Tanks, thermal imaging, weapon loadout and ammunition

[PantherAl 11]

Speaking from first hand experience, one of the tanks in my platoon in Iraq took a hit *on* the turret ring (Great shot by the insurgent, that guy was good) from what looked liked an oversized RPG of different design than that of the RPG7. Don't know what model it was since it was soon eaten by a cannister round, but.. it made a hell of a bang. And left one heck of scorch mark on the tank. Destroyed the NBC system, ripped the loaders box off, and sheared off one of the radio arials and jammed the ring for a minute or so till they was able to work out the fragments that was jammed up in there. But that was it. Have to see if I still have the pic somewhere.

[Harbinger2456 10]

The RPG-29 is nothing special. It's a slight upgrade that penetrates tanks' side armor, but not the front.

Just like the AT4 and RPG-7 did for T-72s and M60s, it does for Abrams and Challengers.

Actually, there is a video floating around on the internet, which shows an RPG-29 piercing the frontal armor of an Israeli Merkava MBT at about 20 feet away. Think it took place in the Gaza strip. That really made me take notice of the RPG-29. So yeah, if they can ambush you at close range, like in a Urban environment, they can pierce your frontal armor. I think it only killed the driver though, because after if pierced the frontal, there ( I think ), is an armored door separating the driver from the rest of the crew.

Edit: Hmm, just saw the RPG-28 though. Actually, it looks easier to carry ( not as long ) and can pierce 1000mm. I'd say that's the new beast to fear, and I bet it wouldn't think much of frontal armor. Between Igla's and RPG-28's, 29's, the infantryman ( who can hide and go almost anywhere ) is getting to be a real threat to vehicles and aircraft.

Edited October 1, 2013 by Harbinger2456

[maturin 12]

Floating around where?

And again, the new Russian launchers change nothing. Handheld launchers have been able to penetrate 500mm for a generation or more, and that is enough to penetrate some (but not all) tanks from the frontal arc. Infantry have always been a real threat to vehicles and aircraft. The same goes for the (as yet unproven) RPG-28. 1000mm won't cut it for most parts of an Abrams front armor.

On the other hand, we have the Javelin, NLAW and Tow, which will always penetrate the armor of every tank from every angle. Top attack is the future, not marginally improved tubes.

[Harbinger2456 10]

Floating around where?

Yeah, I just tried to find it. I can find discussion of it (looks like it happened in 2007 in the Gaza strip ) but I can't find the video of it and the 1 pic that everyone wants to show is a fake. It shows the turret hit. Shows how good Mossad is at covering up things they don't want shown.

The video I saw shows the hit smack dab in the middle of the frontal armor. There was a HUGE flash as it hit the tank, and it looked like someone had blown up a huge firework with all these streamers going everywhere and a big cloud of white smoke. The three Palestinians in front of the camera just freeze ( two were causing a diversion by pretending to have an argument, while the missleman was hiding behind a corner of the building near them, and popped out to shoot, scoring a perfect hit ).

After a few seconds, they realize the tank is dead. It just sits there. The video goes on showing this for another 20 seconds or so, then they get out of there. Either the crew is too stunned to fire their 7.62 or .50, or they're dead.

So, yeah, I believe.

[PantherAl 11]

Untill I see Vid, not going to buy it. I can believe it causing a mobility kill, either by taking out the final drives, or hitting the hatch of the driver (and killing poor said sod), but the bit about "How good Mossad is..." puts this in tinfoil hat land. :) But even a Mob-Kill won't do anything to hinder its fighting ability. It just became a well armed pillbox provided the surviving crew keeps it together and doesn't panic and run.

[Harbinger2456 10]

Lol, hey, its nowhere I can find. I've seen stuff like this before. You see something really interesting, like an Israeli tank's front armor being penetrated by an RPG, and then *Poof!*, it can't be found anywhere, ever again. Thinking back on the video, and the tank not moving for over 20 seconds, I think the crew was killed. I'll keep trying to find it. It was on the internet, uploaded by some Gaza terrorist group, I think around 2007.

[Beagle 684]

Lol, hey, its nowhere I can find. I've seen stuff like this before. You see something really interesting, like an Israeli tank's front armor being penetrated by an RPG, and then *Poof!*, it can't be found anywhere, ever again. Thinking back on the video, and the tank not moving for over 20 seconds, I think the crew was killed. I'll keep trying to find it. It was on the internet, uploaded by some Gaza terrorist group, I think around 2007.

You're right footage of that kind gets deleted very quick these days. But i can guarantee you that the western propaganda regarding its magic armour values is often just that, propaganda. My experience about real values coem from several years of service with amourd vehicles (no combat, lucky me) and building light armoured vehicles as a welding craftsmen for some years later. The true deal is not like the numbers on paper since those numbers are often just mathematical models made up by enginners and very few of thie bumber come from real balistic tests on the finished production line vehicles (that are by far not that well manufactured as oen might think...in fact a lot of cheap and untidy workmanship is build into those vehicles that often would not stand the warantie rules of a usual commercial product. A lot of weapon and military vehicle manufactures rely more on the hype for their products then on real quality. Thats possile because most manufactors don't have to far real competition on their national markets.

[PantherAl 11]

Light armour? Sure, I buy that. The Brad's armour is a joke, and a bad one at that. Traditional IFV's was a dead end path for AFV's anyways. But when it comes to heavy MBT's, I would say the proof is in the pudding. No verifiable kills of M1's through the front slope has happened, same goes for the Merk, the Chally, or the Leo2, which has seen service in the rockpile. Granted, only the M1 and the Chally has taken fire from Main Guns, And only those two and the Merk has faced top notch ATGW's. Now from the sides, or the underside, sure. That's doable. And has been done many times.

[Beagle 684]

Now from the sides, or the underside, sure. That's doable. And has been done many times.

Do not forget about the top, that few inches of uparmourment applied there do not make that much of a difference. Btw IFVs have already reached the tonnage of 90's MBTs, just have a look at the "Puma" thats weight 43 tons with full modular armor

http://www.kmweg.de/home/kettenfahrzeuge/schuetzenpanzer/puma/produktinformation.html

[PantherAl 11]

Absolutely: Top Attack is the wave of the future. There is no way you can armour the roof of an AFV enough to proof it against even medium sized ATGM's. Too many hatches, optics, sights, you name it. You can make it durable, proof against near misses, but that's it.

My beef with IFV's in general, is they are too lightly armoured, and by and large, trying to do too many things in one platform. Take the Brad (Please!): Its a light tank, when its not a tank destroyer, when its not an APC; and to get a full "squad" in it, and the missiles, and the cannon, and the ability to swim, they had to make to make the armour a joke. Sure, later models added armour at the cost of swimming and added weight, but still. To be a proficient Bradley crew, you have to know not only how to deliver troops, but also how to support troops, how to stalk tanks, how to perform recon, all that. Its silly.

When attacking a town, you can't lead with MBT's since a Tank in a urban battlefield is naught more than a tasty target to skilled defenders. Main Gun can't elevate enough, for starters. Big, Bulky, and Heavy as well. IFV's, therefor, are trained to attack the town (At least the cannon can elevate as high as needed) whilst the tanks provide support by fire. All good.

Just hope you killed all that AT in town though: As the Israeli's discovered the hard way, you can shoot all the arty you want: the AT always survives, and will eat light armour up on the approach to the outskirts. That's why they went into Heavy APC's in a big way, starting with modified Centurions and T55/62's. They also believe adding all that firepower to an APC is asking a crew to try to do too much, so all they gave it was 1-3 RWS's. Once they saw the T55 based HAPC's work, and work really well, they went for broke with the Namer: Or Panther as we call it in ARMA. Heck, the Lima Army Tank plant got a contract back in 2010 to produce some for the IDF since the Israeli factories was swamped with MkIV construction. I do know back in 2012 the US Army played with a few to see if we wanted to buy them as part of the GCV program, but since it falls into the NIH syndrome, I doubt anything will come of it.

If you have to have an 'traditional' IFV, go with the CV90. It doesn't bother with ATGM's, and while a little shorter than a brad is a little bulkier. Which is used well, as its protection level - while being amphibious - is equal to or greater than the uparmoured Brad. Also, it actually has all the room you can ask for when it comes to infantry capacity in full battle rattle, and has a pretty darn good gun: Bofors 40mmL70. Dual Purpose, and has that oh so lovely 3P round that not only has a prox fuse for AA work, a contact (With optional Delay) for bunker busting, but allows it to do Direct Indirect Fire (Basically, lase the crest of a ridge, punch a few buttons, and it will fire a three round burst set to airburst 5-25 meters behind the crest, and about 5 metres over it. Hills no longer provide good cover. ;) But that's not the best part: The best part is unlike say, a typical Heavy Cav Troop, where you have umpteen different vehicles, none of which shares parts, an entire family of tracks: IFV, APC, Command Post, ARV, FIST-V, SPAAG, SP-Mort (120mm Double Barreled Semi-Auto Morts to boot), 105mm Light Tank, 120mm Light Tank, and a FDC. And they have done mock ups of 155mm SPG's, and ATGW platforms. You can equip an entire division with nothing but CV90's...

[Harbinger2456 10]

Oh yeah, totally agree about top armor. Its amazing how little they put on top. They're just asking for it. Not just missiles, but also from advanced CBU's, large airborne cannons, and laser guided iron bombs. Also about IFVs. The BTR-90 is about the nastiest thing I have ever seen. I would hate to go up against that killer in a real fight.

[Kirill 1]

To be honest your idea that the most advanced kinetic rounds wouldn't be able to defeat front turret armor of modern tanks seems outlandish. What would tanks do when facing each other in combat? Just expend all their ammo at each other and then go back?

Wonderful argument. "I do not know that the tanks would do if they did not punch each other in the front")

1. Are All tanks equipped with a modern perspective ammunition?

2. Have You own statistics about the defeat of modern tanks modern sabot? No. Why? Because there are no examples of collision equal opponents.

3. Why in the development of the sabot invested a lot of money?

Edited October 2, 2013 by Kirill

[Primarch 10]

Modern 120mm sabot will pierce the frontal armor of any vehicle currently available.

Their penetration capabilities are far in excess over all potential armor.

[Damian90 697]

Modern 120mm sabot will pierce the frontal armor of any vehicle currently available.

Their penetration capabilities are far in excess over all potential armor.

Really, how do you know? Did you calculated penetration capabilities of ammunition with Odermatt equations?

In reality modern 120mm and 125mm APFSDS ammunition do not have enough penetration capability to defeat front turret armor of the most advanced MBT's.

In fact, and this might be shock for some people, armor protection long time ago started to surpass in capabilities ammunition. This is however not well known because detailed data is classified, and armor protection for MBT's is not designed and manufactured by private companies but by state owned research and development facilities, so there is no reason to advertise protection of MBT's.

The only problem is really size and weight of vehicle, these needs to be keep at reasonable levels and this is why side, rear, belly and top armor can't be as good as front armor.

However we have a revolutions just around the corner, it is called nanotechnology. Did anyone of you ever heard about materials like fullerens or ADNR? These are very lightweight carbon based materials, but also have hardness greater than diamonds, which means you can design from them, a very lightweight but incredibly strong armor protection.

In fact currently we have only several small problems with these materials, first is how to manufacture them on great scale, second is how to manufacture them in desired shape and size without compromising their characteristics, and third is how to manufacture them in such way, that it will be acceptable from economic point of view.

[kuIoodporny 45]

Do not forget about the top, that few inches of uparmourment applied there do not make that much of a difference.

Anybody cares to try this in A3? ;)

Also, turret armor shape in our tanks has at least one serious design flaw, connected with deflection - I guess you can find it out yourself. ;)

[Greenfist 1863]

Also, turret armor shape in our tanks has at least one serious design flaw, connected with deflection - I guess you can find it out yourself. ;)

Yeah, I found the design flaw alright. "Frontal shots may compromise your neighbour's backdoor."

(was aiming at the chopper for collateral damage)

[blu3sman 11]

Anybody cares to try this in A3? ;)

I won't even look in the general direction of tank, as long as there's even single hitpoint left in it.:p

[kuIoodporny 45]

Yeah, I found the design flaw alright. "Frontal shots may compromise your neighbour's backdoor."

http://i.imgur.com/ik1y0OE.jpg

(was aiming at the chopper for collateral damage)

Nice shot, but aiming too high.

[blu3sman 11]

Strange thing. Blackfoot's 20mm HE has a big chance of penetrating commanders hatch of Slammer. But it is 100% resistant to 30mm AP from Mi-48.

[Smurf 12]

Nice shot, but aiming too high.

Shooting a little lower would make it ricochet on the "soft" hull of the tank?

That was the trick to destroy a tank with a single shot in BF2, but there you were doing damage twice.

[Harbinger2456 10]

Really, how do you know? Did you calculated penetration capabilities of ammunition with Odermatt equations?

In reality modern 120mm and 125mm APFSDS ammunition do not have enough penetration capability to defeat front turret armor of the most advanced MBT's.

In fact, and this might be shock for some people, armor protection long time ago started to surpass in capabilities ammunition. This is however not well known because detailed data is classified, and armor protection for MBT's is not designed and manufactured by private companies but by state owned research and development facilities, so there is no reason to advertise protection of MBT's.

And your proof is? Wikipedia? If its so classified, how do you know?

Edited October 2, 2013 by Harbinger2456

[DogNine 1]

I though APFSDS (or any hyper-velocity projectile) had an extremely low chance of ricochet? Something to do with materials behaving like water at the energy levels involved?

[lavbo0321 5]

Absolutely: Top Attack is the wave of the future.

...

Yeah if the future was 1992. We have had the javelin in inventory since 1996 ish. And other cannon shot systems. I think you most have been referreing to the ARMA future of 2035 were the technology is about 20 years in the past of 2013. I can see I have a Top Attack feature in my missles in Arma 3, but can't use them yet. Interesting...

[PantherAl 11]

Not saying we don't: we've had TA missiles long before the Javelin. Heck, the Swedes Developed the Bill back in the 70's that was the first ever Top Attack Weapon, and we copied it into versions of the TOW2 not long after. But most systems are still direct attack because of cost/design reasons: its just easier, and cheaper, to design a accurate weapon that goes right at the target. After, who cares if you are 10 metres long or short? The tank is still in the way of the Missile. It wasn't until the 90's that guidance systems started catching up with the accuracy demands that a top attack system requires.

[Beagle 684]

And your proof is? Wikipedia? If its so classified, how do you know?

The most modern 120mm L55 guns can currently penetrate any existing armour...armour wil now noeed soem time to catch up but at this point there will be already a new and better gun. This race is going on since someone in the 14th Century had the idead to put black powder and a ball into the same tube.

http://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/en/rheinmetall_defence/systems_and_products/weapons_and_ammunition/direct_fire/large_calibre/index.php

Edited October 3, 2013 by Beagle