N-L-M

And that's what we call "casus belli".

11 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

You haven't contributed anything to this thread. Even if his posting is "bad" (IMO, it's not. He doesn't know how to take in the replies he gets, but makes generally interesting questions), that doesnt change the fact that in this thread your SNR is also 0.

Yeah I had a feeling I'd get some white knighting from you. This kind of bullshit is exactly up your alle.

Back when I made the mistake of thinking this ronny person may be capable of learning I responded, but I make it a policy not to reply to zero effort posts or obvious bait. 

If you want to discuss overall SNRs, yours is practically negative, thanks to all the flat out wrong bullshit you post. You're also on my cleanup list btw, and as a general rule it's advised to not pick fights with mods. That doesn't tend to end well.

Aight

@Ronny

I'm just gonna put this here so everyone can see it.

Your posting is bad and you should feel bad. Your SNR is a flat 0, you post nonsense and start useless threads in which you argue inane bullshit and just in general waste people's valuable time with questions a good 5 minutes googling would answer.

Your posts aren't even up to basic shitposting standards, let alone gudpoasting. Kindly meet the standard or you'll soon find yourself unable to post at all.

 

5 hours ago, Beer said:

I don't know how it's called in English when the round is filled with steel balls. Can you help me?  

Canister, or shrapnel if it's a time fuzed shell which ejects the balls after a short flight.

Also I really appreciate this thread!

 

The current direction on discord seems to be a Lone Free State of Texas Rooikat-equivalent, with 1930-1940 tech.

7 hours ago, Kal said:

equivalent to M230LF, rounds ballistically matched to 120mm rounds.

You either have a very low energy and sad 120, or a more powerful 30mm. 30x113mmB is not up to the task of matching even high pressure 120mm HE rounds, thanks to being low velocity and having poor sectional density.

7 hours ago, Kal said:

general principle of veering left or right is that the side to turn to, is unlocked (and can be slightly braked if desired), the side to turn from, is locked.

Clutch-and-brake steering on a tank that size is... somewhat brave.

But what about the big bouy and lil bouy? The people want to know!

The sectioner's curse of assembling the sabot backwards strikes again!

46 minutes ago, Toxn said:

@N-L-M another minor question: when the armour requirements talk about x degrees off centreline, my understanding is that they're not talking about the total envelope. So 90' off centreline is an attack directly perpendicular the side rather than an attack coming in at 45'.

 

Is this correct?

Yes. Off the centerline = measured from the centerline = arc is in total double this angle.

Tread is the distance between the *centers* of the tracks, ie how far apart their centerlines are.

Not available no. 

Also be advised that you have less than a week, time to wrap things up.

10 hours ago, Karamazov said:

I give it as an example because it can be launched from a gun. They can shoot a leopard 2. 

Spike can't do it yet. Anyway - its caliber is not important. Because he hits the target from above

The caliber absolutely is important, Especially on a laser spot homer. Laser homers home in on the center of the laser illuminator spot which as you can probably guess within 2 seconds of thinking about the problem is splashed all over the side of the target, not the roof. Hitting things like a T-72 glacis or NATO box tank NERA arrays from a steep dive does help you get through it, the size of the warhead is still important cause you're still going through a lot of armor. On IIR missiles which do actually choose their point of impact on the roof, warhead size would seem less important, and yet every single one in production has a tandem warhead arrangement of non-negligible dimensions, so the simple dismissal of caliber as irrelevant doesn't pass the smell test.

10 hours ago, Ronny said:

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.

Fixed wing aircraft designators are different from heli ones as they're operating from up high, and not down low where all the interference and dust is; they therefore have an easier time of things. And even then, the 40 NM range for ATFLIR is for a very new system in ideal conditions, and given with no reference target size. Spot size grows with distance, and while 50m accuracy may be enough to hit an industrial building, for example, it sure ain't good enough for a tank.

Also the fact that you're ignorant of real world issues and haven't bothered to use google before coming here is a point against you, not in your favor. But seeing as you seem to need a good hard whacking with some primary sources, git rekt:
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a251803.pdf

The Hellfire had an average accuracy of 76% during ODS. And that was against a cooperative enemy!

10 hours ago, Ronny said:

so I really skeptical that laser designation is problematic at merely 8 km

Laser guidance won't work through cloud cover.
Here's another freebie:
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a434233.pdf

skip ahead to chapter 2 part 2 and git larned. I'm going to stop spoonfeeding you at some point, so enjoy it while it lasts.

10 hours ago, Ronny said:

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. 

There are indeed other threats to helis, but effective gun counterfire from literally any target is not doing the helis any favors, and time fuzed HE which reaches helis behind terrain masking is a big threat compared to LOS-limited command-guided missiles such as those AA systems fling.

10 hours ago, Ronny said:

Also what if we use something like this:

Ukrainian knockoff beam riders are even lower energy and sadder. Not a good idea.

Also, laser illumination is like most EM "beams" not a binary "is/isn't illuminated" business, you have a lobe, and the sides of it are still enough to set off any LWR which isn't ancient.

Also 0.3 sec to correct an offset of 3-5m (which is the min offset you'd need to get the target mostly out of the main lobe) is very optimistic for any ATGM.

And to top it all off, that ATGM is extremely low energy and sad, being a 125mm beam rider.

Get with the times, this isn't the 1960s, GLATGMs are not a good idea.

5 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

LAHAT is only a shitshow if you insist on analyzing its capabilities OUTSIDE of its historical background.

It was devised for the Merkava 2 tank, long before the Spike even had half the capabilities it has today.

No, even within that context it's still low energy and sad.

And at the time it was in development the Tamuz 1 was already fielded in significant numbers, and had the RF link allowing the operator to select the target for contrast lock after launch, so no. LAHAT is sad and Tamuz is a good boy.

5 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Another point you've forgotten is that a helicopter is not required for remote designation. It can be done via infantry.

Nice assumption there, but I haven't forgotten. Problem with infantry is that they're the squishiest thing on the battlefield, and lasing a tank while someone else far away fires a slow missile at it is a very good way to get plastered by HE from an angry tank. Squishies gonna squish, even if they have laser designators.

5 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

And they themselves would have a low combat signature.

Laser illuminators are not in any way low sig. At all.

5 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Caliber is of course a non-factor because of top attack

Not the kind of dive LAHAT (and indeed Laser Hellfire) perform, as they're homing in on the spot painted on the front or side of the vehicle from a ground based designator. Hell you can even see this in the LAHAT promotional material if you actually bother to look.

Also, if it's that irrelevant, why do they bother with full size warheads and a precursor?
Obvious answer time: because it's damned far from irrelevant.

5 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

even other similar sized missiles developed by the same company.

What non-Spike ATGM-sized missiles has Rafael developed recently?

And how much larger, proportionally, are their warheads compared to those of the Spike family?

6 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Only today are LAHAT missiles irrelevant, hence their withdrawal from service a long time ago

I'd like to see a single source confirming that it ever entered service. Cause all I see is the bunchpics from when they were testing it, and it seems to never have entered service anywhere. Got any source to change my mind on this topic? Considering how the Tamuz was in service long before LAHAT was properly developed, and was a MUCH more effective missile, LAHAT would appear to be completely useless, particularly for a cost-effectiveness conscious military.

 

You know, there's a reason LAHAT seems to have died a quiet death with nobody appearing to have actually adopted it into service.

ATTENTION DUELISTS:

@Toxn

@LostCosmonaut

@Lord_James

@DIADES

@Datengineerwill

@Whatismoo

@Kal

@Zadlo

@Xoon

detailed below is the expected format of the final submission.
The date is set as Wednesday the 19th of June at 23:59 GMT.

Again, incomplete designs may be submitted as they are and will be judged as seen fit.

 

FINAL SUBMISSION:
Vehicle Designation and name

[insert 3-projection (front, top, side) and isometric render of vehicle here)

Table of basic statistics:

Parameter	Value
Mass, combat
Length, combat (transport)
Width, combat (transport)
Height, combat (transport)
Ground Pressure, MMP (nominal)
Estimated Speed
Estimated range
Crew, number (roles)
Main armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed)
Secondary armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed)

 

Vehicle designer’s notes: explain the thought process behind the design of the vehicle, ideas, and the development process from the designer’s point of view.

Vehicle feature list:
Mobility:

1.     Link to Appendix 1- RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.

2.     Engine- type, displacement, rated power, cooling, neat features.

3.     Transmission- type, arrangement, neat features.

4.     Fuel- Type, volume available, stowage location, estimated range, neat features.

5.     Other neat features in the engine bay.

6.     Suspension- Type, Travel, ground clearance, neat features.

Survivability:

1.     Link to Appendix 1 - RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.

2.     Link to Appendix 2- armor array details.

3.     Non-specified survivability features and other neat tricks- low profile, gun depression, instant smoke, cunning internal arrangement, and the like.

Firepower:

A.    Weapons:

1.     Link to Appendix 1- RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.

2.     Main Weapon-

a.      Type

b.      Caliber

c.      ammunition types and performance (short)

d.     Ammo stowage arrangement- numbers ready and total, features.

e.      FCS- relevant systems, relevant sights for operating the weapon and so on.

f.      Neat features.

3.     Secondary weapon- Similar format to primary. Tertiary and further weapons- likewise.

4.     Link to Appendix 3- Weapon system magic. This is where you explain how all the special tricks related to the armament that aren’t obviously available using Soviet 1961 tech work, and expand to your heart’s content on extimated performance and how these estimates were reached.

B.    Optics:

1.     Primary gunsight- type, associated trickery.

2.     Likewise for any and all other optics systems installed, in no particular order.

C.    FCS:

1.     List of component systems, their purpose and the basic system architecture.

2.     Link to Appendix 3- weapon system magic, if you have long explanations about the workings of the system.

Fightability:

1.     List vehicle features which improve its fightability and useability.

Additonal Features:

Feel free to list more features as you see fit, in more categories.

Free expression zone: Let out your inner Thetan to fully impress the world with the fruit of your labor. Kindly spoiler this section if it’s very long.

 Example for filling in Appendix 1

1 hour ago, Ronny said:

be suicide if you use LAHAT to engage enemy tank from 6-8 km away?

Laser designation is extremely problematic at those ranges, which is part of the reason why the later Hellfires are MMW. The laser versions did not work very well with ground level or even heli based designators at extended ranges. If you then choose to designate on remote with someone closer, well it's suicide for them.

Laser illumination for the long TOF at those extreme ranges gives the enemy ample time to react, popping smoke and maneuvering to cover, as well as counterfire. Kicking up a dirt cloud with a HE round between the designator and the targeted vehicle will cause the beam to dissipate and the missile to lose guidance.

Hellfires switched to MMW for this reason and others, and currently many heli operators are switching over to NLOS missiles to overcome the vulnerability of helis to MPHE even at extreme ranges, so that's not a point in your favor right there.

Maverick is quite a bit larger than a full size ATGM. Full size is TOW or Kornet or at the larger side of things Hellfire; Maverick is a multipurpose air to ground munition kind of in a class of its own. To put it bluntly it is extremely large, with a much larger warhead than a 155mm shell by a factor of more than 3, which literally 2 seconds of googling would tell you if you'd bother to look things up before posting.

Compare that to a TOW or Kornet which have similar explosive content to a 155mm shell.

And if we're comparing large aircraft carried weapons, why stop with the Mav? Go straight for SAP 500lb bombs, because youre clearly not interested in comparing like to like.

Single shaped charges are low energy and sad because all modern armor is very well optimized for defeating them, so you get a shockingly low Pkill compared to the size of the Maverick, which is again retardedly large for what its used for, hence its replacement with a missile literally 1/3 the size.

16 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

 

The patent's text clearly says that the add-on modules consists of foamed metal armor (preferably foamed aluminium), while the main structure is made from conventional armor grade steel. The main purpose of this armor is to reduce costs compared to ceramic armor systems.

Oh ok, I should have been paying more attention. Thanks for the correction.

2 hours ago, Ronny said:

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 

Lahat is a shitshow, low caliber and requires laser designation, ie someone with a line of sight to the target illuminating it for the duration of the engagement, which against modern tanks is suicide.

This illum LOS requirement means that in practical effect it's a LOS only weapon, same as APFSDS, excluding niche cases in which someone else designates for the launcher- which begs the questions of a. Why isn't the designator engaging with their own weapons and b. If the designator is calling in other weapons anyway why not call in something more effective like a Spike, which also has the benefit of not attracting the enemy's attention via lasing.

Lahat is fundamentally not a good idea for engaging modern tanks, and the 105mm dia isn't doing it any favors either.

