Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[jedigman]

testing five BM Oplot for Royal Thai Army

Commentary on Oplot passing trials early 2009

 

[Andrei_bt]

funny... somebody made "My own review of Ukrainian OPLOT Main Battle Tank" )))

 

[Waffen SS]

ROTFL

I will quote in whole part this what part you have been used in post:

Those are two diffrent causes then posted in those two videos.

Since this M1 Abrams was protectd by this:

what is enought - cose only precursor in RPG-29 is real problem for side armour.

And you expect enemy to hit only in that point where you have biggest protection? listen enemy will hit in that point where you are most vulnerable.

 

[Waffen SS]

Aha, again Wikipedia, the funny thing is tough that US Army in their modernization plans, never mention any kind of interest in A-10.

You know why? Because opinion of some officers or theoretists is not equal to command decisions on equipment procurement.

US army opposed retirement of A 10 from USAF.

Oh really?


You have absolutely no knowledge about post penetration process and what determines if ammunition inside a tank will explode or not, do you?

It is ridiculous, RPG 29 is brand new weapon, Syrian T 72's are of monkey models, hit a M1 Abram with a RPG 29 then see if it explodes or not?

Again to explode a tank by igniting tank's ammunition you need to hit with multiple RPGs not a single RPG that is mentioned in video. Monkey model T 72's are no match against RPG 29. You have problems with basic understanding.

Funny thing, but US Army considers M1 as their most versatile asset, and tank overall as the most universal combat platform, as many other armed forces.

You want to say that you are smarter than US Army?

Perhaps,

Belgian army retired Tanks.

I don't need to, and you will never understand because you are moron. People like you have problems with using logic.

But to say it simple. What will react faster? A tank that is constantly on the first line with troops? Or air support that is... somewhere there and need to be call for support?

I doubt your brain eaten by stupid computer games is capable to comprehend this difference.

Because you cant show me any thing. Offensive languages aside. Never mind.

If M72 is one shot disposable launcher just like M136, it means it fires prepacked in factory projectile, which means that you use one single standard, which further means that this single standard depends on launcher calliber, and in case of shaped charges, the smaller calliber, the smaller capabilites in armor penetration.

Indeed but check out new variant of At 4.

AT 4's variant which had ability to penetrate modern battle tanks, it was cancelled not for Military reason but rather political reason.

AT12-T In the early 1990s, there were tests of a tandem charge 120-mm version (Bofors AT 12-T) that would be able to penetrate the front armor of any modern main battle tank. However, the project was canceled due to the dissolution of the Soviet Union and cuts in Western defense budgets.

AT4 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia is supported by various articles, I have lots if experience about Wikipedia, while in political matter there are problems with neutrality it has no problem in case of these type of articles, further more if you edit for trolling and with other reason you will be banned.

M72 i 66mm and M136 is 84mm, both are small callibers with small penetration capabilities.No I can't compare weapon of different classes. And the rest is complete nonsense.

Nonsense?? Any basic experience of RPG 7? You know anything the phrase "The closer the better"?

Accurate firing is difficult at ranges over 300 meters; the phrase "the closer the better" has always been true. During the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the mujahideen tended to use the weapon at ranges of less than 80 meters.

A U.S. Army evaluation of the weapon gave the hit probabilities on a 5 meter wide (15 ft), 2.5 meter tall (7.5 ft) panel moving sideways at 4 meters per second (9 miles per hour).[17] This probability decreases when firing in a crosswind due to the unusual behaviour of the round; in a 7-mile (11 km) per hour wind, the gunner can not expect to get a first-round hit more than 50% of the time beyond 180m.[18]

RPG-7 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AFV's are cheaper, more versatile and more survivable solution than all these helicopters and aircrafts, and you are poorly educated moron with low IQ, accept this.

Versatile??

Until now instead of showing better protect you did not give me a single clue to prove AFV's are more versatile.

Listen when APC was introduced then Armies thought it is good way to transport troops, but soon it was clear that APC's are in fact more dangerous to infantry, when an APC is caring infantry if it gets hit by RPG or land mine then it will catch fir, it's exist hatches then will mulfunction then those infantry inside that APC will be trapped in a death trap. It was US and Soviet Army's experience from Vietnam war and Afghanistan war.

That's why they later transported infantry on top of APC instead of carring them inside, do a bit research.

For Apples"s accusation of criminal, I cant forget what happened to Native Tribes of Australia.

 

[Damian]

US army opposed retirement of A 10 from USAF.

So what. A-10 is obsolete old aircraft.

Obviously people like you who only play computer games, don't know anything about lifecylce costs. The older is aircraft the more expensive is it's maintnance. Besides this Fairchild, the A-10's manuacturer do not exist anymore.

It is ridiculous, RPG 29 is brand new weapon, Syrian T 72's are of monkey models, hit a M1 Abram with a RPG 29 then see if it explodes or not?

Again to explode a tank by igniting tank's ammunition you need to hit with multiple RPGs not a single RPG that is mentioned in video. Monkey model T 72's are no match against RPG 29. You have problems with basic understanding.

No, it is not ridiculous, it means that you have no idea why tanks or other AFV's explode kid.

It is because of ammunition. If ammunition is hit, then it's deflagration process starts, which can eventually lead to explosion.

The difference is that in T-72 ammunition is not isolated from crew compartment, in M1 whole ammunition is stored in isolated ammunition magazines with blast proof armor sliding doors and blow off panels, and this is the trick standing behind superior crew survivability.

Perhaps,

Belgian army retired Tanks.

And who gives a shit about Nederlands or Belgium? My own country without a problem would conquer them.

Besides this, they are withdrawing from service everything from tanks, through IFV's and APC to atillery, simply because their politicians thinks that more important than national security, is to waste money on social programs, gays and other stupidity.

Because you cant show me any thing. Offensive languages aside. Never mind.

It is not my fault that you are teenage idiot.

Indeed but check out new variant of At 4.

AT 4's variant which had ability to penetrate modern battle tanks, it was cancelled not for Military reason but rather political reason.

There was no such variant in development.

You probably confused this fantasy of your brain with other weapon AT-12T. No it was not capable to defeat any main battle tank, was too heavy, too bulky, and this is why no military ever shown greater interest in it.

AT4 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia is supported by various articles, I have lots if experience about Wikipedia, while in political matter there are problems with neutrality it has no problem in case of these type of articles, further more if you edit for trolling and with other reason you will be banned.

How old are you, only kid can create such idiotic text full of naivety.

Nonsense?? Any basic experience of RPG 7? You know anything the phrase "The closer the better"?

Contrary to you, I have several occasions to actually hold firearms in person.

As or closer the better, not it is not truth, if it was truth we would still fight with swords not firearms.

Versatile??

Yes, you have problems with understanding this term?

Until now instead of showing better protect you did not give me a single clue to prove AFV's are more versatile.

It is not my fault that your mother born such moron like you who plays only computer games, read Wikipedia instead of books, and have problems with comprehending basics of reality.

It is pity that nobody euthanasied you, it would serve well to you and even better for humanity.

Listen when APC was introduced then Armies thought it is good way to transport troops, but soon it was clear that APC's are in fact more dangerous to infantry, when an APC is caring infantry if it gets hit by RPG or land mine then it will catch fir, it's exist hatches then will mulfunction then those infantry inside that APC will be trapped in a death trap. It was US and Soviet Army's experience from Vietnam war and Afghanistan war.

That's why they later transported infantry on top of APC instead of carring them inside, do a bit research.

You do't even understand why it was done that way. Because APC's and IFV's back then were too lightly armored, only against small arms.

Soviets (and partially Americans) get to a conclusion that during patrols when they are performing peace keeping operations and COIN, it is somewhat more efficent to keep dismounts outside for two reasons. They were safer from mines which were very efficent against lightly armored APC/IFV's of that era, and were capable to react more quickly against enemy infantry.

However during conventional war, tactics were different, nobody would care if a mine would destroy such APC, you would sit inside to be protected from small arms and artillery fire.

Things changed when APC's and IFV's started to be better protected against mines, IED's and RPG's.

Did you seen US, British or other NATO soldiers riding on top of APC's and IFV's? No, why, because they were better protected inside of these newer, more modern vehicles.

Same in Israel, and even Russians after inducting in to service improved vehicles and new vehicles, resigned from riding outside their interiors, in fact today it is rarity to see them doing this.


So yeah, educate yourself kid.

---------------------------------------
@Andrei_bt You need to clear your PM box, I can't answer to your question.

 

[apple]

Enjoy this reply WaffenSS, it will the only time I respond to you.I'm only doing it so Damien doesn't have to waste his responding to your stupidity EDITED TO ADD:Just noticed you'd already replied Damien

US army opposed retirement of A 10 from USAF.

Why are you still going on about the A10? Apart from drones, Western air force's don't do low and slow anymore. A10's were designed for WW3, to shot up concentrations of Warsaw Pact armour. Taliban/ potentially future adversaries don't have tanks.

It is ridiculous, RPG 29 is brand new weapon, Syrian T 72's are of monkey models, hit a M1 Abram with a RPG 29 then see if it explodes or not?

Again to explode a tank by igniting tank's ammunition you need to hit with multiple RPGs not a single RPG that is mentioned in video. Monkey model T 72's are no match against RPG 29. You have problems with basic understanding.

As has been mentioned, the only Challenger 2 to be destroyed in combat was (accidently) destroyed by another Challenger 2. Apparently, it was hit by a single round in an open hatch in the turret i.e. the armour wasn't even penetrated. This single hit set the tank on fire.

While RPG 29's are still being manufactured, the design's over 20 years old. I'm not really sure why you're talking about them. Although, I'm glad to see you stopped calling RPG's anti-tank guns.

Perhaps,

Belgian army retired Tanks.

So? What's the Belgian Army got to do with anything? They're not going to be getting invaded any time soon. All Western army's have been downgrading their heavy armour+ air defence+ air superiority capabilities. (Arguably) We don't need that anymore.

Because you cant show me any thing. Offensive languages aside. Never mind.

Indeed but check out new variant of At 4.

AT 4's variant which had ability to penetrate modern battle tanks, it was cancelled not for Military reason but rather political reason.

AT4 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia is supported by various articles, I have lots if experience about Wikipedia, while in political matter there are problems with neutrality it has no problem in case of these type of articles, further more if you edit for trolling and with other reason you will be banned.

Nonsense?? Any basic experience of RPG 7? You know anything the phrase "The closer the better"?

RPG-7 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New variant of the AT4??? what??? You provide a wikilink to some non existant (AT 12) weapon system...

Versatile??

Until now instead of showing better protect you did not give me a single clue to prove AFV's are more versatile.

Listen when APC was introduced then Armies thought it is good way to transport troops, but soon it was clear that APC's are in fact more dangerous to infantry, when an APC is caring infantry if it gets hit by RPG or land mine then it will catch fir, it's exist hatches then will mulfunction then those infantry inside that APC will be trapped in a death trap. It was US and Soviet Army's experience from Vietnam war and Afghanistan war.

He didn't mention APC's he was talking AFV's in general.

Armies still think APC's are a good way to tranport troops. In fact, all Western Army's are moving towards/ already have an all APC transport fleet. IED's are one the biggest threats we face and APC's are the best way (apart from helicopters which is a different subject) to deal with those.

M113's, and what ever the Warsaw Pact was using, were designed for WW3. They wanted a low silhouette, and enough armour to stop small arms and artillery. Mines weren't a huge concern. Current APC's are designed to provide excellent mine/ IED protection. They have armoured floors, plenty of ground clearance and V-shaped hulls.

That's why they later transported infantry on top of APC instead of carring them inside, do a bit research.

I realise you are under the delusion that you live in the Third Reich i.e. 70+ years ago in the past. But, for those of us who live in 2013, the Vietnam War, when soldiers rode(at times) on top of M113's, is not "later". In fact, it's way, way back in the past

For Apples"s accusation of criminal, I cant forget what happened to Native Tribes of Australia.

So your not just stupid, you're also dyslexic. I never accused anyone of being a criminal. Fortunately for you I am (technically) a qualified teacher of English. Your use of the preposition "for" in your first sentence is incorrect. You should try and link your prepositions with verbs. The only verb you have in the first sentence is "accuse". You have linked accuse with "of", which means you are implying I accused someone of something.

Not forgetting the history of Australian Aboriginals is very befitting all members of the human race. Concern for all our fellow men is most commendable and I would like to quote, and encourage the study of, John Donne: "For no man is an island, we are all part of the main". The history of Australia's Aboriginals is tragic, which I am sure you WaffenSS would agree with. Although, given you "live" in the Third Reich and apparent are part of the WaffenSS, the tragedy for you must be that your Anglo Saxon brethren didn't exterminate/ enslave all the Aboriginals as would befit all non Germanic people. While I myself love all people and races God created, it must be galling for you, my Teutonic cousin, to see what modern Germany has become.

P.S. Seriously WaffenSS... how old are you?

 

[Damian]

While RPG 29's are still being manufactured, the design's over 20 years old. I'm not really sure why you're talking about them.

The truth is that both RPG-29 and RPG-32 are not the most capable RPG's ever designed in former Soviet Union. Both have only 105mm tandem HEAT warheads.

But there was designed a monstroisity called RPG-28 which used a 125mm tandem HEAT warhead, but as far as I know, it was never manufactured in a large scale, and nothing strange, look how big this thing is!

It is a single shot disposable launcher.

So? What's the Belgian Army got to do with anything? They're not going to be getting invaded any time soon. All Western army's have been downgrading their heavy armour+ air defence+ air superiority capabilities. (Arguably) We don't need that anymore.

Well it is not complete truth. Some NATO armies indeed reduced their capabilities to the point of absurd (like Netherlands) other keep their capabilities on high level (like USA) and other, newer members are building up their capabilities (like Poland).

For example here in Poland we will have up to 2020 the largest fleet of wheeled APC's, the KTO "Rosomak", we will have around 1000 of them. We will also have one of the largest tank fleets in Europe with approx 250 Leopard 2 tanks and 230 PT-91 tanks (and we still have in storage approx 500 T-72M1's that should be replaced by new lighter tank based on modular platform currently in development), there are also plans to induct perhaps approx 300-400 (if not more) new tracked IFV's to replace obsolete BMP-1's.

So not everyone in Europe is reducing it's military capabilities.

New variant of the AT4??? what??? You provide a wikilink to some non existant (AT 12) weapon system...

Well, AT-12T existed, but was never inducted in to service, in similiar fashion as RPG-28.


Here is a promotional video from Bofors.

And as You can see, AT-12T is hardly improved AT-4, as their calliber is different, design as well, and of course ammunition.

As for video, you can see that actually AT-12T was tested against a rather primitive protection made from a simple ERA with several thick homogeneus steel armor plates. This is hardly equivalent of frontal protection of modern Main Battle Tanks.

The target have a combined thickness of 300mm at 68 degrees, while modern MBT's frontal protection is estimated to be 1000+ mm vs HEAT warheads.

The explosive reactive armor used during tests also looks a bit primitive, perhaps a "Kontakt-1" copy or model based on this obsolete type of protection.

Either way, it is just a promotional video, nothing more.

 

[Damian]

I just came up to this photo, it shows Challenger 2 destroyed in a friendly fire incident. Second Challenger 2 confused this one with bunker ot APC (tank was only partially visible) and fired a HESH round. he HESH round have a very steep trajectory and hit commander hatch or cupola, explosion cause a fire inside which ignited HESH rounds and propelant charges stored inside a tank, which caused catastrophic explosion. Two crew members died, two other crew members were making R&R several meters away from tank, and survived.

 

[Waffen SS]

So what. A-10 is obsolete old aircraft.

Obviously people like you who only play computer games, don't know anything about lifecylce costs. The older is aircraft the more expensive is it's maintnance. Besides this Fairchild, the A-10's manuacturer do not exist anymore.

A 10 is not obsolete aircraft. You cant use too fast planes for ground attack, A 10 is best ground attack plane. How it can be obsolete? It is extremely rugged and versatile, it can take out multiple targets.

A 10 Thunderbolt with multiple hard points is very good in tank killing role. F 35 is more like a Fighter Bomber or an air superiority fighter. It is not good for ground attack.

USAF: F-35B cannot generate enough sorties to replace A-10

Besides this F 35 is extremely costly.

No, it is not ridiculous, it means that you have no idea why tanks or other AFV's explode kid.

It is because of ammunition. If ammunition is hit, then it's deflagration process starts, which can eventually lead to explosion.

The difference is that in T-72 ammunition is not isolated from crew compartment, in M1 whole ammunition is stored in isolated ammunition magazines with blast proof armor sliding doors and blow off panels, and this is the trick standing behind superior crew survivability.

This? All I meant a single RPG 29 hit cant do deflagration process in a modern M1, To start the deflagration process either you need to hit with large cannon or multiple RPG's not single RPG If you cant understand this I got nothing to do. And for Monkey model T 72 RPG 29 is too much powerful.

It is not my fault that you are teenage idiot.

are you talking about? Either show me or say you cant.

There was no such variant in development.

You probably confused this fantasy of your brain with other weapon AT-12T. No it was not capable to defeat any main battle tank, was too heavy, too bulky, and this is why no military ever shown greater interest in it.

No Military ever showed any interest because dissolution of Soviet Union, it led to budget cuts in Western Military. You cant expect RPG that has abilty to destroy tanks will be light weight like pistols.

How old are you, only kid can create such idiotic text full of naivety.

Do you have experience about Wiki? Do you a bit about Wikipedia's Reliable source? You cant write any article unless it is not supported by sources. Get a life.

Contrary to you, I have several occasions to actually hold firearms in person.

As or closer the better, not it is not truth, if it was truth we would still fight with swords not firearms.

Do you work in Military? I also hold fire arms. The closer is always better. During Gulf War Iraq fired Scud missiles at Israel but Scuds had to cross a long distance so Scud's accuracy and pay load decreased dramatically, check this. Iraqi pilots tried to get target lock behind visual range and most time they missed. Instead of putting your BS go learn those.

Early fire arms such as Musket had low accuracy that's why they were used to fire from a firing line hoping at least some thing will hit something.

Indo-Pakistani War 1965 - Battle of Asal Uttar | Tank Battles

Do you know why the term maximum range and effective range came? For this, learn.

Yes, you have problems with understanding this term?

I dont have any problem it is you who still did not show Tank's versatility beside proving how strong is tanks armour again and again.

It is not my fault that your mother born such moron like you who plays only computer games, read Wikipedia instead of books, and have problems with comprehending basics of reality.

It is pity that nobody euthanasied you, it would serve well to you and even better for humanity.

You cant understand reality, while tanks have strong armours(not impenetrable though) but they are not fast as aircraft, besides tank's slow firing cannons are more ineffective than aircrafts.

I dont care if anybody supports me or not.

You do't even understand why it was done that way. Because APC's and IFV's back then were too lightly armored, only against small arms.

Soviets (and partially Americans) get to a conclusion that during patrols when they are performing peace keeping operations and COIN, it is somewhat more efficent to keep dismounts outside for two reasons. They were safer from mines which were very efficent against lightly armored APC/IFV's of that era, and were capable to react more quickly against enemy infantry.

However during conventional war, tactics were different, nobody would care if a mine would destroy such APC, you would sit inside to be protected from small arms and artillery fire.

Things changed when APC's and IFV's started to be better protected against mines, IED's and RPG's.

Did you seen US, British or other NATO soldiers riding on top of APC's and IFV's? No, why, because they were better protected inside of these newer, more modern vehicles.

Same in Israel, and even Russians after inducting in to service improved vehicles and new vehicles, resigned from riding outside their interiors, in fact today it is rarity to see them doing this.


So yeah, educate yourself kid.

When APC's are strong enough to counter small arms, not for others. And today after Vietnam war did west see any war which has a really tough challenge? Russian BMPs were destroyed in large scale by Chechens, Gulf war was done by airforce, Taliban is nuisance more expert to kill women than combat.

Show me a modern APC that can withstand multiple RPG 29 or RPG 32 hits.

I also belive apples's reply about tank and aircraft is here.

 

[Damian]

A 10 is not obsolete aircraft. You cant use too fast planes for ground attack, A 10 is best ground attack plane. How it can be obsolete? It is extremely rugged and versatile, it can take out multiple targets.

A 10 Thunderbolt with multiple hard points is very good in tank killing role. F 35 is more like a Fighter Bomber or an air superiority fighter. It is not good for ground attack.

USAF: F-35B cannot generate enough sorties to replace A-10

Besides this F 35 is extremely costly.

Listen kid, only because you are too stupid to comprehend reality, iw ill not waste my time for such brainless piece of shit like you.

And F-35B won't be used by USAF but F-35A. And there is no nececity to replace A-10, there won't be any replacements for it, it will be withdrawn from service and that's all.

I dobt that A-10 would be capable to survive in environment full of modern AA systems like Pantsir or Tor.

So F-35A's will replace F-16's, and for assymetric conflicts, for CAS there will be used some lightweight truboprop plane.

This? All I meant a single RPG 29 hit cant do deflagration process in a modern M1, To start the deflagration process either you need to hit with large cannon or multiple RPG's not single RPG If you cant understand this I got nothing to do. And for Monkey model T 72 RPG 29 is too much powerful.

You are really a moron.

To start a deflagration process you need only a single hit in to ammunition with conventional propelant charge, other thing are new but still not widespread insensitive ammunition propelant charges.

As for M1's survivability, test video says everything.

are you talking about? Either show me or say you cant.

I show you, and still you are unable to understand.

No Military ever showed any interest because dissolution of Soviet Union, it led to budget cuts in Western Military. You cant expect RPG that has abilty to destroy tanks will be light weight like pistols.

Nah, it was not bought because it is completely opposite to the idea of lightweight anti armor weapon. In fact it is better to invest in to ATGM's and leave RPG's as lightweight firesupport weapons to deal with fortifications and light armor.

Do you have experience about Wiki? Do you a bit about Wikipedia's Reliable source? You cant write any article unless it is not supported by sources. Get a life.

Instead of using Wikipedia I preffer to use books. You know why? Because contrary to children like you, people of science, students on universities, use books as their main source of knowledge.

However I am perfectly aware that primitives like you are incapable to comprehend such simple fact.

Do you work in Military?

Not yet. I am a student of Homeland Security at Academy Of National Defence in Warsaw, which is one of the biggest military-civilian academy's of such type in my country. Later I plan to or work for Ministry of Defence, or join Military as proffesional soldier.

I also hold fire arms.

Yes I know, you play Call of Duty.

The closer is always better. During Gulf War Iraq fired Scud missiles at Israel but Scuds had to cross a long distance so Scud's accuracy and pay load decreased dramatically, check this. Iraqi pilots tried to get target lock behind visual range and most time they missed. Instead of putting your BS go learn those.

Early fire arms such as Musket had low accuracy that's why they were used to fire from a firing line hoping at least some thing will hit something.

Indo-Pakistani War 1965 - Battle of Asal Uttar | Tank Battles

Do you know why the term maximum range and effective range came? For this, learn.

So seriously, we should get back to using swords and fight like a real men?

I dont have any problem it is you who still did not show Tank's versatility beside proving how strong is tanks armour again and again.

I prove it, only you can't accept that you are stupid primitive that is incapable to understand even the most simple text.

You cant understand reality, while tanks have strong armours(not impenetrable though) but they are not fast as aircraft, besides tank's slow firing cannons are more ineffective than aircrafts.

I dont care if anybody supports me or not.

Not only it is BS. But also in person I would kick you in your stupid face.

Idiots like you should be exterminated for betterment of humanity.

When APC's are strong enough to counter small arms, not for others. And today after Vietnam war did west see any war which has a really tough challenge? Russian BMPs were destroyed in large scale by Chechens, Gulf war was done by airforce, Taliban is nuisance more expert to kill women than combat.

Funny that real soldiers, real generals have a very different opinions about these issues than you. Because you are teenage armchair general who plays computer games and don't have any higher education, you don't have any right to speak about things you don't understand.

And neither I have time and strenght to again post every information I allready posted in this while thread and many more, for a single moron like you, who don't even try to read the whole topic to find informations which were discussed for months, years even.

Show me a modern APC that can withstand multiple RPG 29 or RPG 32 hits.

Namer is technically a HAPC.

And there are also HIFV's.

You see there are such design, and there will be more, for example new US Army's GCV IFV.

 

[Damian]

Here you have Ukrainian BMPT-64 heavy IFV, one of the best protected vehicles in it's class.

 

[Waffen SS]

Now let's take a short look at all pro and cons of aircraft and tank.

Protection: For protection Tanks, hands down, tank's heavy armour allows it to take heavy punishment. And small arms fire is nothing against tanks. For aircraft all though some aircraft's are known for their ruggedness they are not much protected like tanks.

Mobility: For Mobility aircrafts, aircrafts can fly and are very much fast, tank's mobility generally depends on terrain, while tanks can roll good in desert or plain ground tanks cant role good in mountain area, jungle area that's why we see very limited tank war in Ww2's Pacific theater. In addition Tanks have problem of getting struck in mud. Indian army is hugely concerned about heavy weight Arjuns, in 1980's Pakistan denied Us offer to buy M1 Abrams because they considered M1 too heavy. In addition Tanks cant cross river they need bridge. They also get sruck in mud.

This WW2 German Tiger Tank crashed while crossing a wooden bridge.

Armament: Tank's basic armament is a 120 mm(generally) cannon, and couple of machine guns, while aircraft's can carry various weapons, from 30 mm s for strafing run from anti-ship missile or even nuclear bomb. So aircrafts wins here.

Historical examples of match up among them: There are many cases where aircrafts single handley devastated tank assault. Most notable example would be Battle of Longewala where Indian Hawker Hunters blunted Pakistani tank assault. How ever not a single example of tanks blunting air strike.

Threats: Aircrafts threats are attack from another aircraft, fear of getting destroyed while in ground(it can be only done as happened generally by airstrike not tank attack, biggest example operation Moked of 1967), SAMs and anti aircraft fire and for helicopters small arms fire. Tanks threats are Anti-tank guns, of course air strike, mines, artillery threat,, can be captured by enemy infantry friendly troops are pushed back.

So it is clear Tank's only advantageous is it's armour. Otherwise in all cases aircraft wins.
@Damian I hold guns in weapon shows and no I am not game addicted.

Nah, it was not bought because it is completely opposite to the idea of lightweight anti armor weapon. In fact it is better to invest in to ATGM's and leave RPG's as lightweight firesupport weapons to deal with fortifications and light armor.

Yes that's why i used MILAN and Jevelin many times here, how ever RPGs are still a threat against Tanks.

To start a deflagration process you need only a single hit in to ammunition.

Was there any cases of that? A single hit in ammunition or any important place can of course destroy any thing. During Japanese raid on Darwin a single Japanese plane(Zero) was struck by .303 bullet fired by an unknown soldier it brought the entire plane down.

I meant you cant get lucky hits again and again, that's why to ignite ammunition you need to fire multiple RPGs.

It is always easy to kill an enemy shooting in his head, question is how many times you can accurately hit in enemy's head?

For weapons close range better do more research you will figure then. Know something about Gulf war, US Revolutionary and Napoleonic era war and over all warfare instead of insisting only on tanks.

You are probably old man who is still living in 1930's when Guderian and others introduced Tank theory. Advance 2 or 3 years more then you can see infantry held rockets and air attack destroying tanks. I am not kid but enough to punch you down.

Air power decides all.

And learn how to show respect to others, you made lots of offensive words it shows your poor mentality.

Damian living in dreaming to be a Rommel of 21st century. Go ahead please, :thumb: reality is far different.

You are addicted to Tank. :drunk:

It is beyond logic's ability to correct you.

 

[Damian]

Mobility: For Mobility aircrafts, aircrafts can fly and are very much fast, tank's mobility generally depends on terrain, while tanks can roll good in desert or plain ground tanks cant role good in mountain area, jungle area that's why we see very limited tank war in Ww2's Pacific theater. In addition Tanks have problem of getting struck in mud. Indian army is hugely concerned about heavy weight Arjuns, in 1980's Pakistan denied Us offer to buy M1 Abrams because they considered M1 too heavy. In addition Tanks cant cross river they need bridge. They also get sruck in mud.

Complete bullshit. So perhaps we should replace cars with personall aircrafts as well?

Only complete imbecile can compare a different kind of transportation this way.

And hey guess what, tanks do not need bridges to cross rivers, tanks can swim or ford rivers.

Armament: Tank's basic armament is a 120 mm(generally) cannon, and couple of machine guns, while aircraft's can carry various weapons, from 30 mm s for strafing run from anti-ship missile or even nuclear bomb. So aircrafts wins here.

Idiotic argument. Who sane would use a nuclear weapon these days?

And no, aircrafts do not win here.

Precision of unguided weapons fired from aircrafts are low, while guided munitions are incredibly expensive. In fact tank gun is cheaper, simpler, versatile and being with a tank on the front line have a quicker reaction time from threat detection to engagement.

This is why troops on the ground preffer AFV's support.

Historical examples of match up among them: There are many cases where aircrafts single handley devastated tank assault. Most notable example would be Battle of Longewala where Indian Hawker Hunters blunted Pakistani tank assault. How ever not a single example of tanks blunting air strike.

Yeah right, one battle. How it is that in 1991 during Operation Desert Storm USAF and coalition air forces at all, were unable to defeat Iraqi ground forces, which cause a several large tank vs tank battles?

Threats: Aircrafts threats are attack from another aircraft, fear of getting destroyed while in ground(it can be only done as happened generally by airstrike not tank attack, biggest example operation Moked of 1967), SAMs and anti aircraft fire and for helicopters small arms fire. Tanks threats are Anti-tank guns, of course air strike, mines, artillery threat,, can be captured by enemy infantry friendly troops are pushed back.

Completely idiotic "arguments".

So it is clear Tank's only advantageous is it's armour. Otherwise in all cases aircraft wins.

No, but you as typical teenage armchair general, you are incapable to even properly compare things... other things that your comparrision is out of sense.

What next? We should also replace Navy vessels with aircrafts?

@Damian I hold guns in weapon shows and no I am not game addicted.

No, you hold guns only in computer games which is obvious from your posts, as you have too low intelect to be adult enough have access for military exhibitions... well at least in civilized countries, children below 18 years old are forbidden to have access. And yes, you are game addicted.

Was there any cases of that? A single hit in ammunition or any important place can of course destroy any thing. During Japanese raid on Darwin a single Japanese plane(Zero) was struck by .303 bullet fired by an unknown soldier it brought the entire plane down.

I meant you cant get lucky hits again and again, that's why to ignite ammunition you need to fire multiple RPGs.

It is always easy to kill an enemy shooting in his head, question is how many times you can accurately hit in enemy's head?

For weapons close range better do more research you will figure then. Know something about Gulf war, US Revolutionary and Napoleonic era war and over all warfare instead of insisting only on tanks.

And this is so stupid that I don't even know how to respond.

Good for India that you are only stupid kid who don't have any impact on decisions made by people at MoD and General Staff.

Ok this way.

No, you do not need multiple RPG hits to ignite ammunition, even single hit in the right place can be sufficent.

As for Gulf War, I know about it more than you.

Gulf War was a perfect example of modern armor mechanized warfare, where tanks and IFV's were main tool used to defeat Iraqi forces. Rest which is artillery and airforces were there only to provide support, nothing else.

And results from US research teams shows greatly that ground forces were far more effective and what's more, contrary to "fly boys" they do not lie in their statistics about enemy casualties they inflict.

 

[Damian]

http://www.benning.army.mil/armor/content/pdf/IDR 10 Sept 2012.pdf

Here is a very interesting document about recent US Armed Forces lessons learned from various conflicts about how usefull the tank is, and there is nececity to keep it as one of main weapon systems.

 

[Waffen SS]

Complete bullshit. So perhaps we should replace cars with personall aircrafts as well?

Only complete imbecile can compare a different kind of transportation this way.

And hey guess what, tanks do not need bridges to cross rivers, tanks can swim or ford rivers.

Oh, new lesson learnt. Tanks dont need bridge.

The question is the long funnel type thing that was on the Tank, what is this? And is this tank able to battle after this?

Personal aircraft? Yes, flying cars are coming when cars will fly. Will you prefer to use horse instead of a motorbike?

Idiotic argument. Who sane would use a nuclear weapon these days?

And no, aircrafts do not win here.

Precision of unguided weapons fired from aircrafts are low, while guided munitions are incredibly expensive. In fact tank gun is cheaper, simpler, versatile and being with a tank on the front line have a quicker reaction time from threat detection to engagement.

This is why troops on the ground preffer AFV's support.

Nuclear weapon, cant you even understand how many various types of weapon can aircraft carry? So I mentioned it. From Weapon for strafing run to destroy everything.

Hundreds of Iraqi tanks were destroyed by A 10 and how many of them were destroyed by guided missile? You know during Battle of Longewala Hawker Hunters used unguided rockets 30 mm unguideds to destroy tanks?

Yeah right, one battle. How it is that in 1991 during Operation Desert Storm USAF and coalition air forces at all, were unable to defeat Iraqi ground forces, which cause a several large tank vs tank battles?

Battle of 73 Easting? Coalition was attacking Iraqi troops dug in well in and you expect no land war will happen? You know with out air attack Iraqi opposition would be much harder? Iraq's elite Republican Guard and Iraqi army were worn out, and you should also know not all Coalition aircraft was engaged to attack tanks only, dont forget attack on Scud launchers, infrastructure bombing.

Completely idiotic "arguments".

How? Oh yes, I did not add Mechs.

No, but you as typical teenage armchair general, you are incapable to even properly compare things... other things that your comparrision is out of sense.

What next? We should also replace Navy vessels with aircrafts?

You read too much books. It is better to inform you now a day's navy's primary strike group is aircraft. That's why Naval Aviation exists to attack enemy ships and enemy harbour only. Warship to warship days are over. Search about Falkland's war.

No, you hold guns only in computer games which is obvious from your posts, as you have too low intelect to be adult enough have access for military exhibitions... well at least in civilized countries, children below 18 years old are forbidden to have access. And yes, you are game addicted.

In weapon show by Army many kids younger than me hold guns of course not loaded. So you are addicted to tanks.

Do not forget it was Flyboys who broke Iraq's will to fight.

http://www.forceindia.net/PressureontheGroundAugust2012.aspx

And for F 35B STVOL it is intended to replace A 10 as USAF likes more multi-role planes than single mission planes.

If right place RPG hit is very hard.

 

[Damian]

The question is the long funnel type thing that was on the Tank, what is this? And is this tank able to battle after this?

This is snorkel, snorkel can be quickly attached or detached by crew without going outside a tank, there are different types of snorkels. So yes, after the tank ends deep fording one of crew members quickly deattache snorkel and the tank can immidietaly go in to battle.

Personal aircraft? Yes, flying cars are coming when cars will fly. Will you prefer to use horse instead of a motorbike?

Flying cars is a fantasy of insane people.

Nuclear weapon, cant you even understand how many various types of weapon can aircraft carry? So I mentioned it. From Weapon for strafing run to destroy everything.

Nope, it is not that effectie, in fact aircraft weapons hae poor accuracy, thus they are making too much unnececary damage and ciilian casualties, while guided munitions are damn expensie and not much of them are manufactured, las time France froces in Libya used their whole storage of guided ammunition, which further points out how uneconomical this is.

Hundreds of Iraqi tanks were destroyed by A 10 and how many of them were destroyed by guided missile?

If you believe in lies told by "fly boys".

US experts who analised reports and in person visited battlefields, claims that air forces (among them A-10's) have very low efficency against ground targets, especially tanks. @militarysta can provide exact data, in fact he written about this here.

You know during Battle of Longewala Hawker Hunters used unguided rockets 30 mm unguideds to destroy tanks?

And they efficency was definetely same as uring WWII which was... nearly zero.

Battle of 73 Easting?

Not only, there were even bigger tank vs tank battle like battle for Medina ridge, battle for Norfolk.

Coalition was attacking Iraqi troops dug in well in and you expect no land war will happen? You know with out air attack Iraqi opposition would be much harder? Iraq's elite Republican Guard and Iraqi army were worn out, and you should also know not all Coalition aircraft was engaged to attack tanks only, dont forget attack on Scud launchers, infrastructure bombing.

One Iraqi colonel I believe said something like that, "when I get in to Kuwait I had 30 tanks, after months of coalition air bombardments I had 28 tanks, after 30 minutes fo fight against coalitions tanks, I had no more tanks".

Efficency of air forces against ground forces is low. How long Libyan Army was capable to fight using also their own AFV's against rebels despite the fact that Libyan Army was bombarded for a long time by coalition?

How?

If you can't understand what is a point to even explain? You are like a cockroach, incapable to comprehend reality.

You read too much books. It is better to inform you now a day's navy's primary strike group is aircraft. That's why Naval Aviation exists to attack enemy ships and enemy harbour only. Warship to warship days are over.

Too much books? Perhaps I should be like you? A stupiud teenager playing computer games whole his life? No thanks, I don't want to waste my life to be as pathetic as you are.

And hey, funny thing but Navy's of different nations still orders vessels with ship vs ship capabilities.

So you want to say that you are smarter than officers and sailors serving in the Navy?

You are indeed arogant piece of shit you know.

In weapon show fair by Army many kids younger than me hold guns of course not loaded.

Oh so you admitt you are just a stupid kid? At last, some honesty from you moron.

As for children, well, children first should be educated, and not spoiled by such way, later such children like you, without any knowledge pretend to be smarter than adults.

So you are addicted to tanks.

No, AFV's are just one of my many passions, and passion is something very different than addiction.

Do not forget it was Flyboys who broke Iraq's will to fight.

And another lie.

This is probably why Iraqis were fighting rather well for their capabilities in 1991 and 2003 inflicting casualties.

http://www.forceindia.net/Pressureon...ugust2012.aspx

Funny article, I wonder how it is possible that other nations are capable to operate tanks with similiar weight in similiar terrain.

 

[apple]

Nah, it was not bought because it is completely opposite to the idea of lightweight anti armor weapon. In fact it is better to invest in to ATGM's and leave RPG's as lightweight firesupport weapons to deal with fortifications and light armor.

Am not a serving member of the Australian (nor any other) Defence Forces. But the only recent use of LAW's I've seen, on the internet, has been Australian soldiers in Afghanistan shooting M72's. Perhaps other military are still using them similiarly i.e. as fire support, not ATW's, I don't know. Know that the British infantry has been using Javelin's (which must be fun to carry) against fortificated Taliban positions and read, on the internet, that the US has re-issued some really old (M67) recoilless rifles for the same purpose.

Namer is technically a HAPC.

And there are also HIFV's.

You see there are such design, and there will be more, for example new US Army's GCV IFV.

Examples of a less hi-tech solution to the same problem.

 

[Damian]

Examples of a less hi-tech solution to the same problem.

Nah, slat armor is not very effective, it have around 50% efficency against simple warheads, and tandem warheads seems to be largery unaffected by it.

 

[apple]

Nah, slat armor is not very effective, it have around 50% efficency against simple warheads, and tandem warheads seems to be largery unaffected by it.

Yeah, the first of my two photos is of an Australian ASLAV. They don't even bother to put on the cage anymore as, like you mention, it's not too effective. Also, it's very heavy. The floor armour on the ASLAV had been upgraded and both the extra armour, plus the cage, increases the vehicles weight so much that they felt (apparently) it lost too much mobility. So, they decided they couldn't have both and made a choose that IED's were a bigger threat than RPG's and kept the floor armour and binned the cage.

 

[Damian]

Instead of slat/cage armor use, the better is to use ERA. It is far more efficent (up to 90% against single and tandem warheads for modern ones) and today there are ERA's that can be used on lightly armored vehicles without danger that ERA explosion will damage vehicle hull.