unit).

Fine let us take into consideration of the effeciency against tanks of the "best" like Javelin a top attack weapon that is refered in US army research papers as being a mere "mobility or firepower killer" against tanks like the T-90, since Javelin is a Monobloc shaped charge and has greatly reduced chances of penetrating and killing a T-90 turret roof fitted with ERA and anti radiation cover mounted on top which decreases Spalling and increases protection, but even without ERA like it says.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=f4759d477ceea3d7c4dc1dffcdaf5d16

I quote the Javelin 2 upgrade list of US army figures which were provided by Mindstorm

FOLLOWING ARE THE CAPABILITIES TO BE ACHIEVED FOR THE CCMS-M INCREMENT II MISSILE AS AN UPGRADE TO CURRENT JAVELIN MISSILE SYSTEM: PORTABILITY-CCMS-M INCREMENT II WILL BE A MAN-PPRTABLE SYSTEM. THE BLOCK O AND BLOCK I CLU WEIGH APPROXIMATELY 15 POUNDS. THE CCMS-M INCREMENT II ROUND SHALL NOT EXCEED 30 POUNDS, WITH A DESIRED WEIGHT OF 20 POUNDS OR LESS. IMPROVED COMBAT EFFECTIVENESS (LETHALITY). CCMS-M INCREMENT II WILL ACHIEVE A MOBILITY OR FIREPOWER KILL AGAINST T-90 PIP 1 TANK CAST TURRET WITH AND WITHOUT APPLIQUE ARMOR AND ALSO PROVIDE INCAPACITATING OR LETHAL EFFECTS AGAINST LIGHT/SOFT VEHICLES, PERSONNEL IN OPEN AREAS, PERSONNEL WITHIN STRUCTURES OR STANDARD EARTH AND TIMBER BUNKERS. LETHALITY.

Haven't heared much nice things about its "effeciency" of the Spike-ER and it was often unreliable in its guidance.

Top off the notch and technology are already in russia's possesion and Kornet-D beats every other ATGM in its lethality, versitility, technology wise of its guidance with automated guidance solution for vehicles, it completley outranges every other ATGM in comperision with its massive warhead.

Militarov wrote:CCD/IIR seekers are expencive that goes for granted but in 2-3 years if orders are big enough for domestic and export? More production = lower price, thats general formula. Even that money wasteland F35 will eventually become more affordable if orders are big enough, well.. at least for US domestic purposes.

IIR/CCD seekers are very common in Air to Air missiles aswell in MANPADS and they do exist since decades and in relative large numbers and still these seekers cost a freaking fortune.

Well of course they are saying it and ignoring till his very day that Iraq did had monkey models made by Poland with no more higher quality than the already existing T-55A's they had. It is a self evident propaganda cycle jerk....anyway, those models are most probably different from the M1A2Sep2 versions but it makes absolutley no difference because not a single M1A2Sep2 be it Saudi M1A2S or american M1A2 SEP2 never recieved any armor upgrades to their side turret protection, both are absolutley equal.

It is geting really funny when Abrams fanboys like Damian90 mention Saudi M1A2 having decreased armor when speaking about those two Konkurs  ATGM launches against both Saudi M1A2 and hitting side armor and destroying the first one and damaging the second one. The funny thing here is that this guy actually has not that bad of understanding about Tanks, doctrines, technology and design philosophy, but he is such a die hard fanboy that he purposely ignores,leaves out or portraits incidents to bring his agenda through. He mentioned that Saudi M1A2S Abrams do not have the  american HA(Heavy Armor) Package which is the Depleted Uranium which are two big armor plates placed only in the front turret next to the gun left and right, no other place for DU armor on that tank, he knows it and still portraits it as the main reason why a Konkurs could penetrate the side armor of a Saudi M1A2 S Abrams and destroy it entirely.

The Saudi M1A2S probably do have decreased armor values but certainly not the side armor and even if you could double the side protection of the turret and hull the Konkurs and even weaker Fagot would still destroy the tank when hitting exact same way. The only tanks that could survive such a blow to the side turret armor are tanks that have APS or ERA or both against a Monobloc shaped charge like common old Konkurs.