AGM 65 is a big fucking ASM. Theres very little you can do against a 300lb SAP warhead (though the single shaped charge variant is low energy and sad). Mav is not however an efficient weapon, as it's fucking huge. For reference, it's slated to be replaced by triple JAGM racks. Hell at this point why not talk about 500lb AP bombs, if you want to full retard on tank busting?

Bottom line is that it's not a good idea.

 

Also your SNR is terrible, please learn to post:

 

3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

rather than more effective ceramic armor plates.

Could be both, foamed metal is a more weight-efficient backing material relative to RHA for ceramic armor systems. 

Size, weight, power, cost, and integration (including arcs of fire and masking of other systems) are all important considerations, and often conflict. If it were a simple matter they'd be done by now.

1 minute ago, Karamazov said:

For example LAHAT

Laser homing, low energy and sad 105mm caliber, and inferior in every way to the Spike family. Literally why would you use that missile, and more to the point why would you saddle a tank with one and what round would you replace in the rack to make room for it?

2 hours ago, Ronny said:

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?

1. Take a closer look at hit tanks. When ERA goes off the entire tile goes and usually its neighbors too, leaving a large exposed zone. with NERA the damage is far more localized.

2. The Russian ones were retired and the Ukrainian one isn't in service. The Peace dividend hit the West hard, because it isn't easy to do and even with money it takes time. Only one country has seen AT weaponry as a major threat in the past decade.

3. ATGMs do not fly further, unless you're talking about ATGMs like Spike NLOS, which don't fit in tank guns. Also read what I wrote the first time about effective engagement range.

If you take a look at ATGM footage from Syria you'll see that SACLOS or beam riding ATGMs bounce a lot in flight so you cant aim them at weak spots.

Most tanks since 1982 or so have been destroyed by missiles, because all battles were curbstomps, and missiles are common as dirt. Tank on tank engagement has been rare, but where it has happened, since the dawn of time, KE ammo has been the primary choice and the most effective one.

None of that makes it a good idea to shoot a missile out of a tank gun.

4. I too have seen the Field Artillery Journal. A more critical look at the damage shows damage no worse than would be caused by an AT mine on side hits, and damage no worse than is caused by a full size ATGM on frontal hits. 152/155 HE isn't all you seem to think it is.

5. Non initiating precursor, a precursor thats good enough to set off both laters before the main charge, sacrificial tips... There are a lot of options.

 

1 hour ago, Ronny said:

How about the chains armor? 

Exactly the same.

1 hour ago, Ronny said:

the skirt on Nazi tank is so so so thin??

The skirt destabilizes the AP round, which then tumbles and is stopped by base armor plates it would otherwise go through.

Regarding the meme wedges, from the Swedish tank trials (the source is currently AWOL but theres a lot of snippets around and it appears to be 100% legit).

You might want to cut down on all the new threads and search the forum for the answers to your questions, cause theyre really pretty straightforward.

But for the short answers:

1. Multihit ability

2. APS is hard to do and the peace dividend hit harder.

3. ATGMs are expensive, ineffective from tank guns, slow, and KE reaches and kills far more reliably as far as you can actually see targets so why bother.

4. Many tanks can survive a 152mm hit on the hull front or the turret cheeks, weak points excluded. PD hits on the skirts are also not going to do nuch more than break the track.

5. Leo. For a start it isn't a Kharkovite creation; secondly- Duplet isn't the be all and end all of armor, and it really isn't immune to advanced weaponry trickery.

6 minutes ago, Ronny said:

PzKpfw IV and Leopard 2A5 onward

KE.

Specifically the skirts on Nazi tanks were there to counter the Soviet 14.5mm, and the meme wedges on the Leo are NERA reportedly mostly optimized for breaking LRPs.

24 minutes ago, Ronny said:

I thought the purpose of the cage and chain armor is to detonate HEAT warhead early

Nope. The cage neutralizes the piezo fuze of RPGs by shorting the inner cone and the outer cone (vua crushing the outer inwards). Missiles with full width fuzes will detonate, and while the jet may suffer a bit from the increased standoff it's still gonna function.

For example, the OG TOW warhead, which as you can see has a full width crush fuze. And has terrible built in standoff, so a cage would likely improve its performance.