Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 12 Mar 2011 11:06

I suspect 1600 T90 will be produced by 2030 at the rate which we produce tanks like say 50/annum.

key thing is how many are going to be delivered in next 10 yrs, from where (avadi or russia?) -vs- how many arjuns can sneak in.

rahulm
BRFite
Posts: 1135
Joined: 19 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rahulm » 12 Mar 2011 13:18

This stationery tank freighter snuck up suddenly upon me as my train passed it https://picasaweb.google.com/113353781365135287048/TankPictures?authkey=Gv1sRgCO-qrq2ao_a_nAE&feat=directlink. By the time I could retrieve my camera from my bag, rush to the coach door, I had no time to check camera settings which were on full manual mode. So , I just pointed my camera and hoped for the best. I could squeeze of 3 shots before the freighter faded in the distance.

The photos are about 2 hours old.

That looks like a BFAT. Judging from the muck on the track and wheels, the tanks have been put to some use in muddy terrain. Perhaps, returning from an exercise?

The freighter was hauled by a single BZA (Vijaywada) WAG-7, was in SR territory headed further south from what I could gather.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 12 Mar 2011 13:28

Nice photograph rahulm , can any one id the tank , is it T-72 or T-55 ? looks more like T-72 to me.

krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7342
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby krishnan » 12 Mar 2011 13:53

Looks battered lot, look at the damage on the right top side

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1864
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby uddu » 12 Mar 2011 15:51

Yes T-72.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7726
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 12 Mar 2011 16:20

rahulm, I'm surprised that the main gun has not been covered (the exit point). As are the IR lights on the turret. And judging from the fact that only tracks have mud on them and tanks per se are 'clean', the mud could have been from the loading point.

Can you share where exactly was this taken? Thanx.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby chackojoseph » 12 Mar 2011 17:12

^^^^ I assume the tanks are facing rear. Even if front facing, the speed of the wagons will be hardly 40 kmph. Won't hurt, tanks move faster.

rahulm
BRFite
Posts: 1135
Joined: 19 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rahulm » 12 Mar 2011 17:15

Main guns on some tanks were covered. I think every alternate main gun was covered under a tarpaulin which I think were also used by tank crews as accommodation.

The uncovered IR kit also surprised me. Photo taken southbound a few kms before Nellore.

Unless the train had an engine on both sides, in which case the wagons could have been headed northbound too, pretty sure the main gun is facing direction of travel.

I can't make out the formation sign from the photo. Perhaps, someone with good photo editing skills may have better luck.


suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3636
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby suryag » 12 Mar 2011 18:49

^^^
75 Armoured Regiment is the only Indian armoured regiment to be raised on foreign soil during the 1971 Indo-Pak war at Gadra road (now in Pakistan)on 12 March 1972, he added.

Arjun will stand up to the great heritage of this regiment

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2839
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby abhik » 12 Mar 2011 20:00

Rahul M wrote:all our adversary forces will eventually get out of the wire guided ATGM business, so that's a red herring.

But you see the Packis are still buying (or rather getting) TOWs. Also AFAIK it also cant defend against IR or MMR ATGMs.

rahulm
BRFite
Posts: 1135
Joined: 19 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rahulm » 13 Mar 2011 14:09

In the picture, has the tank expended one of its smoke grenades?

Ashutosh Malik
BRFite
Posts: 115
Joined: 07 Mar 2009 18:47

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Ashutosh Malik » 13 Mar 2011 23:56

I came across an interesting study on the 1991 Gulf War analysing results of the fight between US Amour and Iraqi Armour. I am not sure whether this has been read so I am posting the link below.

http://www.comw.org/rma/fulltext/victory.html

The title of the study is as follows

Victory Misunderstood: What the Gulf War Tells Us About the Future of Conflict

By Stephen Biddle
From International Security, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Fall 1996)

Best regards.

schowdhuri
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 15 Dec 2010 12:24

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby schowdhuri » 14 Mar 2011 08:18

rohitvats wrote:rahulm, I'm surprised that the main gun has not been covered (the exit point). As are the IR lights on the turret. And judging from the fact that only tracks have mud on them and tanks per se are 'clean', the mud could have been from the loading point.

Can you share where exactly was this taken? Thanx.