Agreed, from what i am aware actually there is no difference in armor between US and export model of M1A1/2 except DU layer in turret, and this tank totally did not get hit there. Actually i belive only major difference in electronic suite also is lack of "Blue force" Battle Managament System, rest should be more or less the same unless buyer requested some changes.

Very low discipline and brainwashing to believe they are liberators, they are usually very trigger happy and just do not give a shit about the weapons they have, they just want to shoot. Just like the Apache WSO said to the Operator for the permission of engagement of the camera team "Come on, let us shoot!"

Actually there is a term in Serbian for shooting like in that video, "Šenlučenje", word of Turkish origin, basically means "shooting to celebrate".


[quote]Fine let us take into consideration of the effeciency against tanks of the "best" like Javelin a top attack weapon that is refered in US army research papers as being a mere "mobility or firepower killer" against tanks like the T-90, since Javelin is a Monobloc shaped charge and has greatly reduced chances of penetrating and killing a T-90 turret roof fitted with ERA and anti radiation cover mounted on top which decreases Spalling and increases protection, but even without ERA like it says.

I quote the Javelin 2 upgrade list of US army figures which were provided by Mindstorm

FOLLOWING ARE THE CAPABILITIES TO BE ACHIEVED FOR THE CCMS-M INCREMENT II MISSILE AS AN UPGRADE TO CURRENT JAVELIN MISSILE SYSTEM: PORTABILITY-CCMS-M INCREMENT II WILL BE A MAN-PPRTABLE SYSTEM. THE BLOCK O AND BLOCK I CLU WEIGH APPROXIMATELY 15 POUNDS. THE CCMS-M INCREMENT II ROUND SHALL NOT EXCEED 30 POUNDS, WITH A DESIRED WEIGHT OF 20 POUNDS OR LESS. IMPROVED COMBAT EFFECTIVENESS (LETHALITY). CCMS-M INCREMENT II WILL ACHIEVE A MOBILITY OR FIREPOWER KILL AGAINST T-90 PIP 1 TANK CAST TURRET WITH AND WITHOUT APPLIQUE ARMOR AND ALSO PROVIDE INCAPACITATING OR LETHAL EFFECTS AGAINST LIGHT/SOFT VEHICLES, PERSONNEL IN OPEN AREAS, PERSONNEL WITHIN STRUCTURES OR STANDARD EARTH AND TIMBER BUNKERS. LETHALITY.

But take this in count, its not very likely to encounter these days enemy wastly equiped with ERA and APS, at least not by Serbia or Russia, i dont belive Germans or US will invest alot in ERA to cover Leo and Abrams rooftops, thats more of a Russian school. Not like Serbia has much of an army these days tho -.-... I just belive personally that having top attack capability in certain amount is not bad thing and pair it up with range and heavy warheads of Kornet. Bahrain is using Javelin and Kornet (i belive Javelin was just ordered recently), India is mixing Kornets and Spikes soon (Javelin failed bid due to technology transfer), Jordan is using Javelin and Kornets, Saudi Arabia... i mean i just find it convinient to add some versatility, again thats my opinion.

IIR/CCD seekers are very common in Air to Air missiles aswell in MANPADS and they do exist since decades and in relative large numbers and still these seekers cost a freaking fortune.

Hey i never said they will be dirt cheap, just cheaper

Werewolf wrote:

I think you are leaving out a the exact circumstances of those engagements just like many others who try to portray something in favor over something else like F-15 kill ratio against bananarepublics against obsolete 3rd generation jets without radars or similiar comparision things.
The konkurs ATGM was to be believed an Iranian produced one and since they got the plans for the common Konkurs we can put the armor penetration figure of around 500-600mm RHAe penetration value, enough to penetrate any tank WW1 till this very date (excluding ERA/APS) of its side turret armor.

If you hear or we speak about one weapon defeating another, especially when Tanks are defeated, it is important to evaluade the circumstances, where the weapon has hit and under what angle because that can increase/decrease the effeciency against the tank. Both of those instances the Saudi M1A2S was hit on its side turret where the armor is weak and could not withstand a RPG-43 hand thrown AT grenade.

Yeah, an understanding of context and circumstances is important. Context that admittedly didn’t even occur to me.  I knew that the side turret of a tank was weaker than its frontal armour, but I had no idea that it was that weak, which is where the Konkurs hit the M1A2. I'm finding it difficult to process the assertion that a WW2 hand held grenade can penetrate the turret side of a modern tank. This is kind of disappointing.

Werewolf wrote:Well of course they are saying it and ignoring till his very day that Iraq did had monkey models made by Poland with no more higher quality than the already existing T-55A's they had. It is a self evident propaganda cycle jerk....anyway, those models are most probably different from the M1A2Sep2 versions but it makes absolutley no difference because not a single M1A2Sep2 be it Saudi M1A2S or american M1A2 SEP2 never recieved any armor upgrades to their side turret protection, both are absolutley equal.

It is geting really funny when Abrams fanboys like Damian90 mention Saudi M1A2 having decreased armor when speaking about those two Konkurs ATGM launches against both Saudi M1A2 and hitting side armor and destroying the first one and damaging the second one. The funny thing here is that this guy actually has not that bad of understanding about Tanks, doctrines, technology and design philosophy, but he is such a die hard fanboy that he purposely ignores,leaves out or portraits incidents to bring his agenda through. He mentioned that Saudi M1A2S Abrams do not have the american HA(Heavy Armor) Package which is the Depleted Uranium which are two big armor plates placed only in the front turret next to the gun left and right, no other place for DU armor on that tank, he knows it and still portraits it as the main reason why a Konkurs could penetrate the side armor of a Saudi M1A2 S Abrams and destroy it entirely.

The Saudi M1A2S probably do have decreased armor values but certainly not the side armor and even if you could double the side protection of the turret and hull the Konkurs and even weaker Fagot would still destroy the tank when hitting exact same way. The only tanks that could survive such a blow to the side turret armor are tanks that have APS or ERA or both against a Monobloc shaped charge like common old Konkurs.

Americans are incredibly ignorant, stubborn and arrogant, which is why they consistently refuse to consider that air superiority was of tremendous importance in their hollow victory over Iraq and that a military victory over a country that was under crippling sanctions for years on end really is nothing to be proud of. Iraq also had a terrible war with Iran just 2 years earlier.

Damian is usually very well informed and usually presents the facts on various tanks, their differing design philosophies, doctrine, armour and deployment history, and so I don’t know why he would knowingly try to distort or downplay facts on the M1A2 in Saudi service. On another forum that I visited, Damian rebuffed an American poster that tried to argue that the development of the T-90 was a direct consequence of the poor showing of various monkey models like the T-72 in the first gulf war. Damian pointed out that the development of the T-90 started in the 80s and had nothing to do with the performance of monkey model T-72s.  He also disputed the notion that Russian tanks are less well armoured because of their light weight and argued that internal volume determines armour effectiveness.

What I find most puzzling about Damian is his stubborn defence of gas turbine engines in tanks, despite the fact that a gas turbine engine [as seen in the Abrams] is a logistical nightmare and simply cannot be justified when there is a more efficient alternative available.

Werewolf wrote:Yes, it is dangerous but there are solutions to decrease the risk of being spotted or hit by decreasing the missile needs to reach its speed, making the ATGM launching plattform suitable to be fired from a prone position or capability to be fired remotley without being directly in physical contact of the ATGM launching plattform, this avoids direct thermal signature exposing of yourself and giving the enemy a source where to fire, along with Laser Beam Riding that provides high jamming resitance, high velocity due lack of wire guidance and a good guidance system that leaves a low chance of being alerted to the target.

I see missile speed as absolutely crucial here – as an alternative to expensive CCD/IIR seekers. This might be an insane notion, but do you think it would be possible to integrate a light-weight scramjet onto existing ATGMs without compromising the size and potency of the warhead and adding weight? Would a scramjet be less expensive than using CCD/IIR seekers?  The Russians have already proven their credentials here with the Brahmos cruise missile. The Brahmos missile has a speed of mach 3 which is 1020.870m/s. It would reach 2.5 km in just over 2 seconds and reach 5500 km in just 5 seconds. I won’t even talk about the Brahmos 2 missile which is slated to have a speed of mach 7, which is 2382.030m/s.

Werewolf wrote:
Usually in the figger of a Tow2/Metis figure but with range of Kornet-E/D, but you would have to change the entire warhead/seeker section to accomodate the needs. The difference in Shaped charge warhead and the EFP warhead is that relative low amount of explosive that can surround the EFP can be present that leaves little space behind the EFP for the grenade to be fired into the hole which would be punched through by the EFP's.

To illustrate what i mean by the difference and little space with EFP configuration (Bill2) in the warhead with the solution for after armor effects in form of a Bunkerfaust princip it would need still a larger warhead section.

That is the concept of a Bill2 an Top attack EFP weapon.

That would be absolutely incredible. For an ATGM to have the portability of a Metis-M and the power and range of the Kornet-D is almost inconceivable.  If I was the defence minister of a country that Russia was friendly with, I would push for a joint program to develop a new top attack ATGM that is light, portable, and powerful with a long range… and possibly one with a scramjet. It would be virtually fire and forget if it had a scramjet.

Werewolf wrote:The middle part is propolusion the two bodies left and right are both EFP's directed downwards. The warhead itself leaves little room above to accomodate another warhead construction to propell a small charge of explosive through the same whole the EFP creates. That leaves only one possiblity to strap a grenade launching tube right behind both EFP charges, timed in exact manner to "fire" the grenade through the roof punched holes by the time the remains of the warhead reach the space right above the holes. The time difference at what speed the missile is traveling should be very low so the explosion from the EFP's will not effect the trajectory or the position of the grenade launching devices in the warhead and leave them capable enough to fire the projectile into the tank. The Bill2 is a relative elegant way of a top attack approach with feasible costs/effeciency.

This looks very promising. Why haven’t more countries embarked on building ATGMs like this? If it isn’t cost, then why has Russia not embarked on building an ATGM with an EFP? Dealing with time considerations for EFP warheads shouldn’t be too difficult.

Werewolf wrote:Very low discipline and brainwashing to believe they are liberators, they are usually very trigger happy and just do not give a shit about the weapons they have, they just want to shoot. Just like the Apache WSO said to the Operator for the permission of engagement of the camera team "Come on, let us shoot!"

It was just bizarre that no high ranking officer directed the troops to stop using failed tactics and firepower. It was obvious that what they were doing wasn’t working and so they should have asked themselves why instead of stubbornly just moving up to more and more powerful weapon types and platforms.

Garry B wrote:

Actually it would be rather more effective if it penetrated the ammo store and detonated all the ammo at once.

AFAIK Vikhr and Ataka and Krisantema and Shturm all have proximity fuses in their anti aircraft versions.

That makes sense. Even if the crew is not killed, the destruction of the rounds would take the tank out of the fight and that is the ultimate goal.

Garry B wrote:

extra range is not a bad thing as such... the Metis-M1 uses lighter electronics and newer rocket fuel that burns longer to increase range from 1.5km to 2km, but they did that within the size and weight constraints of the existing system.... and without making it more expensive.

Improvements in laser technology might mean laser beam riding might be an option for the smaller system... it just depends on the receiver technology and equipment needed in the missile.

An increase in range without increasing weight is always on the cards. I'm certain that KBP could integrate the Kornet-D's guidance system on the Metis-M without increasing size and weight.

Garry B wrote:The turret of the Abrams is huge and its rear is filled with live ammo. Tank design 101 states that the front 60 degrees of armour should stop the enemies main AT weapons but there are always weak spots where even that is not possible. From 4km away you can aim at the side of any tank and be pretty sure if there is no APS you will get a kill... and that is any tank including armata.

This actually came as a shock to me. I just pressumed that the upper turret and the back were the only weak spots on the tank.

Garry B wrote:But logically that Konkurs was not Russian Army so it would also be a reduced perforamnce monkey model...

I don't expect the Americans to take this into consideration. To admit that a Russian system can defeat one of their most cherished platforms would be just too painful to their incredibly large ego.

Garry B wrote:
If we are talking about the new model Kornet then keeping the launcher pointed at the target is no real hardship when the target could be 8.5km away and have no idea it is under attack.

BTW manual guidance seems OK for TOW and HOT and Milan... what has changed?

It's certainly an improvement that will increase accuracy, reduce human error and increase the safety of operators. Fire and forget ATGMs only have an advantage within 2.5 km and that's if you are able to get a lock on the target, like you mentioned. Do you think it would be possible to use a light weight scramjet on an ATGM like the Kornet or Metis-M in the near future?

