Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby shiv » 23 Sep 2015 13:50

Gyan wrote:The whole concept of Air Defense Guns is out dated and this role can be taken up in India by Akash missile system.

Nonsense. What do you think close in weapons systems use?

member_20453
BRFite
Posts: 613
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_20453 » 23 Sep 2015 17:20

shiv wrote:
Gyan wrote:The whole concept of Air Defense Guns is out dated and this role can be taken up in India by Akash missile system.

Nonsense. What do you think close in weapons systems use?


Indeed, Air Defence Guns are the last line of defence and we need good ones to replace old Bofors and AK130s. Skyshield is ideal. This thing can also be used against incoming glide bombs, other pgms, cruise missiles, small UAVs etc. A couple of DEFEXPOs back, the Skyshield was fitted on TATA trucks as well.

http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/4120 ... iclebg.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiMMZ8RzeIg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0oHvqIUEmY

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Gyan » 23 Sep 2015 17:23

Some how, most of the world does not think it is nonsense. Pls specify which major nation is ordering such large quantity of Air Defense Guns. For Close in Air Defense, one uses VHORADS or MANPADS missiles. In our case, as Akash is indigenous, it is cheaper to use Akash than imported VSHORADS. This deal has always been used to pimp for Reinmetal Air Defense Guns.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4400
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 23 Sep 2015 18:08

Septimus P. wrote:I also feel Sky shield should be the common Anti Air system across the board, can be fitted on trucks, armored vehicles, ships. Ideal, the system is pretty advanced and the best replacement for the Anti air guns.


FYI, Rheinmetall is blacklisted in India.

CBI to push for red corner notice against top Rheinmetall executive
In what may spell trouble for one of the leading armament corporations in the world, the CBI is moving the Interpol to issue a red corner notice against Bodo Garbe, one of the top executives and board member of Rheinmetall AG, a large defence conglomerate that has already been blacklisted by India on corruption charges.

...

RAD was one of the frontrunners to provide new anti-aircraft guns to the Army before all contracts and deals with it were frozen in 2009. It was recommended for blacklisting on allegations that the firm gave kickbacks to a former Director General Ordnance Factories.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby shiv » 23 Sep 2015 19:28

Gyan wrote:Some how, most of the world does not think it is nonsense. Pls specify which major nation is ordering such large quantity of Air Defense Guns. For Close in Air Defense, one uses VHORADS or MANPADS missiles. In our case, as Akash is indigenous, it is cheaper to use Akash than imported VSHORADS. This deal has always been used to pimp for Reinmetal Air Defense Guns.

Sir you are a rhetoric master. First you speak for "most of the world". Then you ask me to specify "major nations". I'm guessing China, Russia, Germany, Israel etc are not "major nations". Sorry - I will simply state my view.

What other nations do does not necessarily solve our problems. "Most of the world" do not face the sorts of threats that we do. Most of the world and no "major nation" (whatever you mean by that) needs to set up air defence units at 18,000 feet up in the air. And most of the world are investing in CIWS for last ditch protection against missiles and aircraft. Those are guns aren't they?

A set of Akash missiles, radar, power supply and reloads at 18,000 feet require large numbers of men to be supported and supplied, unlike AD guns. Low flying aircraft appearing over the end of a runway on a bombing run can be shot at instantly - not even requiring the lead time that some Manpads need.

It is one thing to have an opinion. It is quite another thing to assert that "The whole concept of Air Defense Guns is out dated" as if you are an expert. That is merely your opinion and it is my view that the opinion is nonsense.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7716
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby rohitvats » 24 Sep 2015 14:51

Gyan wrote:Some how, most of the world does not think it is nonsense. Pls specify which major nation is ordering such large quantity of Air Defense Guns. For Close in Air Defense, one uses VHORADS or MANPADS missiles. In our case, as Akash is indigenous, it is cheaper to use Akash than imported VSHORADS. This deal has always been used to pimp for Reinmetal Air Defense Guns.


Brilliant analysis, as usual. Maybe, you should write a white-paper with all the wisdom about air-defense at your disposal, and share it with DG, Army Air Defense (AAD). And tell them what fools they're to be 'pimping' for a gun based solution to replace L-70 in their service. When the right solution is right in front of them in form of Akash. We're doomed only!

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3812
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby hnair » 24 Sep 2015 15:04

Gyan, the AD guns has a new found utility in bringing down free-flight PGMs and powered PGMs. It is a very cheap solution, that drastically increases the cost of PGM employment. Eg: even if 50% of PGMs are neutralized, using cheap rounds, then the number of missions increase drastically. The missiles take out the PGM carriers.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Gyan » 24 Sep 2015 15:43

Nobody provided any details about other nations ordering Air Defense Gun in large nos but wrote long posts accusing me of rhetoric. Kindly provide economic analysis if you feel air defense guns are cheaper.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Gyan » 24 Sep 2015 15:43

Deleted
Last edited by Gyan on 24 Sep 2015 16:26, edited 1 time in total.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Gyan » 24 Sep 2015 16:21

hnair wrote:Gyan, the AD guns has a new found utility in bringing down free-flight PGMs and powered PGMs. It is a very cheap solution, that drastically increases the cost of PGM employment. Eg: even if 50% of PGMs are neutralized, using cheap rounds, then the number of missions increase drastically. The missiles take out the PGM carriers.


Pls provide the estimated no of Air Defense Guns required for such coverage for given area vs cost of akash system for similar area.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby shiv » 24 Sep 2015 16:23

Gyan wrote:Nobody provided any details about other nations ordering Air Defense Gun in large nos but wrote long posts accusing me of rhetoric. Kindly provide economic analysis if you feel air defense guns are cheaper.

Do you seriously think I am going to bite this? :D No need to behave so butt hurt as to demand details that you pull out of your imagination or elsewhere which you can reject and continue this pointless blather that passes for discussion.

You win. OK Indians are idiots and I am one of them we need no more air defence guns because you say so . I hope that gives you the victory and ego massage you seek so longingly. Salaam sahib.

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3812
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby hnair » 24 Sep 2015 16:34

Gyan wrote:Pls provide the estimated no of Air Defense Guns required for such coverage for given area vs cost of akash system for similar area.


I thought you were serious but unthinking, when I provided that answer about difference between vital installation/point defense vs general air defense.

Please desist from posting claptrap outside newbie threads. Consider it an informal warning for trolling.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Austin » 24 Sep 2015 17:16

Ack Ack is a cost effective way to get at targets flying at altitude 4-6 Km , Now a days with better radar and EO or a combination of both you can get very good accuracy without wasting much lead or creating a wall of lead , the 45/57 mm types also have their own sensors n intelligence so you end up using far lesser rounds , even a single bullet of say 23 mm gun on an aircraft can lead to mission kill and there are no electronic counter-measure against a bullet

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20419
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 24 Sep 2015 18:04

Looking at the T-72 upgrade for urban warfare,one point stands out.The thicker side/skirt panels (ERA?) to defeat ATGMs/RPG rounds.The same thicker ERA panels are also found on the Armata series of AVs.The series of conflicts in recent times has seen much urban asymmetrical warfare waged by foot soldiers,guerilla/terrorist entities.The Israelis took a pounding against the Hiz in the last spat in Lebanon,losing many tanks,many immobilised by tandem warheads ATGMs. The cupola reminds me of German tanks/AVs in WW2.Looked like it was stolen from a SdKfz 251 half-track!

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 999
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby shaun » 24 Sep 2015 18:36

From where you got that statistics of Israel, "loosing many tanks , many immobilized" ??? and which merkava version are you talking about ( there are 3 generations of merkavas running with IDF )

" On a comparison done by the armor corps newsletter, it was shown that the average number of crewmen killed per tank penetrated by missile/rocket was reduced from 2 during the Yom Kippur War to 1.5 during the 1982 Lebanon War to 1 during the 2006 Lebanon War proving how, even in the face of the improvement in anti-tank weaponry, the Merkava series tanks provide increasingly better protection to its crew"

we have seen enough of tin cans being fried in chechen and grozny . How putting some ERA bricks make it invulnerable to ATGMs!! Tin cans were not made to fight in urban scenarios but for open space , where it can run fast and save its arse because of its low silhouette . From the CAG report it is confirmed , that they even can't fire precisely while in the move. What they can do actually is, over whelming the enemy with sheer numbers , AOA . and what is that cupola , **** in any conflict , it will attract the 1st ATGM shot !! :rotfl:

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1854
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srin » 24 Sep 2015 18:44

Tanks haven't distinguished themselves in urban warfare. I thought that everyone learnt the lesson at Stalingrad.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby shiv » 24 Sep 2015 18:56

Austin wrote:Ack Ack is a cost effective way to get at targets flying at altitude 4-6 Km , Now a days with better radar and EO or a combination of both you can get very good accuracy without wasting much lead or creating a wall of lead , the 45/57 mm types also have their own sensors n intelligence so you end up using far lesser rounds , even a single bullet of say 23 mm gun on an aircraft can lead to mission kill and there are no electronic counter-measure against a bullet

Austin pardon the OT post but I got your messages. Many thanks.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16878
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Rahul M » 24 Sep 2015 19:09

NRao wrote:MTA?

For the SCS you need some good landing ships.

But, I do support "our MTA".

some MTA. now the c-130j is looking more and more like our MTA.

I am not talking of combat deployment only (although, if it can be done nothing like it) but simply air mobile armoured/mechanized formations.

Surya wrote:The MTA is nowhere in sight

I would first get the Wheeled APCs in and change some parts of the IA from a lorry army

this !
get a robust, cheap system with no doodads and make ALL plains infantry battalions mobile.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby shiv » 24 Sep 2015 19:11

srin wrote:Tanks haven't distinguished themselves in urban warfare. I thought that everyone learnt the lesson at Stalingrad.

More recently in Mogadishu.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18861
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 25 Sep 2015 04:21

Being sardonic? Alluding to the lack of tanks in BHD?

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Gyan » 25 Sep 2015 09:08

More than 75% cost of any Air defense system resides in Radars, EW system, C&C, transport, storage, manpower etc therefore radar Guided Air defense guns are slowly going into disuse compared to command guided missiles.

Hence imported air defense guns will turn out more costly to defend any major area compared to Akash missile system which would be cheaper.

Shells cannot change their trajectory + lose velocity, hence they are effective for only very short range 2-4 km or lesser against maneuvering targets unless they are massed, which defeats the whole purpose to have supposedly cheaper guns.

With ships, air defense guns are used as last ditch measure to defend a very small target ie a ship ie point target from attack but guns become less cost effective when one has to defend much larger target area on land ie set of installations.

I find it odd that other members are allowed to use abusive terms while I am accused of trolling, when I simply point out empirical fact that no other nation is ordering/importing such large no. of air defense guns.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Gyan » 25 Sep 2015 09:13

Austin wrote:Ack Ack is a cost effective way to get at targets flying at altitude 4-6 Km , Now a days with better radar and EO or a combination of both you can get very good accuracy without wasting much lead or creating a wall of lead , the 45/57 mm types also have their own sensors n intelligence so you end up using far lesser rounds , even a single bullet of say 23 mm gun on an aircraft can lead to mission kill and there are no electronic counter-measure against a bullet


A shell will take around 10 seconds to reach target at 6km which would moving & maneuvering at high speed.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby shiv » 25 Sep 2015 10:00


shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby shiv » 25 Sep 2015 10:02

Image
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/zsu-23-4.htm
The ZSU-23-4 has the capability to both acquire and track low-flying aircraft targets, with an effective AA range of 2,500 meters. It also is capable of firing on the move because of its integrated radar/gun stabilization system. The high frequency operation of the GUN DISH radar emits a very narrow beam that provides for excellent aircraft tracking while being difficult to detect or evade. However, such a frequency also dictates a limited range, which can be compensated for by linking the system to other long-range acquisition radar in the area. The ZSU-23-4 also can be used against lightly armored ground vehicles.

The four guns are water cooled and have a cyclic rate of fire of 800 to 1,000 rounds per minute each. However, the guns are normally fired in bursts (2-3 rounds per barrel) to reduce ammunition expenditure and prolong barrel life. Each ZSU-23-4 carries about 2,000 rounds onboard. Supply trucks, which follow the ZSUs at a distance of 1.5 to 2.5 km, carry an estimated additional 3,000 rounds for each of the four ZSUs. Electronic target acquisition, tracking, and ranging are automated, and an onboard computer determines superelevation and azimuth lead. Conventional optical sights also are available. Two types of ammunition normally are mixed at a ratio of three Frag-HE-T rounds per one API-T round. An HEI-T round also may be fired.


No SAM has a dual function capbility against ground and air targets
Last edited by shiv on 25 Sep 2015 10:11, edited 1 time in total.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20419
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 25 Sep 2015 10:09

This is from Haaretz,the Israeli newspaper.There was this Russian joke after the first Chechen conflict which I posted over a decade ago. A grandfather,veteran of the "Great Patriotic War" asks his grandson,veteran of Chechenya,what he learnt there.The answer."I learnt that tanks can fly!" No one is disputing the vulnerability of some Russian tank designs,lessons learnt the hard way,why a new series based upon the Armata concept has arrived. But Western tanks also can be disabled as I said by both old and new Russian RPG weaponry,why they themselves have added to the ERA armour on their new AVs to defeat similar weaponry.

IDF believes Hezbollah also has advanced anti-aircraft missile from Iran particularly lethal against helicopters.
Ze'ev Schiff Aug 06, 2006 12:00 AM

The majority of Israel Defense Forces ground troops casualties, both infantry and armored, were the result of special anti-tank units of Hezbollah, according to intelligence sources.

The same sources note that these units have not retreated from southern Lebanon following the deployment of large IDF ground forces in the area.

The Hezbollah anti-tank teams use a new and particularly potent version of the Russian-made RPG, the RPG-29, that has been sold by Moscow to the Syrians and then transferred to the Shi'ite organization.

Some of the IDF casualties resulted when the rockets struck homes in which IDF troops had taken positions. This was the case when four soldiers of the elite Egoz unit were killed in the village of Bint Jbail. In that case a Sagger anti-tank missile had been used.

The RPG-29's penetrating power comes from its tandem warhead, and on a number of occasions has managed to get through the massive armor of the Merkava tanks.

The IDF had intelligence information on Hezbollah plans to deploy specialized anti-tank teams in order to delay the advance of IDF ground forces. The special focus Hezbollah gave to anti-tank weapons as part of their doctrine was revealed during the raid on the border village of Ghajar in November 2005.

During that attack, Hezbollah fighters attempted to kidnap IDF soldiers, and some of the guerrillas were killed and their bodies left behind.

This was the same unit that fought in Bint Jbail and whose men were killed there.

During the battle at Ghajar, which is inside Israeli territory and has an Alawite population, Hezbollah fighters fired more than 300 anti-tank rockets of different types, including the new RPG-29, which targetted various armored vehicles and two Merkava Mark-2 tanks. One of the two tanks had the necessary armor to deflect the missiles, but the other took a hit to the body.

Following the battle at Ghajar, Israeli inquiries that Russia was transferring modern anti-tank weapons to Syria and on to Hezbollah were received with anger. The Russians demanded proof that this had been done.

Contrary to common practice, Israel transferred to Russia the tail-end of a rocket for analysis. The Russian response was that in the absence of a serial number they were hard pressed to identify it as part of a load delivered to Syria.

The IDF believes Hezbollah also has an advanced anti-aircraft missile, the SA-18, from Iran. It is particularly lethal against helicopters, and even though none of the missiles have been fired against Israel Air Force aircraft, the flights over Lebanon are taking the necessary precautions.

read more: http://www.haaretz.com/news/hezbollah-a ... n-1.194528


http://in.rbth.com/economics/2015/06/29 ... rpgs_43915
Russia’s best 3 RPGs
29 June 2015 Denis Kungurov, specially for RIR
Almost as well-known as Kalashnikov assault rifles, Russian rocket-propelled grenade launchers (RPGs) are among the best known weapons in the world. The Russian RPG raised the battle between “armour and projectile” to a new level. Outlined below are three of Russia’s most popular “tank killers”.

The Bazalt scientific-manufacturing association debuted with the Soviet RPG. It was the seventh in the series (RPG-7) which became popular in African and Asian countries, and also in Hollywood movies; cementing its place as a battlefield leader, for its reasonable quality and cost.

This grenade launcher takes the top place, despite its age and other, more powerful, descendants in the stellar cast of RPGs. The RPG-7 is of 1961 vintage. In 1968 it caused the American army a lot of problems. The projectile charge ranged from 40 to 150 mm with a rocket in the rear increasing its range from 150 to 500 meters. The warhead could pierce through 320 mm of armour.
пустым не оставлять!!

5 of Russia’s most advanced aerial defence systems

The RPG-7 is still widely used in regional conflicts, because it is inexpensive and available. More than nine million RPG-7s have been manufactured. The modern equivalent, the PG-7VP, has a tandem charge; the first acts as a decoy for the tank’s reactive armour, while the second punches through the armour.

RPG-29: The Vampire

The RPG-29 Vampire, manufactured in 1989, is also popular. Also known as ‘the Vampire’, its primary function is to breach any reactive armour and strike the target. The grenade pierces armour of up to 500 mm thickness.

The size of the launcher was raised to 1.85 meters, as a result of which the charge is capable of piercing more than 600 mm of homogenous armour. The missile’s propulsion turns on via an electrical system. The Vampire, with a 105mm head, is armed with tandem shaped and thermo-baric warheads. It is one metre long.

It is also equipped with optic sights for firing prone. This grenade launcher was a critical reason for heavy Israeli tank losses during the Second Lebanon War, with Hezbollah, in 2006.

Tel-Aviv confirmed the loss of eight Merkava tanks. The Vampire is now actively being used in Syria by both armies. The main advantage and reason for its place as second on our list, is the correlation of cost and quality. The Vampire is cheaper by a factor of ten than other, modern anti-tank rocket launching systems and hundreds of times cheaper than a tank, which this RPG can knock out of formation with a single shot.

RPG-32: Present for Jordan

The Russian designers at Bazalt sought ways to overcome reactive armour long before such armour was adopted on the battlefield. The greatest success it achieved was in 2006 when the RPG-32 ‘Hashim’ project was established with Jordan, with the joint venture JRESKO corporation.
Military
Read section:
Defence and Security

This unique project incorporated all the past successes of rocket propelled grenades and received all the latest technology from munitions to night vision. For the first time ever, it was adopted by Jordan and Russia using the same standards.

The RPG-32 has no power supply units, although it does have an electrical starting system. This function is performed by generators. The reusable system allows for the suppression of the enemy with 75 mm and 105 mm ammunition. The Hashim has an integrated system for multi-level fire using a trigger device and multi-calibre reusable cartridges. Powerful charges are not wasted when overcoming light obstacles in the form of automobiles or house walls. The shaped (105mm) charge penetrates up to 1000 mm of armour, while the 75 mm charge penetrates 500 mm of armour. It weighs 3 kg, enabling the fighter to place the RPG-32 in battle mode within seconds and conduct targeted fire from any position, including using night mode.

The Bazalt company and KADDB (King Abdullah II Design and Development Bureau) have received medals for "Quality assurance and safety" for developing the Hashim.

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 999
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby shaun » 25 Sep 2015 10:22

Gyan wrote:A shell will take around 10 seconds to reach target at 6km which would moving & maneuvering at high speed.


^^^^But high volume of fire , with trajectory prediction from onboard computer can over come such problems . Hack even the shells have a blast radius . This ack ack guns with all its virtues posted in previous posts , will keep the a/c out from its umbrella , similar to MANPADS and thus giving operational advantage to the defending forces.

Todays Air gun systems can take out , PGMs , helos and UAVs , with additional protection from ground attack a/c . When in nap of the earth ground attack mission , the main threat to attacking a/cs will from barrages of shells from these guns.

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 999
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby shaun » 25 Sep 2015 10:33

The assumption is Armata is such a great tank that if some one take just a piece from it and fit to any other less worthy tank , that tank too will become the great armata albeit in a scaled version !!

Coming down to IDF Merkava , the posts above only says, how great the Russian ATGMs and RPGs have become. We know that and have seen its affect on Tin cans . The question is how effective its against merkava vis a vis against Tin cans with all its armata modifications . Anyway Trophy is a combat ready matured system , hell it can also cue the gunner to the ATGM firing squad.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20419
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 25 Sep 2015 11:03

The Armata,etc., will have to prove itself on the battlefield,no assumptions please,but it is a revolutionary new concept with the 3-man crew inside the hull and not turret. My original point being made was that one can see thicker and deeper side armour protecting the tracks and sides of new tanks and upgrades,obviously due to recent conflict experience,where Russian RPGs took a heavy toll of MBTs/AVs,etc. While the crew may be safe inside the turret,an immobilised tank is a sitting duck on the battlefield.

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 999
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby shaun » 25 Sep 2015 11:13

you have seen one trajectory is clear , Russian design in armata going the western way , Thick armor , crew survival and active protection system which in itself is a western philosophy employed with Arjun and its verisions too. So the russians are in the learning curve while abandoning their cold war tactics.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20419
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 25 Sep 2015 11:48

CW Soviet tank doctrine was massed attacks to breach NATO defences in Germany,Hulda Gap,etc.etc. 2 MBT designs were built,a heavy tank to breach the defences and smaller lighter MBTs to race through and overwhelm the enemy. Western MBT deisgns have been heavy 4-man crewed tanks,heavy and expensive.Even these,like the Merkavas,as posted above,fell to mundane RPGs in asymmetric urban warfare in Lebanon. The Armata AVs put the crew into the hull in a heavily armored capsule,with a remotely controlled turret and other systems,not inside the turret,still the practice on Western MBTs.It is they who are now on the learning curve,not Russia!

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 999
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby shaun » 25 Sep 2015 12:45

okay sir, which heavy MBT of Russian origin you are talking about that have been mass produced? And I am not considering the various paper virtue of armata vis a vis a western MBT. I am talking about the over all design philosophy. Russian tanks are lightly armored, scant regard for crew protection compared to merkava which even have combat proven trophy on it. The ruskis trying to bridge that by armata. Now you will speak of remote controlled turret, why not remote controlled tank itself!! heard these armatas are expensive too.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20419
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 25 Sep 2015 16:46

T-64,T-80s.Seldom exported.
Xcpts:
While the T-64 was the superior tank, it was more expensive and physically complex, and was produced in smaller numbers. The T-72 is mechanically simpler and easier to service in the field, while it is not as well protected, and its manufacturing process is correspondingly simpler. In light of Soviet doctrine, the superior T-64s were kept ready and reserved for the most important mission: a potential outbreak of a war in Europe.

In Soviet times, T-64 was mostly in service with units stationed in East Germany. No T-64s were exported. Many T-64s ended up in Russian and Ukrainian service after the breakup of the Soviet Union.

From a long distance T-64, T-72 and T-80 look alike even though the T-80 is 90 cm longer than the T-64. Despite the similarities, the T-80 and T-72 are mechanically very different. The T-72 is mechanically simpler, easier to manufacture, and easier to service in the field. As such, the T-72 was intended to be a tank mass-produced to equip the bulk of the Soviet Motor Rifle units, and for sale to export partners and eastern-bloc satellite states.


The T-80U main battle tank (1985, "U" for uluchsheniye, meaning "improvement") was designed by SKB-2 in Leningrad (hull) and the Morozov Bureau (turret and armament). It is a further development of T-80A and is powered by the 1,250 hp (919 kW) GTD-1250 gas turbine. It is a step ahead of the GTD-1000T and GTD-1000TF engines that were installed on the previous tanks of the T-80 line. This gas turbine can use jet fuels as well as diesel and low-octane gasoline, has good dynamic stability, service life, and reliability. The GTD-1250 has a built-in automatic system of dust deposits removal. It retains the T-80s high fuel consumption, which the Russian army found unacceptable during the Chechen conflicts. It is equipped with the 2A46 fire control system and a new turret. The T-80U is protected by a second generation of explosive reactive armour called Kontakt-5, which can severely dissipate the penetrative capabilities of an APFSDS round, such as the M829A1 "Silver Bullet".[20] The Kontakt-5 is integrated into the design of the turret, hull, and Brod-M deep wading equipment. Like all of the previous T-80 models, the T-80U has full length rubber side skirts protecting the sides but those above the first three road wheels are armored and are provided with lifting handles. It can fire the 9M119 Refleks (AT-11 Sniper) guided missile and the Long-Rod penetrator (HVAPFSDS) 3BM46. The remotely controlled commander's machine gun is replaced by a more flexible pintle-mounted one. A special camouflage paint distorts the tank's appearance in the visible and IR wavebands. The T-80U's 1A46 fire control system includes a laser range finder, a ballistics computer, and a more advanced 1G46 gunner's main sights, as well as thermal imaging sights, which greatly increases the T-80Us firepower over previous models. These new systems, together with the 125 mm D-81TM "Rapira-3" smooth bore gun, ensures that [b]the T-80U can accurately hit and destroy targets at a range of up to 5 kilometers (ATGMs and HV/APFSDS). Experienced crew was able to successfully at the international exhibition missile to strike 52 targets without a miss at a distance of 5 km

member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_22539 » 25 Sep 2015 18:40

^Nice try, trying to pass off tincans and heavy tanks. Heavy compared to what, lighter tin cans? :rotfl:

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1603
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Thakur_B » 25 Sep 2015 19:13

Philip wrote:T-64,T-80s.Seldom exported.
Xcpts:
In light of Soviet doctrine, the superior T-64s were kept ready and reserved for the most important mission: a potential outbreak of a war in Europe.


Then what were T-72 (purchased by Russia in large numbers itself) meant to do? To feature in funny montages with benny hill soundtrack? Philip ji, no offence, bu you will go to any asinine length to defend mother Roos.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Singha » 25 Sep 2015 19:33

massed artillery, tactical airpower, nukes, T-80 and T-64 to launch the main attack and punch a few holes. they would be too attrited to exploit and would just open and hold open these points.

the T-72s were supposed to accompany the BTR/BMP horde in fast columns deep into the rear of the shattered fronts....on many fronts....those lines that failed to make progress would not be resupplied, the ones that made good progress would be supplied and re-inforced. T-72 was not supposed to go toe to toe in the initial fights but move fast later, smash up soft skinned convoys trying to approach the area, use speed to advantage.

strike deep, dislocate the transport network , disrupt attempts to reinforce the shaky areas, link up in multiple pincers.

this would set stage for (a) negotiated talks (b) continue the march toward french border if no talks

we took the T-72 and attempted to make a tier-1 MBT out of it, and that without the huge tactical airpower, artillery and VVD airborne unit support it was meant to leverage...then panicked when Abrams was tested in Sindh...panicked again when ukraine gave 300 T80s and pakis built huge stocks of TOW missiles in special M113 ATGM batallions and got cobra gunships .......

our tank strategy has been a shambles for a long long time. and continues to be. we neither have the inventory for tank vs tank brawl (mass artillery and rockets, heavy tanks) or fast moving deep battle in the rear (fully mech divs and airborne brigades)

they came up with a wishy washy cold start doctrine but publicly limited the depth of advance to 80km to not cross "redlines" as if GHQ pindi had given a affidavit signed for the same :lol:

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16504
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 25 Sep 2015 20:06

Pakis should fund the Armata, the Russians then sell it to the Pakis and have the Chinese steal it. Closed loop.

Meanwhile India should fund her own MIC.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Viv S » 25 Sep 2015 21:25

Philip wrote:CW Soviet tank doctrine was massed attacks to breach NATO defences in Germany,Hulda Gap,etc.etc. 2 MBT designs were built,a heavy tank to breach the defences and smaller lighter MBTs to race through and overwhelm the enemy.


Hmm.. it would seem the Pakistanis fielded a 'heavy tank' years before we did. To punch through the IA's defences, no doubt.

nash
BRFite
Posts: 861
Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby nash » 25 Sep 2015 22:00

NRao wrote:Pakis should fund the Armata, the Russians then sell it to the Pakis and have the Chinese steal it. Closed loop.

Meanwhile India should fund her own MIC.


From what, from american aide money, that would be epic :lol:

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7304
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby nachiket » 25 Sep 2015 22:05

Viv S wrote:Hmm.. it would seem the Pakistanis fielded a 'heavy tank' years before we did. To punch through the IA's defences, no doubt.

And tested an even heavier one. That put our pants on fire and led to the Arjun GSQR being for a large heavily protected tank that could go toe-to-toe with PA's heavies. And now it is being derided as too big and heavy as if that is DRDO's failure.

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3415
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Aditya G » 26 Sep 2015 01:33

shiv wrote:...No SAM has a dual function capbility against ground and air targets


Nitpick, but Shtil can be used in ASuW role as well.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests