equal damage or effect from damage on east and west tanks

[Ollie1983 10]

The M1 is way heavier than the T72, how the hell you can deduce that the latter is better armoured is beyond me. :rolleyes:

Cast vs forged or rolled steel- not that simple. You can't cast materials that are composites. You can weld sections together though. If you had seen megafactories you would see how they reassemble damaged or even destroyed M1s. There is a unitary central core which can be repaired and the remaining sections are simply attached or welded to this.

Modern tanks are designed to be repaired quickly, hence the modular design. Having top notch armour is immaterial because it is the crew that are easy to kill or force them to abandon it.

The M1 is not RPG proof all over nor is any tank. If you hit it enough times as many of them were in Iraq you are bound to see a hit that causes enough damage to damage it severely.

[Baff1 0]

As soon as tank becomes RPG proof they will just make bigger RPG's.

RPG warheads have got to be substantially cheaper to upgrade than tank armour.

You're kidding me right?

M829A3 with overall length of 892mm is the longest 120mm round in use. If it can fit - anything can.

Cheers.

Sorry, I didn't really know.

There is a lot of theory about sabots I've been reading.

What is the ideal length etc.

For a while the consensus was the longer the better, then it turned out that shorter was better... and so on.

Edited March 30, 2011 by Baff1

[kireta21 13]

The M1 is way heavier than the T72, how the hell you can deduce that the latter is better armoured is beyond me. :rolleyes:

You're forgetting one thing: M1 is also bigger than T-72, especially turret. For example front profile of T-72B is 5.85m^2 vs. M1A1's 7.05m^2 (may differ a bit in variants). That means M1s frontal armor needs to be already 20% heavier (if theoritically using same armor type) to provide same protection level.

As soon as tank becomes RPG proof they will just make bigger RPG's.

RPG warheads have got to be substantially cheaper to upgrade than tank armour.

Nothing is free. For example PG-7VR has impressive penetration when compared to PG-7VL, but it's almost twice as heavy, so it has less than half of it's range. M136 have impressive lethality against light armored targets, but at cost of medicore penetration.

For a while the consensus was the longer the better, then it turned out that shorter was better... and so on.

It turns out best way to increase penetration of KE projectile is to... increase its kinetic energy :p. Thus short rod penetrators evolved into long rod penetrators, and become longer and longer, and heavier.

Interesting enough, Chinese prefer light penetrators fired at high velocity, because their doctrine says tanks would fight each other at 500m-1000m, which I find quite ridiculus. But I'm no Chinese strategist, so I may be just clueless armchair general :D.

Edited March 30, 2011 by boota

[Baff1 0]

I think there may be a factor in the amount of friction. so a longer penetrator slows down faster inside the armour while a shorter penetrator passes through quicker. This may of greater importance vs collapsing armour types such as Chobam perhaps.

All idle speculation on my part of course.

With regards to predicted engagement ranges, that I would expect to be highly dependant on the theatre in which you expected to do battle.

Tank tactics in the Villers Boccage for example would have been greatly different than they were in the open deserts of Libya.

Edited March 30, 2011 by Baff1

[Ollie1983 10]

If one tank is heavier than another, you can fairly deduce that the heavier one is carrying a lot more powerpack, ammo and armour.

The theory with KE projectiles is that weight times velocity equals energy. Denser materials that are hard and even self sharpening put a massive amount of energy into a very small area to defeat materials used as armour.

There comes a point when spending on tanks to make them better armed or armoured becomes prohibitive and you're better off having cheaper tanks but in greater numbers. Judging by the number of M1s deployed in Iraq and how many were destroyed by enemy action, I'd say the Americans have surpassed that level already.

RPGs are really nothing more than a nusiance. They are inaccurate, crude and have limited range. Their effectiveness really is questionable when dozens of them are fired at MBTs to no effect. No western weapons designer would tolerate this, it would be pointless to equip soldiers with them, and ask them to carry the weight if they were not effective any more. The effectiveness of modern tank armour is when weapons like the Javelin were developed- for a start they take armour on at vastly greater distances because if a tank is close enough to target with a plain RPG, the user is seriously putting his life in danger. The Javelin is much longer ranged and has a high flight path with the aim of striking tanks in their top armour which is usually a lot lighter.

