Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, Beer said:

The Drozd-like APS rockets are not meant for top attack missile defence. On the turret there are 24 smaller vertical launcher tubes likely intended for that (aside of another 24 rotating smoke grenade launchers). What they atually launch is another question. 

The vertical launchers are for multi spectral smoke and soft countermeasures against top attack. Against Lahat, normal horizontally launched smoke grenades will do the job. Perhaps in the future one  one of the two vertical smoke launchers could be replaced with other hard kill interceptors (just like the ones of the Arena-M, cassettes that launch vertically and rotate mid air so that the explosion and fragments go upwards). But i digress, people often forget that APS also comprises softkill measures. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Beer said:

On the turret there are 24 smaller vertical launcher tubes likely intended for that (aside of another 24 rotating smoke grenade launchers).

 

I didn't notice them. Only smoke launchers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Beer said:

Moreover you have to try really hard to find a spot where you have a 5 km line of sight in Europe. That's possible basically only in deserts or if the enemy is completely stupid. 

Sorry for the double post. 

It´s not that hard. Lahat travels at 250-300 m/s. During that time, the shooter has to be static in position. That gives the T-14 up to 20 seconds to locate the shooter in a straight line. Depending on the range characteristics of the T-14 radar (of which we can only speculate) it may even track the Lahat  since (or shortly after) the launch. However Afghanit not only detects ATGMs via radar, there are also visual detection devices, which could make locating the point of origin even easier (and this without accounting for the automatic target recognition capabilities claimed for the FCS). All this, while valid for ATGM, is also valid for any kind of ammunition shot at the tank. As an israeli tank commander said in an interview last year: an APS isn't really a defensive system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, alanch90 said:

How its going to go in a theoretical scenario?

 

Actually the scenario I was picturing was more the t-14 being lazed by a drone overhead or something, rather than the tank itself - although iirc the sights it uses are capable of laser designating. Also I was just spitballing what the guy might have meant. Its certainly possible he was just using the term missile to refer to the L55A1 apfsds round being developed to counter the newer soviet armour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, BaronTibere said:

Actually the scenario I was picturing was more the t-14 being lazed by a drone overhead or something, rather than the tank itself - although iirc the sights it uses are capable of laser designating. Also I was just spitballing what the guy might have meant. Its certainly possible he was just using the term missile to refer to the L55A1 apfsds round being developed to counter the newer soviet armour.


Lahat is still a very good option though and the only GLATM available in 120mm. While i doubt its effectiveness against T-14 i do see it´s usefulness against the much more numerous  against T-72 and T-90 models

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, alanch90 said:

Lahat may have a very good maximum range (8km) and top attack but its not fire and forget and the missile is fairly slow, meaning that the tank has to be exposed to enemy fire during a long time. If the gunner loses visual on the target, the missile is useless.

 

The claimed range seems questionable. While IAI states this range on its website, it doesn't distinguish between air-launched and ground-launched ranges. Wikipedia took its infromation from an old Defense-Update.com article, which weren't the most reliable

 

When Rheinmetall offered the integration of LAHAT into the Leopard 2 MBT, the maximum range was stated as about 6 kilometers.

 

11 hours ago, VPZ said:

Lahat can be detected only when target is illuminated by laser (at the end of the flight).

 

First of all, LAHAT can still be detected by all kinds of sensors - optical/IR/UV sensors, radars, etc.

 

LAHAT needs the target to be illumanted in order to be a laser homing missile. Firing the missile, then hoping the tank remains in place/at a position that a last second laser illumination will allow it to hit the target is not a realistic scenario.

 

7 hours ago, alanch90 said:

Lahat is still a very good option though and the only GLATM available in 120mm.

 

John Cockerill and Luch of Ukraine also have developed the laser beam-riding Falarick ATGM in the calibers 90, 105 and 120 mm. The 120 mm Falarick has a range of 5,000 meters, but with just 630 mm penetration against steel armor protected by ERA, it has more of a multi-purpose warhead than an anti-tank one.

 

There is also Luch's Konus ATGM for the T-72-120 and T-84-120 Yatagan, from which the Falarick was derived. It has a slightly more powerful warhead (minimum penetration of 700 mm steel after ERA), but that still falls short by quite a bit from being a threat to the T-14 Armata tank.

 

904.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, alanch90 said:

How its going to go in a theoretical scenario? Cr2 spots an advancing T-14 at about 5km and fires Lahat.

 

Maybe it would be theoretical in Ukraine. In Central Europe CR2 would spot T-14 at maximum 1500 meters.

 

17 hours ago, alanch90 said:

It´s not that hard.

 

It's not hard.

It's impossible because of topography.

Even optical artillery observation systems placed on ground platforms are limited there to maximum 3 kilometers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Zadlo said:

 

Maybe it would be theoretical in Ukraine. In Central Europe CR2 would spot T-14 at maximum 1500 meters.

 

At which point GLATGM is not worth the price of the shot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, SH_MM said:

First of all, LAHAT can still be detected by all kinds of sensors - optical/IR/UV sensors, radars, etc.

 

Like any other munition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2020 at 10:15 PM, VPZ said:

 

Like any other munition.

 

If fired on 3000 meters far target, the APFSDS will get there in around 2 seconds. LAHAT would need some 10-15 seconds. For all the time the target has to be illuminated and the missile flies slow and is relatively easy to detect and eliminate through both soft and hard kill measures - good luck with APFSDS. That has to be taken into account because here we speak about the future armament of the Challenger, i.e. for use against future threats (most likely more modern and more capable than those of today). Sure it's good against T-55 in the desert but in any case it seems to me like another example of preparing for a war of the past. 

 

Ground-launched ATGMs sure still play a role but nearly all their advantages can be exploited by an infantry team hidden somewhere on the hill with a long line of sight. The purpose of a tank is different. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Beer said:

 

If fired on 3000 meters far target, the APFSDS will get there in around 2 seconds. LAHAT would need some 10-15 seconds. For all the time the target has to be illuminated and the missile flies slow and is relatively easy to detect and eliminate through both soft and hard kill measures - good luck with APFSDS. That has to be taken into account because here we speak about the future armament of the Challenger, i.e. for use against future threats (most likely more modern and more capable than those of today). Sure it's good against T-55 in the desert but in any case it seems to me like another example of preparing for a war of the past. 

 

Ground-launched ATGMs sure still play a role but nearly all their advantages can be exploited by an infantry team hidden somewhere on the hill with a long line of sight. The purpose of a tank is different. 

   To add to the point - modern ATGMs are getting longer anges and NLOS capabilities (Serbian ALAS, Isreali Spikes, French MMP, Chinese AFT-10 and so on) and a jeep or lightly armored AFV can fling much more powerfull and more effective ATGMs than a tank. GL-ATGMs can be somewhat usefull for a tank to fight against enemy infantry ATGMs teams using not a top of the line weapons, but it needs to be NLOS or at least F&F capable and have range of a Kornet; or in long range ambush situations, when first hit probabiliy against moving targets is very needed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

   To add to the point - modern ATGMs are getting longer anges and NLOS capabilities (Serbian ALAS, Isreali Spikes, French MMP, Chinese AFT-10 and so on) and a jeep or lightly armored AFV can fling much more powerfull and more effective ATGMs than a tank. GL-ATGMs can be somewhat usefull for a tank to fight against enemy infantry ATGMs teams using not a top of the line weapons, but it needs to be NLOS or at least F&F capable and have range of a Kornet; or in long range ambush situations, when first hit probabiliy against moving targets is very needed. 

 

I don't think that NLOS is something for a tank. IMHO tank shall do tank things and not play also the supporting roles. But I do agree that if a missile is used in a future tank, it shall be F&F.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Beer said:

 

I don't think that NLOS is something for a tank. IMHO tank shall do tank things and not play also the supporting roles. But I do agree that if a missile is used in a future tank, it shall be F&F.  

Well, NLOS as in "if enemy moves out of LOS of a tank, ATGM still have a chance to get it" and not about long-range NLOS systems like Spikes/ALAS/etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

Well, NLOS as in "if enemy moves out of LOS of a tank, ATGM still have a chance to get it" and not about long-range NLOS systems like Spikes/ALAS/etc.

 

That's what Fire & Forget is. 

 

NLOS means that you can fire on an enemy which is out of your line of sight and that means you need some means and people to monitor beyond the line of sight which is not a work of the tank and its crew.  

Share this post


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

NLOS means that you can fire on an enemy which is out of your line of sight and that means you need some means and people to monitor beyond the line of sight which is not a work of the tank and its crew.  

Not only that. If the missile is LOAL (lock on after launch) able (like Brimstone, Spike, etc.), then the operator can fire it in a general direction and either he himself looking through the missiles optics can lock on a target, or alternatively, the missile can lock itself on whatever seems like a target under the parameters chosen by the operator before firing. In a GLATGM this is very useful for example against enemy tanks that are shooting and going immediately hull down. So, if you know that "behind that hill over there" there's an enemy tank platoon in prepared firing positions, you just use these missiles and problem solved (unless there are APS involved). Supposedly these capabilities are built into the Sokol-V and that's why i see it as a very significant leap compared to previous soviet derived GLATGMs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



 

Quote

Britain and US have announced joint army modernisation agreement today, MoD says.

Closer collaboration planned over next five years in:

• digital networks
• long range precision fires
• helicopter lift
• land forces
• assured positioning, navigation and timing signals

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The LEP has a completely new turret, right? Does it mean that the single piece ammo is all stored in the bustle and not just everywhere around the tank like with the standard Challenger 2? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Serge said:

Yes. They are. 

A one piece ammo is so long, you can’t find tiny place to stow it. 

Not the least point : segregation of ammo from the crew is called to improve the whole tank survivability. 

To be fair, CR2 has its propellant compartmented/segmented & (I believe) HESH projectiles. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, 2805662 said:

To be fair, CR2 has its propellant compartmented/segmented & (I believe) HESH projectiles. 

Yes. But there compartment are into the crew compartment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you watch the video rheinmetall put out recently there is a glimpse of what looks like a leopard 2 sized bustle rack. So I don't think all the ammo will be in the bustle, especially given the location of the commander's sight. I expect the rest is in the hull somehow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the Challenger 2, much like the Chieftain and Challenger 1, the ammo in the hull is stowed all over the place, but the 3 main bins of vertical propellant charges, if removed, provide adequate space for storing unitary ammo horizontally. Likewise, the frontal hull propellant racks, when removed, provide some more space there, though that likely requires rejiggering of the rest of the internal components there, as the unitary 120 is much longer. Perhaps that area wasn't touched, and the 15 are stowed horizontally where the 3 main bins were, nose to nose from 2 sides.
Such an arrangement would also make them fairly accessible to the loader, somewhat making up for the low overall load.
pFTxXKt.jpg?1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...