Cyrus the great wrote:
Yeah, an understanding of context and circumstances is important. Context that admittedly didn’t even occur to me.  I knew that the side turret of a tank was weaker than its frontal armour, but I had no idea that it was that weak, which is where the Konkurs hit the M1A2. I'm finding it difficult to process the assertion that a WW2 hand held grenade can penetrate the turret side of a modern tank. This is kind of disappointing.

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.

Cyrus the great wrote:
Americans are incredibly ignorant, stubborn and arrogant, which is why they consistently refuse to consider that air superiority was of tremendous importance in their hollow victory over Iraq and that a military victory over a country that was under crippling sanctions for years on end really is nothing to be proud of. Iraq also had a terrible war with Iran just 2 years earlier.

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.

Cyrus the great wrote:
Damian is usually very well informed and usually presents the facts on various tanks, their differing design philosophies, doctrine, armour and deployment history, and so I don’t know why he would knowingly try to distort or downplay facts on the M1A2 in Saudi service. On another forum that I visited, Damian rebuffed an American poster that tried to argue that the development of the T-90 was a direct consequence of the poor showing of various monkey models like the T-72 in the first gulf war. Damian pointed out that the development of the T-90 started in the 80s and had nothing to do with the performance of monkey model T-72s.  He also disputed the notion that Russian tanks are less well armoured because of their light weight and argued that internal volume determines armour effectiveness.

What I find most puzzling about Damian is his stubborn defence of gas turbine engines in tanks, despite the fact that a gas turbine engine [as seen in the Abrams] is a logistical nightmare and simply cannot be justified when there is a more efficient alternative available.

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.

Cyrus the great wrote:
I see missile speed as absolutely crucial here – as an alternative to expensive CCD/IIR seekers. This might be an insane notion, but do you think it would be possible to integrate a light-weight scramjet onto existing ATGMs without compromising the size and potency of the warhead and adding weight? Would a scramjet be less expensive than using CCD/IIR seekers?  The Russians have already proven their credentials here with the Brahmos cruise missile. The Brahmos missile has a speed of mach 3 which is 1020.870m/s. It would reach 2.5 km in just over 2 seconds and reach 5500 km in just 5 seconds. I won’t even talk about the Brahmos 2 missile which is slated to have a speed of mach 7, which is 2382.030m/s.

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.

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.

Cyrus the great wrote:
That would be absolutely incredible. For an ATGM to have the portability of a Metis-M and the power and range of the Kornet-D is almost inconceivable.  If I was the defence minister of a country that Russia was friendly with, I would push for a joint program to develop a new top attack ATGM that is light, portable, and powerful with a long range… and possibly one with a scramjet. It would be virtually fire and forget if it had a scramjet.

This looks very promising. Why haven’t more countries embarked on building ATGMs like this? If it isn’t cost, then why has Russia not embarked on building an ATGM with an EFP? Dealing with time considerations for EFP warheads shouldn’t be too difficult.

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.

werewolf what if you put a smoke detector in the missile and will ignore it?

JohninMK wrote:

victor1985 wrote:werewolf what if you put a smoke detector in the missile and will ignore it?

Probably already in, if target masked, home in on last known position or even predicted position if target moving (if munition is really smart).

If that is what he means by that then i think some missiles have such programming to aim for last known location even tho i do not have direct information on which missiles have or not have it.

Beast Killer: Russia’s Kornet-EM Stands Up to M1 Abrams

Conflicts that have recently flared up in various parts of the world showed that America’s much-trumpeted M1 Abrams tank falls easy prey to even older types of Russian antitank weapons.

The Kornet-EM is a multi-purpose long-range antitank guided missile system. It was unveiled at the Moscow Airshow (MAKS) in August 2011. The system was also demonstrated at the Russian Arms Expo in September 2013 and May 2015.

The missile system is designed to destroy advanced and modern tanks fitted with explosive reactive armor from 1,100mm to 1,300mm, light-armored vehicles and fortifications.

It can also engage surface-level marine and low-speed aerial targets at ranges between 150m and 10,000m and offers high immunity against jamming.

The twin Kornet-EM salvo firing unit mounted on the vehicle's platform carries an ammunition load of 16 pieces, including eight ready-to-fire missiles.

The Kornet-EM is available in two configurations, which include an automatic launcher for deployment on carriers and a transportable launcher for combat operations under different environmental conditions.

The automatic launcher is controlled by an automatic and laser beam riding guidance system. It is fitted with high resolution cameras and third generation thermal imaging sight. Each launcher module weighs 75.2kg.

The automatic launcher can lay missiles at an azimuth angle of ±180° and elevations between —5° and +45° for ranges between 200m and 15,000m.

It engages the targets automatically and can perform salvo firing at two targets simultaneously.

The portable-transportable launcher of the Kornet-EM can be installed on wheeled and tracked vehicles, most recently on the Tigr armored car.

The Kornet-EM has already won big kudos abroad. Algeria, for one, plans to buy several units.

One of its neighbors will soon be buying Abrams tanks, which means that the Algerians already have a strong “antidote” against The Beast…

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/russia/20150908/1026737762/russia-kornet-abrams-missile.html#ixzz3lBt5WYN4

GarryB wrote:

This actually came as a shock to me. I just pressumed that the upper turret and the back were the only weak spots on the tank.

It is all about weight... the roof and belly are generally weakest with the sides next weakest... if you want 1,000mm armour on front sides and rear and roof then you will have the worlds first 1,000 ton tank... a real land monitor.

1000mm RHAe protection from all sides? Well best tank in the world that is the easiest to kill. One Kornet-E wills till penetrate it and dare you have an ammunition cook off. Pressure will rise hundreds of times higher than on any normal tank due the massive amount of armor and the weight alone from the turret, if such a turret can even exist. Probably all friendly and enemy forces will be killed when this tank goes boom and be a 1000t heavy grenade exploding and propelling fragmentation in every direction.


Anyway, the issue with modern kinds of armor like composite armor is that it can weight less than RHA steel and achieve the same protection, but the big negative issue here is that composite armor by itself needs more "room" it has usually air gaps of many layers with different materials of different thickness, weight and often angles within the armor itself, that means that to have a valueble tank in dimensions that are even feasible to produce let alone to support with logistics, deployment and even to drive on the battlefield limits it to some dimensions, meaning even if you had the technology or will to protect it from all sides with potent composite armor you could not create it and make it valueable for the military, it would end up like the Maus in a museum, never used and useless waste of lot of money and time for nothing but a laugh for everyone with knowledge and only die hard fanboys would drull over it and fantasies about its unpenetratable armor and being the most precious and best tank in entire time from now to infinity.

GarryB 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).

If you are going to have your missile fly at hypersonic speeds then why not just use a solid penetrator instead of a HEAT warhead?

A modern HEAT warhead is 10kgs or more. a modern APFSDS penetrator would be half that...

We discussed this already, i aggree it could be done, but i doubt it will be anywhere in the same field as HEAT weapons in money, masses to be fielded and easy to deploy.

GarryB wrote:

We discussed this already, i aggree it could be done, but i doubt it will be anywhere in the same field as HEAT weapons in money, masses to be fielded and easy to deploy.

We did, but i did not bring it up.

Now that it has been brought up and now that we see that Kornets laser beam riding guidance can work to 15km according to the brochures, then a super fast missile with a solid penetrator through its core becomes a good option...

Interesting. I was  not aware that the laser beam guidance can reach as far as 15 km's, maybe that's the 'true' range of the domestic version of Kornet. Something like 13km for HEAT warheads, and 15km for HE-Frag?

Where would You find such distances of engagement? How easily You could ID the target and lead missile to it? Whats the distance of horizon? Sure, it's advantage, but at such distances I would rather trust radar guidance:)

Regular wrote:Where would You find such distances of engagement? How easily You could ID the target and lead missile to it? Whats the distance of horizon? Sure, it's advantage, but at such distances I would rather trust radar guidance:)

Because optical guidance allows you to target passively, while radar doesn't. If your going to use radar, then why not just employ Zoopark-1 artillery radar, were you saying the ATGM team should be the ones that emit radar? If that's the case then the radar a 3-man team would carry/employ would be exponentially weaker than a dedicated vehicle.

Regular wrote:Where would You find such distances of engagement? How easily You could ID the target and lead missile to it? Whats the distance of horizon? Sure, it's advantage, but at such distances I would rather trust radar guidance:)

Only for sea targets or from aviation, maybe some locations in very wide and flat locations, which do exist in northern germany for example.