Noticed some other funny things - no ERA blocks, no HMG mount, The IR searchlight is besides the main gun & open, and the other searchlight is were the HMG should be. Even in their stables, the manin gun opening are covered - are these being retired?
Last edited by schowdhuri on 14 Mar 2011 15:26, edited 1 time in total.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1298
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby ks_sachin » 14 Mar 2011 11:42

Retirement looks like....they are quite meticulous with equipment which is not condemned......

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 14 Mar 2011 12:28

Or going to Avadi for upgrade program?

vonkabra
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 62
Joined: 09 Oct 2003 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby vonkabra » 14 Mar 2011 14:22

Ashutosh Malik wrote:I came across an interesting study on the 1991 Gulf War analysing results of the fight between US Amour and Iraqi Armour. I am not sure whether this has been read so I am posting the link below.

http://www.comw.org/rma/fulltext/victory.html

The title of the study is as follows

Victory Misunderstood: What the Gulf War Tells Us About the Future of Conflict

By Stephen Biddle
From International Security, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Fall 1996)



An interesting read which contradicts the widely held belief that the Iraqis were wiped out by air support and the coalition forces only had to walk over them. There was intense ground action and tank vs. tank combat in the 1st Gulf War wherein the Iraqi T-72s were smashed by the M1s/ Challengers. The land battle accounts are described in more detail in the book "Crusade: The Untold Story of the Persian Gulf War" by Rick Atkinson.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 14 Mar 2011 14:50

vonkabra wrote:An interesting read which contradicts the widely held belief that the Iraqis were wiped out by air support and the coalition forces only had to walk over them.


You mean to say that despite overwhelming air superiority and massive air support. Complete long range artillery domination. About 30 years of technological superiority in Armor and massive numerical advantages --

The Americans still made heavy weather of the fight with rag tag Iraqi troops?

Tcchhh. No wonder their heroic movies of this war are about friendly fire incidents.

Ashutosh Malik
BRFite
Posts: 115
Joined: 07 Mar 2009 18:47

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Ashutosh Malik » 14 Mar 2011 15:14

Sanku wrote:
vonkabra wrote:An interesting read which contradicts the widely held belief that the Iraqis were wiped out by air support and the coalition forces only had to walk over them.


You mean to say that despite --

The Americans still made heavy weather of the Iraqi troops?

Tcchhh. No wonder their heroic movies of this war are about friendly fire incidents.


But did they make heavy weather? The figures seem to suggest otherwise.

I thought there was more to learn here than this being just about Americans and their films or lack of them.

Technology and Training together made all the difference and how, according to the author, lack of either component would have made a fairly substantial difference in the scale of attacker's losses.

And, therefore how both are important for us as well.

Best regards.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 14 Mar 2011 16:17

Ashutosh Malik wrote:But did they make heavy weather?


Well that question has to be asked to those who think thus

There was intense ground action and tank vs. tank combat in the 1st Gulf War wherein the Iraqi T-72s were smashed by the M1s/ Challengers.


Ashutosh wrote:The figures seem to suggest otherwise.


Sorry Ashutosh, but what figures? Such as these?

Between 600 and 2000 surviving Iraqi tanks and 610-2100 other armored vehicles actively fought back

:roll:

With all due respects, there is not much here, all the article says (despite having no clue about what the figures really are)

is that

To account more fully for these properties of the war's conduct and results, I have argued that a nonlinear synergistic interaction between these variables caused the radical outcome of 1991. In particular, the Coalition's advanced technology made it possible to exploit Iraqi mistakes with unprecedented severity, enabling entire Republican Guard divisions to be annihilated in close combat with minimal losses.


Wow, really now? No kidding?

That really was a eye opener, especially considering that in 2011 we are discussing an article dated

From International Security, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Fall 1996)


Some times sarcasm is just plain lost, aint it?

Ashutosh Malik
BRFite
Posts: 115
Joined: 07 Mar 2009 18:47

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Ashutosh Malik » 14 Mar 2011 16:23

Alternatively, if Iraqis hadn't made the mistakes they made, maybe because of lack of training and therefore lack of skills (according to the author Iraqis did put up a fight) the scale of difference of losses wouldn't have been as lopsided.

The author in fact also gives an example of Marine divisions that were equipped mainly with 1960s-era M60A1 tanks with neither the thermal sights, 120 mm guns, DU ammunition, nor composite armor of the Army's M1A1s, and yet they also suffered miniscule losses, less than even those of the Army as per the author - so just the technology wasn't the difference.

The difference in the Technology and Skills in favour of US forces not just at 73 Easting, and the mistakes on the Iraqi side, seem to have made the compounded difference in losses possible.

Best regards.

Ashutosh Malik
BRFite
Posts: 115
Joined: 07 Mar 2009 18:47

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Ashutosh Malik » 14 Mar 2011 16:30

Sanku wrote:
Ashutosh Malik wrote:But did they make heavy weather?


Well that question has to be asked to those who think thus

There was intense ground action and tank vs. tank combat in the 1st Gulf War wherein the Iraqi T-72s were smashed by the M1s/ Challengers.


Ashutosh wrote:The figures seem to suggest otherwise.


Sorry Ashutosh, but what figures? Such as these?

Between 600 and 2000 surviving Iraqi tanks and 610-2100 other armored vehicles actively fought back

:roll:

With all due respects, there is not much here, all the article says (despite having no clue about what the figures really are)

is that

To account more fully for these properties of the war's conduct and results, I have argued that a nonlinear synergistic interaction between these variables caused the radical outcome of 1991. In particular, the Coalition's advanced technology made it possible to exploit Iraqi mistakes with unprecedented severity, enabling entire Republican Guard divisions to be annihilated in close combat with minimal losses.


Wow, really now? No kidding?

That really was a eye opener, especially considering that in 2011 we are discussing an article dated

From International Security, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Fall 1996)


Some times sarcasm is just plain lost, aint it?


Well, Sanku, since you are the expert, you must be right.

I am not an expert. I can just quote from a study that seems to be an interesting one and seems to analyse the results of the war in more than the typical "Americans/ badass/ etc. etc" balderdash. And seemed to bring out certain aspects that are relevant even if we are talking 15 years the study.

Are you also implying that there is nothing to learn from previous wars?

Maybe others can also throw some light on why the difference between American losses and the Iraqi losses occurred. And therefore what lessons we can learn.

As for the sarcasm, I thought you were being rather flippant about the films aspect. That of course is your choice. And I have no axe to grind either way. I don't hold either the American or the Iraqi flag - bottomline is what Indians can learn from the mistakes others made.

Best regards.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 14 Mar 2011 16:36

Ashutosh Malik wrote:Alternatively, if Iraqis hadn't made the mistakes they made, maybe because of lack of training and therefore lack of skills (according to the author Iraqis did put up a fight) the scale of difference of losses wouldn't have been as lopsided.


First of all IMVHO there is no merit what so ever in discussing a 1996 article, since everything that has to be discussed has been discussed. However since this pointless discussion is better than the other pointless discussion which normally happens on this thread, let me play along for a while.

Now, lets be clear here, the Iraqi's were hopeless outmatched in every possible way, Numerically, in the range of forces arrayed against them. training and technical level of weapons, this much the article agrees with.

Thus the outcome was a open and shut case in a frontal fight, post this, there remains very little learning, rather than stating the obvious in fanciful words. The conclusion can be summed up in one line, "The whole range of advantages that the US led forces enjoyed combined well with each other and gave poor untrained Iraqi's a walloping" -- i.e. the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

I mean now, did they have to write so much to point that out? Even in 1996.

IMVHO the article also aims to achieve some amount of special behavior or heroism in this hopelessly obviously one sided battle and to show that it wasnt because the Iraqi's ran away, it quotes such solid numbers as

Between 600 and 2000 surviving Iraqi tanks and 610-2100 other armored vehicles actively fought back


Not a very compelling exactness of odds wont you think?

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 14 Mar 2011 16:40

Ashutosh Malik wrote:
Are you also implying that there is nothing to learn from previous wars?


Certainly not, that part is addressed in the post above.

However do note that I am just a rookie, albiet just that I am wary of the US articles restating in words how "we won because we fought well and not because it would be a miracle to lose in such situation"

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 14 Mar 2011 16:43

***Deleted Relink it later***
Last edited by Austin on 14 Mar 2011 22:37, edited 2 times in total.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8218
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 14 Mar 2011 20:11

Guys,

SARCASTIC MODE ON

All the articles that state the T 72 lost to the M1A1 are lies. To preserve the Khans H&D. The T 72 kicked ass with a million M1A1s destroyed and a billion damaged. Suffering no losses to them selves. The USAF did not destroy a single Iraqi tank or APC. The Campaign was a misirable failure.

The Iraqis did not loose the ground campaign in 100 hrs flat. They kept on fighting and killed gazallions of US army men.

SARCASTIC MODE OFF

:rotfl: :rotfl:

JMT

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 14 Mar 2011 22:10

Pratyush wrote:Guys,

TROLL MODE ON SINCE I DONT HAVE REMOTELY MEANINGFUL DATA POINT TO THE RELEVANT DISCUSSION



There!! Fixed it for you.

Enjoy.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9072
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rakesh » 15 Mar 2011 00:50


Misraji
BRFite
Posts: 401
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 11:53
Location: USA

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Misraji » 15 Mar 2011 03:14

Sanku wrote:I mean now, did they have to write so much to point that out? Even in 1996.


Try and read the article before you comment on its worth.
This is what the article says:

Yet at the Army's National Training Center in the Mohave Desert, literally hundreds of battles have been fought between M1A1-equipped U.S. Army units and (simulated) T72-equipped OPFOR (or "opposition force") opponents, and the T72-equipped OPFOR almost always wins.(49)




Its a very nice analysis of what they think should have happened (given historical ratios of attackers vs defenders etc) vs what did happen.
There is a difference between an analysis and a belief and the article is the former.

~Ashish

Ashutosh Malik
BRFite
Posts: 115
Joined: 07 Mar 2009 18:47

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Ashutosh Malik » 15 Mar 2011 08:15

Misraji wrote:

Yet at the Army's National Training Center in the Mohave Desert, literally hundreds of battles have been fought between M1A1-equipped U.S. Army units and (simulated) T72-equipped OPFOR (or "opposition force") opponents, and the T72-equipped OPFOR almost always wins.(49)




Its a very nice analysis of what they think should have happened (given historical ratios of attackers vs defenders etc) vs what did happen.
There is a difference between an analysis and a belief and the article is the former.

~Ashish


The above war gaming result between MIA1 and T-72 is what I found very interesting. And even if there is some hyperbole in the above aspect, it does suggest that nations and armies that may not be as technologically advanced as the attacker (US in this case), there could be scenarios where the attacker could be given a relatively bloody nose. Again, I am not an expert. Better people may have more to add and critique.

Best regards.

Gurneesh
BRFite
Posts: 465
Joined: 14 Feb 2010 21:21
Location: Troposphere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Gurneesh » 15 Mar 2011 08:43

^^^ if I am not wrong then that is what happened to Indian Armored attack in 1965 wherein a largely Sherman reliant pakistani defenders were able to hold of the Indian Centurions even when India had the technological as well as the numerical (?) edge in this case. But then it could also be a case of poor decision making on the part of Indian planners. Maybe guru's can elaborate more.

Hence the argument that for a successful attack one needs stuff that is markedly superior to those defending than just being somewhat superior.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby chackojoseph » 15 Mar 2011 10:45

:rotfl: 90 points for upgrade has been passed off as 90 defects by some people.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8218
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 15 Mar 2011 11:16

Sanku wrote:There!! Fixed it for you.

Enjoy.



I knew when I posted that only you will respond. :twisted: :P

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2958
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby tsarkar » 15 Mar 2011 12:01

Gurneesh wrote:^^^ if I am not wrong then that is what happened to Indian Armored attack in 1965 wherein a largely Sherman reliant pakistani defenders were able to hold of the Indian Centurions even when India had the technological as well as the numerical (?) edge in this case. But then it could also be a case of poor decision making on the part of Indian planners. Maybe guru's can elaborate more.

Hence the argument that for a successful attack one needs stuff that is markedly superior to those defending than just being somewhat superior.

Very incorrect. Pakistan being part of SEATO and CENTO resulted it in being given significant numbers of M48 Patton as aid. Most of the front line units were armed with Pattons with some second line units with ex WW2 Shermans. India too had mix of AMX13, Centurions and lots of ex WW2 Shermans. The Indian attack was halted by Pattons while the Pakistani attack was halted by Centurions.

The reason for the failure of both Indian and Pakistani offensives was complete lack of operational proficiency at Divisional HQ, Corps HQ and higher levels in managing armoured thrusts. HQ both sides could not manage simultaneous multi regiment multi pronged operations in the same sector.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 15 Mar 2011 12:18

Misraji wrote:Yet at the Army's National Training Center in the Mohave Desert, literally hundreds of battles have been fought between M1A1-equipped U.S. Army units and (simulated) T72-equipped OPFOR (or "opposition force") opponents, and the T72-equipped OPFOR almost always wins.(49)


That is why no amount of simulation can match the real thing, whether it is testing a nuclear fusion based weapon or tactics.
:P

Clearly the simulated tests were testing the conditions under which US and USSR/Rus Armored columns would slug it out, US army does not train to beat Iraqi's, it trains to beat Rus.

That article is trying to find some virtue in what was a foregone conclusion.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 15 Mar 2011 12:20

Pratyush wrote:
Sanku wrote:There!! Fixed it for you.

Enjoy.



I knew when I posted that only you will respond. :twisted: :P


So I am the official troll hunter for this thread? Txs

SRay
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 67
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby SRay » 15 Mar 2011 12:21

Video of a TOW missile destroying a tactically loaded T-72

Couple of things in this video struck me (no pun intended):
- No-contact missile strike -- are debates over armor configuration overrated? Even when a missile like the Nag hits, its kinetic energy could probably flatten a tank regardless of what armor is deployed.
- T-72 destruction -- that tank just exploded out, rather than imploding in. Is this a result of ammunition being cooked off?

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7726
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 15 Mar 2011 12:43

Gurneesh wrote:^^^ if I am not wrong then that is what happened to Indian Armored attack in 1965 wherein a largely Sherman reliant pakistani defenders were able to hold of the Indian Centurions even when India had the technological as well as the numerical (?) edge in this case. But then it could also be a case of poor decision making on the part of Indian planners. Maybe guru's can elaborate more.

Hence the argument that for a successful attack one needs stuff that is markedly superior to those defending than just being somewhat superior.


My dear good sir,

The 1965 war stands out for the stoic defence by Indian Armor (very well supported by Infantry) in the Battle of Assal Uttar......where every possible advantage lay with the Pakistanis but they lost their nerve. It was classical case of bad handling of a large and complex formation like an Armored Division. To put the record straight, initially, elements of the 4 Infantry Divison were also found wanting when first contact was made in the Khemkaran sector - but the leadership (GOC 4th Infantry Division) pulled the whole damn thing together and fought an outstanding battle. Full marks for Brigadier Theograj for his handling of 2 (I) Armored Brigade.

As for the Indian armor in Shakargarh bulge, as tsarkar has pointed out, it was lack of exposure of handling large scale formations in a fluid scenario and fog of war (along with over cautious approach) which prevented us from advancing and winning the war in this sector. Maj.General RS Sparrow did not know that he was facing a lone Cavalry Regiment of PA nor did the CO of 25 Cavalry Regiment knew he was facing the Indian 1st Armored Division.

krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7342
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby krishnan » 15 Mar 2011 13:04

SRay wrote:Video of a TOW missile destroying a tactically loaded T-72

Couple of things in this video struck me (no pun intended):
- No-contact missile strike -- are debates over armor configuration overrated? Even when a missile like the Nag hits, its kinetic energy could probably flatten a tank regardless of what armor is deployed.
- T-72 destruction -- that tank just exploded out, rather than imploding in. Is this a result of ammunition being cooked off?


Probably uses tandem warhead, the actual payload exploding within the tank

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7726
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 15 Mar 2011 13:39

^^^It has a tandemn warhead and this missile uses the overfly attack mode ("fly-over shootdown mode") as opposed to direct contact.

The tandem warheads are fired downwards once the sensor senses the position of the armor below.

Check the TOW-2B layout here:http://www.army-technology.com/projects/tow/tow8.html and compare this with placement of warhead in TOW-2A here: http://www.army-technology.com/projects/tow/tow7.html

The warheads are so placed to direct the explosive shaped charges in a particular direction. (forward in case of TOW-2A and downward/oblique in case of TOW-2B).


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests