Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Ronny

Scrublord
  • Content Count

    25
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ronny

  1. wow where did you got that
  2. But it won't hit moving target at that range right?
  3. Yes, but neither does infrared, furthermore, i don't think this is spoon feeding, provide source to what one claim is pretty common accepted rules for proper discussion. Burden of proof lies upon a person making claims I tried to look up laser side lobe but really i can't find anything, unlike radio frequency beam: Laser beam pattern: Radar beam pattern: I am not sure if that because laser beam has no side lobe or it is extremely in significant that it is not mentioned I have a look at several laser designators: Can be carried by infantry, max range 20 km => basically, you can illuminate enemy tank and they can't do anything Beam divergent: 130 micro radiance = 0.007448 degrees. At 20 km the beam spot is 2 meters in diameter, at 8 km the beam spot is only 1 meter in diameter
  4. I checked your source, but it seem that particular occasion was due to insect sticking to the seeker head more than anything else. Furthermore, it is impossible to compare when we only have Hellfire accuracy and nothing else, for example the accuracy of Sabot, Heat and MPHE round. For comparison, the PK of air to air BVR missiles is 55 %, the PK of anti aircraft cannon in Viet Nam war was 3-5%. Yet no one can doubt their danger. So I still think PK of 0.76 is pretty decent ATFLIR IOC in 2002 about 17 years ago, there are many newer system now such as ATP-SE. About spot size, this is what i can find: With beam width of 0.25 mrad or 0.01432394 degree, spot size at 74 km is 18 meters and spot size at 8 km is 2 meters 57E6 and 9M330 both have proximity fuse so they can also attack heli behind terrain masking AIM-9X has both terminal seeker and proximity fuse Never mind the fact that unlike MPHE tank round, these SHORAD all out range AGM-114 significantly and can be guided toward targets. Whereas for MPHE tank round, the helicopter can either stay further than 5 km or higher altitude and they would be effectively outside the engagement envelope . MPHE round are not guided either so i highly doubt that it can engage fast moving helicopter, can tank FCS even lead a helicopter moving at 200 km/h or faster? Non APFSDS round seem to have very significant gravity drop at distance: M820 round need about 4.2 seconds to fly out to 3 km, in that time a helicopter with speed of 200 km/h could have move 222 meters. At 5-8 km, the situation will be even worse for an unguided round. Overall, MPHE tank round seem like pretty pathetic threat to helicopter when comparing to dedicated SHORAD and MANPADs, i do not think MPHE tank round is the reason for NLOS missiles.
  5. I cound be wrong but i think 16 inch cannon round is bigger than Moskit warhead and probably faster too
  6. But the frontal shape charged of Bunkerfaust is far bigger than the follow through warhead, unlike BROACH
  7. Thank you for your thoughtful reply, it answer many of my questions. One thing though 1-What is the range of HE round on tank? Shouldn't it be shorter range than APFSDS since it is slower and draggier? 2- the question about Howitzer round vs modern MBT is because i was thinking, if poor countries can't make tank with proper armor and proper APFSDS rounds, then it probably better for them to design a thin skin armor and 152 mm HE
  8. 2. I have, but i honestly have no idea , they said it is equipped with Zaslon so... https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/ukraines-tough-t-84-oplot-m-tank-wont-fight-russia-being-17817 3. was't K5 very good ? beside, APS still quite unpopular now so i guess GL-ATGM will be very useful in the past 4. Let say it hit the middle of the turret front? can the tank survive that Edit: ok you are right, i just realized now that Zaslon has very distinct shape so clearly they don't put it on Oplot (the operation seem pretty lame though)
  9. As far as i know, later Hellfire was equipped with MMW to give multi target engagement along with the Longbow radar plus the Fire and forget capability But i have never seen report of laser designation difficulty for early version of Hellfire though. I mean, if targeting pod on fighter can designate target from 72 km away i would expect helicopter laser designator at least 1/8 as good as that. https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/atflir Beside, there are many long range weapons with SAL guidance: for example SPEAR, Brimstone II, AGM-65, JAGM, SDB II ..etc so I really skeptical that laser designation is problematic at merely 8 km Regarding the switch to NLOS missiles, i don't think the reason is MBT's MPHE. There are others threat to helicopter which are far far more dangerous to helicopter than tanks, for example: SHORAD such as Tor-m1 or Pantsir-S1. Compare to their missiles, the capability of MBT's MPHE is rather pathetic. Also what if we use something like this: Any way, about full size ATGM, there isn't really a fix definition i think, so when you said full size atgm, i just instantly think about F-16, A-10 weapons. What was the PK of AGM-65 anyway? i thought it got enough power to penetrate turret front of M1?
  10. 1- I got that if a tank which used LAHAT is only 2-3 km away from enemy then sure its enemy can retaliate with an APFSDS round, which is much faster and harder to defend. However, i can't see how that could be suicide if you use LAHAT to engage enemy tank from 6-8 km away? yes you have to illuminate target for the whole duration, so what? if enemy tank have no ATGM then they will have no way to retaliate . How is it any different from an AH-64 launching Hellfire at enemy tank? a helicopter have negligible armor yet they can be fairly effective tank hunter http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-114.html 2- I mentioned Maverick because you said damage by 155 mm hitting the turret is no worse than a full size ATGM. AGM-65 is a full size ATGM. AGM-65 was originally an anti armor missile with 125 lbs shaped charge warhead: AGM-65A, AGM-65B, AGM-65C, AGM-65D all use shaped charge warhead, the 300 lbs warhead only integrated in AGM-65E, AGM-65F and AGM-65G. I don't think mentioning AGM-65 is retarded though, it was a very popular anti tank weapon of F-16, F-4 and A-10 Though, I am quite curious why you call the shaped charge variant low energy and sad, 56 kg HEAT is still pretty massive is it not?
  11. 1- Do you have any additional documents about BROACH warhead? 2- But how can it form blast wave in one direction only?
  12. 3- How about LAHAT? 4-I think a frontal hit by a full size ATGM such as AGM-65 likely wreak the tank as well
  13. 1- I saw it here: https://defensepoliticsasia.com/nera-understanding-non-explosive-reactive-armour/ NERA seem to operate in the same manner as common ERA: 2- As far as i know Oplot tank has Zaslon hard kill protection T-55 was equipped with Drozd T-72 and T-80 are equipped with Arena T-90 seem to have nothing? T-14 will get Afghanit 3- How about T-80, T-84 Oplot, T-90, T-99, Type 96 and even future T-14 ? beside as i understand it APDS round lose significant penetrating power at long range, at range greater than 3 km, it is very hard to penetrate frontal armor of MBT, whereas the penetrating capability of ATGM is range independence. 4- If the round hit the turret front, wouldn't the explosion fragments always damage or penetrate the frontal upper hull, which is extremely thin? i heard the upper glacis of M1 is only 30-40 mm thick 5- It seem pretty capable, able to cut APDS round into dozens smaller pieces and what not
  14. 1- if i understand correctly, NERA and ERA operate very similar when they are struck, for NERA the material in the middle of 2 plates also expand when reduce the penetrating performer of HEAT warhead. So how come NERA has multi hit capability? ,Beside, the chance that 2 APDS or HEAT round hitting exactly the same place seem pretty slim, is it really worth it to have inferior protection and higher weight? 2- I don't think APS is easy but it just seem quite weird that Russian, Ukraine, Israel have them for quite a while yet most Western tank still don't have them. 3- I agree that ATGM are probably more expensive, but i don't get why they would be ineffective, especially consider that not only ATGM fly further, they can also be guided to hit more vulnerable area. Isn't most tanks in battlefield are destroyed by ATGM such as AGM-114, AGM-65, BRIMSTONE, TOW, JAVELIN and KORNETs ..etc rather than tank Sabot round? 4- I remember seeing a study where they tested Tank against 152 mm artillery , and all tanks get wreaked pretty bad even with a near miss, so do you have any history case or any study about survival rate of tank when they are hit with 152 mm HE? 5- What are the possible counter against Duplet?
  15. No kidding? the skirt on Nazi tank is so so so thin?? also this is the first time i heard the shape on Leo is to break LRP. Do you have have some source? Not that i don't trust your expertise , i just need something so that when i people don't doubt my words when i repeat that
  16. Wait a second, if space armor is not very effective against HEAT, then what is the point of space armor on PzKpfw IV and Leopard 2A5 onward ?
  17. I hope my question is not very stupid, anyway, i have always curios about the design philosophy of Western tanks such as Leopard, M1, Challenger versus Russian tank such as T80, T-90. Vs 1- Why do Western tank mostly use NERA instead of ERA? Isn't ERA more effective than NERA, especially against KE and they are also much lighter and replaceable ? 2- Why don't Western tank mostly have active hard kill protection? I know there are some recent plans to integrate Trophy on M1A3 but why is it so late? On one hand, even ancient Russian tank have active hard kill countermeasure. On the other hand, very new Leopard 2A7V still doesn't have active hard kill countermeasures 3- Why don't Western tank use ATGM like Russian? they can reach much further than Sabot round and there are also top attack option that allow them to penetrate the tank roof, where there are almost no armor? I understand that APDS round fly much faster and more resilient against countermeasure so they are probably better option at short range, but i think ATGM is better at long range. 4- Is there any modern MBT that can survive a hit from 152 mm HE round? such as one fired by KV-2? 5- For tank on tank combat, which one is better between Leopard 2A7 and Oplot-M equipped with Duplet? Is there any known counter for HEAT warhead and APDS round against Duplet?
  18. Wait a second, I thought the purpose of the cage and chain armor is to detonate HEAT warhead early so they can't form a proper shaped jet and thus reduce their penetration? how can the chain catch RPG round?
  19. I see many knowledgeable members here so i decided to make an account to ask some question According to many historical accounts, the armor of WW II battleship is very thick: can be between 410-650 mm of steel Thick enough that they can even resist penetration from 12-16 inch canon Compared to these massive round, it is probably obvious that missiles such as Harpoon, Exocet will do little or nothing against the armor belt: No penetration and probably nothing more than a small dent. Anti tank missiles such as AGM-65, AGM-114 or Brimstone can penetrate the armor but all their warhead will do is penetrating a tiny hole into the massive battleship, it likely will hit nothing significant given that a battleship have massive volume of space). Furthermore, i heard space armor is extremely effective against HEAT warhead as well). But what if the two are combined? HEAT + explosive warhead: aka BROACH. With a frontal shape charged and secondary follow through bomb This is the working principles of the system: BROACH was designed to help small cruise missile penetrate bunkers. So i have some question: 1- Because concrete and soil are very brittle, unlike steel, I think the precursor charge likely much drill bigger hole in them than it can drill on steel armor belt of a battleship, so even if we use missile with BROACH warhead to hit a battleship, it won't drill a hole big enough to allow the secondary warhead to pass through. Is that a correct assessment? 2- Looking at the cutaway of the missiles. How come the detonation of the frontal shaped charge doesn't damage/destroy the secondary warhead or at very least propel it to the opposite direction? 3- Can supersonic missiles such as Agm-88 (Mach2) , Asmp-A (Mach3) , Rampage , Asm-3 (Mach 3) , Hawc (Mach 5) penetrate the armor belt of a battleship? or they simply don't have enough velocity and density?
  20. I hope this is the right thread. So to counter ERA, then HEAT warhead often have an additional tandem charge so either penetrate the ERA or detonate ERA tiles. But what is there any way for HEAT warhead to counter chain and cage armor? For example: what happened if This hit something like this? For the sake of discussion, let assume the missile hit the tank where there is a cage or chain cover it
  21. Guys, which one have better protection The Leopard 2A7 or Leopard 2A4 revolution? why don't Leopard 2A7+ have active hard kill protection option? Vs
  22. F-35 at VHF frequency: Hypersonic for future F-35
×
×
  • Create New...