Javelin & LOSAT 2

[budanski]

Javelin VS. T-72
mpeg (http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/images/JavelinLiveFireVsT72.mpg) of test firing. A MUST SEE

http://www.webmutants.com/strategypage/jimage1.jpg

http://www.webmutants.com/strategypage/jimage2.jpg

http://www.webmutants.com/strategypage/jimage3.jpg

http://www.webmutants.com/strategypage/jimage4.jpg

http://www.webmutants.com/strategypage/jimage5.jpg

http://www.webmutants.com/strategypage/jimage7.jpg



LOSAT 2
http://www.webmutants.com/strategypage/losat.jpg
mpeg (http://www.webmutants.com/strategypage/losat2.mpg) of test firing. Note: Real cheesy music but worth a look.

Test shot of the LOSAT (Line of Sight Anti Tank missile), launched off of a HUMVEE, which carries two loaded canisters on each side (4 missiles total). The commander/gunner supposedly can acquire and track three targets simultaneously, and engage one.* Since the missile is hypervelocity (5000 feet per second), and has a maximum range of 5 kilometers, it doesn't take long to reacquire and engage the next two targets.* The missile carries a kinetic kill warhead and penetrates all known or projected armor; it is 5 times more lethal than today's hottest tank round. It is also air droppable by parachute and can be sling carried by helicopter.*

[FallenAngel]

sweeeeeeeeeeeeeet :)

[budanski]

Yeah, the engineer's reaction to the javelin test was pretty funny. :D

[Duke]

Three guys and jeep still kicks arse.

[Mal3]

If you have noticed that through history the weapons vs. armour has been in a funny ballet where one outpaces the other regularly. At one point HEAT AT missiles could defeat any tank until the last generation of MBTs appeared. At that point armour (along with body armour one might say) defeated the projectile.

We're seeing the the tide turn here I'm guessing...

[stuntman]

Please I need more clips what web site can you send forth apone thy! Seriously please post soem more web sites or links with test thx so much!

[Zoomie]

Where did you find the pics from the Javelin site afterwards?

[Sabre]

I think we're looking at a 'next generation' missile hitting a last generation tank. Yes it's powerfull (obviously!), but the answer is already past the design stage.
Active protection systems like Arena use a radar to feed data to a computer within the tank, which locates threats. It responds automatically by blasting a 'cassette' from a series of them around the turret into the air at the right time. The cassette then detonates a shaped charge to form a stream of high velocity metal to intercept the missile, destroying it approximately 20-30 meters away. Now that would be a fireworks show. (unless you're one of the infantry ecorting the tank, but with effects like that from javelin it doesn't really matter; you're toast anyway)
Also, things like Shtora confuse the guidance of thermal/SACLOS missiles, causing them to miss. Both have been fitted to T80 and T90 (not in production, it's too expensive) and proven by independant tests.

[Burncycle]

This tank was rigged to explode.

[spier]

I think we're looking at a 'next generation' missile hitting a last generation tank. Yes it's powerfull (obviously!), but the answer is already past the design stage.
Active protection systems like Arena use a radar to feed data to a computer within the tank, which locates threats. It responds automatically by blasting a 'cassette' from a series of them around the turret into the air at the right time. The cassette then detonates a shaped charge to form a stream of high velocity metal to intercept the missile, destroying it approximately 20-30 meters away. Now that would be a fireworks show. (unless you're one of the infantry ecorting the tank, but with effects like that from javelin it doesn't really matter; you're toast anyway)
Also, things like Shtora confuse the guidance of thermal/SACLOS missiles, causing them to miss. Both have been fitted to T80 and T90 (not in production, it's too expensive) and proven by independant tests.Correct, the T90 is not in production, it does not exist. rofl (http://www.rusarm.ru/video/video.htmurl) (clik the "rofl")

Burncycle is right, that video redefines the term "rigged".

[TacoDelRio]

That is simply demoralizing to the enemy. I like the sound the LOSAT made as it came in on that tank. That would make OPFOR cry.

I can't wait to try one out! (Probably won't happen, but I'll pay to see one fire!)

Pvt Dacey
US Army

[Herrmannek]

I've readed that tank busted by javelin on video was filled with HE to amplificate the effect of hit. But still looks great.