Firing anything at very high velocities becomes impractical beyond a certain point because of the recoil involved and the fact you can wear out barrel rifling very quickly, unless it is smooth bored anyway.

[king homer 1]

I think there may be a factor in the amount of friction. so a longer penetrator slows down faster inside the armour while a shorter penetrator passes through quicker.

Interesting. May you explain this a bit more?

[archbishop lazarus 24]

Long rod penetrator is always better than short rod. Why? Long rod have more mass, and when it strikes the target, it generates much more pressure on the same spot than the short rod.

RPGs are really nothing more than a nusiance. They are inaccurate, crude and have limited range. Their effectiveness really is questionable when dozens of them are fired at MBTs to no effect. No western weapons designer would tolerate this, it would be pointless to equip soldiers with them, and ask them to carry the weight if they were not effective any more. The effectiveness of modern tank armour is when weapons like the Javelin were developed- for a start they take armour on at vastly greater distances because if a tank is close enough to target with a plain RPG, the user is seriously putting his life in danger. The Javelin is much longer ranged and has a high flight path with the aim of striking tanks in their top armour which is usually a lot lighter.

Oh nooo... again... You have no idea what the chechen rebels (terrorists) did to russian T-80BV tanks in Grozniy with those "crude" weapons. Ah yeah... I forgot... T-80 is also a crude shit... Particularly because it has autoloader and the americans have better logistics! :p This is pathetic...

The fact that arabs cant shoot and aim doesnt mean that the RPG is just a "nuisance". A trained soldier can destroy any tank in the world with a PG-7VR with one shot! And obviously you know only RPG-7. RPG-29 is nonexistent for you.

The Javelin is....

Blah, blah... Not even the same category! You heard of Metis-M for example? Obviously not.

Edited March 30, 2011 by Archbishop Lazarus

[dm 9]

RPGs are really nothing more than a nusiance.

On top of what Archbishop Lazarus said, if RPGs are only a nusiance, then why are all the militaries fitting tons of anti-RPG slat armour and/or ERA to all their deployed vehicles?

Abrams got it (TUSK)

Bradley got it

Challenger

Warrior

Bulldog

Stryker

the list goes on...

If RPGs are such a no-threat, why did the MBTs deployed in Iraq (M1, Challenger) get such upgrades?

[king homer 1]

Long rod penetrator is always better than short rod. Why? Long rod have more mass, and when it strikes the target, it generates much more pressure on the same spot than the short rod.

Hopefully you got my ironic intentions. Or did you speak directly to Baff1?

+ Long rod DU penetrators sharpen themselve while penetrating armor. The longer they are the longer there is material to use up.

[Baff1 0]

Interesting. May you explain this a bit more?

Unfortunately I haven't got a clue about it.

I was making idle hypothesis only.

I'd been looking over some threads in tank net I think when I started noticing people discussing the superiority of shorter rod penetrators.

But they could have been discussing 2 specific ones for all I know. I was skim reading for some specific information so I didn't stop to examine it.

Up until then all the discussion I had ever read had all been along the lines that longer penetrator = better. (The silvor Bulletz = pwnzors!!!11!)

That sort of thing is really above my paygrade, beyond my reasonable ability to investigate, so I just made a mental note that this was no longer something I should be taking for granted and moved on.

Edited March 31, 2011 by Baff1

[Ollie1983 10]

I class them as a nusiance because in battle reports vehicles were being hit with DOZENS of RPGs and suffering no serious damage BECAUSE of things like spaced armour and slats. There is nothing handheld really that can defeat a modern MBT. The Javelin is hardly handheld really and again, only works because it attacks the TOP ARMOUR.

RPGs are useful for firing at point targets but then NATO forces have the M203 which is less bulky and perfectly capable of dealing with soft targets.

I do get sick and tired of soviet fan bois....

I would also point out the shape or size of a projectile is an irrelevance where mass is concerned, you could have a shorter, fatter KE round that using the mass times velocity equation had as much kinetic energy as a longer one. Longer dart shaped objects would provide better stability in the case of fin stabilization though. I would guess the overall length is limited mostly by handling considerations inside the vehicle, also tempered by the need for a penetrator to be thick enough to avoid breaking or shattering on contact with a target, I am unsure of the tensile or otherwise strength of materials like DU. Obviously tungsten carbide would be an ideal material.

Edited April 1, 2011 by Ollie1983

[kireta21 13]

I class them as a nusiance because in battle reports vehicles were being hit with DOZENS of RPGs and suffering no serious damage BECAUSE of things like spaced armour and slats. There is nothing handheld really that can defeat a modern MBT.

Modern tanks Russians lost in Grozny 1999 would like to have a word with you. No M1 or Challenger 2 lost to RPG in Iraq is rather result of proper tactics, organization and support. It's all about not allowing your enemy to attack in any way with considerably good chance of success. And IF they succeed not allow him to finnish the job. Which is easy if they have only RPGs of any kind. In "real" war immobile tank is a coffin with gun attached. Any tanker will tell you that.

The Javelin is hardly handheld really and again, only works because it attacks the TOP ARMOUR.

AT-14 Kornet(man, WHY I always write "Komet" first?:D), Bill2 (top attack as well) or Spike are doing exactly same job, just can't be shoulder-fired, so have smaller offensive capability.

RPGs are useful for firing at point targets but then NATO forces have the M203 which is less bulky and perfectly capable of dealing with soft targets.

Ever heard of SMAW or Carl Gustav? When not used against armored vehicle RPG-7 is still VERY usefull as kind of shoulder-fired mortar with a telescopic sight. Just as mentoned western designs.

Also you need to realise hand-helds are not designed to kill tanks, but to provide infantry with weapon that ALLOWS (and not much more actually) them to defend themself against AFVs. Tanks will ALWAYS have a big advantage, unless in successful ambush. As anti-tank RPGs and LAWs are strictly defensive weapons.

[max power 21]

A few points:

There was at least one M1 lost to rpg fire.

Forces that use eastern block equipment have the bg-15, gp-25, gp-30 grenade launchers.

The RPG-7 and its western counterparts have multiple kinds of ammunition for multiple kinds of missions. This is not big news, and to compare an under-barrel grenade launcher with a shoulder-fired recoiless weapon isn't really a fruitful line of argument, I don't think.

[archbishop lazarus 24]

Guys! Its pointless to argue with Ollie1983. He thinks this way, we cant convince him. His reality is rather twisted, infected with some cold war western propaganda, or maybe he is just that ignorant.

2 Boota:

Its quite interesting that the Metis-M can be fired from the shoulder too! Maybe this can be the russian equivalent of the Javelin, both are relatively short ranged, and quite light.

[kireta21 13]

Its quite interesting that the Metis-M can be fired from the shoulder too! Maybe this can be the russian equivalent of the Javelin, both are relatively short ranged, and quite light.

It's possible, but inadviced. If there's no time to deploy proper fire position, launcher tube should be rather rested at any solid object. Otherwise there's quite big risk gunner will lose ballance when 14kg dissapear from his shoulder and may lose track of target, hit ground or be unable to guide missile back in time.

Same was experienced with M47 Dragon, probably main reason why Javelin was made fire-and-forget.

Edited April 1, 2011 by boota

[ricnunes 0]

Didn't read all these posts but I think it's more than fare that in open terrain M1A2 Abrams have the advantage over the T-90. The M1A2 is heavier, more armored and thus more resistant and anyone that says otherwise much by out of his mind!

The T-90 is more armored than a T-72 that's true, but some people make the T-90 much more powerfull than it really is - The T-90 is nothing more than an upgraded T-72, period! If you want a Soviet/Russian tank that is somehow equivalent to the Abrams, that tank is the T-80 (and not the T-90) and even the T-80 isn't considered to be as armored as the Abrams is, specially the M1A2 version but the T-80 is definitly closer in terms or armour protection to the Abrams than a T-90 will ever be.

Besides the M1A2 have better optical/termal and much better computer aiming systems than a T-90 which certainly gives the Abrams an even greater advantage over the T-90.

The biggest advantage that the T-90 has over the Abrams is that it's much cheaper but still have a good and respectable armor protection and good targetting and protection systems, this again, in a "cheap" pack.

And that's all I have to say about this subject...

[king homer 1]

If you want a Soviet/Russian tank that is somehow equivalent to the Abrams, that tank is the T-80 (and not the T-90) and even the T-80 isn't considered to be as armored as the Abrams is, specially the M1A2 version but the T-80 is definitly closer in terms or armour protection to the Abrams than a T-90 will ever be.

T-90A and T-80U are nearly equal in armor protection.

[kotov12345 10]

lol guys tread regarding game only and not regarding problem in soviet army.

[ricnunes 0]

T-90A and T-80U are nearly equal in armor protection.

Yes you're right and I stand corrected! For some reason I had the idea that the T-80 was heavier and more heavily armored than the T-90 but I was wrong, thanks for the correction.

Nevertheless my point remains the same, the M1A2 is superior than the T-90 and one of the reasons is because the M1A2 is far more armored than a T-90 is. Afterall the T-90 weight is in the 46 ton class while the M1A2 is in the 63 ton class (there's nearly a 20 ton diference between both tanks, which is big just not to say HUGE!).

Edited April 7, 2011 by ricnunes

[wolfbite 8]

But its allready been stated that the M1a2 is considerably larger ¬_¬ And I've read ages ago that the sloping of the armour on Russian tanks makes them very hard to penetrate (except for top down obv) And turret penetration was a problem... not sure how succesfull kaktus has been at preventing critical dammage...

[kireta21 13]

And I've read ages ago that the sloping of the armour on Russian tanks makes them very hard to penetrate (except for top down obv)

Sloping armor only increase LOS value. Sloped armor may be thiner while providing same LOS thicknes, but at the same time armor plate have to be larger, so in the end weight/protection ratio is nearly same. It was very usefull, often causing rounds to ricochet till 60's, when modern APFSDS rounds were developed.

not sure how succesfull kaktus has been at preventing critical dammage...

Hard to tell. Kaktus and Relikt have never been installed on tanks, with exception of few prototypes. Russian tanks are using Kontakt-1 and Kontakt-5.

Edited April 8, 2011 by boota

[wolfbite 8]

Whats the Kontakt feedback like? any good links?

[ricnunes 0]

But its allready been stated that the M1a2 is considerably larger ¬_¬ And I've read ages ago that the sloping of the armour on Russian tanks makes them very hard to penetrate (except for top down obv) And turret penetration was a problem... not sure how succesfull kaktus has been at preventing critical dammage...

Errr, we are in 2011 not in WWII....

boota already mentioned the reason why the slopped armour no longer as the advantages that once did. But even so, and if you look at a M1 Abrams tank carefully you'll see that it's armour/hull specially around the turret is slopped, even more slopped than in a T-72, T-90 or T-80.

And regarding armoured vehicles or tank, yes the heavier it is the more resistant/armored it trends to be! This is one example that in fact bigger means better (in terms of resistance/armor). For example a M26 Pershing which was the more heavily armoured American WWII tank weighted around 41 tons while the M1A2 weights around 63 tons - And note that the Abrams uses much more modern materials (such as Chobam) which is much lighter than pure steel which was what WWII tanks used.

Another example are the current and near future IFVs which are now quite heavier than they were 10 years ago - due to the incress in armour protection!

[Ollie1983 10]

This one is still going eh?

Unsurprisingly the soviet fanbois are still bumping their gums about their apparent supremacy of arms despite basic facts, like, for example, the fact that the Abrams is a lot heavier than the Russian counterpart to it, and the claimed lethality of hand held ATGMs being rather negated by the fact, that in Iraq, HUNDREDS of RPGs had to be fired at MBTs to have any meaningful effect. No western weapons designer would tolerate such a ridiculously low success rate.

The point I made much earlier still stands, the apparent survivability to enemy fire displayed by armour in ARMA 2 is based on the reality in real life. The M1 being vastly heavier than the T72 or any variant thereof. Whilst the fanbois might well point out that the T80 or whatever is better armoured etc etc etc is an irrelevance since I hardly think forces operating in a fictional environment like Takistan would be armed with front line equipment, even if they could afford to purchase it in the first instance, maintaining and supplying such high technology equipment would be nigh on impossible.

It is worth nothing that a number of the armoured surfaces on an Abrams and indeed the challenger are sloped... Curved surfaces are generally avoided these days because of the complexity involved in producing composite materials, they can't be cast into intricate shapes.

Edited April 14, 2011 by Ollie1983

[dm 9]

No western weapons designer would tolerate such a ridiculously low success rate.

If you knew how crappy most western systems really are (in most cases, just as bad as their "shoddy eastern made" counterpart, you wouldnt be flapping your gums this hard either ;)