Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, holoween said:

 

yea but make it less likely.

id like to actually see morew hits to the rear right before saying there is a pattern but so far every hit into the rear left has resulted in an ammunition cookoff and the one so far hitting the right side hasnt .

 

Well because there is ammo on the left and not on the right:

 

Leopard-2-koncpecja.jpg

(Didn't checked if the values are accurate but the layout should be mostly correct,  @SH_MM should be able to answer that)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

 

Well because there is ammo on the left and not on the right:

 

 

which is why when designing such a turret again placing the ammo more in the center so both sides have smoething else in the way before it gets to the ammo might make the tank slightly more resilient

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, holoween said:

 

which is why when designing such a turret again placing the ammo more in the center so both sides have smoething else in the way before it gets to the ammo might make the tank slightly more resilient

Wouldn't that risk just making thing worse?

 

As it stand now you have one extremely vulnerable side and one which seem rather safe so far.

By putting the ammo in the middle you might end up making both sides vulnerable, (there is also the problem of ergonomy).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, holoween said:

 

which is why when designing such a turret again placing the ammo more in the center so both sides have smoething else in the way before it gets to the ammo might make the tank slightly more resilient

That's a Merkava type concept. It too has its limits.

 

Designing a new turret, hence designing a whole new tank, with a human loader, is a terrible mistake.

 

IMO the best solution would be to have an unmanned turret AND the ammo inside the hull to minimize the damage to the tank if the turret is penetrated.

 

Okay Alzoc, go ahead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, holoween said:

 

which is why when designing such a turret again placing the ammo more in the center so both sides have smoething else in the way before it gets to the ammo might make the tank slightly more resilient

But then you have to take into account, where to put your loader and how the ergonomics/loading times would suffer.
Also maybe were the two small spaces too small for the hydraulics and the other equipment.
Its all about balancing certain aspects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Alzoc said:

Wouldn't that risk just making thing worse?

 

As it stand now you have one extremely vulnerable side and one which seem rather safe so far.

By putting the ammo in the middle you might end up making both sides vulnerable, (there is also the problem of ergonomy).

 

depends entirely on how much penetration whatever is shooting at you has. since heat jets loose their power fairly quickly with distance and other stuff in between it might be enough to reduce the jets enery sufficiently to prevent cookoffs.

and if the blowout panels work properly it wouldnt even be more dangerous.

 

3 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

That's a Merkava type concept. It too has its limits.

 

Designing a new turret, hence designing a whole new tank, with a human loader, is a terrible mistake.

 

IMO the best solution would be to have an unmanned turret AND the ammo inside the hull to minimize the damage to the tank if the turret is penetrated.

 

Okay Alzoc, go ahead.

 

yea though at that point they will simply aim at the hull (if possible but it has been on all the videos ive seen so far) and creating blowout panels for the hull is far more difficult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Okay Alzoc, go ahead.

 

You know me too well xD

 

But at least the Merkava do that while having actual armor on the turret sides (for the more recent versions at least) so it makes more sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alzoc said:

 

You know me too well xD

 

But at least the Merkava do that while having actual armor on the turret sides (for the more recent versions at least) so it makes more sense.

Nah, not really. I mean, it does have quite a lot on the sides, but it doesn't cover the bustle which houses the ammo. So if a Mark 4 was hit from the same angle as that Leo 2, it wouldn't have much more armor covering its ammo. But both are pretty much immune to catastrophic kills from turret hits, due to blow-out panels existing on both tanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.armyrecognition.com/january_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_industry/ads_gmbh_defines_next_generation_of_active_protection_system.html

https://breakingdefense.com/2018/01/rheinmetall-rolls-out-safer-active-protection-for-tanks/

http://www.janes.com/article/77272/iav-2018-ads-set-to-conform-to-safety-standards

 

ADS GmbH re-brands the ADS (formerly AMAP-ADS) as the 'world's safest APS' by applying its latest variant - the ADS-Gen 3 to the highest safety standards.

 

It does so by firing its countermeasures very close to the vehicle, rather than at a standoff distance. To make things clear; their concept of an APS always incorporated these safety features, but now it gets the appropriate certifications after the testing.

What Gen 3 brought to the table is new software that reduced its false alarm rates to a point where the chance of one is negligible at best. It's something RAFAEL has also been taking pride in, as of recent, saying that the Trophy has hundreds of thousands of operational hours with zero false alarms, and has passed a 4-year certification process in the IDF, in similar independent tests as the ADS went through. But Rheinmetall also claim their concept is inherently safer.

 

I'll quote the relevant bit to demonstrate that:

Quote

 

There are two types of active protection systems, in Rheinmetall’s typology. The current world-leading system, the Israeli Trophy now being tested on US Abrams tanks, is a “launcher” type. It detects the incoming missile and launches a countermeasure, which intercepts the threat and detonates some distance from the vehicle. (See the video above).

Rheinmetall graphic

Rheinmetall argues “launcher” Active Protection Systems that explode incoming missiles at a distance are less safe than “distributed” systems that destroy the threat close-in.

The problem with this approach, Rheinmetall argues, is it creates a big explosion some 30 to 40 feet away from the defended vehicle. That’s where friendly infantry are likely to be.

So “distributed” active protection system — like Rheinmetall’s ADS or DARPA’s Iron Curtain — instead puts small charges all around the vehicle (hence “distributed”). One of these charges then blasts the incoming missile at point-blank range just a fraction of a second before it impacts. Obviously that creates an explosion right next to the armored vehicle they’re protecting, but it’s not the highly focused, armor-piercing blast of an anti-tank warhead impacting the armor, so it’s generally safe for the vehicle.

It’s also generally safe for the infantry, who are trained never to accompany a friendly vehicle too closely because tanks draw a lot of fire. Likewise, during city fighting, civilians generally give tanks a wide berth. (A further safety feature is the distributed APS’s charges are usually positioned to shoot almost straight down, so any shrapnel is absorbed by the ground).

It’s hardly infallible, but it’s arguably safer to work with a vehicle you know occasionally gets engulfed by an explosion than with a vehicle that unpredictably blows up things at random directions and distances.

 

 

So now it is only a matter of time to see where the market of APS shifts, but the future is not very bright for ADS. While static launchers are indeed inherently safer, the margin of difference is not significant, at least from my understanding, and these safety features come at the cost of certain capabilities like standoff interception, which could come in use when the warhead still detonates, and group shared coverage (where one tank may defend another).

 

And because the US decided upon 2 launcher based APS already, Netherlands bought Iron Fist, and Australia may soon buy Trophy, only on the western hemisphere, is not good news for Rheinmetall because it shows a certain conceptual preference.

 

On the east, Russia's Afghanit and China's GL-5 pretty much speak for themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole "close-proximity APS are saver" discussion (and marketing) has been done since at least ten years, there are tests (and probably also studies) confirming this. How much the increased safety is valued by each potential user nation is different. In Germany, modern conventional ERA was invented (indepent from Soviet research), yet it was never adopted due to the increased danger for nearby infantry (a result of the metal fragments thrown formed by the ERA flyer plates upon penetration). Many other countries didn't care about it, German companies developed the CLARA (HL-Schutz) ERA. Yet CLARA was chosen for a €124 million contract by the UAE army, not one of the cheaper, more dangerous options...

 

1486647077_clara.jpg

 

As far as the APS market is concerned, I think you assessement is incorrect. The Netherlands are buying Iron Fist for tests first, a follow up order to equip more CV90s will come only if these tests are successful.

 

maxresdefault.jpg

 

Australia might buy Trophy or any other APS. They have not decided yet and are also considering the ADS - don't forget that the ADS is mounted on one of the Boxer CRVs! Aside of an unnamed SEA country, Turkey is actively trying to buy the ADS (despite also developing their local APS called Akkor). The deal has been delayed by the German government, but it soon might be finalized (see my mention of the news report by the Spiegel magazine earlier). Germany is testing the ADS as possible option for the Boxer and Leopard 2. Furthermore three European countries (France, the UK and Sweden) have funded trials of the ADS in the past; none of these have yet decided to buy an APS - but if they do, would they buy a system already tested by their own military or buy something else? Who knows. Last but not least: The United States are interested in buying the ADS for tests. On the long run, the US Army will adopt its own APS, the modular active protection system (MAPS), which might incorporate technology from other systems. The current APS trials in the United States need to be put into the context of the MAPS, they are only used to tests the capabilities of current active protection systems and find out how the MAPS should look like.

 

Only Trophy (as urgent material requirement) will be adopted on actual combat vehicles, while the Iron Fist APS and the Iron Curtain APS will be used for tests.

 

As for the ADS's performance, Jane's Defence Weekly reported the following in early 2017:

"The system has been tested successfully against a range of weapons, including the Russian Kornet and RPG-7 families, the US TOW 2B, and the Swedish BILL 1 and AT4 Confined Space (CS). Capable of firing even if the associated ROSY_L smoke dispensing system has been deployed, the ADS uses an infrared bandwidth that is lower than the multispectral smoke can obscure. The system has been subject to more than 800 live-fire tests, including three Kornet missiles, more than 535 RPG-7 series RPGs, and five top-attack TOW 2Bs. Threat detection and validation is reported by the company to be greater than 95%, while interception has been stated as 85–90% for anti-tank rockets and more than 80% for ATGWs.


The Active Defence System has already been sold to Malaysia (I assume they mean Singapore...) for use on its upgraded Leopard 2SG MBTs. ADS even claims it is more effective than rival hard-kill systems such as the Israeli Trophy because it is more effective at preventing detonation of the threat projectile’s warhead."

(Please note that the current NATO standard STANAG 4686 for (active) protection systems demands only an 80% probability to reduce armor pentration by 50%)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

---- yet it was never adopted due to the increased danger for nearby infantry (a result of the metal fragments thrown formed by the ERA flyer plates upon penetration). 

 

Definetely fake reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

The whole "close-proximity APS are saver" discussion (and marketing) has been done since at least ten years, there are tests (and probably also studies) confirming this. How much the increased safety is valued by each potential user nation is different. In Germany, modern conventional ERA was invented (indepent from Soviet research), yet it was never adopted due to the increased danger for nearby infantry (a result of the metal fragments thrown formed by the ERA flyer plates upon penetration). Many other countries didn't care about it, German companies developed the CLARA (HL-Schutz) ERA. Yet CLARA was chosen for a €124 million contract by the UAE army, not one of the cheaper, more dangerous options...

 

I pretty much said that the real news here is about the certification, and that the concept itself remained the same. You and I basically agree on this one. But Germany not adopting ERA? Doesn't the Puma have ERA on its sides?

 

19 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

As far as the APS market is concerned, I think you assessement is incorrect. The Netherlands are buying Iron Fist for tests first, a follow up order to equip more CV90s will come only if these tests are successful.

 

Australia might buy Trophy or any other APS. They have not decided yet and are also considering the ADS - don't forget that the ADS is mounted on one of the Boxer CRVs! Aside of an unnamed SEA country, Turkey is actively trying to buy the ADS (despite also developing their local APS called Akkor). The deal has been delayed by the German government, but it soon might be finalized (see my mention of the news report by the Spiegel magazine earlier). Germany is testing the ADS as possible option for the Boxer and Leopard 2. Furthermore three European countries (France, the UK and Sweden) have funded trials of the ADS in the past; none of these have yet decided to buy an APS - but if they do, would they buy a system already tested by their own military or buy something else? Who knows. Last but not least: The United States are interested in buying the ADS for tests. On the long run, the US Army will adopt its own APS, the modular active protection system (MAPS), which might incorporate technology from other systems. The current APS trials in the United States need to be put into the context of the MAPS, they are only used to tests the capabilities of current active protection systems and find out how the MAPS should look like.

 

Only Trophy (as urgent material requirement) will be adopted on actual combat vehicles, while the Iron Fist APS and the Iron Curtain APS will be used for tests.

 

And yet things have always worked out very differently from what you described.

Netherlands may or may not buy the Iron Fist, but if it will choose it wants a certain APS, it will go for what it already invested in. But let's leave that one for now.

RAFAEL had a pretty strong entrance into the Australian defense market. They set up a local branch just for the LAND program. Especially the LAND 400. Spike missiles and APS are at the front of their campaigns. And it gets a considerable amount of talk in there. Maybe they'll choose to go with ADS because it was already mounted on one, so they know how that looks and could even order tests more quickly, but there's also the factor of their modernization of Abrams fleet. The Abrams had already undergone an integration process for the Trophy. 

Turkey might still favor the Akkor in the long run, at least for its Altays. And its design is in the same category as the Iron Fist. Again, bad for Rheinmetall when considering the path each country follows with their APS. ADS is only readily available for the Leopards.

France; I assume they would rather have a domestic APS. Or at least try to get their own ideas into the ADS if an iteration of it finds its way into the next-gen tank developed jointly by France-Germany.

Last but not least, the US has a long history of turning temporary solutions into long term ones. MAPS is indeed modular but it won't negate the high costs that involve installing an APS that is fundamentally different and requires both changes to the doctrine and changes of the exterior design of the tank. 

It's pretty safe to say by now that they are going for Trophy for a long time, and the Iron Fist and Iron Curtain APS will share a similar fate.

 

19 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

As for the ADS's performance, Jane's Defence Weekly reported the following in early 2017:

"The system has been tested successfully against a range of weapons, including the Russian Kornet and RPG-7 families, the US TOW 2B, and the Swedish BILL 1 and AT4 Confined Space (CS). Capable of firing even if the associated ROSY_L smoke dispensing system has been deployed, the ADS uses an infrared bandwidth that is lower than the multispectral smoke can obscure. The system has been subject to more than 800 live-fire tests, including three Kornet missiles, more than 535 RPG-7 series RPGs, and five top-attack TOW 2Bs. Threat detection and validation is reported by the company to be greater than 95%, while interception has been stated as 85–90% for anti-tank rockets and more than 80% for ATGWs.


The Active Defence System has already been sold to Malaysia (I assume they mean Singapore...) for use on its upgraded Leopard 2SG MBTs. ADS even claims it is more effective than rival hard-kill systems such as the Israeli Trophy because it is more effective at preventing detonation of the threat projectile’s warhead."

(Please note that the current NATO standard STANAG 4686 for (active) protection systems demands only an 80% probability to reduce armor pentration by 50%)

Interception rate for ATGMs at 80%? That doesn't sound good. That would be 2 kills in an operation on the scale that happened in Gaza in 2014.

And how is probability of interception related to reduction in armor penetration? If it's on the 20% side, and fails to intercept, how does that reduce armor penetration?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

As for the ADS's performance, Jane's Defence Weekly reported the following in early 2017:

(...) The system has been subject to more than 800 live-fire tests, including three Kornet missiles, more than 535 RPG-7 series RPGs, and five top-attack TOW 2Bs. Threat detection and validation is reported by the company to be greater than 95%, while interception has been stated as 85–90% for anti-tank rockets and more than 80% for ATGWs.

 

It's not all. Heavy version of AMAP-ADS is able to stop APFSDS-T even from 200m distance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Militarysta said:

 

It's not all. Heavy version of AMAP-ADS is able to stop APFSDS-T even from 200m distance.

Somehow I have doubt it can do it at such distance. That would require a launcher-based system. The ADS uses static launchers. 

As far as I know, the ADS is no longer marketed as capable of intercepting APFSDS, because none seems to want that, because it usually means the capabilities against ATGMs are degraded. Trophy turned into an SC-only system. Iron Fist Light Configuration, that lost the anti-KE capability also became the leading product IMI is marketing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Somehow I have doubt it can do it at such distance. That would require a launcher-based system. The ADS uses static launchers. 

As far as I know, the ADS is no longer marketed as capable of intercepting APFSDS, because none seems to want that, because it usually means the capabilities against ATGMs are degraded. Trophy turned into an SC-only system. Iron Fist Light Configuration, that lost the anti-KE capability also became the leading product IMI is marketing. 

 

im fairly sure it means it can intercept an apfsds fored from 200m away.

also the lack of interest in that capability is simply that there currently isnt a need for it. in asymetrical wars apfsds are nonexistant and for symetrical ones the current armour seems to be thought of as sufficient.

only when someone starts using significantly better tank guns or a new mbt is designed would it become interesting again.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Andrei_bt said:

Definetely fake reason.

 

No, it is not fake. This is the collateral damage caused by ERA with metal flyer plates, that has specificially been designed with reduced collateral damage:

o5hB5IJ.png

I.e. in this case (SidePRO-CE ERA) all metal fragments are kept within a 10-15° horizontal arc. Normally the metal fragments would spread along a 90-120° arc. In the vertical plane they still spread along a  90° arc. After traveling approximateely three metres, the fragments still can punch through the reference plate (aluminium armor). On older ERA types like Kontakt-1, Kontakt-5, ERAWA, Brenus and Blazer, the metal fragments will spread in a 90-120° cone and cover a distance of multiple meters, so that operating vehicles fitted with such armor in urban environments and alongside infantry is dangerous - in the opinion of the German military, too dangers.

 

More modern types of ERA such as BRAT/SRAT, SidePRO-CE, Breakwater and Iron Wall, the ERA casette is covered by a thin rubber or kevlar too reduce the amount of fragments.

 

1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

But Germany not adopting ERA? Doesn't the Puma have ERA on its sides?

 

Not adopting ERA before the Puma. ERA got patented in 1969 by Dr. Held, yet it took until 2015 to become adopted by the military.

 

2 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

France; I assume they would rather have a domestic APS. Or at least try to get their own ideas into the ADS if an iteration of it finds its way into the next-gen tank developed jointly by France-Germany.

 

The company behind ADS (i.e. the joint-venture between IBD and Rheinmetall) has already been working with the French industry and government. I.e. the ADS is currently the most French APS, because it uses sensor components from the French manufacturer Thales (or at least the French version uses Thales' sensors). It was/is known as SHARK (systéme hardkill) and received funding from the French government.

 

vab%20shark%2002.jpg

Prototype from 2008

 

2 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Last but not least, the US has a long history of turning temporary solutions into long term ones. MAPS is indeed modular but it won't negate the high costs that involve installing an APS that is fundamentally different and requires both changes to the doctrine and changes of the exterior design of the tank. 

It's pretty safe to say by now that they are going for Trophy for a long time, and the Iron Fist and Iron Curtain APS will share a similar fate.

 

Not all temporary solutions become long-term ones in the US military; a lot of them end after a short time. They just don't stay in the minds of the people after they were replaced. The MAPS is designed to accept a larger amount of different countermeasures and sensor units, so they have to design it to work with box-based/distributed and launcher-based systems.

 

2 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Interception rate for ATGMs at 80%? That doesn't sound good. That would be 2 kills in an operation on the scale that happened in Gaza in 2014.

And how is probability of interception related to reduction in armor penetration? If it's on the 20% side, and fails to intercept, how does that reduce armor penetration?

 

I think it is pretty safe to assume that on the long run the US won't have three different types of APS.

 

2 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Interception rate for ATGMs at 80%? That doesn't sound good. That would be 2 kills in an operation on the scale that happened in Gaza in 2014.

And how is probability of interception related to reduction in armor penetration? If it's on the 20% side, and fails to intercept, how does that reduce armor penetration?

 

Well, a successful interception rate of 80% (at different weather conditions and including top-attack ATGMs) is pretty much as good as it gets. If you talk to people who are involved in arms procurment processes and/or read between the lines, a lot of other systems supposedly fail to meet this STANAG requirements. In 2011 when the US military tested the AMAP-ADS (as it was known back then), it claimed to reach an overall interception rate of 95%, according to the manufacturer the best overall result in the tests - other systems were claimed to have a "clear (performance) gap".

 

In general hypothetical performance vs actual performance is quite different in some cases. Every modern IFV claims to have a first round hit probability of 80-90% at medium ranges, yet in the Czech Republic (with shorter than average range), all IFVs except the Puma missed half the shots. Also note how high the failure rate of anti-ballistic missile systems is compared to how they are advertised...

 

The leftover armor penetration applies only to intercepted rounds. Many types of APS (i.e. systems like Trophy and Arena) damaged the shaped charge warhead without completely destroying it, so there will still be a (small) amount of residual penetration.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

---No, it is not fake.

 

Fake for brainless . If you stand in front of RPG or ATGM attack near tank ERA is lesser of problems.

 

--- On older ERA types like Kontakt-1, Kontakt-5, ERAWA, Brenus and Blazer, the metal fragments will spread in a 90-120° 

 

totally ungraunded

 

---After traveling approximateely three metres, the After traveling approximateely three metres, the fragments still can punch through the reference plate (aluminium armor) still can punch through the reference plate (aluminium armor)

 

Fragments of what type of ERA? If you standing 3 m close to RPG (ATGM ))))   ) it is not lesser chance to be a victim for RPG (ATGM) fragments or blast impact.

So all this is just a fake ungrounded and biased marketing.

Well...

A lot of recent advcertisement of euro - APS, but this says more than words -

LmdfsjBlccYALx7YY6u5hZExdERCDYrtH1c0_-b1

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All APS systems have a certain chance not to damage the warhead to the point where it's non-functional. Although in most cases a static launcher based system will attack the warhead from a certain odd angle and will increase the chances to damage the warhead, it still leaves a chance the warhead will fuze and the distance between the vehicle and warhead will be too little, which might make it more dangerous for LAVs.

 

And I side with Andrei on the last part. ATGMs and RPGs are more dangerous than APS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After Erdogan purge in the Leo 2 units following the coup, I wouldn`t be suprised if they would borrow such ideas from the syrian ragtag...and it wouldn`t be suprising if they "uparmored" only the crew compartement.

Btw: Talking about german APS on turkish tanks right now...well the german public is right now not very amused by pictures of Leo2s fighting Kurds in the syrian border ( it seems like an MBT is obvious enough for the public contrary to G3s and MG3s being used against the Kurds since decades) region and the acting government is already in the midst of a small scale shitstorm for not ruling out outstanding armsdeals with turkey. Renk, MTU or Rheinmetall exports to Turkey are not very likely in the nearer future.

Edit: Quod erad demonstrandum in two ways:
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/germany-says-it-has-frozen-tanks-upgrade-for-turkey-126318
(As far as I know the mentioned upgrade is more or less the Leo2 NG version which includes the ADS)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the Leopard 2 upgrade seems to be canceled (inofficially. Officially it is only delayed until a decision will be made by the new government.

 

 

As the Spiegel reported today, the upgrade of about 120 M60 tanks with German protection technology was already pre-approved by the German Federal Security Council (responsible for approving/denying arms exports) in Oktober 2017. The M60 tanks are meant to receive armor modules including belly plates to protect against mines and IEDs. Such a pre-approval usually means that the full deal will be approved shortly after. This means the deal might have been approved already (current status unknown given that the decisions of the Federal Security Council remain secret).

 

On 24.1.2018 at 1:45 AM, Andrei_bt said:

Fragments of what type of ERA? If you standing 3 m close to RPG (ATGM ))))   ) it is not lesser chance to be a victim for RPG (ATGM) fragments or blast impact.

So all this is just a fake ungrounded and biased marketing.

Well...

A lot of recent advcertisement of euro - APS, but this says more than words -

 

Fragments from the metal flyer plates. Three metres is the distance between the ERA and the reference plates, you don't know how much further the metal fragements retain dangerous velocity. These test were done with ERA specifically designed with reduced collateral damage, not the more dangerous first-gen types such as Kontakt-1/Kontakt-5, Brenus and Blazer.

 

On 24.1.2018 at 1:41 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

And I side with Andrei on the last part. ATGMs and RPGs are more dangerous than APS.

 

Well yes, but how dangerous exactly is depending on what you look at. A Merkava 4 should have all-round protection against the basic PG-7V/PG-7M rounds fired by the the RPG-7, so in this case the APS adds additional danger to people (if the RPG-7 round hits the armor, there are a few fragments; if the RPG-7 round gets engaged by the APS, there are more fragments).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

 

Well yes, but how dangerous exactly is depending on what you look at. A Merkava 4 should have all-round protection against the basic PG-7V/PG-7M rounds fired by the the RPG-7, so in this case the APS adds additional danger to people (if the RPG-7 round hits the armor, there are a few fragments; if the RPG-7 round gets engaged by the APS, there are more fragments).

   From what i saw from combat footage by Andrey Filatov (when he worked for ANNA news) it is not completely true, fragmentation from HEAT warhead explosion can travel relatively huge distances from a tank that was hit, even if that vehicle was not penetrated, with rather unusual trajectories/directions of fragments.

   Particular example (most obvious that i remembered first) was when Andrey filmed a big ass fragment from RPG-7 grenade that cut a vine branch less than a meter away from the camera. Andrey was filming a combat in city of Harasta (Eastern Ghouta, they usually worked there) IIRC, with Syrian army RG T-72 providing firesupport for advancing infantry in dense urban enviroment. He was located in a tall building about 150-200 meters away from a tank (or rather behind, slightly to the right from it), on 7th or 8th floor, when T-72 was hit by RPG in a turret frontal section (left part of it, on edge of frontal armor near part where weak side armor begins, RPG flyed from right part of view of camera to the left). Tank was not damaged, continued to fire down the street, but a fragment from RPG flyed for about 2 seconds from a tank to Andrey's place and hit a vine branch and cut it, and got into building's wall with considerable force. RPG trajectory was not in line with Andrey's location and tank was not located in front of the building.

   I guess if APS intercepts incoming round, fragmentation from it that are aimed forward (in direction of a tank/vehicle) is what will add noticeable/main danger for infantry, in case of projectile actually hitting AFV those fragmentation never form or absorbed by armor. But if tank is hit, other parts of projectile can form fragments too, although IDK how they will perform in event of explosion and collusion with AFV. In case of APS intercepting projectile at considerable distance fragmentation flying to the sides of intercepted projectile is not that problematic (at least in "frontal" fight) while projectile that hit AFV will spread their fragments amongst unit formation.

   So level of danger of fragments can be moderated by unit spacing, range of inteception and formations, although most noticeable effect will be during frontal/directional combat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By Sovngard
      Meanwhile at Eurosatory 2018 :
       
      The Euro Main Battle Tank (EMBT), a private venture project intended for the export market.
       


    • By Sturgeon
      I'll start off with a couple Pathe videos:


       

       

       

    • By SH_MM
      Well, if you include TUSK as armor kit for the Abrams, then you also have to include the different Theatre Entry Standards (TES) armor kits (three versions at least) of the Challenger 2. The base armor however was most likely not upgraded.
       
      The Leclerc is not geometrically more efficient. It could have been, if it's armor layout wasn't designed so badly. The Leclerc trades a smaller frontal profile for a larger number of weakspots. It uses a bulge-type turret (no idea about the proper English term), because otherwise a low-profile turret would mean reduced gun depression (breech block hits the roof when firing). There is bulge/box on the Leclerc turret roof, which is about one feet tall and located in the centerline of the turret. It is connected to the interior of the tank, as it serves as space for the breech block to travel when the gun is depressed. With this bulge the diffence between the Leopard 2's and Leclerc's roof height is about 20 milimetres.
       

       
      The problem with this bulge is, that it is essentially un-armored (maybe 40-50 mm steel armor); otherwise the Leclerc wouldn't save any weight. While the bulge is hidden from direct head-on attacks, it is exposed when the tank is attacked from an angle. Given that modern APFSDS usually do not riccochet at impact angles larger than 10-15° and most RPGs are able to fuze at such an angle, the Leclerc has a very weakly armored section that can be hit from half to two-thirds of the frontal arc and will always be penetrated.
       

       
      The next issue is the result of the gunner's sight layout. While it is somewhat reminiscent of the Leopard 2's original gunner's sight placement for some people, it is actually designed differently. The Leopard 2's original sight layout has armor in front and behind the gunner's sight, the sight also doesn't extend to the bottom of the turret. On the Leclerc things are very different, the sight is placed in front of the armor and this reduces overall thickness. This problem has been reduced by installing another armor block in front of the guner's sight, but it doesn't cover the entire crew.
       

       
      The biggest issue of the Leclerc is however the gun shield. It's tiny, only 30 mm thick! Compared to that the Leopard 2 had a 420 mm gun shield already in 1979. The French engineers went with having pretty much the largest gun mantlet of all contemporary tanks, but decided to add the thinnest gun shield for protection. They decided to instead go for a thicker armor (steel) block at the gun trunnions.
       

       
      Still the protection of the gun mantlet seems to be sub-par compared to the Leopard 2 (420 mm armor block + 200-250 mm steel for the gun trunion mount on the original tank) and even upgraded Leopard 2 tanks. The Abrams has a comparable weak protected gun mantlet, but it has a much smaller surface. The Challenger 2 seems to have thicker armor at the gun, comparable to the Leopard 2.
       
      Also, the Leclerc has longer (not thicker) turret side armor compared to the Leopard 2 and Challenger 2, because the armor needs to protect the autoloader. On the other tanks, the thick armor at the end of the crew compartment and only thinner, spaced armor/storage boxes protect the rest of the turret. So I'd say:
      Challenger 2: a few weakspots, but no armor upgrades to the main armor Leclerc: a lot of weakspots, but lower weight and a smaller profile when approached directly from the turret front M1 Abrams: upgraded armor with less weakspots, but less efficient design (large turret profile and armor covers whole turret sides) So if you look for a tank that is well protected, has upgraded armor and uses the armor efficiently, the current Leopard 2 should be called best protected tank.
×