Ronny

6 hours ago, Militarysta said:

Hehj I had the same discusion whit John Lipiecki.

 

1- BROACH and MEPHISTO warhed are able to go trought Iowa armour. Precursor is not typical HEAT bud mid form between EFP and HEAT - slow streahing jet. It will penetrate more armour then it's diameter but making guite big hole in armour. Second and main charge should went trought hole. And it's mean catastropihc kill for top turret any battleship...

2- due to ability to form blast wave in propper way

3 - doubt

But Soviet Ch-22N and P500-P700 had quite tricky warhed whit both - HEAT and blast warhed.And dimension was close to Mistele from IIWW...

1- Do you have any additional documents about BROACH warhead?
2- But how can it form blast wave in one direction only? 

6 hours ago, N-L-M said:

.

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.

 

 

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 

5 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

1. NERA and ERA don't exactly operate in similar manner, there are different ERA types. 

2. What kind of APS Ukraine have? Russia don't have APS on any vehicle in service.

3. Reference threats. T-72Bs don't really NEED an expensive ATGMs in the roof to be destroyed. 120 mm guns with modern shells are more than enough.

4. Artillery shells in tank front are pretty random in their effect, it depends on exact hit placement and tank layout/design features in that place. Roof hit on the other hand is almost sure to do something noticeably bad for vehicle.

5. Is Duplet some sort of super ERA that needs super weapons to be penetrated?

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:

Quote

NERA usually consists of two metal (steel, aluminium or titanium) layers with a confined/compressed layer of an elastic material such as rubber sandwiched inbetween. Upon impact, the rubber will expand and the armor will bulge. This is highly effective against shaped charge jets, which are used on rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) and anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs). The bulging moves more material into the path of penetration and has a disruptive effect, which will weaken the shaped charge jet.

Source: Puma IFV armor and upgrade speculations

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

8 hours ago, N-L-M said:

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.

How about the chains armor? 

7 hours ago, N-L-M said:

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.

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?

18 minutes ago, N-L-M said:

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.

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

On 8/24/2016 at 9:57 PM, Bronezhilet said:

Spaced armour is hugely effective vs HEAT warheads.

 

It totally isn't and the higher stand-off caused by the spaced armour can actually cause the HEAT warhead to penetrate more than it would without the spaced armour.

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 ?

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? 

26 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

 

 

   In case of cages situation is not too different for ATGMs. RPGs that counter cages exists for long time - for example late Soviet RPGs (forgot which model exactly got it first) have inertial fuze that actives in moment when rocket is slowed down by obsticle, negotiating effect of cage armor (catching RPG round with nose fuze not touching anything and leaving RPG unexploded, happens in ~50% chance IIRC).

 

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?

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?

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 

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

F-35 at VHF frequency:

Hypersonic for future F-35