Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Damian]

All GLATGM's are ineffective against front armor of modern MBT's, this is a fact. Lidsky, you are just trying to force here, a believe that all Russian made weapon systems are superior to solutions created outside Russia.

But 125mm calliber is way to small to achieve proper penetration capability for a shaped charge, just like 120mm calliber is too small to achieve such requirement.

This is why there is a goal to achieve a top-attack capability for ATGM's and GLATGM's, because to achieve penetration capability required to perforate frontal armor of modern MBT's, will make calliber just too huge, unpractical in use.

Just accept that GLATGM concept represented by 9M112 and 9M119 as well as other similiar types of ammunition, is obsolete, and will be useless in future.

And stop that "Russia is superior to all of you" crap, this is technological rascism.

As for perforation effects, there were tests in west with life animals inside tanks, shaped charge warheads were actually less deadly than kinetic energy penetrators, however I do not have the original document, however informations were shown on some forums, I think TankNet had it somewhere.

 

[hest]

All GLATGM's are ineffective against front armor of modern MBT's, this is a fact. Lidsky, you are just trying to force here, a believe that all Russian made weapon systems are superior to solutions created outside Russia.

But 125mm calliber is way to small to achieve proper penetration capability for a shaped charge, just like 120mm calliber is too small to achieve such requirement.

This is why there is a goal to achieve a top-attack capability for ATGM's and GLATGM's, because to achieve penetration capability required to perforate frontal armor of modern MBT's, will make calliber just too huge, unpractical in use.

Just accept that GLATGM concept represented by 9M112 and 9M119 as well as other similiar types of ammunition, is obsolete, and will be useless in future.

For certain you cannot be sure of wether certain armour is defeatable, and there is no such absolute as yes or no. Howewer nobody should accept claims without argumented discussion, for example we can read about some mechanism of semi-active armour, speed of bulging and reaction time, and factors determining warhead effectiveness, speed of cumulative stream makes part of it unaltered by bulging effect, greater diameter reduces the effect as well, which has nothing to do with steel penetration value. It is interesting to know about the weapon designers methods to optimise performance and technical evolution. That is why caliber was never, by far, the limit of performance, there are important ways to improve performance other than it.

And stop that "Russia is superior to all of you" crap, this is technological rascism.

I am not claiming about any "russian" superiority.

As for perforation effects, there were tests in west with life animals inside tanks, shaped charge warheads were actually less deadly than kinetic energy penetrators, however I do not have the original document, however informations were shown on some forums, I think TankNet had it somewhere.

Less deadly does not mean not dangerous, it is relative term. I have read about such tests, and conclusions were not safety. Anyway you could show.

 

[Damian]

For certain you cannot be sure of wether certain armour is defeatable, and there is no such absolute as yes or no. Howewer nobody should accept claims without argumented discussion, for example we can read about some mechanism of semi-active armour, speed of bulging and reaction time, and factors determining warhead effectiveness, speed of cumulative stream makes part of it unaltered by bulging effect, greater diameter reduces the effect as well, which has nothing to do with steel penetration value. It is interesting to know about the weapon designers methods to optimise performance and technical evolution. That is why caliber was never, by far, the limit of performance, there are important ways to improve performance other than it.

Neither you have any proof that Burlington or anyother type of composite armor could be defeated by them. Evolution of these types of armor was far more rapid than evolution of shaped charges. In fact the classic shaped charges have no future. Amorphic alloys might give them perspectives for future but they are still far from mass production readiness.

I am not claiming about any "russian" superiority.

Yes you are, in every your post, there is allways your point that not Russian, means worse, obsolete, redundant etc.

Less deadly does not mean not dangerous, it is relative term. I have read about such tests, and conclusions were not safety. Anyway you could show.

And did anyone said that it is not dangerous? Even Militarysta do not claim they are not deadly, he says they are not as deadly as there is popular belief about them.

 

[militarysta]

Different versions were improved with new warhead, material and explosive, so there are different values.

Lidsky, check what version 9К112 "Кобра" photo I had posted.
Tip: look at precursor on GLATGM top. It's late 1980s version. And those late version have 60 degree cone angle. This was not changed between 1975 and at least 1985.
What more: the latest Cobra version had panetration between 600 and 700mm when most sources give avarage 650mm RHA. Vasiliy Fofanov had claimed that typical it was between 550-600mm RHA. He was writing aboiut this on otvaga sevral times. It's really consist whit 1968 Burlinghton tests and 127mm warhed: 23 inches (584 mm RHA) for the 127 mm charge. That level was avaible for 1970s and erly 1980s 9К112 "Кобра". Newest warhed - whit small precursor, but still 60 degree cone angle have panetration between 600 and 700mm when most sources give avarage 650mm RHA.
Still: 125mm 9К112 "Кобра" was uneffective when 127mm and 152mm SC faild vs Burlinghton.

Yes, it is innefective construction and was later optimised in latter ATGM (9M119 for example), I showed the relation between angle and jet speed. You howewer did not answer the question, what are the factors which affect the penetration of composite armour. What matters is the speed of the cumulative stream among others, the greater, the more are the elements unnafected by the movement of the bulging plate, and works partially against ERA, this is understood by the designers which optimise missile construction, and makes big difference, howewer not reflected against plain steel, so talking about steel penetration is not useful because this is not tank's main armour. Factors are cone angle as well as explosive energy.

Im affraid You misunderstand solution developed to overpas ERA whit posibility to overpas sevral leyers of Burlinghton armour.
Bigger jet velocity have some constans lenght and mass. You must agree whit that, becouse it's based on all avaible SC pdfs from balistic symposiums.
Those bigger velocity is very usefull during overpas ERA when we have one-two active explosing layers and 2-4 moving steel plates. All is based on idea jet faster then plate moving - "faster jet" whit some lenght and mass will be spaced by moving plates and blast less then slower and longer exposed on blast and moving elements "slower jet".
It's all -no magic is here. Example:

All is based on posibility to overpas one-two ERA layer whit two-four moving elements.

It's completly diffrent then at least dozen semi active Burlinghton layer. SC jet will be spaced and exsposed on whole armour lenght. Here is not posibility to "fast jet escape" before ERA blast and plates will spaced jet on it's lenght, becouse in Burlinghton armour we have dozne active layers -so there is no option to "escape" before spaced mehanism. Jet will be spaced on it's almoust whole lenght, becouse Buringhton armour is thick and have dozen semi-actice layers:

Look how many semi-active layers included both Burlinghton clones armour models - 8-9 on first erly model (so at least 16-19 moving plates) , and at lest 4 normal and maybe 3 aditional and M1A1HA model (between 8 and 14 moving plates). It's situation completly diffent then ERA casette whit only 1-2 explosive layers and 2-4 moving plates.

And for end 2 simple questions:
1. How fast is jet in Cobra and Refleks? Any details that is faster then 8km/s? It's rather closer to 5-6km/s as in all copper cone SC in those times.
2. Those solution is for molybdenum jet. Kobra and Refleks have copper cone and copper jet. It's completly diffrent material. Have You any detail or infos about diffrent cone material then copper?

So did improve the performance of ATGM, especially to deal with composite armour, you just ignore the means and details which have this objective.

But fact that:
a) AGDUS and it's damage models included in Leopard-2A4 and TOW/HOT (creators of the AGDUS where sure that ATGM whit tandem warhed and with perforation between 800-1000mm RHA is not able to kill Leopard-2A4 after frontal hit)
b) "life test" from ex: ODS when M1A1HA take frontal hit by AGM-114 (more then 1000mm RHA penetation) and there was no perforation.
means nothing?

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Questions for the great Armour experts plz.
What is the primary difference between nera and era other than one explodes and other doesn't?Which is more effective?
What is more effective composite armour modular package or ERA/NERA?
Why is skat armour only used at the back of the tanks and not all around?
How useful is HESH round?
Is it possible for carousel type autoloader to use long rod penetrator effectively due to limited size of autoloader?I heard that this is major disadvantage of carousel autoloader that it can't match length of western size long rod APFSDS rounds as autoloader can't hold it and so penetration capability is lesser.

Thanks.

 

[The Last Stand]

1.What is the primary difference between nera and era other than one explodes and other doesn't?Which is more effective?

2. What is more effective composite armour modular package or ERA/NERA?

3. Why is skat armour only used at the back of the tanks and not all around?

4. How useful is HESH round?

5. Is it possible for carousel type autoloader to use long rod penetrator effectively due to limited size of autoloader?I heard that this is major disadvantage of carousel autoloader that it can't match length of western size long rod APFSDS rounds as autoloader can't hold it and so penetration capability is lesser.

Thanks.

Lots of questions asked. I will answer to my level one by one.

1. ERA is effective only for one AP or HEAT round. NERA is slightly less effective but since it is inert, it is effective against multiple rounds.

2. Composites are actually base armour. They are RHA sandwiched by composite materials which is usually 1.5-1.6x times more effective than steel. ERA cannot be used as base armour. It is secondary. Both are effective in their own way.

3. Oh, Slat armour is used all round the tank in Urban warfare upgrades. Who told you that they are used only at the back?

4. HESH is only somewhat useful. It is incapable of doing anything to a tank unless it hits a portion of RHA and can definitely not hurt a tank from the front. But still HESH is useful for it's original purpose - destroying buildings and fortifications. HESH can be used as a poorly-performing alternative to HEAT-MP but it isn't the future.

5. Yes. Limited size is main disadvantage. That's why Russian and Chinese long rods don't even approach German or American long rod penetrators in performance. Still, tactics are everything in warfare and even weak 3BM42 Mango can penetrate a Western tank if it hits the rear portion of turret armour or some parts of the side. Where the round hits matters the most. If ambush takes place, who knows what will happen?

Regards,

 

[The Last Stand]

Also, keep your posts neat. I can't clean up while quoting

 

[Damian]

1.What is the primary difference between nera and era other than one explodes and other doesn't?Which is more effective?

NERA is mostly designed as array of many layers, this makes it bulkier and heavier but, it can make it also more effective.

In simple words, single layer of ERA is more efficent than single layer of most simplest NERA, but ERA is difficult to use in layers. This is the most simple explanation.

However there are types of NERA, that are very efficent, probably even more than some types of ERA.

It is not easy to say which is more effective protection, definetely advantage of modern NERA arrays is their multi hit capability.

2. What is more effective composite armour modular package or ERA/NERA?

And what if composite armor is NERA?

There are different types of composite armors, some are completely passive, and some are reactive in nature because their design is based on NERA layers.

So a passive composite armor will mostly be less efficent than reactive composite armor based on NERA.

And British engineers experimented with composite armor with integral (placed inside) ERA, fancy stuff eh?

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Thanks guys for very good info.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

@Damian...

I understand t-90 has carousel autoloader and can hold only up to limited length KE round so there isn't much scope for improvement.But can arjun if longer rod penetrator is developed hold much longer ones?

At present what would be ur estimate of chinese tank designs type 96 and type99?Can indian t-90m succesfully engage these models?Would the new t-90ms tagil give us a definite advantage to be worth it?

The chinese have a unique laser focus targeter on type 99,is this of any real value?

How much difference does the thermal viewer make?Is it just a night vision device to spot targets at night for gunner and commander?What is the difference between gunners sight and panaromic sight?How does thermal viewer really affect the fire control system and accuracy?

Thanks.

 

[The Last Stand]

@Damian...

I understand t-90 has carousel autoloader and can hold only up to limited length KE round so there isn't much scope for improvement.But can arjun if longer rod penetrator is developed hold much longer ones?

At present what would be ur estimate of chinese tank designs type 96 and type99?Can indian t-90m succesfully engage these models?Would the new t-90ms tagil give us a definite advantage to be worth it?

Arjun doesn't have an autoloader. It can definitely use long rod penetrators. Remember that the total round length of the ARDE gun is comparable to other 120 mm guns. Arjun's gun is rifled compared to smoothbore 2A46 of T-90.

T-90 can successfully engage Type 96 and 99 if the gunner is trained well enough to target side armour and weak spots. Heck, an old Centurion which is properly hidden can destroy an Abrams with the right gunner.

Type 96 is not impressive. Roof armour slopes onto the frontal turret armour and is easily visible, making for a huge target. Remember that roof armour on Soviet-type tanks is merely 80-90 mm of steel with a single ERA box on top. Type 99 is much better but side armour is not upto the task. Composite level of Chinese tanks is unknown, so frontal armour is left as impenetrable.

I am not aware of the use of the laser on Type 99 and don't know much about thermals.

 

[militarysta]

About AGDUS laser simulation system and it's principles.
All is based on very advanced TANK VULNERABILITY MODEL. It has nothing common whit PC games or older simulators.

As we can see it's really sophisticated and realistic modell. Why I had mentioned about this?
Becouse on the same/ simmilar principles is based AGDUS system used to trening Leopard-2 crews. Those system include Leopard-2 vulnerability model and data for APFSDS, SC and others.
And frontal hit in Leopard-2A4 turret by HOT/PAH/TOW in AGDUS vulnerability model do not involves the destruction of the tank.
And the same will be whit russian GLATGM - Cobra, Refleks, Invar, etc.

 

[militarysta]

Show conditions, as I explained.

Lidsky, you have google and I takes 2s to find pdf. It's really simple.
It's resumee from biger reserches.


Basic condistions:
98mm dimeter hight precision Cobra warhed (circa 700-750mm RHA penetration)
stand of 300mm (3x cone diameter)
barier 300mm
1,5kg SC weight
test chamber whit small volumen 2,4m3 -so mucht less then turret or hull tank volumen
54 diagnostic points
dozents rats in chamber
more then 100 SC tests
etc

Multiple sources which I have shown

All of that sources shown knowledges from times where was unable to mesure blast effect, or quantifiacted it About methodology in those tests from yours "Multiple sources which I have shown" pdfs:
"no exist"
"none has proven"
"has not yet been completly defined"
"no means are currently avaible"
"can not be directly assessed"
In other words:they suspected some blast effect but they havent posibilities to accurate mesure them, or even quantificated into scalable research results. So they made assumpsions about blast effect based on non existing good enought research methods.
And only this "state of the art" is present in yours "Multiple sources which I have shown". Nothing more

In opposide to yours absolate, not accurate, assumed ""Multiple sources which I have shown" I had posted M. Held reserches and others -when blast effect was mesured, quantificated and bacame as MINOR factor.
Conclusion from hundrest of SC test is simple: blast effect is minor component and tank crew will safely survives after SC perforation if the jet stream and armor pieces do not affect people and equipment (ammo and flamable factors in tank).

You do not understand that in all document minor is relative term, minor is also fragment effect is penetration is weak, it is also equivalent to local damage. It is true that it is limited, but those within that localised effect suffer serious damage, and survivors can still be affected in lower degree.

No, it's bullshit. There was no " suffer serious damage" from blast effect in case SC behind armour effect. In newst TANK VULNERABILITY MODEL for example blast effect is non existing. Becouse it's nor relevant. It occurs but as a phenomenon and minnor effect. Not as serious danger.

It says among survivors. If you care to understand:
- Those who survive (^) suffer consequences, probable from 1-20 %.

And this shout cut speculations here:
probable
so they are unable even to determine the scale of the phenomenon becouse 1-20% is not a range for whole population. It's greate margin of the error, and value 1% should give you food for thought.
Again: You are trying to exaggerate minor problem.

 

[militarysta]

Finally had more time.

