Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Locked
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Austin »

One of the technological options available these days is you have missile being fired from smoothbore MG right now its designated by laser and are high subsonic , its just a matter of time we will see supersonic missile or even F&F missile or a combination of both ( depending on threat how cost effective it will be to use a true F&F with MMW seeker ATGM will cost a bomb compared to simple laser designed ones )

So if some one needs long range to hit a bunker etc the missile can out range them accurately than any Rifled bore with HESH round .
arnab
BRFite
Posts: 1136
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by arnab »

Austin wrote:One of the technological options available these days is you have missile being fired from smoothbore MG right now its designated by laser and are high subsonic , its just a matter of time we will see supersonic missile or even F&F missile or a combination of both ( depending on threat how cost effective it will be to use a true F&F with MMW seeker ATGM will cost a bomb compared to simple laser designed ones )

So if some one needs long range to hit a bunker etc the missile can out range them accurately than any Rifled bore with HESH round .
Haven't the Arjuns already demonstrated missile firing capability with LAHAT?
Tanveer
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 7
Joined: 29 Apr 2010 10:29

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Tanveer »

Hi,
I read some people "demanding" APS for Arjun. I do not like that idea.
APS is useful when you are going to use the tank in urban warfare. APS is also useful when you tank does not have GOOD primary armor.
Now Israel use their tank in urban warfare and Russians T 90 is 45 odd ton tank meaning its primary armor is week so then have ERA and APS to compensate for that.
Arjun is a western-classical tank to be used in war against tanks. it needs neither ERA nor APS.
In fact I was shocked when DRDO official said they are planning ERA for Arjun.To me ERA is suited for tank which are not designed for protection like T90/72 and Al-Khalid.
Look at the Abrams, the Leos, the Challengers... they do not have ERA or APS.
All Arjun needs to improve is its soft skills - better optornics, networking with other tanks and other infrastructure, ability to engage enemy attack helicopter etc.

Tanveer
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Austin »

arnab wrote:Haven't the Arjuns already demonstrated missile firing capability with LAHAT?
d_berwal mentioned that it has been fired but not yet been fully qualified for Arjun.

One of the Russian research paper of 80's on Tank Ammo was talking about Ramjet based ATGM fired from MG , not sure if they pursued it.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Austin »

Tanveer the Russian approach of a 3 way Armoured protection is more effective and modular compared to Western approach of one big heavy composite Armour as that allows little flexibility and may not match up to new threats during its life time , or addition of ERA and APS will add more weight to already heavy tank.

In a 3 way approach you can constantly improved on ERA and APS through out its life to take care of emerging threats while the main tank armour remains constant , it also allows you to do away with ERA , APS in a low threat environment and use is when required.

As per Ajai the current ERA on Arjun is needed to deal with modern tandem shaped-charge warhead which the basic armour of Arjun cannot handle.
chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by chackojoseph »

When Lahat was demonstrated on Arjun, the designator was kept outside. All other parameters were followed. In Mk II, the designator will be integrated inside of Arjun. There was no adverse outcome of it being fired from rifled gun.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Viv S »

Austin wrote:Tanveer the Russian approach of a 3 way Armoured protection is more effective and modular compared to Western approach of one big heavy composite Armour as that allows little flexibility and may not match up to new threats during its life time , or addition of ERA and APS will add more weight to already heavy tank.
Its actually the Russian approach that constrained by having less effective organic armor in the first place. Even with ERA its less protected than its western equivalents, particularly the Challenger 2, Leopard 2 and Abrams. Western tanks still have the option of slapping on ERA and/or APS. Higher weight yes, but that's a less critical disadvantage.
In a 3 way approach you can constantly improved on ERA and APS through out its life to take care of emerging threats while the main tank armour remains constant , it also allows you to do away with ERA , APS in a low threat environment and use is when required.
With western tanks, you can slap on ERA(putting that through iterative upgrades as well) and upgrade the engine, retaining an overall advantage in protection. BTW can the T-90's ERA be removed in the field?
As per Ajai the current ERA on Arjun is needed to deal with modern tandem shaped-charge warhead which the basic armour of Arjun cannot handle.
Surprising, considering the fact that the tandem shaped-charge warhead was designed to defeat ERA.
vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by vina »

Viv S wrote:Surprising, considering the fact that the tandem shaped-charge warhead was designed to defeat ERA.
Yup. Thats right. ERA is meant primarily for HEAT rounds. (though Russian fan boys claim that Kaktus/Kontakt etc work against KE rounds as well.. dunno how, KE rounds would have penetrated by the time the ERA has reacted ).
So if some one needs long range to hit a bunker etc the missile can out range them accurately than any Rifled bore with HESH round
Lets have some perspective here. A missile especially a guided one is probably 100 to 1000 times the cost of a HESH /HE shell. So you can have only a limited ones and that perforce will be for high value targets like armor.

If you play things well, you probably get "near" missile like ranges from conventional tank gun . At 900m/s muzzle velocity the range for a shell will be around 8.2 kms or so, which is practically what the Invar type missile on the T90 can do as well (but will carry a much smaller warhead than a conventional shell I think) . So you can fire a lot lot more of them for the same cost. All you need is to invest in development of such rounds for the Arjun. That is a chicken and egg story there. You will develop those rounds only if the Arjun is fielded in numbers and the Army can turn around and say, that we will take the "fully capable" Arjun only if we have all rounds .That is where the Govt needs to step in and knock a couple heads together. :P
sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1976
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by sudeepj »

Austin wrote: So if some one needs long range to hit a bunker etc the missile can out range them accurately than any Rifled bore with HESH round .
What would be the relative cost of a say an el cheapo laser designated missile as compared to a hesh round?

Which would reach the target sooner, Hesh or a missile?
chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by chackojoseph »

Missile / HESH options will be utilised as required. There are no pure strategies. Arjun rifled Gun can fire more type of ammo compared to a smooth bore, which is what a tank commander would seek.

It also gives the tanker the choice of optimization of ammo before he sets of.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Sanku »

arnab wrote:
Sanku wrote:>>
With a rifled gun , you lose out a wee bit only in APFSDS performance but keep the full advantage of firing all other kinds of rounds. I think the DRDO made the right choice with sticking to the rifled gun for Arjun.


DRDO eh?
:lol:

So when you want to beat on the GSQRs (for whatever reason the mood of the day is) its all IA
When you want to give a thumbs up its for DRDO
:rotfl:
So do you admit that your 'arguments' about revisiting smoothbores because IA GSQRs were 20 years old were basically a red herring?
Your usual style eh, taking things out of context and making a thorough mash of it.

The Arjun has a smooth bore because of IAs GSQR (which in turn are influenced by what Arjun was planned for) -- with time it has changed.

What I found amusing was Vina's penchant of thinking "if good in Arjun means DRDO if bad in Arjun means IA" type of logic

I thought it should be obvious, but no matter, no problem I can always provide clarification.
What is your source that smoothbores are more accurate for HESH rounds (what am I thinking :eek: !!)?
When did I say smooth bores are more accurate for HESH rounds?

I know that you sometimes display extraordinary skills in matter of interpreting basic statements, but this takes the cake.
IA did conduct field trials recently between a smooth bore autoloader tank (T-90) and a riflled manual loader tank (Arjun). Reports indicate that riflled performed better than smooth bores.
Give me a break. No Chaiwalla reports talk of comparing bore types and no reports carry the comparison of bores.

----------------------

This wedding of Arjun to rifled to me reflects a unnecessarily self constrained mindset, born of self doubt of serious proportions, resulting in unnecessary aggression to all and sundry.

I see no reason why Arjun cant move to a smooth bore if so felt better by IA. There is no Arjun == rifled (The much feted Abharms is itself a good example)
RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5620
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by RoyG »

Which tank was able to hit more targets in the latest comparative trial?

If standardization of main gun is a must then why not mate the rifled gun to the T-90? The T-90 could benefit from a Sabra type upgrade incorporating more tech from Arjun.

Has the army expressed its dissatisfaction with the rifled gun of the Arjun?

Has the gun demonstrated adequate firepower and reliability?

Since the gun, ammo, & ballistic computer have been developed in-house, upgrade potential should be quite good no?
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Kanson »

Tanveer wrote:
Arjun is a western-classical tank to be used in war against tanks. it needs neither ERA nor APS.
In fact I was shocked when DRDO official said they are planning ERA for Arjun.To me ERA is suited for tank which are not designed for protection like T90/72 and Al-Khalid.
Look at the Abrams, the Leos, the Challengers... they do not have ERA or APS.
All Arjun needs to improve is its soft skills - better optornics, networking with other tanks and other infrastructure, ability to engage enemy attack helicopter etc.

Tanveer
hmm...you got to better tell that to IA. You see, if i offer you a beautiful sedan with realistically powerful engine having a mileage of 30 :P, will you still not look for things like walnut dashboard, leather upholstery, atmospheric control unit, ABS etc.

You may not believe this.. somtimes, even the criteria of staying modern influences the decision of insisting ERA like modern stuff on tanks. Even those IA chaps are cut from same society we are living in.
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Kanson »

Sanku wrote:
vina wrote: With a rifled gun , you lose out a wee bit only in APFSDS performance but keep the full advantage of firing all other kinds of rounds. I think the DRDO made the right choice with sticking to the rifled gun for Arjun.
DRDO eh?
:lol:

So when you want to beat on the GSQRs (for whatever reason the mood of the day is) its all IA
When you want to give a thumbs up its for DRDO
:rotfl:
When IA not owning the project and DRDO manning the driver seat of the project, it will be natural to use the word DRDO. After all it is the DRDO's decision to introduce LAHAT in the Arjun, right ? There is no GSQR. So it wont be wrong in saying, instead of moving to SB gun in providing added missile firing capability to Arjun, DRDO made the right choice in sticking with the rifled gun. I think it is natural for anyone comming with that statement.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Sanku »

RoyG wrote:Which tank was able to hit more targets in the latest comparative trial?
That is irrelevant to the discussion, since we are not talking of the tank here, just the canon (not the FCS, the stabilization etc etc)
If standardization of main gun is a must then why not mate the rifled gun to the T-90?
The world has standardized on smooth bores. While HESH may be useful, 99.9% of all Tank doctrines and all tanks in the world dont find it necessary to use rifled.

When standardizing, you move towards a existing standard is available.
The T-90 could benefit from a Sabra type upgrade incorporating more tech from Arjun.
Certainly there is nothing which says technology cant go both ways. Just that replacing canons may not be the right infusion in T 90.

But yes, a ultramodern 120/125 mm Indian gun with a new auto loader for T 90 and no auto loader for Arjun (T 90 has no space for 4th crew)

Yummy (we may actually be designing the FMBT as we speak :wink: )
Has the army expressed its dissatisfaction with the rifled gun of the Arjun?
No it has not, as I have been at pains to point out, I am as far as I know the first person to express this wish for Arjun Mk II.
Has the gun demonstrated adequate firepower and reliability?
Can adequate firepower and reliablity not be had with more advantages which come with smooth bore.\
Since the gun, ammo, & ballistic computer have been developed in-house, upgrade potential should be quite good no?
That should be true for all guns in Indian service, or should be made true. Ideally we should not need any other countries need for FMBT, as well as T 90 changes in future if needed.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Sanku »

Kanson wrote: When IA not owning the project and DRDO manning the driver seat of the project, it will be natural to use the word DRDO.
When it comes to delays "its all because of IA GSQR what to do they drive the requirements onleee" :lol: , I am well aware of this penchant of deciding owners based on what is the context of discussion.

In this very thread you have comments like "IA wants HESH round what to do?"

So spare us this magically moving attribution of properties of Arjun.
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Kanson »

Sanku wrote:
Kanson wrote: When IA not owning the project and DRDO manning the driver seat of the project, it will be natural to use the word DRDO.
When it comes to delays "its all because of IA GSQR what to do they drive the requirements onleee" :lol: , I am well aware of this penchant of deciding owners based on what is the context of discussion.

In this very thread you have comments like "IA wants HESH round what to do?"

So spare us this magically moving attribution of properties of Arjun.
You are getting it wrong again. It is not because of IA GSQR but changing the GSQR very frequently is considered as problem. Is it not the IA insisted for the HESH round ? It will be good if you could spare us with your attribution.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Sanku »

Kanson wrote:...
You know I find all these interpretations boring.

Straight question?--

Do you have any open source links to show that IA did not want HESH and it was DRDOs decision, and IA did not ask for Gun fired missiles and it was DRDO's decision?
Thomas_S
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 14
Joined: 06 May 2010 23:15

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Thomas_S »

Sanku wrote:
RoyG wrote:Which tank was able to hit more targets in the latest comparative trial?
That is irrelevant to the discussion, since we are not talking of the tank here, just the canon (not the FCS, the stabilization etc etc)
So you think FCS and Stabilization in Arjun Tank was better than than T-90 although this is irrelevant to the discussion ?
Thomas_S
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 14
Joined: 06 May 2010 23:15

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Thomas_S »

If standardization of main gun is a must then why not mate the rifled gun to the T-90?
The world has standardized on smooth bores. While HESH may be useful, 99.9% of all Tank doctrines and all tanks in the world dont find it necessary to use rifled.

When standardizing, you move towards a existing standard is available.
Hmmmm...the world has moved towards single hull nuclear submarines...does it mean single hull is better than double hull?

Most of the world is using windows PC....does it mean its better than unix? :-o
RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5620
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by RoyG »

Sanku wrote:
RoyG wrote:Which tank was able to hit more targets in the latest comparative trial?
That is irrelevant to the discussion, since we are not talking of the tank here, just the canon (not the FCS, the stabilization etc etc)

uh k. I was just highlighting the fact that the gun did its job in helping deliver munitions to their targets more accurately than the T-90. Ofcourse, this couldn't have been done with out the FCS, stabilization etc etc.
If standardization of main gun is a must then why not mate the rifled gun to the T-90?
The world has standardized on smooth bores. While HESH may be useful, 99.9% of all Tank doctrines and all tanks in the world dont find it necessary to use rifled.

When standardizing, you move towards a existing standard is available.

The rifled gun is designed to fire a variety of munitions including HESH, APFSDS, and anti tank missile. It's muzzle velocity and reliability are comparable to guns of western tanks. Is it safe to say then that it fits 100% of all tank doctrines?
The T-90 could benefit from a Sabra type upgrade incorporating more tech from Arjun.
Certainly there is nothing which says technology cant go both ways. Just that replacing canons may not be the right infusion in T 90.

But yes, a ultramodern 120/125 mm Indian gun with a new auto loader for T 90 and no auto loader for Arjun (T 90 has no space for 4th crew)

Yummy (we may actually be designing the FMBT as we speak :wink: )

Why shouldn't we replace the cannon on the T-90? Coupled with necessary support systems which can also be borrowed from Arjun, the gun will be able to deliver munitions more accurately and reliably. Moreover, it will help standardization. I still don't quite understand this FMBT business. Is it supposed to be the Arjun MKII or something else?
Has the army expressed its dissatisfaction with the rifled gun of the Arjun?
No it has not, as I have been at pains to point out, I am as far as I know the first person to express this wish for Arjun Mk II.

I respect your position.
Has the gun demonstrated adequate firepower and reliability?
Can adequate firepower and reliablity not be had with more advantages which come with smooth bore.\

What sort of advantages? What can the smoothbore do that the rifled cant?
Since the gun, ammo, & ballistic computer have been developed in-house, upgrade potential should be quite good no?
That should be true for all guns in Indian service, or should be made true. Ideally we should not need any other countries need for FMBT, as well as T 90 changes in future if needed.

I agree.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Singha »

would the spaced out wedge shaped famous plates of the Leo2A5+ have the same effect of protection from tandem warheads as ERA modules?

so far only israel seems to to have beefed up top attack protection of merkava4 to equivalent of 12" steel and extra thick
bottom protection from AT mines. but with top attack munitions proliferating, maybe extra add on armour will be needed on top atleast.

all these points to need for a more modern 1500hp power plant. if we buy american for MRCA and become a kept-munna, perhaps
the diesel engine used in merkava is an option.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Austin »

Talk about Merkava4 did the Israel encountered tandem shaped charge warhead in recent conflict ?

I am really keen to understand amongst the claim and counter-claims of Tank Designer versus Missile wala on how 3gen F&F ATGM with Tandem shaped charged Warhead like Nag would work against ERA+Heavy armored Western Tank.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Singha »

isnt the Kornet (nag type heavy ATGM) having tandem shaped charge? the hezbollah managed to knock out some merkavas using this weapon. not sure what vintage of merkava and what angles because merkava3 is also in service and kornet is probably among the top3 heavy ATGMs going around.

saddam fidayeen mounted on pickup trucks also attacked USMC forces in the tigris/euphrates valley during OIF, but I believe they were mostly defeated by 20mm/HMG cannon fire and cobra gunships before they could unleash much damage. but said to have fought very bravely.

but SACLOS guidance needs continuous illumination. its not F&F like Nag.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M133_Kornet
Combat history

During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Kornets were rumoured to have been used by Iraqi forces to disable American M1 Abrams tanks. GlobalSecurity.org claims that at least two M1 Abrams tanks and one M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle were disabled by Kornets.[10]

The first verified episode of Kornet ATGM in combat use occurred during the 2006 Lebanon War, where the missiles, reportedly supplied by Syria, were successfully used by Hezbollah fighters to destroy and damage Israeli Merkava tanks[11]. One of the first detailed accounts of IDF's successful capture of Kornet ATGMs on Hezbollah positions in the village of Ghandouriyeh appeared in the Daily Telegraph article, which also reported that the boxes were marked with "Customer: Ministry of Defense of Syria. Supplier: KBP, Tula, Russia."[12] Several months after the cease-fire, reports have provided sufficient photographic evidence that Kornet ATGMs were indeed both in possession of, and used by, Hezbollah in this area.[13][14]

---
http://defense-update.com/analysis/lebanon_war_4.htm

http://www.jamestown.org/programs/gta/s ... no_cache=1

moral of story seems to be if tanks move slow and ponderously giving defenders a chance to plan ambushes and fire RPG29/Metis/Kornet most
likely they will be able to target the rear, side hull and top of the tank and achieve a solid hit. this is a lesson well learnt by the americans - those
big M1 tank regiments surely need downtime and fuel supply stops but the desert didnt hold the golan heights type cover and there was 24x7
airforce and artillery bubbles in iraq. in a more favourable terrain like serbia they could have faced heavier losses if going in.
sivabala
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 83
Joined: 01 Dec 2008 10:55

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by sivabala »

Somebody posted a message in some forum I cant recollect. all those penetrations of Merkava IV during 2006 war happened only through the rear door of Merkava IV, which is its unique feature not present in any other tanks. So relatively other tanks are safe from rear.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Viv S »

Singha wrote:would the spaced out wedge shaped famous plates of the Leo2A5+ have the same effect of protection from tandem warheads as ERA modules?
Tandem warheads are designed to defeat ERA. The A5 will have far better protection against both shaped charges and KE penetrators.
all these points to need for a more modern 1500hp power plant. if we buy american for MRCA and become a kept-munna, perhaps
the diesel engine used in merkava is an option.
The Merkava uses a license manufactured German MTU powerpack. Which means the very same 1500hp version(perhaps modified) is very likely to be on the Arjun MkII.
vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by vina »

The Merkava uses a license manufactured German MTU powerpack.
Harrumph.. German engine license produced in USA, German main gun , Armor from USA..

Mera Joota Hai Japani, Patloon Ignlistani, Sar Pe Lal Topi Roosi, Phir Bhi Dil Hai Isrealistani.

The Merkava is NOT indigenous/ Isreali. Only if the Isrealis license any Tin Can serious and license produce it at home it becomes indigenous. Dont you know how the Arjun is NOT Indian, the Tejas is NOT India, but somehow the Gripen is now currently Swedish, but will become "Indian" if license produced in India!
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Austin »

Singha wrote:isnt the Kornet (nag type heavy ATGM) having tandem shaped charge? the hezbollah managed to knock out some merkavas using this weapon. not sure what vintage of merkava and what angles because merkava3 is also in service and kornet is probably among the top3 heavy ATGMs going around.
Yes indeed Kornet is an heavy ATGM ( not as heavy as Nag ) but Nag has this Top Attack capability which Kornet lacks plus has a slighly heavier warhead 8 kg.

But the point is if tandem shape charge + F&F Top Attack can do the damage then its a very cost effective assymetirc response against any modern tank.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Singha »

> German engine license produced in USA

I think its produced in USA not germany because its paid for from the annual $5b arms aid. it can onlee be used to buy american products obviously, so american jobs are created and money retained within the country to a great extent. these are basically direct subsidies to local jobs/arms industry while also helping out the foreign ally - vendor financing.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Sanku »

RoyG wrote:Questions etc....
RoyG, please do go back and look at my exact posts on the issue of smooth bores.

I am requesting that since you will find that the questions that you have raised, I have already attempted to answer back there, many times.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Singha »

I found some links on urban warfare changes/upgrades to MBts that people have been trying out.

france - http://www.defense-update.com/events/20 ... 6-azur.htm
germany http://www.defense-update.com/products/ ... rd-PSO.htm
israel http://www.defense-update.com/features/ ... erkava.htm
USA http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/i ... USK_lg.jpg

common features seem to be:
- remotely operated HMG to replace commanders main gun, enabling crew to safely engage from within, in all conditions
and high angles (firing at buildings nearby)
- improved all round telescopes/cameras
- side armour (era, tiles or slats)
- rear slat armour
- extra protection for external EO devices
- sealing of all openings through which hostile crowds might pour molotovs etc
- better C3I systems to coordinate with infantry and other vehicles in patrol
- israel has the APAM round(massive shotgun type shell) and a sniper's porthole in the infantry compartment to
target anyone trying to sneak up behind the tank
- M1 has added a anti-sniper station with thermals and anti-material rifle for the loader

so people are learning and adapting, since engaging the urban islamist guerilla is likely in every war the west engages in over next
few decades :lol: and HHTI, good scopes and RPG29s are selling for cheap even before PRC enters the market with cheap clones.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Philip »

If a column of tanks are being atttacked from the air,then they are in dire straits,as helo/aircraft munitions,ATMs,rockets,etc.,will be able to destroy them very easily.Bombs carrying bomblets dropped from aircraft,meant to saturate a large area will be top attack or even simply destroy tank tracks and make them sitting ducks.Thus fare in recent as we've seen precious little of this,barring the destruction of Iraqi columns fleeing towards Baghdad on the highway of death in GW1.The Iraqis had no air cover at all and thus it was a duck shoot.Modern ERA offers perhaps the best protection,excluding passive and active defences.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Austin »

Urban Warfare is not something I think we should be worried about , I dont expect IA to force itself through each building across Pindi and fight it out.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Austin »

Hermes Supersonic ATGM with F&F

Image
"The system is designed to destroy tanks, armored personnel carriers, long-term firing points bunker and bunker-type, low-altitude low-speed air targets, surface targets and enemy personnel in shelters for more than 15 kilometers." Attack "is designed to engage targets at a distance 6.8 kilometers, "- said Savenkov.

According to him, a set of Hermes can be placed on helicopters, airplanes, ships, and work on the ground. "We are planning to hold next year, its flight tests, and in 2011-2012 to run this complex series production for the Defense Ministry", - said the representative of KBP.

Primarily this complex will arm entering Air Force Mi-28N and Ka-52.

Savenkov also said that the caliber of "Hermes" is combined with Russia's newest missile-gun complexes "Pantsir S1. Therefore, in future, these complexes will also be able to have as part of its missile weapons Hermes.

PMA plans to further increase the range of complex Hermes up to 20 kilometers and more, and such work is already underway.

Savenkov also said that the supersonic guided missile "Hermes" is the inertial or radio command guidance system on a plot output in the target region and homing in the terminal phase. "That is, the operator must be on your screen to put a missile at a target, give the command to start and can fire and forget. The rest of it will make itself," - he said.
koti
BRFite
Posts: 1118
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by koti »

sivabala wrote:Somebody posted a message in some forum I cant recollect. all those penetrations of Merkava IV during 2006 war happened only through the rear door of Merkava IV, which is its unique feature not present in any other tanks. So relatively other tanks are safe from rear.
The tank is thickest on its front. All the other angles are relatively vulnerable.
The Merkava is has to fight in highly Urban areas. So the designers added the APC feature to it. It is an added vulnerabity in tank to tank or tank to AT situations but is very useful during Urban situations.
Igorr
BRFite
Posts: 697
Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Igorr »

Austin wrote:Hermes Supersonic ATGM with F&F

Image
The 'Hermes' launch suspension on Ka-52:
Image Image
In addition: the new Indian T-90S cammo. Sorry if repost:
Image
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by rohitvats »

Igorr, what is latest development in the field of Russian APFSDS?
Igorr
BRFite
Posts: 697
Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Igorr »

rohitvats wrote:Igorr, what is latest development in the field of Russian APFSDS?
No reliable information due to the secrecy of the issue. Only contradicting rumors. In general, the long rod APFSDS are developed, but needed an autoloader upgrade, while the last batches of T-90A are still without. Another rumor: the Army refused to buy the non-upgraded T-90A after 2011, so hopefully the new autoloader will enter serial production.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Austin »

Are these cammo really new ? i have seen such cammo on IA T-72's
Igorr
BRFite
Posts: 697
Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Igorr »

Austin wrote:Are these cammo really new ? i have seen such cammo on IA T-72's
Somebody said 'Tetris' :rotfl:
Locked