123

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1
 
 

This is just a typical comment from you... "current systems are perfect!!!".
 
Weapons like SMArt 155, BONUS, etc. will strike the tank's roof armor from a nearly vertical angle; the EFP warhead will detonate 50 to 150 metres above the vehicle and strike downwards. There is no way for Trophy or other APS to deal with that. Even dumb artillery/mortar sheels can be easily fitted witha  nose section for course-correction/guidance and strike tanks from nearly vertical angles, way above the maximum elevation of current APS.
 

 
Javelin and Hellfire (and pretty much all top-attack ATGMs launched from helicopters) will most likely have no issue with currently existing systems.

(FM 3-21.71 Appendix F, Javelin Employment).
 

 

AGM-114A Hellfire trajectories.
 
Then there is a big question in functionality of sensors and software. APS are designed to ignore ATGMs/RPGs which would not impact on the vehicle, because otherwise valuable countermeasures are lost. This is a general problem of APS vs top-attack weapons, but it could also mean overfly top-attack systems such as TOW-2B and BILL-2 won't be engaged by them.
 
Your theory about "rotating systems defeat[ing] top attack munitions" because "they dont need to shoot straight up" is wrong for a multitude of reasons. First of all, these system don't know where the top-attack weapons are, because the radar coverage of current system doesn't include the upper sections of the hemisphere. How should the APS intercept a threat that it cannot see? Aside of this issue, not all launchers can be elevated so far, because the
There are also issues with the detection range required to spot most types of top-attack missiles and the interception distance required for the APS to properly work. Trophy's launchers cannot be turned enough to cover the roof (thanks to their location and the fixed blast shields), while Iron Fist/AVePS and similar systems require greater standoff to not damage the system when the HE warhead explodes.
 

1

GMTI long range radars like ASTOR and J-STARS are long range only till they are jammed. The Russians have had such jammers for a long time already (SPN-4, for example). It's questionable whether they would survive far enough forward in face of supercruising fighters with long range missiles anwyway.
Substantial forces slip through picket lines even on rather confined training areas. This is in part about counter-reconnaissance efforts and deception efforts.
 
I didn't write about penetrating or spalling the hull of Armata with 105 mm HESH. I wrote about firepower or mobility kill. That requires to affect the turret or blowing up the running gear. Frankly, anyone who doesn't know what HESH/HEP blast does to roadwheels, tracks, optics should read and ask questions instead of pretending to know better. The very fact that I wrote explicitly about mobility and firepower kill shows that I knew about the issue that HESH has with thick non-homogeneous armour packages.
To not know about the effects that HESH/HEP has on road wheels, tracks, sensors and even gun alignment is disqualifying for a discussion on tanks and HESH.
 
"not everywhere on Earth is Eastern Europe "
True, but there's no rational reason to look at any other terrain if you are a Western European. Morocco isn't going to invade Europe, Egypt isn't going to, Algeria isn't going to, Turkey is still allied for now, and Iran isn't going to attack Turkey either. The only not utterly nonsensical defence scenario is about Eastern Europe, particularly the Baltics and North/East Poland. Every single scenario in which European forces are on a different continent is nonsense, and not about defence at all.
So either European NATO forces should orient themselves mostly to Eastern Europe or shrink to a core competencies-retaining skeleton force to save public funds.
 
 
I don't have more time for this. Too  much nonsense here.

I didn't say anything about penetration either.
 
 
See?  That's what I said.  I never claimed that HESH is impotent because it cannot penetrate.  I am saying HESH is impotent because it's impotent.

But do you know what's funny?  We had this exact same argument two years ago, and you argued in the same cringing, cowardly manner you are now.  Also, you said some hilariously insane shit, like claiming that gun-launched HESH rounds are "30+ kg."  Bitch, an entire M830 MPAT round is under 30 kg!  RDX has a density of under 2 gm/cm^3.  A 120mm wide 30 kilogram cylinder of RDX would be 1.3 meters long, or about 30% longer than an entire round of M829.

Do you know what I love though?  That you can maintain this attitude of haughty superiority when you say things that are so easy to show are wrong.  You must slay with chicks.  I can just imagine you walking up to a woman at a bar and spitting a line of bullshit about being a space shuttle door gunner in the dinosaur wars while there's visibly diarrhea leaking down your leg.  How do you manage it?  What is your secret, great master?

You know if we had the military strongarm the Puerto Rican government, that would make things a lot easier.

It would also make the US a dictatorship, which I'm not necessarily opposed to, but...

And for the record, here are Trumps twits:
 

 
Pretty clear he's saying the Puerto Rican leadership is fucked, and not talking about the people living there.

This is GMTI imagery, which incidentally I found on your blog, so you should be familiar with the technology and its implications for ground vehicle detection:


 
Look at the Spring 2017 Hama offensive in Syria vs the Autumn 2017 Hama offensive.  Or look at the Ukrainian conflict.  Modern surveillance is very good at picking up the movement of formations of armed vehicles even with basic day-only optics.  With advanced radar technology like GMTI the situation will be more like that facing the panzers in France in 1944; whether to risk force concentration and attract attacks or to disperse and become ineffectual.
 
Finally, and most importantly, I don't know if you've looked at a globe but not everywhere on Earth is Eastern Europe.  Modern weapon systems are expensive, and offsetting those costs means foreign sales.  Tanks that are designed to fight extremely well in one type of terrain at the expense of others don't exactly fly off the shelves.  Look at the Merkava.  Who would buy a tank that is intended only to penetrate enemy lines where they are overstretched, but cannot force an assault on a strongpoint?  Isn't breaking fixed defenses what tanks were invented for in the first place a century ago?
 
 
That's another problem with your idea; you assume that your tank will have HVMs and that the enemy will not ("slow ATGMs").  But ATGMs, while expensive relative to other infantry weapons, are much cheaper than tanks.  Why are you assuming that your relatively expensive tank will maintain an asymmetrical technological advantage against ATGMs, a much cheaper threat technology?
 
 
Yes, your hypothetical compromise tank is only marginally less protected in general than a T-90, and yet it is a few tonnes lighter.  And it's much lighter than the Western MBTs, again, despite not having much lighter protection.  How realistic is that?
 
About 50% of the weight of an MBT is armor.  If you want a lighter tank (which I agree makes sense in light of logistics and strategic mobility), protection level is probably the first thing you'll have to compromise on.  But the idea of a tank that you sketch out compromises very little on armor thickness relative to extant MBTs.  So, realistically, it isn't shaving much weight there.

Another way to make a tank lighter is to reduce the protected volume while maintaining armor thickness.  Soviet tanks took this approach.  Your idea does not.  You want ten degrees of gun depression, vice five for Soviet tank designs.  Yes, the breech of the 105mm M102 howitzer is shorter than an L7, but by a mere 220 mm.  Taking the sine of the gun depression times the round length, I get that an L7 that depresses five degrees requires less height than an M102 that depresses ten degrees.  But if you have more precise diagrams showing the thickness of the breech block and the CoG of the gun the matter could be settled more firmly.  Bottom line though, you aren't saving much weight by going to the howitzer, and you may in fact be making your tank heavier than it would be if you had a more traditional tank gun that sacrificed depression.
 
This is suspiciously similar to the idea that Blacktail Defense had about tank design.  He would often rail against needlessly large main guns on tanks and advocate that they be armed with howitzers instead.  But it simply isn't a sensible tradeoff.  The armament of a tank is 12% of its total weight, at the very most.  Compromising on armament doesn't save much weight, but reduces offensive potential enormously.
 
 
If you think this, you are not familiar with the extensive literature on the (in)effectiveness of HESH.  HESH is for poking holes in walls.  And nothing else.  It's that simple.
 
For some reason, the military reform movement (and the British military) had a sexual fetish for HESH ammunition, but you should listen to neither of these groups of people on matters of tank design.

I didn't track you, I just am registered in all the previously mentioned forums. At least in these forums you kept using the same name, hence you are easy to recognize once you are noticed.
 
 
Assuming the units with the capable AT weaponry are not mobile and the intrusion of (hostile) MBTs is not noticed or tracked before they get to the support elements. Unlikely against a competent enemy. 
 
 
With current armor technology, there is a big difference between protecting against KE penetrators and shaped charge rounds, specifically considering that there are also light-weight tandem-charge RPGs that have a greater efficiency against special armor of all sorts.
 
 
To reach the same performance as a 130 mm smoothbore gun, the hypothetical HVM following the same design as LOSAT or CKEM would need a very large and very powerful rocket engine - essentially it wouldn't be fitting inside a tank. So the HVMs would need to be carried outside, which increases costs, size and weight (or you accept the option of a firepower kill by some dude with a HMG or by an IFV). Limiting the ability of a tank to fight against only four enemy tanks in the most common situation (statistically tanks are most likely to meet each other within the frontal arc) is a bad idea that no real tank commander would accept for his vehicle.
 
 
No, because in modern militaries tanks are not used as single vehicles operating completely on their own. For an enemy to get a significant probability to hit outside the frontal 60° arc, the enemy has to be able to outmaneuver your unit. In reality tanks operate in platoons or larger units and never alone - infantry, IFVs and other vehicles are there to support the tank unit. When a tank (or rather a platoon) makes a move, the other elements of the military are meant to provide cover of the flanks. That's basic knowledge that you'll learn in every armor school in NATO.
 
Also the whole concept of "We can't achieve that the frontal arc faces the enemy at all times, so let's give up on trying to protect the area that is most likely hit by the enemy" is just wrong. Why even try to fight a war, when there is a chance of loosing it?
 
 
They fought against badly organized and in many regards incompetent enemies, which hadn't fully understood how to utilize modern technology (such as the tank, radios, etc.) to their maximum potential.
 
 
Hilmes didn't state that a 40-50 tons tank is well protected enough for the modern battlefield nor did he claim that any of these tanks would meet your protection requirements. He has mentioned several weight-optimized tanks (usually without a turret or with an un-armored unmanned turret) that can achieve a protection level similar to your requirements.
 
The Type 10 has less a lot armor than required by you. Side armor along the crew compartment is usually not enough to resist 30 mm APFSDS (i.e. Leopard 2's side hull armor was designed to withstand 20 mm DM43 APCR rounds), the Type 10 doesn't have the protection against "lightweight shaped charges" nor is it protected against 10 kg TNT mines (although this requirement - probably based on the NATO STANAG 4569 level 4a/b - is rather bad, because EFP mines have a much bigger potential to destroy MBTs... but NATO has yet to accept a standard for testing vehicles against EFP mines).

1

Hahaha hk's balls deep up in the bundestag which is crying softly and nursing it's black eye already...
 
Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of bitches that Winston Churchill was right all along about how they need to be handled...
 
For those unaware, Winston felt and i agree that every 50 years the US the commonwealth and the rest of western Europe need to just mercilessly destroy Germany ....Even if they appear to be behaving at the time we should just do it anyway as a Prophylactic measure because, let's face it people, even when they're being all holier more progressive than thou like now they're still assholes they just headquartered the EU somewhere else it's just lebensbraum with a thin veneer of thoroughly cowed EU officials who technically aren't Germans and sometimes.... They even rewrite the policies the Germans give them to ratify in their own words!.... Talk about mofuckin progress bitches

1

 

1

1

That's ugly...
 


 
Btw. latest Boxer is available with 800 hp engine and 38.5 metric tons maximum gross vehicle weight.