@Lidsky M.D

You are able only to throw obvious words and say nothing of value. Soviet, russian doctrine emphasizes interaction with support forces, artillery, etc, a tank is not a tank destroyer, for breakthrought, it has to support forces and deal with enemy infantry, fortifications

And during Hungarian fight in 1956, Afganistan, and both Chechenia wars those "russian doctrine" wasn't used. The same during tha last Osetia war. Russian army is unable now to use close and dubbed in the interacting cooperation between tanks, mehanisated infanty, artilery and air forces. There was no example of sucht (typical for NATO) action. Artilery was used by hours and fired the hectares, Air CAS mission where not coordiantaed wit land forcess and artilery strikes (like in Irak in 2003) and planes takes frendly fire from land AA (Russia left more plane shoot down by friendly fire the for georgian AA fire), infanty was able to coooperate whit tanks only to platoon level (Georgia war) . They are only two known example in second Chechania war when tank used as company had enought good infanty and artilery and air support. (Komsomolskoje and Grozny). C3 is very slow, and unable to fast change. Russian army was able to made cooperation between tanks, artilery, infanty, air support only in two cases:
a) long prepears assult on some well known position - like in Grozny vol II or Komsomolskoje becouse it was static sytiuation and russian forces had unlimited in time and range artilery and air support. She same like in Berlin in 1945.
b) only to platoon level when sevral tanks had their own infanty support and artilery offciers included to sucht "kampgruppe"

the 4-5 HEAT of Leo-2 is a joke making tank useless as support and for irregular warfare

in COIN operation Leo-2 takes just MZ or now DM-11 rounds. Dutch Leo-2 in A-stan takes US ammo (canister, and others). So here is no problem.
In regular warfare soviets unable to coordinate tanks artilery and others (after FEBA so in some depth) forced to use tanks as mobily direct fire artilery - so half of the caroussele takes HE-FRAG. In other countries it's task for artilery or air forces. But it forced good C3 and coordiantion -somthing unavaible in Soviet/Russian army.

You will deal with infantryб щк шт irregular warfare with sabot, what is this ? You cannot understand that complect is changed ? These 4-5 HEAT are a joke.

??
Rather 15 DM-11 or canister, or MZ rounds in bustle.

No, it is by no means simple and ability to respond is necessary, which is none for Leo-2 after 15 rounds and latter withdrawal from combat, and it is primitive,

This "ability to respond is necessary" is needed due to poor coordiantion between tanks and support (artilery, air) in Soviet/Russian army - prooven in both Chechenia war and in Osetia.
What more - reload turret bustle in Leo-2 takes under 3min, in T-72/90 takes 20-25min. So those tank is single use on battelfield. Ammo out- tank out (from battelfield). Leo-2 just can reload those turret bustle in most cases. T-72/90 need quiet and really safe place becouse it's takes really long time.

Yes, this single element will magically defeat main warhead, while rest don't the same as will Kontakt. Pathetic statement and bias. Follow on, I laught at stupid.

Навесной комплекс ДЗ для легких машин - танк М1А1 also anti-tandem lol.

And this is manipulation in pure form.
You shown ARAT-1 whit abilities to stop SC whit circa 500-550mm RHA penetration.
I was talking about ARAT-2 when additional M32 is placed on it.
On turret sides (thick multialyerd 380mm LOS for 90.) is placed only aditional M32 layer. Propably to deal vs precursor.

 

[hest]

Lidsky, check what version 9К112 "Кобра" photo I had posted.
Tip: look at precursor on GLATGM top. It's late 1980s version. And those late version have 60 degree cone angle. This was not changed between 1975 and at least 1985.
What more: the latest Cobra version had panetration between 600 and 700mm when most sources give avarage 650mm RHA. Vasiliy Fofanov had claimed that typical it was between 550-600mm RHA. He was writing aboiut this on otvaga sevral times. It's really consist whit 1968 Burlinghton tests and 127mm warhed: 23 inches (584 mm RHA) for the 127 mm charge. That level was avaible for 1970s and erly 1980s 9К112 "Кобра". Newest warhed - whit small precursor, but still 60 degree cone angle have panetration between 600 and 700mm when most sources give avarage 650mm RHA.
Still: 125mm 9К112 "Кобра" was uneffective when 127mm and 152mm SC faild vs Burlinghton.

Cone angle is one factor, other factors affecting the jet speed can be for example, amount, energy of explosive. Kobra was improved while maintaining the dimensions http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/cobra/9n138.shtml

Боевые части (БЧ) 9Н138 и 9Н144 кумулятивного действия, аналогичны по конструкции и назначению. БЧ 9Н144 отличается от БЧ 9Н138 материалом кумулятивной воронки, взрывчатым веществом и в связи с этим повышенной эффективностью.

The warhead differed in material and explosive, thus in higher efficiency.

In view of the difference in speed, and jet diameter, and of known characteristics of Burlington working bulging plates, by no means you can claim the same effectiveness.

Im affraid You misunderstand solution developed to overpas ERA whit posibility to overpas sevral leyers of Burlinghton armour.
Bigger jet velocity have some constans lenght and mass. You must agree whit that, becouse it's based on all avaible SC pdfs from balistic symposiums.
Those bigger velocity is very usefull during overpas ERA when we have one-two active explosing layers and 2-4 moving steel plates. All is based on idea jet faster then plate moving - "faster jet" whit some lenght and mass will be spaced by moving plates and blast less then slower and longer exposed on blast and moving elements "slower jet".
It's all -no magic is here. Example:

All is based on posibility to overpas one-two ERA layer whit two-four moving elements.

ERA resembles bulging plate on this aspect, but main difference is that the velocity of it's plate does not depend on the characteristics of the stream. Howewer this is not the point here.

It's completly diffrent then at least dozen semi active Burlinghton layer. SC jet will be spaced and exsposed on whole armour lenght. Here is not posibility to "fast jet escape" before ERA blast and plates will spaced jet on it's lenght, becouse in Burlinghton armour we have dozne active layers -so there is no option to "escape" before spaced mehanism. Jet will be spaced on it's almoust whole lenght, becouse Buringhton armour is thick and have dozen semi-actice layers:

"The perforation of the thin metallic plate is several times greater than the diameter of the stream, thus in some interval after initial perforation part of the stream pasess throught without being affected by the bulge"

"Analysis of the results has shown that the main factors on which the character and interval of the interaction of the bulge with the stream depend, are the angle of incidence, the thickness of the plate and the speed of the leading part of the stream"

About lenght, it is not correct. "Main objective of the separation is to provide enought space for the bulge effect to be ralised, as well as to the affected elements to spare and not pass throught the crater frormed by the leading part of the stream. Further increase in lenght weakly alters the penetration ability."

What will greater speed do is increase the part of the stream which would pass without being affected, under similar energy it will result in greater penetration. Also to note, greater caliber of innefective construction, explosive, may have similar penetration in steel, but greater diameter, and can have at same time lower speed, and greater energy, energy which will pass to the deformation of the plate, increasing deformation speed and improving the armour performance. It is important difference for 152 mm warhead and ATGM.

Look how many semi-active layers included both Burlinghton clones armour models - 8-9 on first erly model (so at least 16-19 moving plates) , and at lest 4 normal and maybe 3 aditional and M1A1HA model (between 8 and 14 moving plates). It's situation completly diffent then ERA casette whit only 1-2 explosive layers and 2-4 moving plates.

We are talking specifically about working method of semi-active armour based on bulging plates.

And for end 2 simple questions:
1. How fast is jet in Cobra and Refleks? Any details that is faster then 8km/s? It's rather closer to 5-6km/s as in all copper cone SC in those times.
2. Those solution is for molybdenum jet. Kobra and Refleks have copper cone and copper jet. It's completly diffrent material. Have You any detail or infos about diffrent cone material then copper?

The stream speed is differential in lenght, the elongation of the stream and it's speed difference depends on the cone angle. I am talking about copper jet, the leading part is normally between 7-9 m/s depending on angle, but also on explosive energy (and other factors..) For example with same detonating speed, velocity of the leading part (copper) can vary from 10 to 6 km/s depending on cone angle, the greater, the less. Cobra for sure will have better performance due to advancement in material and explosive, Refleks even more due to optimised design, angle. The velocity gradient to diameter is maintained, thus there is proportional increase in penetration, howewer that 152 mm warhead has also lower efficiency to it's diameter than does Cobra, which also indicates worse velocity characteristics.

But fact that:
a) AGDUS and it's damage models included in Leopard-2A4 and TOW/HOT (creators of the AGDUS where sure that ATGM whit tandem warhed and with perforation between 800-1000mm RHA is not able to kill Leopard-2A4 after frontal hit)
b) "life test" from ex: ODS when M1A1HA take frontal hit by AGM-114 (more then 1000mm RHA penetation) and there was no perforation.
means nothing?

AGDUS mostly represents 80s ATGM with simple warhead configuration, and it is in no way indicative of protection, only training system. It also wouldn't make sense to simulate defeat under all conditions.

There is no information on condition of that hit as well as of characteristics of the missile, no that alone does not mean anything.

 

[Damian]

AGDUS mostly represents 80s ATGM with simple warhead configuration, and it is in no way indicative of protection, only training system. It also wouldn't make sense to simulate defeat under all conditions.

This is wrong. AGDUS is based on software, software have such abilities to be modified very simply, so you can add protection of different types fo armor and penetration capabilities of different type of ammunition in very easy way, by just upgrading the software.

Such statement then is wrong. AGDUS or MILES is upgraded regularly to achieve maximum realism during training, so there is a lot of sense to provide as much as realistic vehicle protection data and ammunition penetration data.

This was afterall the whole point to develop AGDUS and MILES, seems that this is still beyond of understanding in Russian army.

And one more thing, of AGDUS do not provide penetration for HOT which have penetration capability of 800mm RHA, it means that front armor of Leopard 2 is immune to it, HOT-2 can penetrate 900+mm, and if AGDUS do not signal perforation, then front armor is also immune or penetration is insufficent to disable vehicle.

There is no information on condition of that hit as well as of characteristics of the missile, no that alone does not mean anything.

So now you need a condition of hit and characteristics of missile? AGM-114 is estimated to be capable to penetrate more than 1,000mm of RHA, which is reasonable to a more than 170mm in diameter warhead, if it hit and did not perforate armor, then armor provides enough protection.


However I am sure you will try to create million of reasons why a 125mm calliber warhead is better, because is designed in Russia, and can destroy any tank in the world, which is nothing more than a poor advertisement you are making here on this forum.

And important note for other users, it is strange than a guy from Russia is so agresively advertising Russian made weapon systems (especially Armored Fighting Vehicles subject) on Indian forum where there is a lot of IA servicemen, when we know that for some time, Oleg Sienko a CEO of the Uralvagonzavod corporation is supporting agressive advertisement of their products around the world, including internet... gives a lot to think.

 

[hest]

Finally had more time.


in COIN operation Leo-2 takes just MZ or now DM-11 rounds. Dutch Leo-2 in A-stan takes US ammo (canister, and others). So here is no problem.
In regular warfare soviets unable to coordinate tanks artilery and others (after FEBA so in some depth) forced to use tanks as mobily direct fire artilery - so half of the caroussele takes HE-FRAG. In other countries it's task for artilery or air forces. But it forced good C3 and coordiantion -somthing unavaible in Soviet/Russian army.

Leo-2 in has only 15 main rounds, T-72 22, T-80 29, it is more than notable. The claim about Soviet army being unable to interact forces with support means, aviation, artillery, infantry, as well as regimental air defense (Tunguska, Tor..) is very ignorant. The HE-FRAG is essential in assault and as support to deal with fortifications and infantry as direct engagement, so your statement is also hypocritical. The reason why Leo-2 (and not rest of NATO tanks) was such poor support, was because of low capacity of 15 main rounds and at same time need to act as anti-armour weapon in defensive doctrine. Further, these 15 rounds are insufficient for irregular warfare, that is why it must carry additional, difficultly accesible and vulnerable rounds in hull.

This "ability to respond is necessary" is needed due to poor coordiantion between tanks and support (artilery, air) in Soviet/Russian army - prooven in both Chechenia war and in Osetia.
What more - reload turret bustle in Leo-2 takes under 3min, in T-72/90 takes 20-25min. So those tank is single use on battelfield. Ammo out- tank out (from battelfield). Leo-2 just can reload those turret bustle in most cases. T-72/90 need quiet and really safe place becouse it's takes really long time.

It is bullshit, indirect means of engagement do not replace direct support in combat, everything has it's niche, and effectiveness, accuracy and response is different. Leo-2 will not do that in combat as turret must be rotated, engagement broken, and vehicle is left vulnerable with lenghty reload. T-72 or T-80 will not need to perform manual loading as frequently because they have greater capacity of ready ammunition. On T-80 manual load takes 1 minute 40 seconds for first round.

And this is manipulation in pure form.
You shown ARAT-1 whit abilities to stop SC whit circa 500-550mm RHA penetration.
I was talking about ARAT-2 when additional M32 is placed on it.
.

Which depend on angle, in angle close to normal it has reduced effectiveness, especially important for thin sides, especially hull. Additional element reduces this problem.

On turret sides (thick multialyerd 380mm LOS for 90.) is placed only aditional M32 layer. Propably to deal vs precursor

It will do shit against tandem RPG and it's main warhead.

About blast pressure, you continue to ignore:

"Paradoxically, as the threat of fragment and burn injuries lessens, effect of blast and other ancillary effects of armor penetration becomes more significant.
Many Israeli armor casualties in the 1967 War were inside armored vehicles that were penetrated by antitank guided missiles (ATGMs) equipped with shaped-charge warheads (see Chapter One). These soldiers suffered from respiratory failure and extensive (but superficial) burns, a combination of symptoms that became known as the ATGM Syndrome.
The pulmonary component was attributed to a combination of PBI and toxic-fume inhalation."

And that effect is local. In test with animals, they suffered damage of blast from 80 cm of proximity to stream.. and rest of sources, research institute, university, GCV designers.

 

[hest]

So now you need a condition of hit and characteristics of missile? AGM-114 is estimated to be capable to penetrate more than 1,000mm of RHA, which is reasonable to a more than 170mm in diameter warhead, if it hit and did not perforate armor, then armor provides enough protection.

It is necessary to know version, and also condition of hit. Without knowing anything it is not possible to reach to valid conclusion for already difficult to interpretate single case.

However I am sure you will try to create million of reasons why a 125mm calliber warhead is better, because is designed in Russia, and can destroy any tank in the world, which is nothing more than a poor advertisement you are making here on this forum.

Why should it be better ?

And important note for other users, it is strange than a guy from Russia is so agresively advertising Russian made weapon systems (especially Armored Fighting Vehicles subject) on Indian forum where there is a lot of IA servicemen, when we know that for some time, Oleg Sienko a CEO of the Uralvagonzavod corporation is supporting agressive advertisement of their products around the world, including internet... gives a lot to think.

Leave that for yourself .

 

[Damian]

It is necessary to know version, and also condition of hit. Without knowing anything it is not possible to reach to valid conclusion for already difficult to interpretate single case.

The AGM-114A is at least capable to penetrate ~1,000mm RHA, at any predictible for this type of ATGM hit angle, only very extreme angle would lead to not dangerous hit.

Why should it be better ?

Because you say so, you are still trying to say "9M112 and 9M119 is super duper weapon capable to destroy any tank hitting it's front armor".

Leave that for yourself .

Oh, thanks, so you actually confirm that I have right, you are here just to advertise Russian made military equipment, especially made by Uralvagonzavod.

I must say... thank you, at least one time you are honest.

 

[hest]

The AGM-114A is at least capable to penetrate ~1,000mm RHA, at any predictible for this type of ATGM hit angle, only very extreme angle would lead to not dangerous hit.

What version, what source.. what construction ?

Because you say so, you are still trying to say "9M112 and 9M119 is super duper weapon capable to destroy any tank hitting it's front armor".

I did not say that anywhere. At the contrary, it is necessary to discuss claims with arguments.

Oh, thanks, so you actually confirm that I have right, you are here just to advertise Russian made military equipment, especially made by Uralvagonzavod.

I must say... thank you, at least one time you are honest.

Ho ho ho