tank rounds

[pete10 0]

am i right that both the abrams and t-72 only have heat rounds to penetrate armour? i notice when i shoot into a bunch of infantry none of them die. in fact - i can shoot right at the feet of a soldier and nothing happens. but then i can knock down buildings with the same rounds?

[frederf 0]

Sabot rounds kill tanks.

HEAT rounds kill infantry.

[volkov956 0]

are u running 1.08 if so in my game i can fire a HE round into say a group of 6 guys and most of the time it gets them all

[pickled14 0]

actually HEAT rounds are used for both tanks and soft targets such as armored personnel carriers, trucks, bunkers, etc. HE is used for infantry, and the US technically doesn't deploy with HE in the M1's only the M2's, I believe, same goes for the Germans with the Leopard's. The Russians use HE loadouts in their MBT's.

[Col. Faulkner 0]

The ArmA tank gun uses the Armour-piercing sabot rounds

by default, I think you have to explicitly load the HE rounds.

ArmA calls them "HEAT", but they're obviously meant to be a

plain old HE round.

[Strother 0]

HEAT=High explosive Anti Tank

I suppose you could use the HEAT rounds to knock out tracks in ArmA but I havn't played around with the tanks that much.

[Auss 208]

Dont bother using HEAT rounds against a MBT in ArmA. It will take a lot of them to kill it, Use HEAT rounds on Inf and lightly armoured vehicles as its kill radius is much larger than SABOT. A Sabot round will do little to to Inf unless you score a direct hit

[Second 0]

A Sabot round will do little to to Inf unless you score a direct hit

But it's great to see how poor grunt flies to orbit after direct hit

But i think that it's better to use SABOT to ArmA's buildings as when building falls down it causes dammage to guite big area around it (and everyone is killed inside). And SABOT causes more damage so player needs less time and rounds to destory building and usually MBT runs out of HEs before SABOTs.

Infantry = plenty -> use of HE = plenty

vehicle = few -> use of SABOT = few

But then again if building doesn't get destoryed with 1st or 2nd shot, in MP atleast building might be already empty of enemy (they fled) when it goes down. HE/HEAT might cause atleast some casualities to them.

[max power 21]

Anything with a shaped charge is generally called HEAT even when its explosive power is nowhere near enough to penetrate a modern tank. Don't get so caught up in the acronym, it was chosen because it sounds cool, not because it's descriptive. HEAT can be used on soft armoured targets like IFVs and APCs, but they have become totally obsolete in the face of modern tank armour. HEAT rounds have a lot of explosives in them and kill unshielded people just fine.

[archbishop lazarus 24]

Quote[/b] ]Anything with a shaped charge is generally called HEAT even when its explosive power is nowhere near enough to penetrate a modern tank.  Don't get so caught up in the acronym, it was chosen because it sounds cool, not because it's descriptive.  HEAT can be used on soft armoured targets like IFVs and APCs, but they have become totally obsolete in the face of modern tank armour.  HEAT rounds have a lot of explosives in them and kill unshielded people just fine.

HEAT become totally obsolete ? I don't think so.

The armour penetration of the russian 125mm BK-27 HEAT shell is 700-800 mm! It's much better than the BM-46 APFSDS (650 mm penetration)

[Second 0]

But from what range that penetration value for Russian SABOT is given? 2 km would be my guess. I've heard that generally from nose of the barrel SABOT has about 30% more penetration that from 2 km.

Other thing is that MBT's HEAT round doesn't have that good change of penetration than SABOT, as every MBT's armor resists HEAT's penetration method better.

MBT's HEAT isn't obsolent, but not as good as SABOT in most cases.

[archbishop lazarus 24]

Yes, you guessed right, 650 mm penetration at 2000 m, but the BK-27 is still better.(penetration 680 mm behind external ERA, because of it has triple charge)

Link

[Beagle 684]

Modern HEAT-MP-T ammunition is a multi purpose ammuniton that can be used agains a broad variety of targets ranging from MBTs to soft targets like materials oder infantry.

http://www.rheinmetall-detec.de/index.p....3&pdb=1

[max power 21]

With Kontakt, the t-90's frontal rhae score is 1350 mm. 800mm is impressive but a little less than 2/3s of what would be required to penetrate that tank. So, the latest technology in HEAT should be good enough to defeat the last generation mbts on a good day. I think that that might classify as obsolescence? Discuss.

[USSRsniper 0]

HEAT is not very effective aganst infantry. HE rouds are effective. It seems many people confuse HE with HEAT....

Difference between Sabot and HEAT is, HEAT penetrates armor using chemical energy, while sabot uses KE-energy to penetrate armor.  So HEAT still is not that effective against infantry as HE or frag-HE.  yes tanks also have those kind of ammunition not only artillery....

people seem to forget that there are other types of ammunition not only sabot and HEAT as in ArmA. Or that T-72 can also fire ATGM  which ArmA does not have....

HEAT rounds are not obsolete, HEAT is cheap and can defeat modern MBT's if fired at certain weak spots. Sabot is more effective but third world countries against which US fought dont even have sabot rounds.....

[max power 21]

I'm not forgetting that fact. The fact is that HEAT is effective against dismounted infantry period. 'As effective' is sort of a moot point, considering I doubt that any of us can quantify the difference besides using vague words like 'larger blast area' and 'more fragments' out of sheer postulation.

[Beagle 684]

What about this quote from Rheinmetall Landsystems?

Apart from the steel stub base containing the primer, the propellant casing is combustible. The propellant casing contains stick powder. The projectile can be deployed as an HE or fragmentation round against secondary targets, as well as against armoured vehicles.

[dreday 1]

Quote[/b] ] Or that T-72 can also fire ATGM which ArmA does not have....

ArmA seems to depict the M/M1 model of the T-72 which does not fire an ATGM in the real life either.

Quote[/b] ]Sabot is more effective but third world countries against which US fought dont even have sabot rounds.....

I think that what you had meant to say is that they don't have modern/advanced sabots.

Peace,

DreDay

[USSRsniper 0]

I'm not forgetting that fact.  The fact is that HEAT is effective against dismounted infantry period.  'As effective' is sort of a moot point, considering I doubt that any of us can quantify the difference besides using vague words like 'larger blast area' and 'more fragments' out of sheer postulation.

If you know physics, you can tell difference.. Sabot round has a dart which has enough Kinetic energy to penetrate armor of the tank and no explosive power at all it basically work as bullet in rifle. But HEAT round, when it hits a tank it explodes cousing jet of melted metal punching through the armor. Most of the power from explosion is in this jet.

Never cared about if OFP/ArmA rounds in tank realistic now i'm laughing that tanks in ArmA have two types of shells which are good against enemy armored vehicles, but nothing purely for infantry. best weapon in tank against infantry is machine gun.  

DreDay

In real world its not sabot its APFSDS.

[frederf 0]

Apparently the "hot" round to have in current US Army desert warfare is the "canister" which is 100% anti soft-target. Kind of like a shotgun for the M1A1/A2.

[max power 21]

I'm not forgetting that fact. The fact is that HEAT is effective against dismounted infantry period. 'As effective' is sort of a moot point, considering I doubt that any of us can quantify the difference besides using vague words like 'larger blast area' and 'more fragments' out of sheer postulation.

If you know physics, you can tell difference.. Sabot round has a dart which has enough Kinetic energy to penetrate armor of the tank and no explosive power at all it basically work as bullet in rifle. But HEAT round, when it hits a tank it explodes cousing jet of melted metal punching through the armor. Most of the power from explosion is in this jet.

Never cared about if OFP/ArmA rounds in tank realistic now i'm laughing that tanks in ArmA have two types of shells which are good against enemy armored vehicles, but nothing purely for infantry. best weapon in tank against infantry is machine gun.

DreDay

In real world its not sabot its APFSDS.

And birds go tweet. BTW APFSDS means Armour Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot. So that argument is a rudimentary line of semantics and has nothing to do with what we were discussing.

You say you can quantify the difference between the sabot and HEAT round when all your are doing is *qualifying* it. Describing the nature of something is not telling me how much. Furthermore, we were talking about the difference in HEAT and HE, when in fact both are driven on chemical energy, and results in a concussive explosion whose force is delivered equally in every direction and results in deadly fragmentation. Both of these shells are of the same basic diameter and share many other characteristics in common. The difference is some bit of copper sheet metal / foil formed into a cone shape, and some relevent fusing apparatus.

[Col. Faulkner 0]

I'm not forgetting that fact.  The fact is that HEAT is effective against dismounted infantry period.  'As effective' is sort of a moot point, considering I doubt that any of us can quantify the difference besides using vague words like 'larger blast area' and 'more fragments' out of sheer postulation.

A few of the modern HEAT-MP rounds are effective against

personnel, but only because they've been purposely designed

to be so; with enhanced fragmentation and such. The idea is

to obviate the need to carry several types of ammo. Arguing

the point that a conventional HEAT round is effective against

personnel just because it has explosives in it - and based on

an incomplete understanding of the physics of explosives - is

otiose. The difference is fundamental and depends on the

configuration of the explosive material (not just on "some bit

of copper" - in any case modern charges rarely use copper

any more).

The whole idea behind a hollow-charge is that its blast is

directional and accurate and controllable, totally unlike a

conventional bursting HE round. If you've ever seen the

difference between the impact of an 84mm Carl Gustav

round (HEAT) and the effect of an 81mm mortar bomb (HE)

bursting, or if you'd actually placed and fired shaped

demolition (cutting) charges and seen the effect then you'd

drop this line of argument.

The acronym HEAT was chosen not because it "sounds cool"

but because the first military applications (aside from

demolitions) of the principle were in fact designed as anti-

tank weapons. Arguably the first was the British WW2 cup-

launched No.68 grenade - (got an ArmA addon of this in the

works BTW ). The nomenclature differentiates it from

other contemporary armour defeating technologies:

HEP/HESH, APHE, AP etc.

In any case, this is all academic since I only just noticed that

in ArmA they are now in fact called "HE Rounds".

[max power 21]

And mortars are comparable to recoilless rifles in what way? I'm glad that we have someone who has observed these weapons in the conversation now, but it would be more useful to the topic at hand to try and actually quantify some kind of difference. Perhaps finding some information on the size and potency of the charge used, and other relavent information. It also might be helpful to explain what is commonly meant by effective.

The below is a passage from a website that I think is trying to sell me tank ammunition. HEAT-T in this case stands for HEAT-Tracer. It's not a DP round but is touted as being effective in killing infantry with blast and shrapnel effects.

Quote[/b] ]

http://www.gd-ots.com/sitepages/dirfire.html

105mm M456A2 (HEAT-T) Tank Ammunition

The M456A2 (HEAT-T) Tank Ammunition cartridge is a high explosive antitank cartridge and is intended for use in 105mm guns against armored targets. It has a dual role capability in killing dismounted infantry by blast and fragmentation and in destroying lightly armored and nonarmored vehicles and bunkers. The steel body projectile is fitted with a plastic obturator, a threaded standoff spike assembly, a fin and boom, and a PIBD fuze. A funnel-shaped copper liner within the body shapes the explosive charge of Comp B. A piezoelectric element retained in a nose cap is fitted to the spike assembly and is connected to the BD fuze in the body. The fin is threaded to receive a tracer.

[Second 0]

Okay. HE round in very powerful. I've seen pattern of fragments caused by 100mm on white snow... Effectivity compared to ArmA's 120mm and 125mm "HE"-rounds is in other planet.

ArmA's 120mm and 125mm HE could be compared to something like pipemine with 80-120 grams of TNT, which lethal radius is in 5 meters and wouding radius still at 10 meters. Not sure, but i would think that ArmA's 120mm and 125mm HE causes douple to that, 10 and 20 meters.

RL 120mm HE-round would be bit differrent case. But in RL there's other things that affect to HE's effectivity, such as impact on ground (soft or hard) or in air (tree or timed/delayed fuze).

What i saw happening with 100mm HE was hit in tree at 3-4 meters above ground. Fragments scattered in triangular shape to area in which could have been half-platoon in defenceformation 10-12 men with aprox. 7 meters spaces = Everyone (filled plasticbags) got hit from several fragments, even when they were lying down but not dug-in. Teaching was: "Choose your squads positions either from deep inside forest or from open space... BUT NOT FROM BORDER OF OPEN SPACE AND FOREST"

That same HE-round hitting soft marshsoil and most likely hit should have been direct to man to cause even one casuality. ArmA doesn't have type of soil modelled, everything is hard as concrete.

Back to ArmA:

Comparing ArmA's 105mm or 122mm howitzer rounds to ArmA's MBT's HE-rounds, atleast to my eye, show that howitzer rounds are much more effective against infantry (longer effective radius with "fragments"). So i would say that in ArmA those are HEAT(-MPs or other) that MBTs are using. Not sure about "traditional" HEAT: they aren't complitelty safe to infantry near impact point (debris from shell etc), but not 100% killers too like in ArmA. But i don't have facts of lethality of traditional HEAT-rounds against infantry. Here's quess-list: Debris from shell, possible hot fumes from jet when it starts to scatter, debris from impactpoint (rocks, fragments?).

[archbishop lazarus 24]

Quote[/b] ]I've seen pattern of fragments caused by 100mm on white snow

I'm just curious: what type of ammunition was that? Is it from a D-10 gun of the T54/55?