[Herrmannek]

If it had real ammo it would not blow at one time with great caboom, but rather with more smaler subexplossions, And tank would not be teared apart. Can't wait for real pictures of iraqis tanks blowed by javelins to see real damges.

[MolliG]

...Correct, the T90 is not in production, it does not exist rofl ...

Wrong, the T-90 does exist. The T-90 is just a further development of the T-72, like the T-80 is a further development of the T-64B. More infomation can be found here (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/t90/index.html). :)

[budanski]

From what I understand, the tank shown had a partial fuel and ammunition load. The Javelin cooks off those stores very rapidly, using the tank's own fuel and ammunition against the tank. By the way, how effective is reactive armor against top-striking missiles? Thanks. Have a good one, just some thoughts...

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3320

[spier]

From buds link:
The resulting explosion was so spectacular that many cynical observers insisted that the army had some help from Hollywood special effects experts. But troops in Iraq can attest that against a tank or other armored vehicle carrying fuel and ammo, the resulting explosion is just like the video. The explosion might look similar, but the damage inflicted? No ****ing way.

An easy way to convince me otherwise would be posting pictures of dead iraqi tanks.

MolliG, I wasn't being serious. The site that should have been where the rofle would have pointed you contained vids demonstrating the T90S.

[budanski]

An easy way to convince me otherwise would be posting pictures of dead iraqi tanks.

The mission isnt to convince spier. If it were, I suggest you volunteer to sit inside a tank on the next test fire.

[spier]

An easy way to convince me otherwise would be posting pictures of dead iraqi tanks.

The mission isnt to convince spier. If it were, I suggest you volunteer to sit inside a tank on the next test fire.Well, well, aren't you a total ****ing idiot? Did I say that the missile couldn't kill tanks? No, I didn't. So why would I want to sit in one during a test fire?

Go away.

[Herrmannek]

FORT BENNING, Ga. (Army News Service, Aug. 11, 2003) -- Four Rangers who used the Javelin handheld anti-armor missile system during operations in Iraq and one who fired it while training at Fort Benning spoke about their experiences during a meeting here July 31.

Sgt. Jason Witmer, Cpl. Jeremy Mumma, Spc. Matthew Pickell and Spc. Michael Kithcart, all with Company A, 3rd Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, told a group of Javelin manufacturers and post officials how the system performed in actual combat situations.

All four soldiers fired the weapon in different situations allowing them to give a broad view of its capabilities.

Each of them said the missile system was one of the most vital pieces of equipment they had during the war in Iraq.

Mumma and his team were cresting a hill in western Iraq when they spotted a pair of Iraqi tanks positioned about 1,800 meters away dug into U-shaped bunkers at the base of the hill. Mumma grabbed the Javelin from his team's humvee, engaged the target and fired two missiles at the tanks. Both missiles were direct hits and produced what Mumma called "catastrophic results," destroying each tank almost instantly.

Each Ranger saw similar results after firing the system. Kithcart said there was no doubt about whether the target was destroyed when he fired a Javelin because the explosion was so large it could be seen from about a kilometer away.

They also said they were impressed by the range and lethality of the weapon, but found other uses for the Command Launch Unit, which is basically the brain and eyes of the Javelin.

The Javelin sighting was such an asset that the Rangers said they used them during patrol and surveillance missions.

"As far as surveillance goes, the CLU was better" than the thermal sights the Rangers carried, Mumma said. "If we picked up something on the thermal (binoculars) and couldn't tell what it was, we would pick up the CLU."

Kithcart said the CLU was the best surveillance device they had when it was dark and during the frequent sandstorms because they were able to see things with much more detail than with the thermal binoculars. He said the CLU helped with their mission so much he would have carried it even if he didn't have any ammunition for the system.

"The complete system performed magnificently," said Col. Mike Beasock, TRADOC Close Combat Missile Systems system manager. "The CLU was the best surveillance device they had. The missiles effectively destroyed each target they shot at, ranging from tanks to light vehicles and bunkers.

"Tanks used to scare us," he said, "but now we are looking for armored targets to attack.

"Now we can find them, get out of the vehicle and attack on foot," Beasock said. "To have one infantryman on foot attacking a tank is amazing, and the system is so accurate, if you lock on to a target, it's an assured defeat of that target.

"People were even locking on to mortar positions," Beasock continued. "It is a very reliable system."

The Javelin system has already begun to change the way the Army looks at tanks and other armored vehicles, he said.

The Javelin has proven itself to be so valuable that it is one of the few weapons systems to be designated by name to be in the Army's Objective Force, Beasock said.

"It has such promising growth potential and such 'leap-ahead' compatibility that we must have it in the future," Beasock said.

(Editor's note: Pfc. David Foley is a staff journalist with the Fort Benning Bayonet.)

http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=5121

It would be nice to see combat photos.

[budanski]

herrmannek,
You know this story is all BS unless spier is there in person to account for that. :roll:

[spier]

herrmannek,
You know this story is all BS unless spier is there in person to account for that. :roll: Oh dear, you really don't get it do you? Go watch that Javelin video again, note the ****ing shock wave that erupts from the exploding tank. Ever seen a Mk81 250ibs bomb explode? That T72 reminds me of it.

Oh, and go away.

This was interesting:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/javelin4.jpg
Notice how the tank is still very much intact.

[Haiw]

just go look up GW 1 pictures of wrecked tanks....not a single one that's wrecked THAT bad as the one in this vid...

[Herrmannek]

For clearness I'm litle more with spier like than budanski, unless someone gives a battle photo of tank hited by javelin. From my knowlege of physics and other anti tank weponary(only from lectures), it is very uncomon to blow out all ammo in storage(fuell is mainly/only? outside tank in tanks above tracks)
at the hit time(but who knows budanski :)).

For example when hited tank is burning, shells explodes one by one, not all at the time, after all one shell consist more explosives than javelin wich is exploding outside.

On the other hand are cited articles, so only photo can solve this.

T-90S Videos
http://www.aviation.ru/www.rusarm.ru/video/T-90S_1.wmv
http://www.aviation.ru/www.rusarm.ru/video/T-90S_2.wmv
http://www.aviation.ru/www.rusarm.ru/video/T-90S_3.wmv

[budanski]

Oh, and go away.
LOL, a rookie telling ME to go away.


just go look up GW 1 pictures of wrecked tanks....not a single one that's wrecked THAT bad as the one in this vid...
Most of the destroyed tanks were taken out from the air and not by the Javelins itself.

[ibstolidude]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/030824/168/527jv.html

I'm not sure how that could take out a tank except maybe as a serious distraction..
especially after 6 months.

[Seiyuuki]

Anyone posting in this thread ever seen a Javelin in action? If not...how can you possibly say "I'm right, you're wrong" or "You're wrong, I'm right" 'cause frankly if none of you ever seen a Javelin in action...none of you could potentially be right.

[budanski]

For clearness I'm litle more with spier like than budanski, unless someone gives a battle photo of tank hited by javelin. From my knowlege of physics and other anti tank weponary(only from lectures), it is very uncomon to blow out all ammo in storage(fuell is mainly/only? outside tank in tanks above tracks)
at the hit time(but who knows budanski :)).

For example when hited tank is burning, shells explodes one by one, not all at the time, after all one shell consist more explosives than javelin wich is exploding outside.

On the other hand are cited articles, so only photo can solve this.

T-90S Videos
http://www.aviation.ru/www.rusarm.ru/video/T-90S_1.wmv
http://www.aviation.ru/www.rusarm.ru/video/T-90S_2.wmv
http://www.aviation.ru/www.rusarm.ru/video/T-90S_3.wmv

I don't know what else to tell ya. I've posted an article from a reliable source of its performance, include not only pictures but also a video yet you guys are still skeptical of its performance and in return you post up russian weapons, who by the way are not known to rig up their own testings in search of more sales.

[Herrmannek]

Anyone posting in this thread ever seen a Javelin in action? If not...how can you possibly say "I'm right, you're wrong" or "You're wrong, I'm right" 'cause frankly if none of you ever seen a Javelin in action...none of you could potentially be right.

There are oposite sources of inforamtion in net so,
no one is sure here(with some exceptions), thats why we want some photos.

And budanski I don't said you are wrong or your sources are, just can't belive:
*)that so small rocket could make such damage, that rocket even not directly hit in ammo storage,
**)have been heard rumors about filling tank not with shells but HE
***) Another wepons(even stronger) tests/photos/info doesn't mention about such efeects on hit target

I'm sure this rocket can take with one shoot any tank but I doubt it can tear it apart.

[martinexsquaddie]

having fire MILAN which is an earlier Generation of Anti tank missile it could take the turret of a T 55 clear off and throw it 30 or forty feet but there was quite a lot of wreckage remaining.
Javalin is a top rate tank killer battle proven nobody doubts that.
But that video is way too spectacular. I suspect a little help was given otherwise Halve the warhead and increase the range :lol:
If the tanks only half destroyed at 9 k who care its still dead :lol:

[usa320]

The mission isnt to convince spier. If it were, I suggest you volunteer to sit inside a tank on the next test fire.



rofl


Im with martin... If its dead, its dead, who cares how many feet into the air the turret flies. :roll:

[Haiw]

Oh, and go away.
LOL, a rookie telling ME to go away.


just go look up GW 1 pictures of wrecked tanks....not a single one that's wrecked THAT bad as the one in this vid...
Most of the destroyed tanks were taken out from the air and not by the Javelins itself.

yea they were taken out from the air with even heavier ordnance, and even that didnt result in wrecks like this...

[budanski]

yea they were taken out from the air with even heavier ordnance, and even that didnt result in wrecks like this...Two different beasts. JDAMs are good to do blunt force and disable or throw the tanks around. ATMs are designed to penetrate.

[hood]

I've got a few videos from iraq of troops firing javelins, but the tank is always in the distance so all you see is a huge explosion with a big smoke/dust cloud. Unless you walk over to the Iraqi tank, say to their tank commander "Here, hold this camera and point it at the guy with the rocket over there", you're not going to know for sure what kind of effect it had. The soldiers, at least the ones with the reporters, engaged tanks and drove on. They didn't stick around to inspect just how dead the tank was. I also have videos of tanks slowly cooking off where the shells inside are blowing up about one every 3-4 seconds. I think those were engaged with 25mm fire though.

[Seiyuuki]

Post the videos Hood...THE PEOPLE DEMANDED IT OF YOU, THEY'RE TALKING MUTINY HERE!!!

[hood]

haha right. i'll have to dig through the over 100 that I've got for those clips.

[Herrmannek]

Another video of tanks busted by javelin, this time no fireworks.
https://mfcbastion.external.lmco.com/mfc/videolibrary/Javelin.mpg
Don't know if tanks were carrying fuel and ammo.

Same disscusion on other forum
http://mechaps.com/cgi-bin/board/topic.cgi?forum=3&topic=73



Was EVERY T-72 that launched its turret in Gulf WarI rigged with C-4 before we shot it too? Or all the Syrian T-72s that blew up under Israeli guns in the fighting in Lebanon?

The T-72 was not rigged in that Javelin test shot. They just loaded it with main gun cartridges. T-72s have a problem with their ammunition exploding if something penetrates into the carrosel mag below the turret floor. They use caseless charges for their guns and have inadaquate internal compartmentalization. They are a defective design.

We had a problem with M551s blowing up in the same manner when we used them in Vietnam. Same problem. Same causes, combustible cased ammo stored low in the hull. There the problem was landmines blowing through the floor, not shaped charges coming through the roof but the end was the same, hull shattered turret launched. It had a little better excuse though as it weighed only 16 tons instead of 48..





The T-72 is one of the more common tanks out there now. There is also the T-80, but not as many I don't believe. T-6X and below outnumber the T-72's IIRC, but they're also weaker/older tanks. So T-72 is a pretty good tank to base tests on I think. T-62, T-54, T-64, all have the problem with turrets being launched due to the way they store their ammunition. The T-72 isn't alone on that.

"The T-72 was not rigged in that Javelin test shot. They just loaded it with main gun cartridges. T-72s have a problem with their ammunition exploding if something penetrates into the carrosel mag below the turret floor."

Tanks do not blow apart like that. Turrets fly if the propellant is detonated sometimes, yes, but the hull does not shatter along the seams and go hundreds of yards. Sorry, that vehicle was rigged to explode like that to "look pretty". That video has acheived it's intended goal; to look impressive. Congress gives em a big thumbs up.

When tanks get hit, its not usually very impressive... Sometimes it simply stops moving and starts smoking. Sometimes sparks fly out from the turret ring. Sometimes it does nothing. Sometimes the turret flies off impressively. I've never heard of an account where the whole tank is blown to bite sized bits and scattered hundreds of yards till there's nothing left but a scorch on the ground. Airstrikes, maybe artillery, will simply obliterate a tank but they use much more explosive in most cases.

Usually you hear of turrets flying after a MBT nails it with a cannon- likely because of it's flight path it's more likely to detonate the propellant. Javelin has a harder time of that coming from the top or hitting the turret. The actual projectiles around the ring may not cook off for several minutes.

I believe the M-551 had an even worse time with propellant spillage.

The javelin simply doesen't decimate tanks in a huge fireball till there's nothing left. It makes a teeny little hole thats hard to pick up with a camera, and everything inside the tank is dead and/or burning _with the possibility_ of hitting it just right that the propellent ignites and the turret flies.

Want further proof? Look at the aftermath in Iraq. You see lots of burning hulks of tanks. All combat loaded. The key here is YOU SEE the hulks. The hulls are still there, and sometimes the turret is too if it was not launched. The hulls and often the turrets are STILL INTACT.
examples:
A: http://www.nctimes.net/news/2001/20010117/2.gif
B: http://www.sohoblues.com/GulfWarWeb/previewpages/previewpage4.htm
C: http://www.gulfweb.org/photos/shires/3.jpg
D: http://www.hoskinson.net/gulfwar/gulf3_new.gif
E: http://www.ang.af.mil/history/fotohist/Scan61.jpg

And this is after being hit by 120mm main gun rounds! Carrying more energy than the javelin. All of them combat loaded. So don't tell me the ammunition and propellant stored inside a T-72 is sufficient to blow the whole tank to smithereens like in that video. And you can't say the puny javelin did it all on it's own. So what caused the tank in the video to becoming nothing but a scar on the ground?

Maybe the sheridan blows up, but she's alot lighter. Javelin will definately kill a tank, but leaving a pencil eraser diameter sized hole just isn't impressive. Even combat loaded, the tank may just spew sparks and flames, and perhaps the turret will pop, but not much else.

The vehicle was rigged to explode like that, no question.




Serching for next... maybe other tank types....

[martinexsquaddie]

apprantly the MOd is going to buy Javaelin too hope to have it in service by 2005
so that another good piece of kit:)

[REMOV]

Correct, the T90 is not in production, it does not exist.Tell it to the Russians - they have ca. 148 T-90 (various versions) in line ;)

Looks quite well for something which "does not exist" :D
http://www.arms.ru/tank/fotos/t90_4.jpg

[Sebas_1982]

Hi peeps, dont want to some big mouth over here.. but being myself in the army (reccon) we need to learn all about the warshau pact armor and planes, and this thing is very much in my books..

[MarineSniper8541]

If it had real ammo it would not blow at one time with great caboom, but rather with more smaler subexplossions, And tank would not be teared apart. Can't wait for real pictures of iraqis tanks blowed by javelins to see real damges.


WRONG,

If it were a munition such as a TOW, that would be a correct statement.
However, the Javelin creates an overpressure about 50 times higher than a TOW. It instantly turns everything inside the tank, crew, ammo, fuel...everything...into plasma which immolates instantly. The overpressure then causes the hull of the tank to shatter like glass.

If the U.S. would have had the Javelin during the cold war, the Russians with their massive fleet of armor would have been quaking in thier boots.
Once a Javelin gunner fires the missle, he can run away and find cover. The enemy tank crew then has about 5-10 seconds in which to get out of the tank, and run at least 300 meters from the tank before they die because the missle has over a 97% hit probability on a moving target with no overhead cover.

How far can you run in 5 seconds?? :lol:

[Miles Teg]

Sure that the javelin make end of the long career of the Milan.

Sorry our so clever technocrats haven't expect to replace the Milan. So we will not be able for long time to build a concurrent for the Javelin.

Long life for Javelin.

I've read in iraki Javlin use, that the most miss of hit are due to human error. 3 operators launching 3 javelin on the same target for example.

[16 OBr SpN]

I said it once, I'll say it once more - that video is TOTAL BULL****.

I've seen many times what an AT missile does to a tank. Even "Kornet" missile doesn't do that kind of damage. "

Regards,
16 OBr SpN

[uri]

RAFAEL Gil Anti Tank Guided Missile

Made by the Israeli Armament Development Authority (RAFAEL), the Gil ATGM is a highly advanced fire and forget missile. The Gil development began in the late 1980's and it entered service in the IDF in 1999.

The Gil is considered to be the best ATGM of its kind in the world and over 90% hit ration. Part from Israel it's also used in foreign armed forces such as Finland, Holland, Norway, Poland and Singapore armed forces.

Today, the Gil is deployed by most of the IDF infantry oriented units, including both special and conventional forces, and especially by the Assisting Companies which are an integral part of each IDF infantry battalion.

http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/rockets/gil/gil-specs.jpg
Gill
Range 2,500 meters, guidance - Fire and Forget
Spike
Range 4,000 meters, guidance - Fire-and-Forget or Fire, Observe and Update via a fiber optic cable
Total system weight
26 kg
Ready to fire
less than 30 seconds
Reload time
less than 15 seconds
Missile seeker
Imaging Infrared (IIR) or Charge Coupled Device (CCD)
Missile pod weight with fiber optic
13 kg
Length with canister
1200 mm

Command Launch Unit (CLU) weight
5 kg
Thermal sight weight
4 kg
Tripod weight
3 kg
Battery weight
1 kg

http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/rockets/gil/gil-3.jpg

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/missile_systems/anti-armor/gill_spike/gill_idf2.jpg

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/missile_systems/anti-armor/gill_spike/gill3b.jpg

http://www.rafael.co.il/web/rafnew/images/ads/spike.JPG

[Armour recon]

The T-90 it will probably remain in low-rate production to keep production lines open until newer designs become available. Several hundred of these tanks have been produced, with various estimates suggesting that between 100 and 300 are in service, primarily in the Far East.

As of mid-2000 India planned to acquire T-90 tanks, based on field trials which had already been completed. Although orders had been placed for the supply of 124 Arjun tanks through the Defence Research Development Organisation, it would be difficult to predict when these orders would be fufilled. Until such time, T-90 tanks would serve to counter Pakistan's T-85 tanks.

[Herrmannek]

If it had real ammo it would not blow at one time with great caboom, but rather with more smaler subexplossions, And tank would not be teared apart. Can't wait for real pictures of iraqis tanks blowed by javelins to see real damges.


WRONG,

If it were a munition such as a TOW, that would be a correct statement.
However, the Javelin creates an overpressure about 50 times higher than a TOW. It instantly turns everything inside the tank, crew, ammo, fuel...everything...into plasma which immolates instantly. The overpressure then causes the hull of the tank to shatter like glass.

If the U.S. would have had the Javelin during the cold war, the Russians with their massive fleet of armor would have been quaking in thier boots.
Once a Javelin gunner fires the missle, he can run away and find cover. The enemy tank crew then has about 5-10 seconds in which to get out of the tank, and run at least 300 meters from the tank before they die because the missle has over a 97% hit probability on a moving target with no overhead cover.

How far can you run in 5 seconds?? :lol:

WRONG

Javelin charge isn't biger/better/stronger than charge in one tank shell esspecialy Javelin needs also to defeat an armor, so no biger pressures or temeperatures than from shell coking off inside a tank ..here you have top atack missile with cocked off few tank shels at once. But I don't see turrets flying by, tank is still rolling after a hit, and I think that more than one track left on place from the tank after it slowly burned down....
http://koti.mbnet.fi/sasu75/missile.WMV

This is clear experimantal proof that T-72 from Javelin clip was stuffed with something more sensitive and in amounts greater than normal tank shell load so it blowed at once with greater force... Also take a look at Javelin clip there is no bright shrapnels flying out from explosion and there is no secondary explosions from not exploded ordinance blowed into sky.

[kinghk]

The Gil is considered to be the best ATGM of its kind in the world and over 90% hit ration. Part from Israel it's also used in foreign armed forces such as Finland, Holland, Norway, Poland and Singapore armed forces.


Norway bought Javelin instead.

[mustamato]

Haha. Of course it was filled with as much TNT as they just could squeeze
in. In the video above of a old swedish Centurion making friend with a BILL,
that one is probably filled with "ammo"-sized tubes of TNT as well, and it doesn´t
fly away to the moon.

[oldsoak]

Spike has one feature that the Javelin doesnt - you can id the target using the missiles seeker while it is in flight and abort if necessary - useful if you suddenly realise that your AFV recognition isnt what it should be and you want to avoid cooking a friendly. If you had used Javelin, you might be running for cover in more ways than one.

[Uncle Sam]

Wrong !!!






Just felt like saying it.

[Uninen]

That Javelin vid is BS.

Even direct hit from 500 or 1000lb LGB doesnt do that to T-72 even if in full explosive load..

(ammo / fuel..)

That T-72 in the 'test' was LOADED FULL OF EXPLOSIVES, and maybe even had some explosive under it.

rofl

[Sergei]

Yeah, that trick with Javelin works good with military salesmen and teenage gurus sitting in the internet. In real life no crappy missile can tear to shreds a 48 ton behemoth.
The tank was probably filled with TNT up to its ears (if it has any) to make a nice fireworks combination. Good PR stunt for the average folks though.

[Tygryssek]

In the nearest future SPIKE will be I S R A E L I/G E R M A N/POLISH antitank missile.

[Ian H]

Point is most non-military associate knocked out with destroyed. A small hole in the turret and a bit of smoke probably would have the media shouting 'Javelin doesn't work!' or some ****. So the test was rigged to convince the ignorant that Javelin will destroy a tank, as it will in real life. Worked on me, I must say.

Anyway, what's this in the title about LOSAT 2? LOSAT itself isn't in full service yet is it?

[OldRecon]

Could a tank blow up with such a massive bang as shown on the Javelin promo?
Well, if an APDS round from the 120 mm cannon of an Abrams can do it in large measures, why can't an ATGW warhead do the same (or better)?
In the case of the APDS round its a matter of the mix between the kinnetic energy of the shot, pyrotechnical qualities in the material of the shot, protection of stored amunition within the tank, and the amount of oxygene within the tank at the momen it is hit by the shot (and slightly afterwards).
From what I've read, during the previous Gulf war US 120 APDS rounds were capable of penetrating the frontal armour of Iraqi tanks (T-54/55's, T-72 and/or Chinese copies of same tanks), penetrating the magazines of those tanks, and lastly penetrating their engine compartments before passing out the back. Which, with the pyrotechnical qualities of the DU used in the US APDS round, could cause outbreaks of fire in the ammunition store so rapid there would still be enough oxygene within the tank to fuel an explosion strong enough to toss the turret off the tank.
From what I've been able to digest from material written about the previous gulf war, such turret tossing explosion wasn't all that uncommon, with regards to Iraqi tanks hit by US DU APDS rounds, and furthermore that especially the T-72's appeared susceptible to such brew ups.
Though admittedly even the aftermath results of such DU APDS initiated brew ups don't look "that devastating" as that Javelin hit shown in the movies linked under this thread.
Then could it still be possible for such a small missile to destroy a 40 tonne tanke that completely?
Well yes, provided the warhead in the missile can provide enough oxygene to fuel a fast enough burning rate, before CO and CO2 from the burning itself and any fire extinguishing component tip the scale the other way (which is why most tanks generaly burn with flickering "poofs", after an ammunition fire has been started, rather than going of with a big "boOOM").
Thus I guess if a tank brews up with several "poofs" or a "boOM" when hit by an APDS, depend on the initial number of rounds that are alighted when the APDS pass through the ammunition storage.
I.e. if the fire starts with 1 to 3 rounds being set alight simultaneously by an APDS hit, you'll get a "poofing" fire, and if 4 or more rounds are set alight initialy it will grow to a good "boOM".
Now why do shaped charge rounds generaly start "poofing" rather than "boOming" fires in tanks?
Well, the ordinary ATGM shaped charge warhead tend to use up quite a lot of its enegy in achieving penetration, thus the energy, that's left after penetration is achieved, isn't powerfull enough to **** of enough ammunition simultaneously for a "boOM" before the CO and CO2 levels, building from the fire itself, keeps the rate of combustion down.
Now on the other hand if the concentration of available oxygene is high enough, you don't need all that much explosive to create a big bang.
As an example, before the invention of frostproof dynamite, there were some experiments within the mining industry with liquid oxygene as a substitute for dynamite.
Rather than fill the fireholes with sticks of dynamite, one would pour liquid oxygen into them instead, before sticking small chips of wood lighted electricaly into each hole.
Despite the chips of wood weighting only a few grammes, the concentration of oxygene in the fireholes would ensure that they each burned with a fast enough combustion rate to create an explosion of comparable force to a stick of dynamite.
Thus if the Javelin warhead contains a compound able to infuse a suitable amount of oxygene into the tank, before setting of any fires, a catastrophic explosion of the kind shown in the promo ma well occure.
Don't know anything about the warhead of the javelin, but let us assume it consists of 3 parts.

1) A shaped charge big enough to penetrate the top armour of a tank
2) An aerosol or fixed component capable of releasing large amounts of stored oxygene into the tank
3) A final component pushed in through the penetration hole afther the previous 2 that reacts violently to oxygene (like natrium or lithium)

And I guess the effect could be quite interesting.
Now if the tank target shown were running with an NBC air-overpressure system on, I guess even that could be quite helpfull with fueling a good brew.??

[ExtraT]

Point is most non-military associate knocked out with destroyed. A small hole in the turret and a bit of smoke probably would have the media shouting 'Javelin doesn't work!' or some ****. So the test was rigged to convince the ignorant that Javelin will destroy a tank, as it will in real life. Worked on me, I must say.


I'm afraid that's incorrect. When you load up a tank with TNT like that, the missile doesn't even need to penetrate the armor - the explosive will probably detonate anyway. Also, armor penetration by itself is not sufficient to knock out a tank. So, this "test" is nothing but a primitive PR stunt, and has no value in showing Javelin's effectiveness.

[stuntman]

BY the way where are Javs made?

[Uninen]

In the nearest future SPIKE will be I S R A E L I/G E R M A N/POLISH antitank missile.

:backhand:

What do you mean?

Its in servive in other nations also, including Finland..

[ibstolidude]

Great videos, pictures and first hand accounts of the Javelin as used in Northern Iraq.

http://www.raytheon.com/feature/warfighter/battle.html

[wholagun]

any israelies got any spike videos?
Also what is differnce between gill and spike?

So happy Poland bought spike so happy.

[Uninen]

Great videos, pictures and first hand accounts of the Javelin as used in Northern Iraq.

http://www.raytheon.com/feature/warfighter/battle.html

http://www.raytheon.com/feature/warfighter/img/p_pic03.jpg
See, MT-LB APC, tin can compard to T-72.. destroyed, yet in one piece!

:roll:

That was so propaganda that Javelin vs. T-72 vid, like i said already..

:slap:

[Kingpin]

Yeah, yeah. This small hole is from mighty Javelin :)
Good old Konkurs do more damage
http://www.raytheon.com/feature/warfighter/img/p_pic02.jpg

[ibstolidude]

Yeah, yeah. This small hole is from mighty Javelin :)
Good old Konkurs do more damage
- actually Hole size is absolutely irrelivant. You do not want an energy dump onto the armor as that is what reactie armor seeks to create. You wnat penetration of rolled hard steel.

[Kingpin]

Yes, man. But except this hole i don't see any damage to tank. It seems to be in repairable state.

[Uninen]

If the breech was open or had shell loaded, the crew is toasted maaaan.. ;)

[ibstolidude]

Great videos, pictures and first hand accounts of the Javelin as used in Northern Iraq.

http://www.raytheon.com/feature/warfighter/battle.html

X
See, MT-LB APC, tin can compard to T-72.. destroyed, yet in one piece!

:roll:

That was so propaganda that Javelin vs. T-72 vid, like i said already..

:slap:
Not sure what video you are referring to, so I make no comment about its' propoganda,

A tank turrent will typically "POP" as it is flouting. Even an old BTR 152v appeared to suffer less damage than a T55 when we hit both. The reason was simple the BTR152v went up in smoke and burned and popped. The T55 exploded and the turrent popped partialy out. as a Tank is not ONE piece it is easier to seperate as oppossed to the Btr's welded hull (same as tank hull). the same reason a tank hull doesn't exploded out as the pressure from an axplosion seeks the "easiest" way out..up and out the turret. that is the reason you will typicall see all the doors blown open on welded hull vehicles.

[Uninen]

ibstolidude,

Im talking about that orginal Javelin vid posted to this topic, in which the T-72 is blown to 1 kg pieces.. rofl

[Edit]

The 'vid' you posted was OK, although it had that certain style in it.. ;)

[ibstolidude]

Yes, man. But except this hole i don't see any damage to tank. It seems to be in repairable state.

I guess the blued (burned metal) shell compared to the green background is just for camoflauge?

yeah it must be repairable. :roll: