Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Andrei_bt]

I had used it to, but obvious qestions are:

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

Look at A-Khalid turret base .

If it is 30-40 mm .... ?
it is cust . Same for Type96/99.

 

[Waffen SS]

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.

You know there was RPG 2?

If M 48 worked great then why and how Vietnam was is referred as Helicopter war? How UH-1 Iroqouis became symbol of US's involvement in Vietnam war? Why M 48 Patton did not became symbol?

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

You consider yourself smarter than German Generals and Soviet Generals? Germans tried to use tanks properly, but it failed because Soviets deployed large number handheld AT guns and Molotov Cocktails, Soviets threw it from window, doors and tanks burnt out. How in Winter War Finnish soldiers destroyed large number of Soviet tanks, IFVs?

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

You failed to prove, apart from egoistic attitude.

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.

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

How? Shells will be used for Howitzers only? How 125 mm shells will be effective against infantry? From your link?

Fire Power

1)* Over all very little sabot was used...

3)* Crew served machine guns .......

In page 12, it again indicates when .50 cal machine gun is effective against infantry then devastating power of main gun is not needed Generally. That's why I said auto cannons while 7.62 mm rounds are incredibly less powerful, .50 cal enough but still not better, so 20 mm autocannons atleast.

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.

Here it again proves what I was talking that Tank's main gun is only good to blow up bunkers, building from distance but not effective against enemy infantry. You see I was right.

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.

Is it canister round? Americans used this type in Vietnam.

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.

Why it will be not? Can you a tank as self propelled howitzer and ARV? When a vehicle combining the ability of tanks and APCs can be made, it can have SPH ability. Separate Tank for combat, separate APC to transport troops, is it better or a multirole vehicle which have fire power like tank and transport ability like APC? Cant you understand this basic thing? It is like WW2, Germans made dedicated Fighter, Dedicated ground attack while US made Fighter-Bomber able to act both as Fighter and attack. This way Multirole Combat aircraft theory came.

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.

If so then I would prefer IFV rather than purpose built tank to fire and APC to transport, this is what I am talking about.

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

Dude, RPG 29 has greater muzzle velocity than RPG 7, count it.

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

Your video is BS, it shows warheads are kept in a table type thing beside the armour, warheads did not hit the armour, it exploded beside armour, it can be better compared with IED. The hole shown here is not caused by Warhead's velocity but it's blast impact when it exploded just beside. Did you make this crap video?

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

dude then you had 76 mm as tank gun, now you have 125 mm gun, which is more powerful? 125 mm, only armour technology did not advance, gun technology also. Can Bullington armour survive hit from 120 mm or 125 mm guns?

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.

You understand nothing, I prefer fire power and mobility over protection.

For air power, which Polish territory that one captured from Germany after WW2? Such as East Prussia? USSR occupied Eastern Poland and Poland was given compensation from Germany, it was matter between Poland and USSR why Germany was brought here? Third Reich had great technology plus, German air defense was strong, in first allies suffered minimum loss, when German Luftwaffe was directed to Germany against enemy bombers then losses mounted up. Mean while as bulk of German airforce now was in Germany to protect homeland then Soviets had opportunity to increase their air superiority.

http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-0413102-132317/unrestricted/Rigole_thesis.pdf Read 63 page, even who opposed Strategical bombing they still preferred tactical bombing.

What about Japan? Which's economy almost broke down due to US bombing? Japan's industrial production was severally crippled by B 29's. NATO in 1999 could have start a direct offensive against Yugoslavia in Kosovo? Why they did not because of fearing extreme causality. In Iraq, they almost broke down. Their Army divisions and Guard divisions were exhausted before ground combat. You know what was Saddam's plan? They thought Coalition bombing would only lust 3 days then ground combat would begin then Iraqis would inflict atleast 30000 causalities breaking US public's moral thus forcing US to abandon, from Vietnam war experience, more causality you inflict Americans so much will oppose war. Indeed US bombing broke Iraqi defense. Their air force, Navy were destroyed or grounded or fled to Iran, in eve of bombing many Iraqi personals were on leave they never(very few) of them managed to return to front line, as telephone, electricity, bridges TV center all were destroyed. As a result none of Iraqi divisions had full strength plus their tanks, APC's were low on fuel and ammunition.

But again I think air force should concentrate more on ground attack to help army than strategic bombing or fighting their own war.

 

[Damian]

You know there was RPG 2?

ClGyy If M 48 worked great then why and how Vietnam was is referred as Helicopter war? How UH-1 Iroqouis became symbol of US's involvement in Vietnam war? Why M 48 Patton did not became symbol?

RPG-2 was ineffective, symbols are good for morons and simpletons like you. What I seek is truth, not symbols.

You consider yourself smarter than German Generals and Soviet Generals? Germans tried to use tanks properly, but it failed because Soviets deployed large number handheld AT guns and Molotov Cocktails, Soviets threw it from window, doors and tanks burnt out. How in Winter War Finnish soldiers destroyed large number of Soviet tanks, IFVs?

I consider myself smarter than you.

Germans used tanks with rather high efficency and effectiveness, despite flaws in German tanks design.

Soviets did not used hand held AT guns, they used AT rifles, there is a significant difference between both, seems not understandable by moron like you.

Fire weapons like Molotovs are not effective, in fact non effective against modern tanks. Modern tanks are immune to fire weapons when all hatches are closed.

You failed to prove, apart from egoistic attitude.

Well, I just don't like teenagers, and especially stupid teenagers like you, who try to talk with adults about things teenagers do not understand.

How? Shells will be used for Howitzers only? How 125 mm shells will be effective against infantry? From your link?

Oh, you do not understand simple written text? Did you even finished basic education in kindergarten? It seems not, even my dogs have higher IQ than you.

Fire Power

1)* Over all very little sabot was used...

3)* Crew served machine guns .......

In page 12, it again indicates when .50 cal machine gun is effective against infantry then devastating power of main gun is not needed Generally. That's why I said auto cannons while 7.62 mm rounds are incredibly less powerful, .50 cal enough but still not better, so 20 mm autocannons atleast.

Here it again proves what I was talking that Tank's main gun is only good to blow up bunkers, building from distance but not effective against enemy infantry. You see I was right.

So you do not understand this simple text in PDF document? Well, then good, now I am certain you will just be a simple peasant, where your place is, on a field.

Is it canister round? Americans used this type in Vietnam.

Please, explain me, because I just don't follow the mind processes of such idiots like you. Where you do not understand that XM1069 is a programmable HE round? Why this is not understanable by you? It is a simple description of ammunition presented in this article, where is the problem?

Oh, wait I get it, you are such a poorly educated guy, such an idiot, that is just incapable to see the difference between a cannister round and programmable HE round, just like he do not see a difference between AT gun and RPG?

Why it will be not? Can you a tank as self propelled howitzer and ARV? When a vehicle combining the ability of tanks and APCs can be made, it can have SPH ability. Separate Tank for combat, separate APC to transport troops, is it better or a multirole vehicle which have fire power like tank and transport ability like APC? Cant you understand this basic thing? It is like WW2, Germans made dedicated Fighter, Dedicated ground attack while US made Fighter-Bomber able to act both as Fighter and attack. This way Multirole Combat aircraft theory came.

First, you do not understand where costs are generated. Not in purpose build hulls, but in spare parts and other components that wear and tear during their service life. This is why family of vehicles is better idea. Not to mention it is immposible to design a multipurpose vehicle you propose.

But hey, let's have some laugh from you. Go on, design this vehicle of yours, we will see if you will do anything that have at least 1% of logic in it.

If so then I would prefer IFV rather than purpose built tank to fire and APC to transport, this is what I am talking about.

But IFV's are allready widespread and in use by many armies around the globe, and guess what? Real soldiers, use IFV's in close cooperation with MBT's, because IFV's can't survive long enough without MBT's protection.

Dude, RPG 29 has greater muzzle velocity than RPG 7, count it.

What the hell have muzzle velocity of HEAT round to it's penetration? HEAT round do not need muzzle velocity for penetration, simple.

Your video is BS, it shows warheads are kept in a table type thing beside the armour, warheads did not hit the armour, it exploded beside armour, it can be better compared with IED. The hole shown here is not caused by Warhead's velocity but it's blast impact when it exploded just beside. Did you make this crap video?

If you would live long enough on this world, you would know, how static armor tests with HEAT warheads are performed. Because HEAT warheads penetration do not depend on velocity, then it is simpler and more precise to perform static tests for better results, thus engineers can gather more precise data and have more precise conclusions.

But, hey, you are just a stupid teenager who do not know even how these things are done in real life, eh?

dude then you had 76 mm as tank gun, now you have 125 mm gun, which is more powerful? 125 mm, only armour technology did not advance, gun technology also. Can Bullington armour survive hit from 120 mm or 125 mm guns?

I am not your dude. Show some respect for adults.

And yes, 125mm smoothbore gun is more powerfull than 76mm rifled gun.

Armor and gun technology advanced.

Yes, "Burlington" can protect against a hit from 120mm or 125mm gun, or RPG, or ATGM, it was proved during tests as well as real battle conditions.

However "Burlington" long time ago was replaced by much more advanced armor protection, for example HAP (Heavy Armor Package) in USA, or "Dorchester" in UK.

You understand nothing, I prefer fire power and mobility over protection.

Did you ever had a fight with someone? Or do you perform some martial arts, like box for example? You see, in martial arts, without protection, you would not endure, you would loose. The same is in warfare, without protection, you are vurnable, you are dead. Why? Because any kind of mobility, does not provide enough speed, to escape projectiles, which are smaller and faster than you. This is why protection is more and more important.

For air power, which Polish territory that one captured from Germany after WW2? Such as East Prussia? USSR occupied Eastern Poland and Poland was given compensation from Germany, it was matter between Poland and USSR why Germany was brought here? Third Reich had great technology plus, German air defense was strong, in first allies suffered minimum loss, when German Luftwaffe was directed to Germany against enemy bombers then losses mounted up. Mean while as bulk of German airforce now was in Germany to protect homeland then Soviets had opportunity to increase their air superiority.

These are some bollocks that have no connection with topic.

What about Japan? Which's economy almost broke down due to US bombing? Japan's industrial production was severally crippled by B 29's.

And Japanese were still fighting and inflicting casualties to US forces. You see, crippling someones economy, does not mean he will surrender. He can endure if he have enough will to do so.

Besides this, nobody would accept carpet bombings these days, civilian casualties are unacceptable.

NATO in 1999 could have start a direct offensive against Yugoslavia in Kosovo? Why they did not because of fearing extreme causality.

Yeah, and what happened? Air raids were ineffective, in effect more civilians suffered and died, in effect because of this decision, many bad things were not prevented, why? Because only ground forces can conquer, control and defend terrain.

In Iraq, they almost broke down. Their Army divisions and Guard divisions were exhausted before ground combat. You know what was Saddam's plan? They thought Coalition bombing would only lust 3 days then ground combat would begin then Iraqis would inflict atleast 30000 causalities breaking US public's moral thus forcing US to abandon, from Vietnam war experience, more causality you inflict Americans so much will oppose war. Indeed US bombing broke Iraqi defense. Their air force, Navy were destroyed or grounded or fled to Iran, in eve of bombing many Iraqi personals were on leave they never(very few) of them managed to return to front line, as telephone, electricity, bridges TV center all were destroyed. As a result none of Iraqi divisions had full strength plus their tanks, APC's were low on fuel and ammunition.

And new sources completely contradict your lies.

Militarysta allready written about this, based on newest research about air forces efficency during Iraq war. This efficency was insignificant, Iraqi Army was broken and defeated only by coalition ground forces.

But again I think air force should concentrate more on ground attack to help army than strategic bombing or fighting their own war.

You think? So you believe you are smarter than real soldiers, and you know better how to fight a wars? You know better than people that finished years of education on universities and military academies? That have years of real life experiences?

You are incredibly dumb, ignorant and arrogant.

 

[Waffen SS]

@Damian do you think before what you write?

RPG-2 was ineffective, symbols are good for morons and simpletons like you. What I seek is truth, not symbols.

It had penetration power of up to 180 mm, while M 48 Patton had an armour of roughly 120 mm. You should better ask any former US servicemen from Vietnam war, how important role Helicopters played. Symbols originate from truth.

I consider myself smarter than you.

Germans used tanks with rather high efficency and effectiveness, despite flaws in German tanks design.

Soviets did not used hand held AT guns, they used AT rifles, there is a significant difference between both, seems not understandable by moron like you.

Fire weapons like Molotovs are not effective, in fact non effective against modern tanks. Modern tanks are immune to fire weapons when all hatches are closed.

Yeah sorry they used AT rifles, but still rifle is a gun.

Then why Germans lost in Stalingrad? They had clear superiority in armour. Accept the fact that in urban combat both tanks, and CAS aircraft are ineffective.

Oh, you do not understand simple written text? Did you even finished basic education in kindergarten? It seems not, even my dogs have higher IQ than you.

You and me both are humans if Dogs have higher IQ than me, then since we are both man then your dogs have higher IQ than you. Thus Dogs are your master, you are not. As Dogs have greater IQ.

So you do not understand this simple text in PDF document? Well, then good, now I am certain you will just be a simple peasant, where your place is, on a field.

Listen nincompoop, the PDF says Sabot rounds of main armament was rarely used, crews prefer mounted .50 cals and while doing so they became victim of sniper attack.

Please, explain me, because I just don't follow the mind processes of such idiots like you. Where you do not understand that XM1069 is a programmable HE round? Why this is not understanable by you? It is a simple description of ammunition presented in this article, where is the problem?

Oh, wait I get it, you are such a poorly educated guy, such an idiot, that is just incapable to see the difference between a cannister round and programmable HE round, just like he do not see a difference between AT gun and RPG?

I asked that question. HE rounds are only effective against hard targets like armour, building, pill box etc. To deal with infantry canister round is best. In Vietnam due to lack of enemy armour, Americans used it and got great effect.

First, you do not understand where costs are generated. Not in purpose build hulls, but in spare parts and other components that wear and tear during their service life. This is why family of vehicles is better idea. Not to mention it is immposible to design a multipurpose vehicle you propose.

But hey, let's have some laugh from you. Go on, design this vehicle of yours, we will see if you will do anything that have at least 1% of logic in it.

Simply tell me which is better-

it Abhay APC/IFV intended to replace BMP 1 and 2's.

Arjun tank, you see the difference? I am talking about multirole vehicle which will have fire power like tank, ability to transport troops, if we make this, we will have no need to build this 2 type vehicles for different purpose. You understand this simple thing or not?

I am not your dude. Show some respect for adults.

And yes, 125mm smoothbore gun is more powerfull than 76mm rifled gun.

Armor and gun technology advanced.

Yes, "Burlington" can protect against a hit from 120mm or 125mm gun, or RPG, or ATGM, it was proved during tests as well as real battle conditions.

Which real battle condition? In Gulf War when Iraqis fired dummy rounds or obsolete steel penetrator rounds against M1? Even if a M1 Abram survives from 120 mm hit, will be it battle worthy still? We know in Iraq single RPG 29's hit caused causalities among crews, so technically may be the tank will not be destroyed completely but it will be disabled for sure. And disables tanks will be abandoned. Or you made another video?

This young chap looks worship tank.

The same is in warfare, without protection, you are vurnable, you are dead. Why? Because any kind of mobility, does not provide enough speed, to escape projectiles, which are smaller and faster than you. This is why protection is more and more important.

Yes, rounds are much faster than you can move, so in simple logic it is wiser to add more armour, right? But despite adding armour we see still it is getting penetrated by cheap RPGs, IED sharpnel not to mention there are many more AT systems, hence small arms pose most threats in Battle Ground so I said to have protection against only small arms. We see Despite adding more and more armour still armour is getting penetrated by cheap weapons then why should we take such move? Which primary objective of giving protection against all type of enemy rounds fails and increases weight dramatically additionally?

So hence add more armour to take more punishment theory fails against certain type weapons and these are becoming available more and increases weight dramatically so abandon this theory, concentrate more on mobility in this theory. You get my point?

If you would live long enough on this world, you would know, how static armor tests with HEAT warheads are performed. Because HEAT warheads penetration do not depend on velocity, then it is simpler and more precise to perform static tests for better results, thus engineers can gather more precise data and have more precise conclusions.

Another BS. If muzzle velocity did not matter, then why Muskets were chosen over Bow And arrow? More simple in your test ERA survives from that hit, but in real life in Iraq even Burlington armour which is better than ERA was penetrated? Why different results in Real battlefield and in test?

And Japanese were still fighting and inflicting casualties to US forces. You see, crippling someones economy, does not mean he will surrender. He can endure if he have enough will to do so.

Besides this, nobody would accept carpet bombings these days, civilian casualties are unacceptable.

You know dude due to increase strategic bombing, Japanese war production halted almost? Strategic bombing does not force enemy to surrender, it destroys enemy's ability to replace things lost in direct combat. It destroy enemy equipments long before it can reach to battlefield. It indirectly helps Friendly troops. Strategic bombing brings war to your homeland where no one can predict when which part of Homefront will be battle ground. Like Albert Speer said a 2nd front was opened long before invasion in Normandy, it was over Germany's sky. Strategic bombing forces enemy to make more AA guns and divert large quality of aircraft, thus their troops then will not have sufficient resources in war.

Bombing destroys enemy's economy and we all know we cant afford a war if we dont have strong economy, you will be bankrupted.

Yeah, and what happened? Air raids were ineffective, in effect more civilians suffered and died, in effect because of this decision, many bad things were not prevented, why? Because only ground forces can conquer, control and defend terrain.

That air raid was not intended to destroy Yugoslavia's war ability but instead to force them to accept NATO peace proposal in Kosovo and it succeeded.

You see more in Gulf war after 40 days bombing Iraq suffered about 10000-15000 fatalities and with 2 day's ground campaign they suffered 10,000 fatalities. Do you only count civilian's life? I also count soldier's life. For more it is wiser to destroy soldier's war equipment making then low on ammunition rather than killing them. If you destroy weapons, soldiers with out weapons will put no to little resistance.

Besides Area bombing now is not needed. WW2 bombers were 4 propeller driven and could not fly low, and not maneuverable. They needed to fly in formation. but now we have laser guided bombs and others with pin point accuracy.

And new sources completely contradict your lies.

Militarysta allready written about this, based on newest research about air forces efficency during Iraq war. This efficency was insignificant, Iraqi Army was broken and defeated only by coalition ground forces.

These are not lies, stupid. I explained how effective was Air power, Coalition won the war even before Ground Combat started.

Oh I forgot to mention that Iraq had Asad Babil or Lion Of Babylon tank, Iraqi assembled T 72, is it counted in list? It was widely used.

 

[Damian]

It had penetration power of up to 180 mm, while M 48 Patton had an armour of roughly 120 mm. You should better ask any former US servicemen from Vietnam war, how important role Helicopters played.

First thing is that M48 had a variable armor thickness because turret and hull were made from cast pieces, which means that at certain angles, thickness could be greater. Another thing is that shaped charges decreases their efficency against vehicle and crew if vehicle have large internal volume, because probability of hit crew member or something important inside a vehicle decreases.

Symbols originate from truth.

No, symbols are created by pitifull morons that have problems with comprehending reality. This is how religions are created, how myths are created etc.

Yeah sorry they used AT rifles, but still rifle is a gun.

There is a good reason why military terminology was created, and this terminology is very precise. However simpletons like you can't comprehend even something such simple it seems.

Then why Germans lost in Stalingrad? They had clear superiority in armour. Accept the fact that in urban combat both tanks, and CAS aircraft are ineffective.

Because Germans have idiotic leadership, that was made from simpletons like you, they were unable to comprehend reality, they were unable to adapt, unable to understand nature of Russia's winter, and we could speak about these idiots whole year.

And you know what, I do not accept a made up facts by simpleton like you. I preffer to listen real soldiers. I posted here documents both made by Canadian and US military, both of these armies, have different opinion than you, and they see armored vehicles as incredibly usefull in urban combat.

So yeah, I take their words higher than a words of smart ass teenager.

You and me both are humans if Dogs have higher IQ than me, then since we are both man then your dogs have higher IQ than you. Thus Dogs are your master, you are not. As Dogs have greater IQ.

I do not consider you as a human being, take a note of that you lesser being.

Listen nincompoop, the PDF says Sabot rounds of main armament was rarely used, crews prefer mounted .50 cals and while doing so they became victim of sniper attack.

Read it again moron, this time with understanding.

I asked that question. HE rounds are only effective against hard targets like armour, building, pill box etc. To deal with infantry canister round is best. In Vietnam due to lack of enemy armour, Americans used it and got great effect.

And do you understand that programmable HE round can act as armor piercing round, as conventional HE round or as airburst round, depending on how you program the fuze? You can defeat light and medium armor with such round, structures, or program round to explode at specific point where fragments will hit infantry just like cannister rounds does.

Are you capable to comprehend this?

Simply tell me which is better- BMP 2K command post light armoured vehicle India indian army 001 it Abhay APC/IFV intended to replace BMP 1 and 2's.

640px Arjun MBT bump track test

Arjun tank, you see the difference? I am talking about multirole vehicle which will have fire power like tank, ability to transport troops, if we make this, we will have no need to build this 2 type vehicles for different purpose. You understand this simple thing or not?

And are you capable to understand that designing such vehicle is... IMPOSSIBLE!!!

Which real battle condition? In Gulf War when Iraqis fired dummy rounds or obsolete steel penetrator rounds against M1? Even if a M1 Abram survives from 120 mm hit, will be it battle worthy still? We know in Iraq single RPG 29's hit caused causalities among crews, so technically may be the tank will not be destroyed completely but it will be disabled for sure. And disables tanks will be abandoned. Or you made another video?

This young chap looks worship tank.

Yes modern tank still will be battle worthy after hit from 120mm or 125mm gun, it all depends on where it will be hit, what protection it have etc.

And I am older than you... "chap".

Yes, rounds are much faster than you can move, so in simple logic it is wiser to add more armour, right? But despite adding armour we see still it is getting penetrated by cheap RPGs, IED sharpnel not to mention there are many more AT systems, hence small arms pose most threats in Battle Ground so I said to have protection against only small arms. We see Despite adding more and more armour still armour is getting penetrated by cheap weapons then why should we take such move? Which primary objective of giving protection against all type of enemy rounds fails and increases weight dramatically additionally?

So hence add more armour to take more punishment theory fails against certain type weapons and these are becoming available more and increases weight dramatically so abandon this theory, concentrate more on mobility in this theory. You get my point?

How I can even discuss with such stupidity?

Another BS. If muzzle velocity did not matter, then why Muskets were chosen over Bow And arrow? More simple in your test ERA survives from that hit, but in real life in Iraq even Burlington armour which is better than ERA was penetrated? Why different results in Real battlefield and in test?

Shaped charge warheads do not depend on their muzzle velocity, because they are chemical energy weapons not kinetic energy weapons.

And who said that "Burlington" which was designed in late 1970's is better than ERA designed in XXI century? As I said, "Burlington" is not used, USA abandoned it's design in second half of 1980's and designed more modern HAP armor, UK abandoned "Burlington" in late 1980's to early 1990's replacing it by "Dorchester".

You know dude due to increase strategic bombing, Japanese war production halted almost? Strategic bombing does not force enemy to surrender, it destroys enemy's ability to replace things lost in direct combat. It destroy enemy equipments long before it can reach to battlefield. It indirectly helps Friendly troops. Strategic bombing brings war to your homeland where no one can predict when which part of Homefront will be battle ground. Like Albert Speer said a 2nd front was opened long before invasion in Normandy, it was over Germany's sky. Strategic bombing forces enemy to make more AA guns and divert large quality of aircraft, thus their troops then will not have sufficient resources in war.

Bombing destroys enemy's economy and we all know we cant afford a war if we dont have strong economy, you will be bankrupted.

And still Germany industry was working even under carpet bombings, they were still fighting, it was not allied air forces that defeated Germany, it was combined effort of stupid leadership of 3rd Reich and allied ground forces.

That air raid was not intended to destroy Yugoslavia's war ability but instead to force them to accept NATO peace proposal in Kosovo and it succeeded.

Which lead to high casualties in civilian population and infrastructure, something we all would rather want to avoid. Ground invasion was a better option.

You see more in Gulf war after 40 days bombing Iraq suffered about 10000-15000 fatalities and with 2 day's ground campaign they suffered 10,000 fatalities. Do you only count civilian's life? I also count soldier's life. For more it is wiser to destroy soldier's war equipment making then low on ammunition rather than killing them. If you destroy weapons, soldiers with out weapons will put no to little resistance.

Aha, ask these civilians if they were happy when bombs fell on to them. Coailition ground forces had such superiority in training and technology, that nobody needed air forces support really.

Besides Area bombing now is not needed. WW2 bombers were 4 propeller driven and could not fly low, and not maneuverable. They needed to fly in formation. but now we have laser guided bombs and others with pin point accuracy.

Yeah, right, ask how many civilians died due to these laser guided bombs in Iraq or Afghanistan smart ass.

These are not lies, stupid. I explained how effective was Air power, Coalition won the war even before Ground Combat started.

Yes, your words are lies. You are little, stupid lier, and a lesser being in my eyes.

Oh I forgot to mention that Iraq had Asad Babil or Lion Of Babylon tank, Iraqi assembled T 72, is it counted in list? It was widely used.

Neither many of them were builded, neither they were widely used.

Most of T-72's used by Iraq were supplied by Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries like Poland.

 

[Damian]

And, now, getting back to more interesting things than discussion with lesser beings.

My friend is still working on his tank projects. Here we have one made per my specifications for a very balanced design with as best possible protection at most minimal weight and within as compact design as possible.





This is obviously a very simplified concept drawing.

This vehicle have a combined protection made from thick frontal composite armor module, other surfaces are protected by thinner composites or steel armor that can be supplemented with ERA. Front armor also can be supplemented with ERA. Vehicle is also equipped with active protection system.

Main armament is 120mm gun with 7,62mm coaxial machine gun, commander have it's 12,7mm machine gun in RWS mount.

Suspension is of a hydrogas type. Engine is a diesel type.

This vehicle have also additonal ammunition magazine in hull, however it can be shortened if this magazine is not included in to project. It is experimental idea on including double autoloader system.

 

[cobra commando]

^ What you call thing ? (code name) ??

 

[Damian]

^ What you call thing ? (code name) ??

My friend wanted to call this project as "Axe", but he also works on other projects of much bigger and heavier vehicles codenamed "Typhoon" and "Battering Ram".

 

[militarysta]

(...)

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)

120mm air burst round is better then 30mm autocanon.

 

[cobra commando]

My friend wanted to call this project as "Axe", but he also works on other projects of much bigger and heavier vehicles codenamed "Typhoon" and "Battering Ram".

I was about to name that tank "Kurwa - D2000" but then saw the translated meaning of the word Kurwa ! and i was like -

 

[Damian]

I was about to name that tank "Kurwa - D2000" but then saw the translated meaning of the word Kurwa ! and i was like -

The most well known polish word around the globe.

 

[Damian]

Druga brygada pancerna z Niemiec - DziennikZbrojny.pl

Yes, yes, yes! In Friday Poland and Germany will sign a deal in which Germany will sell us more Leopard 2 tanks for another armor brigade.

 

[militarysta]

Druga brygada pancerna z Niemiec - DziennikZbrojny.pl

Yes, yes, yes! In Friday Poland and Germany will sign a deal in which Germany will sell us more Leopard 2 tanks for another armor brigade.

Yes, yes, yes!
My friend form armoured courps will jizz in their pants - they was praying for more leopard-2 since 2004
Is't greate news for Polish Armoured Corps!

 

[Waffen SS]

First thing is that M48 had a variable armor thickness because turret and hull were made from cast pieces, which means that at certain angles, thickness could be greater. Another thing is that shaped charges decreases their efficency against vehicle and crew if vehicle have large internal volume, because probability of hit crew member or something important inside a vehicle decreases.

Well if so then did all RPG 2 hit where M 48 had thickest armour?

No, symbols are created by pitifull morons that have problems with comprehending reality. This is how religions are created, how myths are created etc.

Idiot do some research about UH 1 involvement in Vietnam war.

The Bell UH1 Huey Helicopter, Vietnam war - Warchapter.com

Bell 204/205 UH-1 helicopters in Vietnam

Read this, stupid.

There is a good reason why military terminology was created, and this terminology is very precise. However simpletons like you can't comprehend even something such simple it seems.

Most of German tanks in Stalingrad were destroyed but Molotov Cocktail or mines.

Because Germans have idiotic leadership, that was made from simpletons like you, they were unable to comprehend reality, they were unable to adapt, unable to understand nature of Russia's winter, and we could speak about these idiots whole year.

And you know what, I do not accept a made up facts by simpleton like you. I preffer to listen real soldiers. I posted here documents both made by Canadian and US military, both of these armies, have different opinion than you, and they see armored vehicles as incredibly usefull in urban combat.

So yeah, I take their words higher than a words of smart ass teenager.

Do you consider yourself smartest guy ever? How Tanks can be useful in Urban combat? you take example from Iraq and Afghanistan, are Iraqi insurgents and Taliban compete against US infantry? Croatian infantry could match with Yugoslav infantry and see what happened to M 84 Tanks.
I have given you many examples when Armours were defeated in in war, you provided nothing apart from theoretical analysis from Iraq and Afghanistan where insurgents are poorly trained. Against such poorly trained enemy Humvees can beat them. You have example from US vs Iraqi insurgent, I gave you Egyptian vs Israeli, can you understand basic difference between these 2 comparisons? US vs Iraqi insurgent that you gave in unfair. A professional army vs group of irregular insurgent, where as in 1973 professional Egyptian infantry vs professional Israeli infantry.

I do not consider you as a human being, take a note of that you lesser being.

Dogs talk to Dog, human talk to human, If I am dog then hence you talk to me you are also dog. If you are human then hence you talk to me I am also human.

Read it again moron, this time with understanding.

I read it again and again. It says over all little Sabot was used, HEAT and MPAT were used mainly as preferred main gun round. Crew served machine guns became weapon of choice in numerous engagements. So What over all there was little use Main gun, crews preferred .50 cal.

And do you understand that programmable HE round can act as armor piercing round, as conventional HE round or as airburst round, depending on how you program the fuze? You can defeat light and medium armor with such round, structures, or program round to explode at specific point where fragments will hit infantry just like cannister rounds does.

Are you capable to comprehend this?

Dude I understand this, question is can you set fuze in battle field? Suppose you made HE round to pierce armour, in combat you saw there is no enemy armour, then what will you do?

And are you capable to understand that designing such vehicle is... IMPOSSIBLE!!!

Did I ever say you such vehicle will also have SPH and ARV ability? That's why I said a vehicle fire power like tank, ability to transport troops, I did not tell to add SPH and ARV ability.

Yes modern tank still will be battle worthy after hit from 120mm or 125mm gun, it all depends on where it will be hit, what protection it have etc.

And I am older than you... "chap".

Still same with WW2, in WW2 1 German Tiger Tank knocked out 1 US M 26 Pershing, badly damaging it with 3 shots, inflicting crew fatalities, the Pershing was how ever repaired. Can you show my any example when any MBT survived hit from another MBT?

M1 Abrams vs T-72 Ural: Operation Desert Storm 1991 - Steven Zaloga - Google Books Read it dude.

How I can even discuss with such stupidity?

What is stupidity here?, look at the Poll, this theory exists, and why this one better I also explained.

Shaped charge warheads do not depend on their muzzle velocity, because they are chemical energy weapons not kinetic energy weapons.

And who said that "Burlington" which was designed in late 1970's is better than ERA designed in XXI century? As I said, "Burlington" is not used, USA abandoned it's design in second half of 1980's and designed more modern HAP armor, UK abandoned "Burlington" in late 1980's to early 1990's replacing it by "Dorchester".

ERA is older than Chobham or Burlington armour. As I know M1, Challenger 2 use Chobham and it was penetrated by by RPG 29. You dont know history(or write history) still you are expert in Tank?

And still Germany industry was working even under carpet bombings, they were still fighting, it was not allied air forces that defeated Germany, it was combined effort of stupid leadership of 3rd Reich and allied ground forces.

With out bombardment it would produce more weapons, and what about effects of Strategic bombing over Japan? There were several flaws in air campaign, lack of coordination between RAF and USAAF, low pay load, fear of German bomber destroyers such Fw 190, Heinkel He 219.

Which lead to high casualties in civilian population and infrastructure, something we all would rather want to avoid. Ground invasion was a better option.

Kosovo War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia You need more? In 1971 within 9 Months Paki army killed 3 Million civilians, when India interfered within 16 days war was over. I already provided Gulf war fatality information.

Aha, ask these civilians if they were happy when bombs fell on to them. Coailition ground forces had such superiority in training and technology, that nobody needed air forces support really.

Apart from Amiriyah Shelter bombing there was no major cases of bombing on civilians. Ground combat causes most fatality. Again I am telling while in Gulf war due 40 days air campaign Iraq suffered 10000-15000 fatalities and with 2 day's ground campaign they suffered 10000 fatalities.

Yeah, right, ask how many civilians died due to these laser guided bombs in Iraq or Afghanistan smart ass.

Most civilian death in Iraq and Afghanistan caused due to suicide bombing, massacres.

Yes, your words are lies. You are little, stupid lier, and a lesser being in my eyes.

You are dumb, arrogant who thinks only himself is right.

Neither many of them were builded, neither they were widely used.

Most of T-72's used by Iraq were supplied by Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries like Poland.

According to Polish claim none was finished, how ever 100 was made according to Russians.

 

[Damian]

Well if so then did all RPG 2 hit where M 48 had thickest armour?

No, but their effectiveness against tanks is exaggarated.

Idiot do some research about UH 1 involvement in Vietnam war.

The Bell UH1 Huey Helicopter, Vietnam war - Warchapter.com

Bell 204/205 UH-1 helicopters in Vietnam

Read this, stupid.

But I don't care, you understand? I do not care about this obsolete helicopter, neither it helped US Army won this war. This tactic to use air mobile forces for quick search and destroy operations was just wrong. Neither US forces could control territory, neither it lead to defeat Vietnamese. In fact Vietcong was defeated during their Tet offensive, not earlier when US forces were conducting these airmobile infantry raids.

Not to mention how many helicopters they lost and how many soldiers they lost due to these tactics.

It was pure waste of resources, time and lives of good men.

Most of German tanks in Stalingrad were destroyed but Molotov Cocktail or mines.

Oh, so you was there to know this? Or perhaps you read this on some stupid internet site?

Do you consider yourself smartest guy ever?

Compared to you lesser being, I consider myself to be homo sapiens sapiens, so yeah, I am definetely smarter than you.

How Tanks can be useful in Urban combat? you take example from Iraq and Afghanistan, are Iraqi insurgents and Taliban compete against US infantry?

Well, perhaps read what US Army officers says? Yes insurgents can compete with US infantry, this is why US Army and USMC decided they need to use armored fighting vehicles like tanks to support this infantry. Through use of combined infantry/AFV forces, they are capable to minimize own casualties and maximize casualties of enemy forces.

Croatian infantry could match with Yugoslav infantry and see what happened to M 84 Tanks.

So what happened with them eh? How many were lost? Not to mention that there was no such thing as Yugoslav infantry you ape.

I have given you many examples when Armours were defeated in in war, you provided nothing apart from theoretical analysis from Iraq and Afghanistan where insurgents are poorly trained. Against such poorly trained enemy Humvees can beat them. You have example from US vs Iraqi insurgent, I gave you Egyptian vs Israeli, can you understand basic difference between these 2 comparisons? US vs Iraqi insurgent that you gave in unfair. A professional army vs group of irregular insurgent, where as in 1973 professional Egyptian infantry vs professional Israeli infantry.

Well actually both in Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia, Americans discovered that light infantry using HMMWV armament carriers will take unacceptable casualties when fighting with insurgents. In fact today there is a very strong conclusion that in Somalia during operation Gothic Serpent, Rangers and 1st SFOD-D should be supported by tanks, IFV's and APC's.

As for Egypt vs Israel, first thing is that Israelis were using tanks with obsolete protection at this time, still however casualties in tank corps, were rather small, and Israelis quickly adapted, not to mention that ATGM's used by Egyptians were difficult to operate, due to their MACLOS guidance system.

Dogs talk to Dog, human talk to human, If I am dog then hence you talk to me you are also dog. If you are human then hence you talk to me I am also human.

I consider you lesser being than a dog even.

I read it again and again. It says over all little Sabot was used, HEAT and MPAT were used mainly as preferred main gun round. Crew served machine guns became weapon of choice in numerous engagements. So What over all there was little use Main gun, crews preferred .50 cal.

Well it shows then you have a very low IQ, if you don't understand this simple text.

So perhaps I need to explain.

APFSDS (Sabot) rounds were not used extensively because these are pure anti-tank ammunition type, not many tank engagements, then no extensive use. HEAT and MPAT were used as multipurpose rounds to defeat non armored, lightly armored targets, structures and larger infantry formations, because these types of ammunition, have area effects. Thus you don't use main gun ammunition to fire at a single individual, it is waste of ammunition, then you use machine guns. Machine guns on tanks are also used to supress enemy infantry if nececary. Simple as that.

Dude I understand this, question is can you set fuze in battle field? Suppose you made HE round to pierce armour, in combat you saw there is no enemy armour, then what will you do?

Then I just turn a swith on the fire control panel, and ammunition data link in the main gun, reporgramms projectile fuze ina blink of an eye, or even faster. You don't programm fuze before battle, you program it via vehicle FCS when nececary fuze mode is needed.

What you believed it is manually programmed?

Did I ever say you such vehicle will also have SPH and ARV ability? That's why I said a vehicle fire power like tank, ability to transport troops, I did not tell to add SPH and ARV ability.

And still, it is immposible to design such vehicle. You can't have IFV transporting troops and having tank firepower.

Still same with WW2, in WW2 1 German Tiger Tank knocked out 1 US M 26 Pershing, badly damaging it with 3 shots, inflicting crew fatalities, the Pershing was how ever repaired. Can you show my any example when any MBT survived hit from another MBT?

M1 Abrams vs T-72 Ural: Operation Desert Storm 1991 - Steven Zaloga - Google Books Read it dude.

I have this book. And again, I am not your dude, you piece of shit. And yes, MBT's survived hits from other MBT's, look at Iraq wars for example. There was even a list of M1's damaged or disabled during the war, there were incidents where front armor completely stopped enemy projectiles, and tank was fully operational.

What is stupidity here?, look at the Poll, this theory exists, and why this one better I also explained.

It seems you don't even understand the term modular design. It does not mean it will have troops transport capability and tank firepower in one. There limitations of vehicle designing, yet children like you are too stupid to comprehend this.

ERA is older than Chobham or Burlington armour. As I know M1, Challenger 2 use Chobham and it was penetrated by by RPG 29. You dont know history(or write history) still you are expert in Tank?

ERA is not older, and just like composite armors, it evolves. What, you do not know what evolution is? Evolution do not exist only in nature.

And again, there is no such thing as "Chobham" armor, and never was. The only real codename is "Burlington".

As for RPG-29 penetrations, and did you ask yourself, where penetrations occured? Hmmm? Of course not, lesser beings do not ask questions, they only made stupid conclusions.

You see, composite armor due to it's current design, is a large volume protection, which means it needs to be thick, very thick, and thus relatively heavy. Which means it can't be installed on the whole surface of tank.

This is why the thickest composite armor, that is probably nearly immune to all threats, is installed on the vehicle hull and turret front projections. Some vehicles have also sides of turret projections potected by such armor, but it is there thinner, and optimized to provide very high protection, only at angles up to 30-35 degrees from the vehicle longitudinal axis. At angles closer to 90 degrees from longitudinal axis, protection degradades. Hull side projections are protected only by simple steel armor, because there is just no space for thick composite armor.

Solution to this problem, is equippign tanks with new heavy armor modules mounted as skirts, sometimes instead of composite armor modules, ERA is installed as lighter yet not less efficent protection.

But hey, I am completely aware that lesser being like you is incapable to comprehend these subtle niuances of vehicles designing and physical limitations we face on this world each day.

With out bombardment it would produce more weapons, and what about effects of Strategic bombing over Japan? There were several flaws in air campaign, lack of coordination between RAF and USAAF, low pay load, fear of German bomber destroyers such Fw 190, Heinkel He 219.

Who cares, bombardments did not stopped Nazis and Japanese.

Apart from Amiriyah Shelter bombing there was no major cases of bombing on civilians. Ground combat causes most fatality. Again I am telling while in Gulf war due 40 days air campaign Iraq suffered 10000-15000 fatalities and with 2 day's ground campaign they suffered 10000 fatalities.

One Iraqi colonel said. "When I marched in to Kuwait I had 30 tanks, after months of air campaign I was left with 28, after 30 minutes of fight against american tanks, I had none". And Iraqi colonel opinion means more than opinion of some stupid kid.

Most civilian death in Iraq and Afghanistan caused due to suicide bombing, massacres.

And also drones and artillery strikes from coalition. You think why even Obama changes strategy? Special forces and regular ground forces gains significance because they do less collateral damage. A tank round is a precise weapon, which do minimal collateral damage than a bomb or 155mm artillery shell. Same with infantry individual small arms.

You are dumb, arrogant who thinks only himself is right.

Of course I am right. I live longer than you on this planet. It is obvious that people at your age are just stupid. I never saw a kid that is really smart, I wasn't at this age of yours. Still I had enough humility to myself, to know that I should not interfere in discussion with adults, but I should listen and learn more from people that have greater knowledge and experiences.

Besides this I wonder if you would be so harsh talking to me in person? But I can assure you lesser being, I would be in such situation, less kind to you.

According to Polish claim none was finished, how ever 100 was made according to Russians.

100 is small number, insiginificant.

 

[ramakrishna]

I was about to name that tank "Kurwa - D2000" but then saw the translated meaning of the word Kurwa ! and i was like -

after reading your comment I googled it and found the meaning and then I was like

 

[Waffen SS]

No, but their effectiveness against tanks is exaggarated.

No exaggarated. Infact US understood limitation of using Tanks, so they handed over M 48 to South Vietnam.

But I don't care, you understand? I do not care about this obsolete helicopter, neither it helped US Army won this war. This tactic to use air mobile forces for quick search and destroy operations was just wrong. Neither US forces could control territory, neither it lead to defeat Vietnamese. In fact Vietcong was defeated during their Tet offensive, not earlier when US forces were conducting these airmobile infantry raids.

Not to mention how many helicopters they lost and how many soldiers they lost due to these tactics.

It was pure waste of resources, time and lives of good men.

What you care it is not concern, UH 1 was of 1960's Helicopter, not today's. Tet offensive was generally done bu Regular NVA, Tet offensive was defeated mainly due to overwhelming air superiority, you know how many times UH 1 Huey provided CAS?
Yes, many Helicopters were shot down, but they saved lives of hundreds of wounded US soldiers, they were perhaps best in Evacuation missions.
You know why US used Helicopters? Because they feared stiff resistance in Ground, Vietnam a jungle country full with booby traps, and hidden VC geurrilla. In this situation making all out ground invasion would cost lives of too many US servicemen. Their UH 1's were used as IFV.

Oh, so you was there to know this? Or perhaps you read this on some stupid internet site?

You are a disgrace, you yourself gave reference from internet, now you call internet stupid? I read it in an Indian WW2 book.

Compared to you lesser being, I consider myself to be homo sapiens sapiens, so yeah, I am definetely smarter than you.

Then why the hell you dont give me proper examples?

Well, perhaps read what US Army officers says? Yes insurgents can compete with US infantry, this is why US Army and USMC decided they need to use armored fighting vehicles like tanks to support this infantry. Through use of combined infantry/AFV forces, they are capable to minimize own casualties and maximize casualties of enemy forces.

You piece of ignorant stupid, They are capable huh? Did you ever see Vietnam war like heavy causalities in Afghanistan? In Vietnam VC inflicted heavy causalities, and how many servicemen are killed by Taliban? In Iraq war US lost 4805, and in Battle of La Drang US suffered over 200 fatalities.

Battle of Ia Drang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Operation Hump - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did Iraqi insurgents ever inflicted such heavy causality? How many US servicemen were killed in Vietnam? And how many were killed in Iraq? Accept the fact VC and NVA were better trained than Taliban and Iraqi insurgents.

So what happened with them eh? How many were lost? Not to mention that there was no such thing as Yugoslav infantry you ape.

Battle of the Barracks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Battle of Vukovar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You check out how many were lost, and who tell you there was no such thing as Yugoslav infantry? I used the term infantry in greater aspect..

As for Egypt vs Israel, first thing is that Israelis were using tanks with obsolete protection at this time, still however casualties in tank corps, were rather small, and Israelis quickly adapted, not to mention that ATGM's used by Egyptians were difficult to operate, due to their MACLOS guidance system.

Egyptians also had obsolete anti-tank systems then, besides M 60 was best tank in 1973, USSR made T 72 mainly to counter this. The reason behind to attack Tank's is not to kill enemy tankers, but destroying that gun platform, Egyptians used RPG 7 in large scale.

Why are you comparing 1970's tank system to now-a-days tank system? Of course compared to present tank's 1970 tanks were of poor quality, similarly 1970's AT weapons were also of poor quality if we compare them to now.

I consider you lesser being than a dog even.

And you still you cant beat, it shows how you may have vast information but very low in practical sense.

Well it shows then you have a very low IQ, if you don't understand this simple text.

So perhaps I need to explain.

APFSDS (Sabot) rounds were not used extensively because these are pure anti-tank ammunition type, not many tank engagements, then no extensive use. HEAT and MPAT were used as multipurpose rounds to defeat non armored, lightly armored targets, structures and larger infantry formations, because these types of ammunition, have area effects. Thus you don't use main gun ammunition to fire at a single individual, it is waste of ammunition, then you use machine guns. Machine guns on tanks are also used to supress enemy infantry if nececary. Simple as that.

It was what I was talking about, I said main gun is not effective against individual soldiers, so then you need machine guns or autocannons. To take out enemy armour relay on ATGM. That's why I said IFV's with autocannons to deal with enemy infantry and ATGMs to deal with enemy armour. Now can you understand why I was saying Main gun is not effective?

And still, it is immposible to design such vehicle. You can't have IFV transporting troops and having tank firepower.

Nothing is impossible. As I said main gun's work to deal with enemy armour will be left to ATGMs, and Autocannons to use against infanty.

I have this book. And again, I am not your dude, you piece of shit. And yes, MBT's survived hits from other MBT's, look at Iraq wars for example. There was even a list of M1's damaged or disabled during the war, there were incidents where front armor completely stopped enemy projectiles, and tank was fully operational.

I told you dude iraqi crews fired dummy rounds or obsolete steel penetrator rounds which had almost no effect against modern armour, very well can US M1 Abrams survive from hit from Challenger 2 120 mm gun?

It seems you don't even understand the term modular design. It does not mean it will have troops transport capability and tank firepower in one. There limitations of vehicle designing, yet children like you are too stupid to comprehend this.

I am not talking about modular design, instead light vehicle best for mobility.

Enemy will always try to hit your tank's track, not in front side where it has biggest protection.

Who cares, bombardments did not stopped Nazis and Japanese.

Use the term German instead of Nazi. Bombardment helped to stop Nazis. You care or not who cares about that.

German insiders credit the Allied bombing offensive with crippling the German war industry. Speer repeatedly said (both during and after the war) it caused crucial production problems. Admiral Karl Dönitz, head of the U-boat fleet (U-waffe), noted in his memoirs failure to get the revolutionary Type XXI U-boats (which could have completely altered the balance of power in the Battle of the Atlantic) into service was entirely the result of the bombing.

Strategic bombing during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One Iraqi colonel said. "When I marched in to Kuwait I had 30 tanks, after months of air campaign I was left with 28, after 30 minutes of fight against american tanks, I had none". And Iraqi colonel opinion means more than opinion of some stupid kid.

From which division? Tank's dont ENGAGE with aircrafts, when aircrafts are in sky then Tanks hide, aircrafts destroys fuel depot, ammunition storage etc, thus indirectly affecting enemy's war ability. And you know how many Tanks were destroyed in CAS? A 10's and Apaches were always present to support.

And also drones and artillery strikes from coalition. You think why even Obama changes strategy? Special forces and regular ground forces gains significance because they do less collateral damage. A tank round is a precise weapon, which do minimal collateral damage than a bomb or 155mm artillery shell. Same with infantry individual small arms.

CAS generally does not cause civilian causalities, and Regular forces and Special units are ofen air lifted by Helicopters, not only having tank, absolute air superiority, better skilled US soldiers, better weaponry, these also need to be counted.

Of course I am right. I live longer than you on this planet. It is obvious that people at your age are just stupid. I never saw a kid that is really smart, I wasn't at this age of yours. Still I had enough humility to myself, to know that I should not interfere in discussion with adults, but I should listen and learn more from people that have greater knowledge and experiences.

Besides this I wonder if you would be so harsh talking to me in person? But I can assure you lesser being, I would be in such situation, less kind to you.

Then why you cant prove Tanks are better than having CAS? Why do you give examples from unfair comparisons? Why you compared 1970's tank protection with present tank system? Why you cant understand my theory about main gun's task to deal with ATGM leave it to ATGM and Infantry RPGs, to deal with infantry use 20 mm or .50 Cals for better?

100 is small number, insiginificant.

Yes, smaller number, and I already provided information how Saddam secretly evacuated his T 72's with Republican Guards, mean while his regular army divisions continued to fight.

 

[Damian]

No exaggarated. Infact US understood limitation of using Tanks, so they handed over M 48 to South Vietnam.

Of course they handed some M48's to ARVN when US started to withdraw from Vietnam. At that time M48 was also obsolete vehicle as US started to field M60 series.

And yes, exaggarated is performance of RPG's.

What you care it is not concern, UH 1 was of 1960's Helicopter, not today's. Tet offensive was generally done bu Regular NVA, Tet offensive was defeated mainly due to overwhelming air superiority, you know how many times UH 1 Huey provided CAS?
Yes, many Helicopters were shot down, but they saved lives of hundreds of wounded US soldiers, they were perhaps best in Evacuation missions.
You know why US used Helicopters? Because they feared stiff resistance in Ground, Vietnam a jungle country full with booby traps, and hidden VC geurrilla. In this situation making all out ground invasion would cost lives of too many US servicemen. Their UH 1's were used as IFV.

Neither I care about your stupid beliefes.

Tet offensive was defeated by US ground forces, not air support. And neither UH-1 was good in CAS, it was complete improvisation. And use of airborne forces proved to be ineffective, as well as tactic of quick search and destroy raids. If you don't control the ground, you can't win in such war.

And this was alone costed to many serviceman their life and health, mainly because they never had proper support on the ground in from of AFV's, and air support is worth nothing in jungle.

You are a disgrace, you yourself gave reference from internet, now you call internet stupid? I read it in an Indian WW2 book.

If I use internet, I use only good sources like documents in form of PDF's. And Indian book about WW2, hilarious!

Then why the hell you dont give me proper examples?

I give, the problem is that you are too primitive to understand them...

You piece of ignorant stupid,

You can't even insult me in a way that I would feal it.

They are capable huh? Did you ever see Vietnam war like heavy causalities in Afghanistan? In Vietnam VC inflicted heavy causalities, and how many servicemen are killed by Taliban? In Iraq war US lost 4805, and in Battle of La Drang US suffered over 200 fatalities.
Did Iraqi insurgents ever inflicted such heavy causality? How many US servicemen were killed in Vietnam? And how many were killed in Iraq? Accept the fact VC and NVA were better trained than Taliban and Iraqi insurgents.

Well, US lost less lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, mainly because they have now better equipment. In Vietnam soldiers wear only flack jackets, today we have advanced individual ballistic protection. In Vietnam were used mainly lightly armored vehicles, today we use well protected, modern vehicles which provides better protection for troops inside. And we could speak about this whole day, I doubt you would comprehend.

You check out how many were lost, and who tell you there was no such thing as Yugoslav infantry? I used the term infantry in greater aspect..

I do not see there destroyed tanks, what I see captured.

Egyptians also had obsolete anti-tank systems then, besides M 60 was best tank in 1973, USSR made T 72 mainly to counter this. The reason behind to attack Tank's is not to kill enemy tankers, but destroying that gun platform, Egyptians used RPG 7 in large scale.

Why are you comparing 1970's tank system to now-a-days tank system? Of course compared to present tank's 1970 tanks were of poor quality, similarly 1970's AT weapons were also of poor quality if we compare them to now.

M60 was not the best tank in 1973. The best tanks used then were Soviet T-64's designed in 1960's, and now, T-72 was not designed to counter M60... you moron, you don't even know history of soviet tanks.

Rest of this babble talk is just... ah, I will left this without a comment, it is pointless to discuss with idiot.

And you still you cant beat, it shows how you may have vast information but very low in practical sense.

What? Can you translate this nonsense to some human language?

It was what I was talking about, I said main gun is not effective against individual soldiers, so then you need machine guns or autocannons. To take out enemy armour relay on ATGM. That's why I said IFV's with autocannons to deal with enemy infantry and ATGMs to deal with enemy armour. Now can you understand why I was saying Main gun is not effective?

You are complete idiot!

How a main gun is not effective when it is effective, it is just uneconomical to spent it's ammunition on individual soldiers. The same with automatic cannons.

Hey then we should completely elimintate airforces by such logic, they are ineffective, because mostly they use expensive bombs and missiles against single individuals.

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTbKT4aEhwPfHNLAm-kecvBWfN6vR7geh83GeRj3vHGfn515v-_BA

This perfectly shows your stupidity, trying to force completely idiotic idea, just because you like these flying pieces of junk.

Nothing is impossible. As I said main gun's work to deal with enemy armour will be left to ATGMs, and Autocannons to use against infanty.

No, saying that nothing is immposible, shows that you are just a fantasy boy.

ATGM's are near end of their efficency against modern armor and protection solutions. Besides this, ATGM's are slow, easy to interpect by APS, platform from which ATGM is fired, can be much quicker destroyed by a tank round. ATGM's are mostly subsonic, while tank gun projectiles are supersonic. And automatic cannons are also less effective than big calliber tanks gun.

I told you dude iraqi crews fired dummy rounds or obsolete steel penetrator rounds which had almost no effect against modern armour, very well can US M1 Abrams survive from hit from Challenger 2 120 mm gun?

Iraqis fired combat ammunition of different types. It was old ammunition, but only complete idiot would call it not dangerous. And yes, M1 can survive a hit from Challenger 2 gun and vice versa.

I am not talking about modular design, instead light vehicle best for mobility.

Enemy will always try to hit your tank's track, not in front side where it has biggest protection.

No modern army is interested in light vehicles. Listen you arrogant piece of shit. Modern armies, the real armies not plastic soldiers you play with, have their own experiences from real battles, and these armies sees light vehicles as dangerous to their own forces, as they are not designed per force protection requirements, where own forces receive the best protection and survivability as possible.

And by hitting tracks, yeah right, try to hit a track from more than 500m, good luck!

Use the term German instead of Nazi. Bombardment helped to stop Nazis. You care or not who cares about that.

German and Nazi was the same at that time. Sorry Geronimo, I am not that political correctness guy.

As for bombardment, well, it did not stop Nazi war machine.

From which division? Tank's dont ENGAGE with aircrafts, when aircrafts are in sky then Tanks hide, aircrafts destroys fuel depot, ammunition storage etc, thus indirectly affecting enemy's war ability. And you know how many Tanks were destroyed in CAS? A 10's and Apaches were always present to support.

Data from Iraq shows that A-10's and AH-64's destroyed minority of enemy AFV's. Majority was destroyed by coalition tanks. Besides this Iraq did not have modern air defence, If Iraq would have such AD systems like Russia, coalition losses in aircrafts would be very high.

CAS generally does not cause civilian causalities, and Regular forces and Special units are ofen air lifted by Helicopters, not only having tank, absolute air superiority, better skilled US soldiers, better weaponry, these also need to be counted.

Oh really, CAS do not cause civilian casualties? Tell this to Iraq and Afghanistan citizens wise guy.

Then why you cant prove Tanks are better than having CAS? Why do you give examples from unfair comparisons? Why you compared 1970's tank protection with present tank system? Why you cant understand my theory about main gun's task to deal with ATGM leave it to ATGM and Infantry RPGs, to deal with infantry use 20 mm or .50 Cals for better?

Unfair comparisions? Life is generally unfair kid, war is unfair, everything is unfair. And you don't even have any theory, to have theory first you need to be sentient being, not ape who just tries to look like human.

Yes, smaller number, and I already provided information how Saddam secretly evacuated his T 72's with Republican Guards, mean while his regular army divisions continued to fight.

You provided? It is funny to observe a chimp trying to be smart.

It is even more funny when you try, well there is old proverb in my country, "don't teach father how to make kids". This is exactly your behavior, you try to discuss with adults. Which is annoying.

Ok I do not have time to talk with something as useless and boring like you, there are more interesting things to do. So from now on, You are ignored little troll.

 

[Dejawolf]

And, now, getting back to more interesting things than discussion with lesser beings.

My friend is still working on his tank projects. Here we have one made per my specifications for a very balanced design with as best possible protection at most minimal weight and within as compact design as possible.





This is obviously a very simplified concept drawing.

This vehicle have a combined protection made from thick frontal composite armor module, other surfaces are protected by thinner composites or steel armor that can be supplemented with ERA. Front armor also can be supplemented with ERA. Vehicle is also equipped with active protection system.

Main armament is 120mm gun with 7,62mm coaxial machine gun, commander have it's 12,7mm machine gun in RWS mount.

Suspension is of a hydrogas type. Engine is a diesel type.

This vehicle have also additonal ammunition magazine in hull, however it can be shortened if this magazine is not included in to project. It is experimental idea on including double autoloader system.

seems like a good design, very similar to TTB but dunno about the double autoloader. TTB autoloader was able to contain 44 ready rounds, which should be enough. also having 2 autoloaders increases complexity and cost, and with a Remote turret that should be kept to a minimum.
dunno about coax position either, mounted internally like that it's probably going to be terribly difficult to reload.
ERA on sides seems a bit redundant, with remote turret you can probably go for composite skirts, at least for the crew portion.

also positions for turret drives, elevation motor and traverse.
for the front hull armour, is it combined armour and fuel?
and finally you might want to give some room for the front idlers so they can bite into the mud. seems to be a common design feature on both the leopard 2A5DK and CV90.

 

[militarysta]

IMHO good concept but second ammo loader can be remove and whole chassis can be shorter (on about one wheel).
And crew can be placed in 2+1 superposition -it allowed to made thicker crew comparment side armour.