Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Andrei_bt]

ERAWA-2 have interesting feature - it perform quite well against singke SC even in angle close to 90.

It i sagainst logic, suppose staged tests.

 

[militarysta]

It i sagainst logic, suppose staged tests.

Well, test result as I quoted. To be clear:

 

[Waffen SS]

So FGM 172 SRAW looks best infantry held anti-tank weapon, closely followed by RPG 29, RPG 30, RPG 32 and AT 5.

Damian once was banned from 2 different forums.

Battle of Vukovar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Battle of the Barracks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

btw if Nano technology is invented then we can also use it to boost armour of Helicopter and CAS aircraft much reducing their vulnerability.

Well what about Chinese Tanks?

The U.S. Army's New 84-Ton Tank Prototype Is Nearly IED-Proof [Updated] | Popular Science Hola this tank will be inducted into US army, it will be IED proof.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/28/army-says-no-to-more-tanks-but-congress-insists/

 

[Waffen SS]

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/lists/posts/post.aspx?ID=1294

So it is quite clear now US paratroopers want a light tank as replacement of M551 Sheridan.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120307/DEFREG02/303070011/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/28/abrams-tank-congress-army_n_3173717.html

No new tanks. US army says, US Congress pushes.

 

[militarysta]

Exmaples of the Non-Initiating precursors vs ERA

Ballistics 2011: 26th International Symposium - Google Książki

http://hsrlab.gatech.edu/AUTODYN/papers/paper142m.pdf

 

[militarysta]

It may be interesting:

JANE'S DEFENCE WEEKLY - JUNE 22, 2005

RUAG exploits new warhead technology

PAOLO VALPOLINI
JDW Correspondent Milan


RUAG's Defence Warhead Division demonstrated numerous new products in late May based on recently developed technology.
The new technology, which involves hollow-charge warheads based on a variable thickness molybdenum liner, has allowed RUAG to produce warheads that maintain optimal performance even if their desired stand-off distance (the distance between the target armour and the warhead detonation point) is not precisely respected, with the perforation remaining similar to results obtained where the stand-off distances are from three to five times the length of the charge diameter. Using this technology, RUAG charges can fully exploit almost all of the liner mass and put it where it is most needed at a speed of 11.5-12 km/s.
Two products employing the new technology were shown in action, the first being a 146 mm diameter charge containing 2.9 kg of explosive that perforated about 1,500 mm of ballistic steel consisting of a series of 80 mm thick steel plates. The molybdenum jet generated a hole with a diameter of 18-20 mm through the whole target. Such a warhead is proposed for the upgrade of anti-tank missiles of former generations as well as for new weapon systems in this category.
Another test was conducted using an RPG-7 rocket-propelled grenade launcher equipped with a RUAG tandem warhead designed to ensure good penetration even against armoured vehicles equipped with explosive reactive armour. This warhead achieves a penetration in excess of 900 mm against rolled homogenous armour and has an increased range up to 250-300 m. Tested against a former Swiss Army Pz68 main battle tank, it penetrated the gun breech block and remained inside the tank; subsequent tests produced both an entry and exit hole.
A warhead for the M72 LAW based on insensitive explosive and with a penetration in excess of 500 mm has also been developed: the current version is based on a single charge while a tandem warhead will be available soon.

INTERNATIONAL DEFENCE REVIEW - AUGUST, 2005

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

RUAG unveils two shaped-charge warheads

Neil Gibson


Two new shaped-charge warheads have been unveiled by the Swiss RUAG company: a molybdenum (Mo) lined 146 mm diameter (152 mm case) and the second a new and improved tandem copper-lined warhead for the RPG-7 weapon system.

The ability to defeat heavily armoured AFVs relies on two main technologies: shaped charges - also know as the Monroe or Neumann effect - and that of pure Kinetic Energy (KE) attack. The use of pure KE attack is not used in most guided and shoulder-launched anti-armour weapons at present, mainly due to the necessary velocity, inherent high complexity and potential lethality to an unprotected firer. Shaped charges, on the other hand, can be thrown - even hand-placed - and can still defeat heavy armour. In this case the energy required to penetrate the target comes from the explosive contained within the munition, not the munition's velocity.

This is accomplished by using the explosive to collapse a hollow lined cavity (normally metallic) into itself, forming a hypersonic jet of material which pushes its way through the target.

RUAG's compact 146 mm PBXW-11 filled warhead consists of an aluminium alloy case with a Mo elliptical shaped liner. Its PBXW-11 filling is a relatively insensitive pressed plastic bonded explosive (PBX) containing HMX. The warhead has a central detonator well, the detonation wave being directed to the periphery of the charge via RUAG's waveshaper material PEGAB (PolyEster with GlAssBubbles). In a series of radiographic tests, the jet tip velocity (Vtip) reached around 11.5 km/s, achieved through a combination of the liner shape, its thickness, initiation mode and material. The Mo liner, although difficult to fabricate, more costly and having a lower dynamic ductility, has a higher bulk speed of sound which allows for a higher liner collapse velocity and hence jet velocity. Penetration is also improved as Mo possesses a higher density in comparison to copper, 10,280 to 8,920 kg/m3. For the demonstrations at RUAG's range in May (2005), the warhead was placed at 5.5 cone-diameters (CD) from a target array consisting of 22, 80 mm-thick RHA plates. The detonation of the charge resulted in the perforation of 17 plates and the lodging of the jet remnants some distance into number 18, an approximate penetration of some 10 cone diameters (1.45 m), with the average hole diameter through the plates by approximately 20 mm.

The new tandem RPG-7 warhead, unlike the previous firing, was a full system test. The launcher was at a distance of by approximately 75 m to the target. The target was a Swiss Pz68 tank, aligned so the round impacted its side. The warhead consists of two shaped charges: a small precursor charge (approximately 30 mm diameter); and the main charge (100-112 mm). Both were copper-lined and with either a PBXW-11 or LX-14 filling. No details were given of the liner profile, initiation mode, or whether RUAG's FORCE-HAMMER shock decoupling technology was used. In static tests the warhead is capable of penetrating >900 mm of RHA after second generation ERA. The dynamic firing resulted in the round striking the centre of the tank, approximately 20 mm below the turret, the jet passed along the top of the hull armour, ripping it open, then passed through the turret ring and embedded itself in the main gun's breech block. Total penetration depth was not disclosed, but this hit would have certainly resulted in an operational kill, as the main gun was out of action.

Germany's Dynamit Nobel Defence is best known for its Panzerfaust 3 (Pzf 3) anti-tank rocket launcher that fires 110 mm multipurpose shaped-charge warheads. The baseline version has a 1.5 kg HE filling and can penetrate more than 800 mm RHA. It can be switched from anti-armour to anti-masonry/anti-bunker mode by retracting the probe on the front of the warhead. The Pzf 3-T (Tandem) model differs in having an additional shaped-charge precursor installed in the probe that can perforate ERA without detonating it. If the probe is not extended, the precursor serves to add 100 g of explosive to the main charge, increasing the weapon's effectiveness against secondary targets. The latest version is the Pzf 3-IT (Improved Tandem), whose extended probe gives a longer standoff and enables the warhead to penetrate 900 mm RHA behind ERA. Bunkerfaust, the anti-bunker version of Pzf 3, fires a Diehl-designed warhead combining a large precursor and a follow-through fragmentation grenade that detonates behind the wall.

Another contributor to the reproducibility and effectiveness of RUAG warhead designs is the company's proprietary virtual development tool, based on an object-oriented system analytical toolset and mathematical modelling. This process is used to optimise existing warheads and develop new materials and technologies for achieving improved behind-wall or behind-armour effects.

For multiple warheads incorporating charges with diameters of 100 mm or less, RUAG has also introduced its proprietary Roundhammer decoupler, which serves to reduce any disruption to the main charge caused by the shock, blast and fragments generated by precursor charges.

Beneficiaries of these techniques include the TOP100 warhead supplied for the Instalaza Alcotan-100 rocket launcher system. The TOP100 has a 100 mm main charge and 65 mm non-initiating precursor charge, its total mass being 2.9 kg and its explosive mass 850 g. This version has a nominal 8.5 charge diameter (CD) penetration capability, exhibiting a behind-ERA penetration capability in excess of 800 mm.

 

[Damian]

Damian once was banned from 2 different forums.

Really, which ones?

And even so, then what? I am not responsible for actions of some idiots.

The U.S. Army's New 84-Ton Tank Prototype Is Nearly IED-Proof [Updated] | Popular Science Hola this tank will be inducted into US army, it will be IED proof.

This is not a tank, this is IFV and IFV it will replace, what a moron write this, and what a moron you are by not understanding this. Neither GCV IFV will weight 84 tons, this is just a maximum weight of BAE proposal, that suspension can handle, in reality this vehicle will be much lighter, and weight will be dependant on modular armor configuration.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...G02/303070011/

Abrams Tank Pushed By Congress Despite Army's Protests

No new tanks. US army says, US Congress pushes.

Again, you know nothing, and don't understand nothing.

US Army said that no new tanks in present configuration due to Pentagon budget cuts, because US Army have also other important programs, and tank fleet is actually in perfect condition.

Which means, that US Army wants a break in production of tanks in currently avaiable variants, and redirect avaiable funds for R&D program for the ECP (Engineering Change Proposal) modernization, and this plan is currently realized.

ECP modernizations have phases, currently there are done preparations for building 9 prototypes of the M1 tank with ECP1 upgrades. From 2014 to 2017, these prototypes will be tested and eventually modified to meet all requirements. In 2018 if all tests will be successfull, low rate initial production of the M1 with ECP1 upgrades will begin, and later this year mass production of M1 tanks with ECP1 upgrades starts.

US Army also projects that beyond year 2025-2030 they will start program to design completely new MBT.

Instead of reading idiotic articles written by morons, perhaps you should read official documents provided by US Army itself? What, you are unable to search these documents?

http://www.g8.army.mil/pdf/AEMP2014_lq.pdf
http://www.g8.army.mil/pdf/AEMS_04March2013_lq.pdf

It took me 1 minute to find these official documents that explains everything in details and how it looks in reality, while you base you pity posts on some moronic press informations.

 

[methos]

So it's precursor developed to non-ignit ERA, as describe in some in Sout Africa work about sucht style of the precursor? If I remember I sent You those pdf.

The brochure says that the Panzerfaust-3T's (and I suppose this technology was carried over to the PzF-3IT) precursor warhead does not ignite the explosives inside the ERA. If this has any relation to the work done in different laboratories and published in journal papers is something which I don't know. The extract from the brochure:
"[...] [/i]Vorhohlladung durchschlägt reaktive Zusatzpanzerungen am Kampffahrzeug, ohne den darin befindlichen Sprengstoff auszulösen, damit dieser nicht die panzerbrechende Wirkung der Haupthohlladung beeinträchtigt oder verhindert[/i]".

Panzerfaust-3IT600, caliber 110mm:
a)"over" 900mm RHA, CD = 8.18
b) up to 1000mm RHA, CD = 9.1

I am not entirely sure if the values for the Panzerfaust-3-IT's penetration are based on the main warhead being able to penetrate more armour, because the information that the precursor warhead might not initiate the ERA leaves another possibility open: What if the precursor warhead not only pierces through the ERA, but also partially perforates the base armour and the main warhead directly hits it's penetration channel?

Vell maybe, you have right Methos, and - SC warhed penetration was equal circa 4,6 cone diameter in middle 1960s,
at the end of 1970/1980 penetration was equal circa 5,2 cone diameter and in the end of the 1980's it was equal to circa 6 cone diameter (CD). In first half of the 1990s the best avaible penetration was equal to 6,9-7 cone diameter, but for the newest cone and SC warhed we have penetration equal to 8-9 CD.

Well, Panzerfaust-3-T entered service in 1998, the PzF-3-IT entered service somewhere in the past decade as part of the IDZ programme (which iirc. was initialized in 2004). I have a question about the Polish trials mentioned here. There it is mention that the Polish army/WITU did test the Panzerfaust-3-T and "improved 3-T600". This seems odd, because I am not sure if the Panzerfaust-3-IT was even in existence then...
At least the penetration values are exaggerated. The PzF-3T penetrates "more than 700 mm RHA after ERA" according to the German army and "more than 800 mm RHA after ERA" according to Dynamit Nobel Defence.

from what i've read: 17 tons with "full armour kit" 13 tons with "reduced protection".

That doesn't sound right. The early Leopard 2 turret weighed 15.5 tonnes, while having probably twice the frontal profile of the Falcon-2.

So FGM 172 SRAW looks best infantry held anti-tank weapon, closely followed by RPG 29, RPG 30, RPG 32 and AT 5.

The SRAW is however a guided anti-tank missile and not a hand-held anti-tank weapon.

 

[militarysta]

The brochure says that the Panzerfaust-3T's (and I suppose this technology was carried over to the PzF-3IT) precursor warhead does not ignite the explosives inside the ERA. If this has any relation to the work done in different laboratories and published in journal papers is something which I don't know. The extract from the brochure:
"[...] [/i]Vorhohlladung durchschlägt reaktive Zusatzpanzerungen am Kampffahrzeug, ohne den darin befindlichen Sprengstoff auszulösen, damit dieser nicht die panzerbrechende Wirkung der Haupthohlladung beeinträchtigt oder verhindert[/i]".

More or less it's the same way of overcome ERA as describe in both balistic symposium thesis, and present in IDR artcile:

The Pzf 3-T (Tandem) model differs in having an additional shaped-charge precursor installed in the probe that can perforate ERA without detonating it. If the probe is not extended, the precursor serves to add 100 g of explosive to the main charge, increasing the weapon's effectiveness against secondary targets.

On the same principle is workin RPG-29 precursor acoding to some otvaga2000.ru members.

What if the precursor warhead not only pierces through the ERA, but also partially perforates the base armour and the main warhead directly hits it's penetration channel?

It's less possible couse two problem:
a) even jet have a some radius of error during fly - it's almoust impossible to achive stricty linear two jet flying path from precursor and main warhed
b) during target hit proecursor jet will split out and disturbe "main" jet penetration - this problem was describe in some Soviet thesisi posted on otvaga week ago. Of course they must be some way to reduce this problem, but it can be significant.
c) I read that only sure solution is create precursor jet so big that it's hit place will be bigger then "radius of error" for main SC jet.
Anyway -this photo shows this problem perfect:

we can see perfet when precursor(or first SC) nd it's job (BK-31M round work on photo)

Well, Panzerfaust-3-T entered service in 1998, the PzF-3-IT entered service somewhere in the past decade as part of the IDZ programme (which iirc. was initialized in 2004). I have a question about the Polish trials mentioned here. There it is mention that the Polish army/WITU did test the Panzerfaust-3-T and "improved 3-T600". This seems odd, because I am not sure if the Panzerfaust-3-IT was even in existence then...
At least the penetration values are exaggerated. The PzF-3T penetrates "more than 700 mm RHA after ERA" according to the German army and "more than 800 mm RHA after ERA" according to Dynamit Nobel Defence.

Both problem where explain in ERAWA developer book:


translation whole part of text:
The ERAWa-1 and ERAWA-2 casettes was tested (static and dynamic tests) agianst the most powerfull exist now anty-tank hand held wepond - tandem SC Panzerfaust-3IT form german manufacurer Dynamit Nobel. Those AT have avilities to perforation 1000mmm RHA protected by standard NATO ERA casette. No single other manufacurer on whole world give so big penetration value for ERA + RHA for its AT hand held weapons. So ERAWa-1 casettes (not developed to achive protection against tandem warhed), and espacially ERAWA-2 casettes was tested in most difficult conditions (milit.-in context -against most powerfull exist then AT hand held weapons).

Next we have descripison of the static test only (no single mentioned about dinamic tests) -I will not translat this part cous all is visible on photos.

Next part:


translate:

Dynamic test was done from small range -15m, whit angle = 75 and 60 degree, in to centre of the 10 cassetes ERAWA-1 and ERAWa-2 panels placed like on PT-91 tank
Next it is descripsion about how difficult is to hit in central point of the ERAWA casette whit sucht angle - so I will not translate part about ERAWA casette dimension and how is depend on hit angle

thier part is most interesting:
All tests result shown that ERAWA-2 casette is mucht better then "standard NATO ERA casette" and can protect (ERAWA-2 casettes -milit) sucesfully RHA armour. Those casettes can be a new NATO standard for test double SC warhed.
(...)
tests result shown that AT hand held Panzerfaust-3IT have brillant primer, which allows to shoot against armour whit very small angle equal to 15 degree, and it's (primer) is ready very quickly after granade lunched - so it's possible to attack IFV on extremly low (short) distanse.

Those infos above shoud be taken whit this:

 

[militarysta]

@methos, can you clean your PM box? I can;t sent any single PM to You.

 

[Waffen SS]

The SRAW is however a guided anti-tank missile and not a hand-held anti-tank weapon.

This is not a tank, this is IFV and IFV it will replace, what a moron write this, and what a moron you are by not understanding this. Neither GCV IFV will weight 84 tons, this is just a maximum weight of BAE proposal, that suspension can handle, in reality this vehicle will be much lighter, and weight will be dependant on modular armor configuration.

What ever, all problems which Tanks have extremely vulnerable unless not supported by infantry, heavy, cant go every where all are present.

Instead of building purpose built APC to carry troops, IFV to support and Tank, it is wiser to make new vehicle which will have capacity to carry infantry in back, at least 10, heavy fire power like tank if not then at least 100 mm to 105 mm gun. Side armour to withstand .50 Cal, small arms, and grenade hits as well as distant sharpnel. And good belly armour to counter mines, plus ability to swim. So multirole combat vehicle over purpose built vehicle.

Heavy Side armour is not good option, most threat comes from small arms, so minimum armour to counter this is okay. After adding huge armour at huge cost and when it will be penetrated by RPG 29 by a lone fella it will be disgusting, plus adding heavy armour increases weight extremely. Good belly armour to clear mine fields for upcoming infantry, and of course the ability to swim.

 

[methos]

methos, can you clean your PM box? I can;t sent any single PM to You.

Ok, done.

Yes, you can hold a SRAW in your hand, but it still is a guided weapon and not a handheld ("dumb") weapon system, which means that it is not in the same category and by it's characteristics (like price, range, etc.) it is not comparable to them. There are also other types of guided ATGMs which can be fired from the shoulders of a man.

 

[Andrei_bt]

IMHO rather not:

a) judging internal video from Chineese propaganda TV there is not anought space for thicker bacplate
b) IMHO all chineese tanks whit "modular" armour have simmilar problem as VT-1 and clones:


IMHO backplate is thinner then we suspected.

I am judging from this drawing - http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/4364/merkwannabe.jpg
Alaso thay have cust base turret, which is not possible to make thin.

 

[militarysta]

I am judging from this drawing - http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/4364/merkwannabe.jpg
Alaso thay have cust base turret, which is not possible to make thin.

I had used it to, but obvious qestions are:
a) who made this draw
b) what type od tank it's present
c) we shoud ask ourself if this draw is not chineese propaganda work. They post many bullshit about super-duper ZTZ 125mm ammo, armour, and oher. From china we have doznes photoshoped aircraft, planes, rockets, planes photos - and no single photoshoped tank photo? I don;t think so.
What more - posted photo shown that new ZTZ tanks had welded backplate (before armour module).

ZTZ:

what more, I can;t see cast here:

So Im thinking that backplate can be thinner then we suspected...

 

[Damian]

What ever, all problems which Tanks have extremely vulnerable unless not supported by infantry, heavy, cant go every where all are present.

Protection is not absolutely determined by weight of vehicle. In fact all future tanks will have much lesser weight. And contrary to beliefes of some child, tanks actually are one of the most mobile vehicles ever designed by a men. They actually can operate in vast types of environements.

And using words "what ever" shows only how ignorant you are.

Instead of building purpose built APC to carry troops, IFV to support and Tank, it is wiser to make new vehicle which will have capacity to carry infantry in back, at least 10, heavy fire power like tank if not then at least 100 mm to 105 mm gun. Side armour to withstand .50 Cal, small arms, and grenade hits as well as distant sharpnel. And good belly armour to counter mines, plus ability to swim. So multirole combat vehicle over purpose built vehicle.

Aha, said someone that do not have even proper education. This is the most idiotic idea made by one of biggest imbeciles I ever encountered in my whole life.

How you would design such vehicle eh? What weight it will have? How big it will be? Where you place dismounts, where you place nececary mechanical components? Where you store ammunition for all these weapons?

Did you ask such questions and try to find answers? Do you even consider if it is possible to design such vehicle that actually will be usefull on real battlefield? Of course not, because you are just stupid teenager who thinks that real world functions like a computer game, then no kid, real world do not functions like a computer game.

It is immposible to design a single multirole vehicle.

However real engineers and military personell responsible for creating requirements for new vehicles, designing and building them, know how to do this, and they found a much more logical and practical solution in form of FoV's or Family of Vehicles. What this simple term means? It is simple, we build a family of vehicles that shares common components like suspension components, engine, transmission, electrical systems, electronics etc.

Thus costs of production and vehicle service life are greatly reduced, logistics are simplified and improved, and so on and on.

We allready have such examples, be it the Israeli Merkava program, where we have Merkava tank, Namer HAPC, Nammera ARV, and there was also project of Sholef SPH.

We have for example such modern tanks like M1, Leopard 2, Leclerc or Challenger 1 & 2 which also have their own specialized variants like ARV's, ABV's, AVLB's etc.

Same goes with IFV's and APC's, where we have a basic variant and the whole family of specialized variants.

The future is even more interesting, for example in Russia we have a concept of 3 base platforms for different purposes.

We have a "Boomerang" medium wheeled platform for wheeled APC and it's specialized variants.
"Kurganets-25" medium tracked platform for IFV, light tank, APC, and other specialized variants.
And finally "Armata" heavy tracked platform for new MBT, heavy IFV, heavy APC, and other specialized variants.

This is the future, not some imagined and insane projects made by teenagers that don't have even slightest idea how ifficult is to design a vehicle and how many compromises must be made to do so.

Heavy Side armour is not good option, most threat comes from small arms, so minimum armour to counter this is okay. After adding huge armour at huge cost and when it will be penetrated by RPG 29 by a lone fella it will be disgusting, plus adding heavy armour increases weight extremely. Good belly armour to clear mine fields for upcoming infantry, and of course the ability to swim.

You are trully a complete idiot.

 

[Sovngard]

IMHO this is the one with maximum protection, note thick armor modules at turret front. For turret sides it would be problematic to install armor modules due to placement of crew hatches.

Don't you forget that there is two trunnions take up some part of these composite armor cavities.


And for comparison, the M60A2's turret weighed around 16 metric tons and had a 192 millimeters thick gun mantlet, sides of the turret had a thickness of 121 mm.

 

[Waffen SS]

Yes, you can hold a SRAW in your hand, but it still is a guided weapon and not a handheld ("dumb") weapon system, which means that it is not in the same category and by it's characteristics (like price, range, etc.) it is not comparable to them. There are also other types of guided ATGMs which can be fired from the shoulders of a man.

Handheld means those you can use by using your hand, there is nothing to do with guidance system. Such as SA 7 it is shoulder fired and man portable, it is guided, RPG 7 unguided.

Protection is not absolutely determined by weight of vehicle. In fact all future tanks will have much lesser weight. And contrary to beliefes of some child, tanks actually are one of the most mobile vehicles ever designed by a men. They actually can operate in vast types of environements.

Again another stupid sentence, Tanks cant roll good in Jungle and mountain, in narrow lanes of roads. Germans got this in Stalingrad. Americans in Vietnam. Vietnam was basically US's Helicopter war.

Aha, said someone that do not have even proper education. This is the most idiotic idea made by one of biggest imbeciles I ever encountered in my whole life.

How you would design such vehicle eh? What weight it will have? How big it will be? Where you place dismounts, where you place nececary mechanical components? Where you store ammunition for all these weapons?

Did you ask such questions and try to find answers? Do you even consider if it is possible to design such vehicle that actually will be usefull on real battlefield? Of course not, because you are just stupid teenager who thinks that real world functions like a computer game, then no kid, real world do not functions like a computer game.

It is immposible to design a single multirole vehicle.

Tank's 120 or 125 mm guns are not good enough to deal with individual soldiers when they are open, so instead of this large gun they should have 20 mm 30 mm or 40 mm autocannons which will be disastrous against enemy using. And to deal with enemy armour leave it to ATGMs.

Large tank guns are only good in blowing up pill box, cover, machine gun post from distance.

Basic variant? When it is okay to make Self Propelled Howitzers and Armour Recovery Vehicle from Basic variant, then it will be costly to make other specialized versions of this.

It is unnecessary to make Tanks to only blow up pill boxes, APCs for transport only.

Anti Tank system's power increased rapidly, Chobham armour, ERA or RHA armour is basically useless against RPG 29 32, RB 57 or FGM SRAW and ATGMs, so why bother making such heavy and costly armours? And this type light AT weapons are becoming more available.

Germans tried this by adding more and more armour believing the theory of heavy armour can take heavy punishment. In return Alles just upgraded their gun, British QF 17 Pounder and Sherman's 76 mm guns were devastating plus German's tanks became heavy. So when we see that if only upgrade our AT weaponry which is cheap and can penetrate armour then making heavy armour at huge cost is unnecessary.

It was always cheaper and easier to destroy any thing than building it.

Air power decides modern warfare, accept this or keep playing more Tank games.:taunt1:

So Mechanized Infantry can be replaced by Air born infantry. Helicopters will be used as support system. Every thing is vulnerable against air attack. So having air superiority is primary objective.

 

[Damian]

Again another stupid sentence, Tanks cant roll good in Jungle and mountain, in narrow lanes of roads. Germans got this in Stalingrad. Americans in Vietnam. Vietnam was basically US's Helicopter war.

No, it is not, these are conclussion of real military.

Americans currently made a study of all conflicts they were in, they concluded that actually tanks in Vietnam were very usefull and both Vietcong and North Vietnam Army, were not capable to fight efficently with M48 tanks.

In Stalingrad, German tanks were also very usefull in infantry support, of course if used properly.

Listen kid, contrary to you, I actually study at military academy, I educate myself in these things, and I know better than you.

Tank's 120 or 125 mm guns are not good enough to deal with individual soldiers, so instead of this large gun they should have 20 mm 30 mm or 40 mm autocannons which will be disastrous against enemy. And to deal with enemy armour leave it to ATGMs.

To the contrary, bigger calliber is actually more economic. A single programmable HE round of 120 or 125mm calliber, is more efficent than 20, 30 and 40mm automatic cannons.

Obviously you know nothing.

Same with ATGM's, their limitations are very well known for everyone that actually have any knowledge about military technology.

Large tank guns are only good in blowing up pill box, cover, machine gun post from distance.

Really, and you base this on what actually? Your own opinion?

Let's for example use a US Army "lessons learned" from 2003.

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/US-Field-Manuals/abrams-oif.pdf

Page 12, we can read that main gun was effective against vast types of targets. The APFSDS effects on armored targets were devastating, however due to majority targets being lightly armored targets, structures and non armored targets, HEAT and MPAT rounds were used mostly, with also good effects on targets.

http://www.benning.army.mil/armor/eARMOR/content/issues/2013/APR_JUN/Articles/PeraltaArticle.pdf

This article speaks about XM1069 AMP round, which is truly multipurpose programmable HE round.

Basic variant? When it is okay to make Self Propelled Howitzers and Armour Recovery Vehicle from Basic variant, then it will be costly to make other specialized versions of this.

How did you calculated it will be costly eh? Or this is again only your opinion not based on any scientific evidence or sources?

This is how real engineers and military personell do things, deal with it stupid kid.

It is unnecessary to make Tanks to only blow up pill boxes, APCs for transport only.

Tanks are designed as multipurpose direct fire platforms with high survivability, mobility and firepower, used in modern manouvere warfare for offensive and defensive operations as well to control ground. For such purpose their design is tailored, as design of APC is tailored to transport infantry squad on the battlefield, and IFV design is tailored to transport and support infantry squad in battle.

Anti Tank system's power increased rapidly, Chobham armour, ERA or RHA armour is basically useless against RPG 29 32, AT 5 or FGM SRAW and ATGMs, so why bother making such heavy and costly armours? And this type light AT weapons are becoming more available.

Really? Maybe because "Burlington" (there is no such thing as "Chobham" armor you imbecile, official and only codename was "Burlington") or ERA is effective?

Look here, tests of "Duplet" ERA against PG-7VR which is exactly the same warhead as PG-29V, just for use in RPG-7.


I see on video that ERA is actually effective against 105mm tandem HEAT warhead used in RPG-7, RPG-29 and RPG-32.

You want to argue with reality? Well be aware that this don't make you smarter, you are only making bigger idiot from yourself.

Germans tried this by adding more and more armour believing the theory of heavy armour can take heavy punishment. In return Alles just upgraded their gun, British QF 17 Pounder and Sherman's 76 mm guns were devastating plus German's tanks became heavy. So when we see that if only upgrade our AT weaponry which is cheap and can penetrate armour then making heavy armour at huge cost is unnecessary.

I wonder how stupid it is nececary to be, to compare obsolete WWII technology and design solutions, with modern technology.

If I would be your father, I would be ashamed from myself that I made with some women such a stupid kid, and that I didn't pay enough attention to educate it properly.

It was always cheaper and easier to destroy any thing than building it.

Then perhaps we all should stop progressing and get back to live in cheap caves eh? This is your solution? Regress instead of progress? Nothing strange that some people from some civilizations could not progress beyond caves.

Air power decides modern warfare, accept this or keep playing more Tank games.

Neither I play computer games, neither todays military sees air power as a decisivie in modern warfare. In fact after recent conflicts we see doubts in efficency of air power among the strongests militaries.

Air power was incapable to defeat Iraq, incapable to defeat insurgents in Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, incapable to defeat Serb forces in former Yugoslavia.

What we see is that actually air forces do not dictate in modern warfare.

Look at WWII, to defeat 3rd Reich, Allied air forces were in fact forced to literally destroy whole country, all significant cities, factories, and still 3rd Reich was fighting and started programs to build new factories hidden underground. There is even on Polish territory a huge unfinished underground complex where Nazis were building huge factory complex, they just did not finished it because of progress of Soviet ground forces.

So as we see, air forces actually could not have such dramatic impact on warfare as it was believed. This is a myth in which poorly educated and idiots believe.

So Mechanized Infantry can be replaced by Air born infantry. Helicopters will be used as support system.

And who, in a real military in a real world do this actually eh? Nobody, this is answer, nobody wants it.

But I am completely ok, if you are just mentally ill teenage idiot, who lives in his imagined world.

 

[militarysta]

:

Tank's 120 or 125 mm guns are not good enough to deal with individual soldiers when they are open, (...)

Large tank guns are only good in blowing up pill box, cover, machine gun post from distance.

ROTFL.
read those pdf cearfully and slowly plase

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012armaments/Tuesday14105ewert.pdf
notice what is shown on page 35-38

Typical Infantry Squad in Wedge Formation (30 soilders - 3x10)
first shot - hit 17 from 30 soilders
nex trial (next shot - hit 15 from 30 soilders)

Anti Tank system's power increased rapidly,

The same as armour protection.

Chobham armour, ERA or RHA armour is basically useless against RPG 29 32,

Ad thats the reson why for +/- 30 degree modern MBT are immune aginst most ATGM and hand-held AT weapons? becouse they are -here is nothing changes since intruduce Burlington armour.

 

[Damian]

http://www.google.pl/url?sa=t&rct=j...kYHIDA&usg=AFQjCNGjhN9swL9Ctre5v6Bka84W1B5zXg

http://www.cdfai.org/bergenarticles/Canadian tank squadrons success in Afghanistan goes untold.pdf
http://www.cdfai.org/PDF/Our Leopard tanks make the leap to Afghanistan.pdf

These PDF's are also very interesting and shows how modern military, again, rediscovered how usefull are tanks and heavy armor mechanized forces, also in such a difficult terrain like Afghanistan.

It also seems that impact of tanks use on enemy is much greater than use of drones and helicopters or other aircrafts.

Why? Also because of psycological reasons, tanks is something to be fear, armored beast that is very mobile, difficult to neutralize, and have a huge firepower.