And the ERA and APS can only mitigate, but not absorb the damage entirely; the APFSDS projectile would still cause external damage at the very least, with the running gear, the gun, associated optics, and communication equipment all very much vulnerable to hypervelocity metal impacts. If you are unlucky even with the protection of the ERA and APS you are left with tank that can't fight back, can't move, or can't talk - either way your opponent would have a very easy time finishing you off.
You make it sound like ERA and APS are total waste of time... perhaps they should drop tanks all together and take ice cream vans instead... at least they can have ice cream...
It would have to be a bloody amazing hit to take out a tanks ability to fight or move or communicate... in fact apart from totally destroying the vehicle I doubt all those could be achieved with one shot unless the round is tactical nuclear.
In fact, if you think about it, against a tank with a an APS and ERA combined protection you don't want to open with an APFSDS first. Instead you'd want a He-frag programmed to burst just ahead of the tank and shower it with thousands of high velocity fragments, shredding the APS, the optics, and the gun.
Really?
In that case rifle calibre gatling machine guns could take the place of tank guns... except that most of the time it would just reveal your position and get you shot and killed.
With the next shots you are free to shoot APFSDS at choice bits, confident that your enemy has been stripped of at least one layer of protection and maybe could not even fight back.
HE frag fragments don't defeat ERA tiles generally, and an APS system might intercept the round before it goes off meaning its fragments might not hit anything at all, but you have given up your advantage of a first shot.... considering the new optics and drone use and new guns the Russian use you might not get the first shot to start with.
I would think, with the availability of digital cameras they could afford a couple inside the weapons compartment with one monitoring the ammunition. That way you don't have to have the commander shrug off his share of the physical labor in loading the tank when he could do the accounting later after helping load the autoloader full of ammo.
In a T-90 or T-72 there is one person inside the tank getting handed projectiles and propellent stubs and placing them into the autoloader which then puts the round into the autoloader magazine... punching in for each round what type it is so when you select that type of ammo it knows where of the 22 positions in the autoloader contain that type of round. One person is standing on the hull roof taking rounds and stubs from someone on teh ground and passing it into the turret to be loaded.
With the Armata you don't have someone inside the turret, but you need someone to push the buttons to operate the autoloader to carry the rounds down into the autoloader cells.
GarryB wrote: You make it sound like ERA and APS are total waste of time... perhaps they should drop tanks all together and take ice cream vans instead... at least they can have ice cream...
It would have to be a bloody amazing hit to take out a tanks ability to fight or move or communicate... in fact apart from totally destroying the vehicle I doubt all those could be achieved with one shot unless the round is tactical nuclear.
Their protection is not absolute. There are gaps in coverage that can be exploited or you could create such exploits yourself.
GarryB wrote: Really?
In that case rifle calibre gatling machine guns could take the place of tank guns... except that most of the time it would just reveal your position and get you shot and killed.
I was thinking more of the case when fighting against a tank such as the T-14 where conventional attacks with anti-armor ammo would be rendered ineffective. It probably wouldn't hurt to have such protections yourself in case the target tank escapes more or less functional.
GarryB wrote: HE frag fragments don't defeat ERA tiles generally, and an APS system might intercept the round before it goes off meaning its fragments might not hit anything at all, but you have given up your advantage of a first shot.... considering the new optics and drone use and new guns the Russian use you might not get the first shot to start with.
That's the idea with using a HE-frag shell; if it gets intercepted that's perfectly fine too, since some of fragments would still hit the target from an appreciable distance. It doesn't take much to render the main gun inoperable, the optics unusable or the APS sensors inert, etc. Damaged ERA modules are also less effective than pristine ones so it does do something.
GarryB wrote: In a T-90 or T-72 there is one person inside the tank getting handed projectiles and propellent stubs and placing them into the autoloader which then puts the round into the autoloader magazine... punching in for each round what type it is so when you select that type of ammo it knows where of the 22 positions in the autoloader contain that type of round. One person is standing on the hull roof taking rounds and stubs from someone on teh ground and passing it into the turret to be loaded.
With the Armata you don't have someone inside the turret, but you need someone to push the buttons to operate the autoloader to carry the rounds down into the autoloader cells.
It doesn't need to happen simultaneously with loading though. Have the crew load all the ammo then go back to their stations where the commander can now do inventory through an internal camera. Or better yet have an automatic system to catalog the rounds - it shouldn't be difficult the rounds all have rather distinct appearances from each other.
Their protection is not absolute. There are gaps in coverage that can be exploited or you could create such exploits yourself.
I would say better to use strength in numbers and technology... sitting quietly with Nakidka screens so the enemy does no know you are there... communicate to the other vehicles in your force so that four tanks target one vehicle each and on command all open fire together would make rather more sense to me... obviously would only work in an ambush situation... but modern warfare is so complex with all sorts of tools to deal with all sorts of problems making it very very complex.
I was thinking more of the case when fighting against a tank such as the T-14 where conventional attacks with anti-armor ammo would be rendered ineffective. It probably wouldn't hurt to have such protections yourself in case the target tank escapes more or less functional.
Well the best way to defeat a massive tank force is to destroy the fuel tankers that keep them operating and lay mines in their path...
Of course if the problem is how to defeat T-14s then perhaps it is time to get out the SPF 3 million sun screen and think about how we got to this position 30 years after the supposed end of the Cold War where everyone was supposed to have won... how can you say Russia lost the cold war if they get democracy and no longer have to carry all those smaller failed states that hitched their wagon to them?
That's the idea with using a HE-frag shell; if it gets intercepted that's perfectly fine too, since some of fragments would still hit the target from an appreciable distance. It doesn't take much to render the main gun inoperable, the optics unusable or the APS sensors inert, etc. Damaged ERA modules are also less effective than pristine ones so it does do something.
The sensors on the APS system that detects the approaching round could easily shut the optical ports to protect optics, and the APS munitions are designs to make the incoming round yaw... in which case an AHEAD type round would direct its fragments in another direction than at the tank...
If you are reduced to firing HE rounds and hoping to damage the vehicle... that suggests serious desperation... what are your troops going to think with that tactic being suggested.
Hey guys... you can't penetrate their tanks from the front so don't bother even trying... just fire HE rounds and maybe you might get lucky... their APS system tracks the incoming round so working out where you fired from would be trivial... it would already be turning the tank turret to point directly at you for the return shot... that is just normal because on most tanks the front turret armour is the heaviest anyway.
It doesn't need to happen simultaneously with loading though. Have the crew load all the ammo then go back to their stations where the commander can now do inventory through an internal camera. Or better yet have an automatic system to catalog the rounds - it shouldn't be difficult the rounds all have rather distinct appearances from each other.
As far as I am aware current loading procedure involves hand placing rounds into the autoloader which works in reverse and puts the rounds into the underfloor magazine rather than the gun chamber... as the rounds are loaded the commander indicates what type of round it is which is recorded in the system so it knows which cell to look for to find a suitable round to fire. I would assume there are certain patterns they load the rounds in so that you don't end up with enormous gaps where rounds are multiple cells apart and take longer to get to and load.
Adding a system that detects the shape of the nose of the round and can independently work out which round is loaded is interesting, but I am not sure it would be that much better than just indicating what type of round is being loaded at the time of loading.
BTW it is nice hearing talk of using HE rounds against Russian tanks... in the mid 1990s all you heard was that Soviet tanks were junk and how US Abrams tanks cut through T-80s and T-90s like a hot knife through butter in Desert Storm... they know because they were there... and then you ask them some questions and all of a sudden it was their uncle or cousin that was there but there were definitely T-80s and T-90s there... honest...
Of course the T-14 is not in service yet, but it does seem they are serious about T-90 upgrades including APS systems and proper ERA.
GarryB wrote: The sensors on the APS system that detects the approaching round could easily shut the optical ports to protect optics, and the APS munitions are designs to make the incoming round yaw... in which case an AHEAD type round would direct its fragments in another direction than at the tank...
If you are reduced to firing HE rounds and hoping to damage the vehicle... that suggests serious desperation... what are your troops going to think with that tactic being suggested.
Hey guys... you can't penetrate their tanks from the front so don't bother even trying... just fire HE rounds and maybe you might get lucky... their APS system tracks the incoming round so working out where you fired from would be trivial... it would already be turning the tank turret to point directly at you for the return shot... that is just normal because on most tanks the front turret armour is the heaviest anyway.
Most external components won't have the same protection nonetheless. Yawing a HE-frag shell is similarly ineffective: in fact the ogive shell would have the worst fragmentation from the nose up, so they substitute preformed tungsten fragments in this section just to have a more even fragmentation pattern, and yawing it might just orient the shell in such a way that increases rather than decreases the amount of fragmentation received by the tank.
And there is nothing desperate about this tactic. The HE-frag is a valid anti armor weapon. It might not reduce tanks to scrap outright, but it could inflict debilitating mobility and firepower kills with frightening efficiency, which is often as good as inflicting outright kills when it comes to diminishing the enemy's capability to resist.
Most external components won't have the same protection nonetheless.
External components not protected are expected to get battle damaged... protection from small arms fire and HMG fire would normally protect from tank calibre HE rounds too, or do you think shrapnel has better penetration than armour piercing HMG fire?
Yawing a HE-frag shell is similarly ineffective: in fact the ogive shell would have the worst fragmentation from the nose up, so they substitute preformed tungsten fragments in this section just to have a more even fragmentation pattern, and yawing it might just orient the shell in such a way that increases rather than decreases the amount of fragmentation received by the tank.
Not just Yawing, but also premature detonation to set off HEAT rounds well away from the armour.
And there is nothing desperate about this tactic.
It is complete desperation when you go to primary anti armour round is not your first choice because you don't expect it to reach enemy armour, then yes, that is precisely what it is.
The HE-frag is a valid anti armor weapon .
It is a round of desperation when you don't think your other anti armour weapons have a chance.
It might not reduce tanks to scrap outright, but it could inflict debilitating mobility and firepower kills with frightening efficiency, which is often as good as inflicting outright kills when it comes to diminishing the enemy's capability to resist.
The key words here are could, but I think possibly could would be more accurate... otherwise the 100mm gun on the BMP-3 would be an anti tank gun...
During WWII the only tank engagements using APHE rounds where armour could not be penetrated but it still worked was the 152mm guns on Soviet tanks at Kursk against Tigers and Panthers, but they were APHE... pure HE rounds would not have done the job.
The 122mm gun used on the JS tanks was often credited with knocking an enemy tank turret off its bearings to take out the tank rather than penetrate its armour too, but I have not heard of any modern use of normal tank rounds of HE to defeat enemy tanks... they were intended for soft targets and not intended to damage heavily armoured vehicles.
GarryB wrote: External components not protected are expected to get battle damaged... protection from small arms fire and HMG fire would normally protect from tank calibre HE rounds too, or do you think shrapnel has better penetration than armour piercing HMG fire?
And yet major components like the gun and the tracks that are essential to the tank's functioning as a tank aren't protected at all. Do you expect the tank to continue with its mission if the gun is out of commission or if the tracks are cut off or would it be called in as casualty and sent to the rear or if incapable of movement, an evacuation detachment sent in?
GarryB wrote: It is complete desperation when you go to primary anti armour round is not your first choice because you don't expect it to reach enemy armour, then yes, that is precisely what it is.
Lots of military systems rely on using a combination of weapon systems to achieve defeat of the target. Take the Roman pilum and the gladius with the scutum as an example. By opening up with the pilum Roman legionnaires were able to dismantle the enemies shields, making it impossible to form up for the shield wall, the dominant military tactic of Rome's opponents at the time. With no shield wall they can't form a cohesive battle line, which leaves them vulnerable to the Romans fighting in an organized manner and very so often resulting in mop-ups with insane casualty ratios.
GarryB wrote: The key words here are could, but I think possibly could would be more accurate... otherwise the 100mm gun on the BMP-3 would be an anti tank gun...
During WWII the only tank engagements using APHE rounds where armour could not be penetrated but it still worked was the 152mm guns on Soviet tanks at Kursk against Tigers and Panthers, but they were APHE... pure HE rounds would not have done the job.
The 122mm gun used on the JS tanks was often credited with knocking an enemy tank turret off its bearings to take out the tank rather than penetrate its armour too, but I have not heard of any modern use of normal tank rounds of HE to defeat enemy tanks... they were intended for soft targets and not intended to damage heavily armoured vehicles.
Getting ahead of yourself here. I merely suggested firing first with the HE-FRAG shell to disable the APS systems, and leave defeating the physical armor to the dedicated APFSDS projectiles. I mean what's the possible solution to an effective APS that doesn't involve wacky stuff like two sets of tank guns or firing stealthy subcaliber projectiles?
lyle6 i believe that you have some oversimplicistic ideas about the subject, try to take into account coldly the parameters of the mean you suggest to employ against modern APS and the real world data coming from active employment of equipment in actual conflicts:
1) HE-frag munitions for main battle tanks are forcibly full-bore rounds with a high volume warhead section, this affect directly the : muzzle velocity (at example domestic ones are in the 800-900 m/s at maingun's bore exit) muzzle retardation (usually in the 200-300 m/s/Km) gravity drop and wind drift. This render those kind of ammunitions (very useful against structures, trenches and positions of ATGM teams) almost useless in tank vs tank engagements except maybe at 200-400 meters of distance and that taking into account merely P-hit of single round.
2) Data coming from historical conflict and today area of conflicts (including Ukraine, Syria, self proclaimedn Artsakh Republic and Lybia) prove that the effect of hit with ammunitions with way bigger amount of explosive in comparison to tank's HE-Frag rounds (at example majority of large caliber ATGMs) or with way higher amount and mass of fragments (such as close explosion of high caliber artillery rounds) often even after several hits almost never cause functional damages to the main gun barrel, distruption of the combined commander/gunner optics or track-severing mobility kill. Almost the totality of the tanks abandoned on the battlefield by theris crew in those conflicts had perfectly functioning main guns and tracks and the reasons for the abandonement was, for more than 80% of the instances, the panic among the untrained/insulated tank's crew and for the remaining 20% secondary flames (to external fuel or secondary weapon stations that the crew was not traimed/equiped for quench) or damages to hydraulic/oil systems from HEAT penetrations.
3) A modern APS (and here i do no talk of a system like "Афганит" capable to intercept also hypersonic APFSDS rounds at signficant distance from the vehicle but also foreign systems with way lower performace) would have no problem in engaging and detonate at several dozen meters from the vehcile the warhead of a HE-Frag munitions delivered by an enemy MBT at tactlically relevant distance, an RPG shot from close range would represent a much more challenging target.
Mindstorm wrote: lyle6 i believe that you have some oversimplicistic ideas about the subject, try to take into account coldly the parameters of the mean you suggest to employ against modern APS and the real world data coming from active employment of equipment in actual conflicts:
To be fair, I was kind of just spitballing that idea around to elicit some reaction. Test out ideas without the blinkers of confirmation biases.
Mindstorm wrote: 1) HE-frag munitions for main battle tanks are forcibly full-bore rounds with a high volume warhead section, this affect directly the : muzzle velocity (at example domestic ones are in the 800-900 m/s at maingun's bore exit) muzzle retardation (usually in the 200-300 m/s/Km) gravity drop and wind drift. This render those kind of ammunitions (very useful against structures, trenches and positions of ATGM teams) almost useless in tank vs tank engagements except maybe at 200-400 meters of distance and that taking into account merely P-hit of single round.
Depends. In an ambush situation where the target tank is moving at a regular speed and is unaware he is under attack the driver probably would not be able to react quickly enough to pull off evasive maneuvers before the tank gets hit - and the airburst functionality doesn't need it to physically connect only get within one or two tank lengths. NATO tanks might be able to fire on the move but being loaded mostly manually they would have to maintain a steady speed if the loader is to do his job properly. So no sudden jerks from acceleration/deceleration or turns or deviating from short stretches of flat ground. In which case they are probably targetable even with the slower rounds.
Mindstorm wrote: 2) Data coming from historical conflict and today area of conflicts (including Ukraine, Syria, self proclaimedn Artsakh Republic and Lybia) prove that the effect of hit with ammunitions with way bigger amount of explosive in comparison to tank's HE-Frag rounds (at example majority of large caliber ATGMs) or with way higher amount and mass of fragments (such as close explosion of high caliber artillery rounds) often even after several hits almost never cause functional damages to the main gun barrel, distruption of the combined commander/gunner optics or track-severing mobility kill. Almost the totality of the tanks abandoned on the battlefield by theris crew in those conflicts had perfectly functioning main guns and tracks and the reasons for the abandonement was, for more than 80% of the instances, the panic among the untrained/insulated tank's crew and for the remaining 20% secondary flames (to external fuel or secondary weapon stations that the crew was not traimed/equiped for quench) or damages to hydraulic/oil systems from HEAT penetrations.
I'm only going off from what is written on the Armor magazine article, which contradicts a lot of what you said but of course the real world results would always trump the findings in tests.
Mindstorm wrote: 3) A modern APS (and here i do no talk of a system like "Афганит" capable to intercept also hypersonic APFSDS rounds at signficant distance from the vehicle but also foreign systems with way lower performace) would have no problem in engaging and detonate at several dozen meters from the vehcile the warhead of a HE-Frag munitions delivered by an enemy MBT at tactlically relevant distance, an RPG shot from close range would represent a much more challenging target.
Most APS in existence only ever have a zone of influence of one or two tank lengths at best probably to limit the possibilities of collateral damage on neighbouring vehicles or infantry. I've no idea on the exact mechanisms of how Afghanit works aside from speculation but I'd guess it probably wouldn't be that drastically different in operation compared to contemporaneous systems, if only not to further complicate tactics when operating with infantry.
By the way, do you have any ideas on possible counters on APS (especially Afghanit) that could plausibly exist in a tank's arsenal? I've seen claims of M829A4 projectiles with a precursor tip peeling off from the rest of the projectile and triggering the APS and ERA systems alike which frankly sounds ridiculous.
In an ambush situation where the target tank is moving at a regular speed and is unaware he is under attack the driver probably would not be able to react quickly enough to pull off evasive maneuvers before the tank gets hit - and the airburst functionality doesn't need it to physically connect only get within one or two tank lengths.
An ambush situation and you are pissing away your advantage by shooting at the front of the target with air burst rounds to try to damage stuff?
The effectiveness of HE frag rounds diminishes with distance, so missing by two tank lengths would be a problem.
Test out ideas without the blinkers of confirmation biases.
Trying to be realistic is a good thing... wasting time talking about random unlikely stuff... not so much.
Sounds to me like you play War Thunder or World of Tanks and have an inflated view of some aspects of the effectiveness of HE Frag fire power.
If such attacks are so great at rendering tanks useless then why aren't standard HE rockets for Grad batteries their go to option for anti tank use... in fact why do they have dedicated anti armour rockets with HEAT submunitions and dedicated top attack weapons?
I'm only going off from what is written on the Armor magazine article, which contradicts a lot of what you said but of course the real world results would always trump the findings in tests.
Perhaps sharing the details of that article might be a good place to start, though perhaps not in this thread.
Most APS in existence only ever have a zone of influence of one or two tank lengths at best probably to limit the possibilities of collateral damage on neighbouring vehicles or infantry.
Drozd and Drozd 2 use a horizontally fired rocket with a fixed range, while ARENA launches a munition into the air out in front of the tank and launches munition fragments outwards and downwards to intercept the target... the latter has a safe range of about 40m for infantry, so an airburst HE round is not going to be excessively wonderful from that distance.
BTW Which airburst round are you talking about specifically?
I've no idea on the exact mechanisms of how Afghanit works aside from speculation but I'd guess it probably wouldn't be that drastically different in operation compared to contemporaneous systems, if only not to further complicate tactics when operating with infantry.
Its ability to deal with APFSDS rounds from tank calibres suggests it probably doesn't work exactly the same as other systems...
By the way, do you have any ideas on possible counters on APS (especially Afghanit) that could plausibly exist in a tank's arsenal?
I would think part of its parameters in development was to defeat the most threatening enemy weapons...
I've seen claims of M829A4 projectiles with a precursor tip peeling off from the rest of the projectile and triggering the APS and ERA systems alike which frankly sounds ridiculous.
Hahahaha.... yes... segmenting your penetrator and then using them a piece at at time sounds like the opposite of what they should be doing... but when the enemy are out of ideas there is no benefit in making suggestions for them.
How about not being stupid enough to get into a war with Russia in the first place perhaps?
GarryB wrote: An ambush situation and you are pissing away your advantage by shooting at the front of the target with air burst rounds to try to damage stuff?
The effectiveness of HE frag rounds diminishes with distance, so missing by two tank lengths would be a problem.
If a conventional attack with APFSDS has a miniscule success rate in the first place against such a target protected by effective APS why are you even going to try it?
But yeah, it would seem that the HE-frag would have to get really up close to its target than I would have thought for it to be effective.
GarryB wrote: Trying to be realistic is a good thing... wasting time talking about random unlikely stuff... not so much.
Sounds to me like you play War Thunder or World of Tanks and have an inflated view of some aspects of the effectiveness of HE Frag fire power.
Sometimes the random left field idea ends up being more effective than you would have expected. Sometimes, but it happens enough that its worth looking for these solutions from time to time. And I don't actually. Never liked the exponential levels of grinding required or that you have to pay for unlocks.
GarryB wrote: If such attacks are so great at rendering tanks useless then why aren't standard HE rockets for Grad batteries their go to option for anti tank use... in fact why do they have dedicated anti armour rockets with HEAT submunitions and dedicated top attack weapons?
Just because there is a more effective alternative doesn't mean one solution is entirely useless for the task. You only ever have so much Grad rockets with submunitions but mountains more of standard HE - which would you think would be used more often against most targets, including armor?
GarryB wrote: Perhaps sharing the details of that article might be a good place to start, though perhaps not in this thread.
Its in the imgur link I shared:
GarryB wrote: Drozd and Drozd 2 use a horizontally fired rocket with a fixed range, while ARENA launches a munition into the air out in front of the tank and launches munition fragments outwards and downwards to intercept the target... the latter has a safe range of about 40m for infantry, so an airburst HE round is not going to be excessively wonderful from that distance.
BTW Which airburst round are you talking about specifically?
Arena has a pre-set killzone for its effectors as well, but being blast fragmentation I could see why it would have a danger zone of 40 m for infantry. And I am talking about the Telnik round, the latest in their line of HE-fragmentation shells.
GarryB wrote: Its ability to deal with APFSDS rounds from tank calibres suggests it probably doesn't work exactly the same as other systems...
It doesn't take much space to effectively deflect a long rod penetrator - a dozen meter or two is more than plenty to topple the projectile to such a degree that it probably wouldn't penetrate much.
GarryB wrote: Hahahaha.... yes... segmenting your penetrator and then using them a piece at at time sounds like the opposite of what they should be doing... but when the enemy are out of ideas there is no benefit in making suggestions for them.
I wouldn't call it segmented, but separating perhaps? Segmented penetrators are still solid intact projectiles but it has multiple penetrator cores joined together by connectors in between.
And you laugh, but its actually the more effective design against complex multilayered targets than the old monobloc types or even the segmented ones. Think of it as a tandem APFSDS to the tandem HEAT warheads which were so effective against ERA designed against single layer HEAT charges.
GarryB wrote: How about not being stupid enough to get into a war with Russia in the first place perhaps?
Even if they don't go to war with Russia NATO is still going to encounter Russian weaponry wherever it goes for its next colonial adventure. Thus, its only prudent for them to design their weapons around Russian ones even if the chances of actually fighting the Russians are kept miniscule by the nukes.
lyle6 wrote:Depends. In an ambush situation where the target tank is moving at a regular speed and is unaware he is under attack the driver probably would not be able to react quickly enough to pull off evasive maneuvers before the tank gets hit - and the airburst functionality doesn't need it to physically connect only get within one or two tank lengths. NATO tanks might be able to fire on the move but being loaded mostly manually they would have to maintain a steady speed if the loader is to do his job properly. So no sudden jerks from acceleration/deceleration or turns or deviating from short stretches of flat ground. In which case they are probably targetable even with the slower rounds.
Employment of MBT in the defense like fixed field artillery has been abandoned in the armored warfare tactical manuals of majority of the most advanced army worldwide more than 35 years ago (last time was in Gulf war with Iraqi Type 69 and T-62 used like fixed guns positions behind sand walls…). In the defense today are employed depressed fire points for MBTs in very high numbers with paths allowing the passage of MBTs also in pairs or in three long three of 4 depressed defense lines placed at several dozen of meters of distance one from the other.
MBT can shot literally from any of those opening (guided by the unified command and control network) making the small climb from the depresse pathway exposing the most protected arc to enemy potential return fire for just few seconds before egress - a specific version in domestic manuals has been named "tank's carousel"-.
In the offense instead the MBT obviously proceed, together with mechanized units, in fully mobile formations. Artillery (in particular area one) in both those operational instances have very scarce, if any, capability to effectively counter heavily armored formations retaining some capabilities against the most soft lightly armored ones, particualrly in the offensive.
In the very old test described in the Armor magazine article there are several elements explaining the enormous difference with data coming from real war condtions :
1) While M109 155mm artillery guns ,potential of theirs explosive content and speed and mass of fragmentaions are virtually identical today and represent average for US area artillery capabilities the difference armor composition and potential of an M1A2/A3, Leopard-5/6, for theirs part or a Т-72Б3, Т-80БВМ or a Т-90А/M in comparison with a M-48 Patton is immense.
Advanced composite, ceramics, sapced armor new high yield steel compositions have reduced of dozen of times susceptiility to fragmentation and spalling damages ,also to corollary equipmewnt and the tracks (the latest optics resist and maintain total efficiency after direct hits of sniper rifle from 150 m !).
Also the last test is obviously not representative of operational situations: in facts a tank ditch of only 250 m for a combined infantry team is terribly downsized and concentrated fire of 2600 artillery rounds (it would be interesting to know the time of execution…) from 24 M109 155mm artillery pieces against a so small area with the enemy M-48 Patton and M113 remaining obviously motionless all the time only to obtain a 50% of those vehicles damaged to out-of-work threshold is a dismailing result.
Mindstorm wrote: Employment of MBT in the defense like fixed field artillery has been abandoned in the armored warfare tactical manuals of majority of the most advanced army worldwide more than 35 years ago (last time was in Gulf war with Iraqi Type 69 and T-62 used like fixed guns positions behind sand walls…). In the defense today are employed depressed fire points for MBTs in very high numbers with paths allowing the passage of MBTs also in pairs or in three long three of 4 depressed defense lines placed at several dozen of meters of distance one from the other.
MBT can shot literally from any of those opening (guided by the unified command and control network) making the small climb from the depresse pathway exposing the most protected arc to enemy potential return fire for just few seconds before egress - a specific version in domestic manuals has been named "tank's carousel"-.
In the offense instead the MBT obviously proceed, together with mechanized units, in fully mobile formations. Artillery (in particular area one) in both those operational instances have very scarce, if any, capability to effectively counter heavily armored formations retaining some capabilities against the most soft lightly armored ones, particualrly in the offensive.
While highly informative, I fail to see how this relates to my point. I should have made it clearer but I all I'm saying is that even near hits from quite a considerable distance (30 m in the source, though it is a 6 inch shell) is enough to cause degradation of the tank's capabilities, which for my example was the APS to enable the work of the APFSDS thereafter.
Mindstorm wrote: In the very old test described in the Armor magazine article there are several elements explaining the enormous difference with data coming from real war condtions :
Might be quite old but I think much of the findings could still relate.
Mindstorm wrote: 1) While M109 155mm artillery guns ,potential of theirs explosive content and speed and mass of fragmentaions are virtually identical today and represent average for US area artillery capabilities the difference armor composition and potential of an M1A2/A3, Leopard-5/6, for theirs part or a Т-72Б3, Т-80БВМ or a Т-90А/M in comparison with a M-48 Patton is immense.
One of the targets is a T-72M, identified from the old style single pin tracks and turret front mounted smoke mortars. Do you really think a T-72B3 or a T-90 has superior steel that it could shrug off the same punishment that did the older T-72M in?
Mindstorm wrote: Advanced composite, ceramics, sapced armor new high yield steel compositions have reduced of dozen of times susceptiility to fragmentation and spalling damages ,also to corollary equipmewnt and the tracks (the latest optics resist and maintain total efficiency after direct hits of sniper rifle from 150 m !).
Even hits on the glass? I find that hard to believe. Its very much possible if it was attacked with the sight covers on but without - no way. There are even sights that ditch the glass altogether for fiber optics so you'd have this huge unprotected optical module vulnerable to even small arms on well protected vehicles.
Mindstorm wrote: Also the last test is obviously not representative of operational situations: in facts a tank ditch of only 250 m for a combined infantry team is terribly downsized and concentrated fire of 2600 artillery rounds (it would be interesting to know the time of execution…) from 24 M109 155mm artillery pieces against a so small area with the enemy M-48 Patton and M113 remaining obviously motionless all the time only to obtain a 50% of those vehicles damaged to out-of-work threshold is a dismailing result.
Well they supposedly based it on Soviet fires procedures so its obviously dated by now.
lyle6 wrote: I should have made it clearer but I all I'm saying is that even near hits from quite a considerable distance (30 m in the source, though it is a 6 inch shell) is enough to cause degradation of the tank's capabilities, which for my example was the APS to enable the work of the APFSDS thereafter.
Your position was clear ,but what i believe that you do is to reason in terms of "tanks" and not of those tanks of that particular years of construction.
A 152mm ammunition or an OTAN 155mm ammunition in the domestic tests at ПрибВО within 20 meters (not 30 m that is probably the product of the limits of the recording equipment of the time) generate enough fragments capable to penetrate 17 mm to about 22 mm of RHA.
Now those fragments was capable to penetrate without problems several spots of side armor of '60 and '70 years tanks, theris mian gun barrel or theirs track/roller and top engine compartment .
Those same fragments (the design and explosive potentential of those ammunitions reached theirs limits already in the '70 years) at half that dinstance merely dent a today tank's main gun barrel or track except for very rare instances or very small segments of those components.
This do not mean obviously that several component of modern MBT/armoured vehicles are not susceptible to the fragments produced by high caliber artillery rounds , in particualar tubes of ATGM (or also APS of late models of MBT) would be highly susceptible to those fragments like also some sensor suits at particular angles of attack.
It is just for that reason ,particularly with air burst programmable ammunitions, at exmple that the Афганит's tubes are arranged in that particular position sunk under the turrett's armor.
If a conventional attack with APFSDS has a miniscule success rate in the first place against such a target protected by effective APS why are you even going to try it?
Because an HE round has even less chance of doing serious damage, and most vehicles have all sorts of weak points and you never know.
But yeah, it would seem that the HE-frag would have to get really up close to its target than I would have thought for it to be effective.
The only vehicles I have read about even using HE or APHE rounds had enormous guns... 152mm ISU vehicles which is a shell that is about double the weight of current tank shells in terms of HE rounds... not to mention back then they had APHE rounds which are generally not used these days because armour protection is enormously better.
Sometimes the random left field idea ends up being more effective than you would have expected
That is true... they might find aiming a HE round at the ground directly underneath a T-14 might lead to fragments coming up through the floor armour or something, but they are generally armoured against land mines so even then it is iffy.
Immobilising a tank by destroying its track in the real world means that tank will either continue firing at you till it is out of ammo and then the crew might bail, but I would think if you destroyed their track and probably some wheels at the same time they could still fire back and kill you and tanks around you because their gun and optics will be fine. They will be stuck in the line of fire so their ERA and APS will be working overtime but they would likely start firing till they can no longer fire and then bug out...
Just because there is a more effective alternative doesn't mean one solution is entirely useless for the task. You only ever have so much Grad rockets with submunitions but mountains more of standard HE - which would you think would be used more often against most targets, including armor?
The Russians have so many dedicated anti armour weapons from RPGs through to air delivered cluster bombs that HATO is going to run out of tanks before they run out of anti tank weapons.
Keep in mind the Abrams was considered invincible till the people fighting against it learned where its weak points are and started to target them.
A Konkurs destroyed an Abrams simply by hitting it in the side. Shooting at the rear hull of any tank will hit the engine and set it on fire... APS systems might reduce the penetration of the 120mm rounds but they still should penetrate the rear of the tank and reach the engine bay most of the time.
Essentially to do so you need to be sneaky and let the first vehicles pass you and attack them from behind or the side.
Its in the imgur link I shared:
Umm right off the bat... it says artillery was used to stop an armoured charge and then asks if anything has changed since WWII regarding the effectiveness of artillery against armour... and I would have to say... yes it has.
Roof armour on tanks in WWII was pathetic... 10mm or so at best most of the time. Modern tanks have more than 200mm of roof armour.
Also with smaller calibre artillery like 76.2mm guns you could fire more rounds in a shorter period so the chances of directly hitting a tank on its roof was not so amazingly unlikely.
With modern artillery cluster rounds with shaped charge munitions would be very effective against a tank formation, but that does not translate to standard HE rounds from a tank gun being effective against enemy tanks.
Later on it talks about 152mm artillery... not 120mm or 125mm HE rounds... which are half the weight and rather less powerful.
And I am talking about the Telnik round, the latest in their line of HE-fragmentation shells.
The fact that they called them remote detonation HE Frag rounds, which they show in this video:
Near the end when firing on the plywood target.
It seems that it detonated rather high and its fragments didn't hit the target with their full force... which is something you would need to factor in if the target was an enemy MBT too.
Command detonating the round as it passed over the target tank might be a solution... the damage directly below where the round exploded suggests lots of fragments and blast hit there, and a trajectory over top of the target might be ignored by some APS systems set to stop weapons and rounds that are going to impact the tank rather than fly over it... the fragments could damage radar or interceptor munitions opening the way for follow up shots.
It doesn't take much space to effectively deflect a long rod penetrator - a dozen meter or two is more than plenty to topple the projectile to such a degree that it probably wouldn't penetrate much.
The energy needed to make an APFSDS round yaw would not be trivial... I seen impact points on tank turret roofs where the impact is a gouged out trough along the flat top of the roof... the gouge is about 2m long and does not get shallower so the projectile was not deflected at all... it just skimmed the top of the roof and carried on going past the tank.
That is hardened metal and the gouge was not as thick as the penetrator, so the edge of it just skimmed the top of the turret roof without deflecting it at all...
Angled armour can make full calibre rounds bounce, but it never makes APFSDS rounds bounce.
And you laugh, but its actually the more effective design against complex multilayered targets than the old monobloc types or even the segmented ones.
You say that, but the whole purpose of ERA is to snap off parts of the penetrator so it has to start penetrating from scratch with a broken tip... essentially reforging a sharper nose as it penetrates... effectively losing a lot of penetration performance in the process.
Think of it as a tandem APFSDS to the tandem HEAT warheads which were so effective against ERA designed against single layer HEAT charges.
It is not quite the same though is it?
A rear segment hitting the forward segments embedded in the armour means the rear segments have to penetrate the heavy metal fragments of the penetrator in front of it before it can continue to penetrate the armour of the vehicle.
Dual HEAT warheads and even triple ones are normally about a small HEAT warhead defeating the ERA block and then the full calibre HEAT warhead burning into the armour.
For the more powerful HEAT equipped weapons like HELLFIRE and Kornet-EM both warheads are full calibre 152mm warheads with the second warhead continuing to penetrate into the hole created by the first.
With advanced armours often the kill mechanism is to make some layers move to try to shear the incoming penetrator made of plasma (Heat) or metal (APFSDS), to redirect it at an angle to break it or just increase the amount of armour it has to go through.
I would think NERA and shearing composite armours would work rather better on a kinetic penetrator already broken into sections.
I would expect on targets it does penetrate then the segments offer the chance of shattering and fragmenting inside the target doing all sorts of terrible damage, but I think getting inside in the first place would be the problem.
Even if they don't go to war with Russia NATO is still going to encounter Russian weaponry wherever it goes for its next colonial adventure. Thus, its only prudent for them to design their weapons around Russian ones even if the chances of actually fighting the Russians are kept miniscule by the nukes.
This is true.
However I honestly think the west would be better off trying to live up to its own ethics and morals and try to attract interest in their ideals rather than bully countries that are no more interested in their morals than they are.
Times are going to get tough for the west as even third world countries will be able to afford some rather good equipment the Russians are making now.
Ironically the Russian weapons tend to be better in harsher environments... maybe the west might start buying Russian weapons to get the job done properly and cheaper than western weapons get it done.
While highly informative, I fail to see how this relates to my point. I should have made it clearer but I all I'm saying is that even near hits from quite a considerable distance (30 m in the source, though it is a 6 inch shell) is enough to cause degradation of the tank's capabilities, which for my example was the APS to enable the work of the APFSDS thereafter.
The thing is that the 152mm shells were likely fired from some distance, so they were probably coming down near vertical which means an excellent fragmentation pattern.
In the direct fire role a 152mm or 155mm round would have pathetic forward fragmentation effects because it is the walls of the shell that create the fragments... the nose generally has the fuse which would be poor for creating useful uniform sized fragments to do damage on a target.
Might be quite old but I think much of the findings could still relate.
I think the Russians very much appreciate the performance of Artillery and during WWII when there were shortages of anti armour rounds for tanks they did indeed use HE rounds because there was nothing else to use... and their forces suffered terribly because of that. Their tactics were basically that when an enemy tank appeared all guns were to fire upon it... including all artillery pieces. Now they had some excellent pieces like the 76.2mm guns and lots of much bigger calibre weapons... their 76.2mm guns were very very good at anti armour use... early in the war they were as good as the German 88mm AA guns despite being conventional artillery... the Germans used them as well, but they had APHE shells.... they were not using pure HE rounds and when they did they were only effective against the very light vehicles... Panzer IIs and IIIs...
As the calibres got larger their effectiveness increased with just HE rounds but we are talking 122mm and 152mm guns and not the early ones with very short barrels and low velocities.
One of the targets is a T-72M, identified from the old style single pin tracks and turret front mounted smoke mortars. Do you really think a T-72B3 or a T-90 has superior steel that it could shrug off the same punishment that did the older T-72M in?
That last page you posted the second bottom shot shows a T-72... but the track is totally intact... the sheet metal track cover is messed up but it looks like you could climb in and start her up and drive it away...
Even hits on the glass? I find that hard to believe
The canopy glass in a Mi-28 will stop a 14.5mm HMG round fired from 5m range. A 14.5mm HMG round has twice the kinetic energy of a 50 cal Browning HMG.
There is video footage of the test showing multiple hits on the cockpit canopy glass from the side... the same glass on the Apache that is penetrated by troops on the ground using AKs.
Periscope glass can be replaced rapidly in the field...
Could having a DIRCM mounted on the tank(powered by the APU) roof be more useful in spoofing IR and TV guided top attack ATGMs compared to top launching smoke grenades on the armata? Also does the armata have radars that can detect an ATGM falling near vertically, like hellfires and brimstones?
Could having a DIRCM mounted on the tank(powered by the APU) roof be more useful in spoofing IR and TV guided top attack ATGMs compared to top launching smoke grenades on the armata?
I rather suspect they already have such systems integrated into the optics systems on the vehicles but also on support vehicles too.
Afghanits should also be able to engage top attack weapons.
Also does the armata have radars that can detect an ATGM falling near vertically, like hellfires and brimstones?
That chart you posted is terrible BTW... it dramatically skews the information it is pretending to show.
That chart seems to show a near vertical dive on the target at 7km range but in actual fact 1,700 ft is only about 520 metres, so properly scaled at 7km the curve of the trajectory would be 1/14th its width... ie divide 7km into 500m chunks and it rises one of those chunks high when flying the full width...
A better example would be copperhead which is fired by artillery and does fly such a trajectory, or Javelin for instance.... both of which have been around long enough for them to make systems to defeat them.
It is unknown what systems have been developed to replace Shtora, but they have Binocular sized laser blinding systems for use against snipers, so I would expect a laser dazzler system could be incorporated in the EO system of the commanders sight, or perhaps they have separate vehicles for such work that can be kept hidden away when not needed.
Im looking at thise awesome simulation of how EFPs would hit an APFSDS round. It shows that there is an extremely specific spot on the apfsds rod that needs to be hit to give maximum penetration reduction. However it raises some question of if afghanit is an EFP launcher, and its not moving, how would its fire control radar even successfully hit the APFSDS( at the right spot and angle), given the basically nonexistent error margins. The EFP launchers have 0 vertical guidance, so if the APFSDS is at a slighty higher or lower altitude than them, its impossible for them to hit it. Optimally it would be better if the EFP smashed into the APFSDS rod at a longer distance since it would cause more yaw, but that cannot seem to be done.
Another issue is that the average penetration reduction of an APFSDS round caused if its hit by the EFP at the right spot, is around 30-50%. Lets say the incoming APFDS has 700-800mm penetration. If the EFP hits it, its penetration will still be 500-350mm. While this would be enough for the hull composite to stop it, it would still disable the turret if it hits the mantlet. Also, EFPs seem to be useless against guided munitions becaus they cannot be aimed. This implies, contrary to what western fanboys claim, that those EFP launchers are NOT the only APS launcher system on the afghanit, and there is some fragmentation munition launcher which almost certainly can destroy top attack munitions(though thats not necessary, since top attack ATGMs can very easily be spoofed by launching smoke vertically).
We need to keep in mind that the interception munitions are not bullets, they are munitions and therefore could cover an area of space rather than just a single point in space.
With ARENA in its original version with munitions located around the front of the turret the munitions were fired upwards and sent a shower of fragments downwards and forwards into the path of the incoming munition. Because they spread fragments over an area then with dozens of munitions around the front of the turret means there is a lot of overlap, but also as munitions are fired the vehicle and turret move so the chance of a munition being available to cover a specific direction starts out very good but goes down as munitions are used of course.
Intercepting APFSDS rounds is very difficult... mainly because they are a small target and also because they are generally moving very fast... up to 1.7km/s.
If it is intercepted however then the shoe is very much on the other foot.... an APFSDS round is like a flying nail and has immense energy that will bury itself into the target very readily assuming a clean impact.
With it being intercepted and starting to yaw it is a bit like knocking nails in with a single powerful hammer strike... but what happens when you deliver a powerful hammer strike and the nail is not straight?
The energy does not go along the line of the nail which focusses the energy on one point... a normal nail will bend and wont penetrate into the wood at all, but an APFSDS round is not a normal nail and will likely shatter and fragment which means a rather more drastic effect on performance than reducing penetration by 30-40%...
APFSDS rounds don't richochet or bounce even with an 89 of degree of angle of incidence... but cause the penetrator to yaw and all the energy contained in the projectile will go most of the time into breaking the penetrator instead of penetrating the target.
Drozd has been tested operationally in Afghanistan in the 1980s, ARENA was a development based on that experience along with the Drozd 2 system... they have been aware of top attack threats and late model ARENA designs are designed to deal with that threat... it is highly likely Afghanit also deals with such threats too.
Afghanit doesn't work that way. The thing is, compared to most other systems, for Afghanit the engagement starts immediately after the threat has fired. It does this by detecting the characteristic UV radiation of large calibre muzzle flashes and rocket launches which gives the signal for the slewing and precision tracking to start. This gives Afghanit an unprecedented amount of response time with entire seconds instead of milliseconds, and allows engagement options with a longer stand-off distance in mind, like blast warheads. With a blast warhead and enough stand-off you probably don't even need to damage the projectile, merely use the high pressure gases to push on the projectile body and the tail fins making it yaw quite a bit or even make it miss entirely.
Of course this does mean that Afghanit would be heavily disadvantaged against more close-in threats - but that's what the Arena (and extensive ERA armoring) is for. Afghanit is the high-end option for fighting against fully mechanized enemies like NATO with long engagement distances and well defined tactical dispositions.
Alexander Potapov, General Director of Uralvagonzavod Concern JSC, presented a model of the T-14 tank on the Armata platform to the Prime Minister of the Republic of Belarus Roman Golovchenko at the MILEX-2021 exhibition.
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
lyle6
![[Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 25 IUE6B01](https://i.imgur.com/IUE6B01.png)
![[Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 25 AsKvJgy](https://i.imgur.com/asKvJgy.png)
![[Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 25 UdaHUib](https://i.imgur.com/udaHUib.png)
![[Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 25 Oea8HaI](https://i.imgur.com/Oea8HaI.png)
![[Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 25 Hellfi10](https://servimg.com/r/2420261576/hellfi10.gif)
![[Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 25 Zpbpxs10](https://servimg.com/r/8120346361/zpbpxs10.jpg)
![[Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 25 Flcrey10](https://servimg.com/r/8120346361/flcrey10.jpg)
![[Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 25 20494110](https://servimg.com/r/6020286977/20494110.jpg)