Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I recently acquired a copy of this book:

Spoiler

unknown.png

 

There's some interesting things in there, specifically:

Spoiler

unknown.png

unknown.png

Apologies for the poor translation.

unknown.png

unknown.png

I really wish there was a better way to translat this....

unknown.png

So, according to tests, M833 ~ M413(DM33) -> 500mm RHA at unknown angle and 2000m (65-68°?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, VPZ said:

All APS have at least two launchers. So, using two missiles against tank with APS is ineffective and maybe just a propaganda trick.

Trophy have 1 launcher per side. Zaslon have 1 per side, some for few other APS. Firing 2 real missiles make some sense, main thing is timing.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

Trophy have 1 launcher per side. Zaslon have 1 per side, some for few other APS. Firing 2 real missiles make some sense, main thing is timing.

 

In only some cases, mainly when you can flank a vehicle. But the Trophy's slew-to-cue capability, which is a capability that is quite common among other types of APS and not exclusive to the Trophy, makes this scenario quite unlikely. 

A new capability needs to characterize an anti-APS setup for proper defeat of Trophy - a mechanism to launch nearly simultaneously up to 4 munitions, and for all munitions to fly a different path plus be completely independent of external guidance. 

The latter case is particularly important because a slew-to-cue means that the tank is likely to return fire before the ATGMs reach it, due to the relative speed of a tank's munition compared with an ATGM. 

 

Simply put, none yet has a weapon that can defeat all types of APS. The Afganit and GL-5 can be defeated most easily, followed by Zaslon. But on Russia's side, there's no weapon that can effectively defeat a western APS. I'm talking about non-MBT-equipped weapons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

Trophy have 1 launcher per side.

 

It's almost impossible to shoot a tank from the side using a vehicle based ATGM.

 

19 hours ago, Lord_James said:

What is it? 

 

A commander's sight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:

So something like an LRAS3 repkacing the commanders sight?

I don’t know what is that exactly but it’s clearly not a TC sight :

- Tsahal is used to use its tanks as FO. Which is a very good point. Remember the former Atlas kit with its large binoculars. 

- this tank is not marked like belonging to a cavalry regiment ;

- and at last : if this a new TC sight why is it lonesome ? Why can’t we see a full squadron fitted with ? How can REME maintain in the field one isolated sight among a fleet of a standardised sight ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Serge said:

Not exactly. 

 

No, it's certainly commander's sight.

 

1353555344-1462178.jpg

 

1 hour ago, LoooSeR said:

When RPG-30 became vehicle born? Kornet is not exactly vehicle-only ATGM either.

 

We were talking about ATGMs with several launchers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Serge said:

The question is : why such a large sight ?

So, it’s not a basic tank. 

Experimental units also partake in combat duty. It's actually important that they do, to test out their new equipment. 

Such experimental units can either be specialized units dealing only in experimentation and testing of new equipment, or regular units given the task of testing new gear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Experimental units also partake in combat duty. It's actually important that they do, to test out their new equipment. 

Such experimental units can either be specialized units dealing only in experimentation and testing of new equipment, or regular units given the task of testing new gear.

I know this theory. 

But are the FO still not under armor ? How are- they working now ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Serge said:

I know this theory. 

But are the FO still not under armor ? How are- they working now ?

Regularly, course correction would be done by the Raz radar, aka EL/M-2084. 

Observation on the ground is done by artillery officers, who I know exist in the infantry corps, but not in the armored corps.

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...