Page 10 of 13 FirstFirst ... 2345678910111213 LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 192

Thread: Kornet ATGM ,RPG-29 effectiveness against Tanks

  1. #136
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Curules Equi. I'm Happy.
    Posts
    12,956

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tanks_alot View Post
    You were trying to mislead on purpose, otherwise you could have simply mentioned in your description of the article, that a Merkava was penetrated in the Gaza *****, without mentioning the Trophy.


    Nonesense, statistics from the Second Lebanon war showed that 47% of ATGM have penetrated their targets on Mk2, Mk3 and Mk4, while resulting in KIA 21% of the time a tank was penetrated. where as during the 1973 Yum Kipur war, ATGMs had 86% success of penetrating the tanks the IDF had fielded back then, while causing on average two deates per penetration on a tank.

    That's a huge improvment even before the Trophy.



    Ashkenazi was worked up due to the fact that the armament level of the Gaza ***** reaching the same level of Lebanon. mind you, since Hamas's failed attempt to attack a Trophy armed tank, last year, they have not tried again, to my knowledge to attack another tank. they have however, fired a Kornet into a civilian bus traveling near Gaza, killing a teen and injuring several others.

    What does it change if there's KIA or not if there's enough damage to stop the tank and or the offensive? The question wasn't if the Kornet could kill as much, it was if it could penetrate the Merkava. The Answer is: Yes it can. Btw the IDF has fielded tanks that are in average 60 to 80% heavier than the YKW ones. This was the issue. If the YKW taks were deemed unsatisfactory, that resulted in the current weight gain. If the current crop of armour can't cope with the current threats with Trophy, what would that mean for the weight and design of the IDF tank force. It's simply deduction. I'm not taking sides. Just asking.

    Please feel free to object to that.

    I provided the link as it was my understanding then that the Trophy had been massievely fielded from 2009. I din't tried to mislead any one, as I immediately recognized that there was no such indication. It's called an assumption, and it was a wrong one. My bad.

  2. #137
    Senior Member Camera's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    France
    Age
    55
    Posts
    14,853

    Default

    Trophy was not massively fielded in 2009.
    Trophy was fielded progressively, company after company. The features it provides - which exceed additional tier of protection - require the crews to be trained to optimize the advantages of the system.
    If I'm not mistaken, the first Mk.4 company equipped with Trophy became operational late 2010.

  3. #138
    Tel Aviv Stud tanks_alot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Tel Aviv, Israel
    Posts
    6,651

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KoTeMoRe View Post
    What does it change if there's KIA or not if there's enough damage to stop the tank and or the offensive?
    Of course it matters, first of all and most importantly because the IDF cares about the lives of it's soldiers, but beyond that, technical teams repair tanks on the spot and bring them back into the fight. this skill gave the IDF armor corps an edge over it's enemies during the Yum Kipur war, because tanks and crews would return to the fight, however dead soldiers cannot return to fight, even if the tank is quickly repaired.

    Only a handful of tanks were total loss during the Second Lebanon war.

    The question wasn't if the Kornet could kill as much, it was if it could penetrate the Merkava. The Answer is:
    And? there isn't such a thing as an unpenetrable tank and never was, you jump into wild conclusions over the simple fact of life that tanks can be penetrated. the question isn't wheter a tank can be penetrated or not, but the % of it's penetration rate and the damage it causes.
    Btw the IDF has fielded tanks that are in average 60 to 80% heavier than the YKW ones. This was the issue. If the YKW taks were deemed unsatisfactory, that resulted in the current weight gain. If the current crop of armour can't cope with the current threats with Trophy, what would that mean for the weight and design of the IDF tank force. It's simply deduction. I'm not taking sides. Just asking.

    Please feel free to object to that.
    That's a theortical discussion. some claim that the future of tanks is a significant reduction in weight and size and perheps even moving into unmand territory, but the IDF is really not there yet.

  4. #139
    Senior Member Damian90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    2,540

    Default

    That's a huge myth, that ammunution explodes immediatly after hit. In most cases, explosion occurs only after burning for quite some time. Did you see Georgian T-72s in Tshinvali? They burned for hour or so. T-72/90 autoloader is located near the bottom of hull.
    Sometimes ammunition will start to burn after several hours, sometimes it will immidietly burn or explode. besides this the problem is not autoloader itself but rest of ammunition stored inside hull, even T-90MS have still several rounds and propelant charges stored inside hull.

    This is a pretty safe place in tank-to-tank battles, when tankers use a terrain cover.
    Without complete isolation and blow off panels it is not safe, as many battles proved.

    Abrams DU frontal armor is still tough. But all tanks have weak turret side protection. But look at the angles:

    So T-90 have more wide angle of frontal armor protections.
    You completely not understand principle of safe manouvering angles and how side turret protection is achieved in both designs. In T series tanks side turret is made from max 80mm CHA or RHA this is why to achieve proper protection within safe manouvering angles it need to be angled in such a way that side turret armor is covered by frontal armor, this have advantage in smaller turret size and weight, but there are also disadvantages. In tanks like M1 there is ~360-400mm (or less depending on design) composite armor cavity, at hit angle of 30 degrees it should provide high level of protection. Actually western approach is far more versatile because besides good protection within safe manouvering angles, such armor provides higher degree of protection than thin CHA or RHA. Both can be reinforced by ERA but still Composite + ERA will have better protection than RHA/CHA + ERA. Tradeoff for higher side protection is bigger size and weight of vehicle, tradeoff for T series tanks is worser balance of turret that do not have rear counterweight for heavy front armor and main armament.

    Early T-90 doesn't have thermal sight, so their night combat capabilities was more limited.
    Wrong! Object 188 designated by Army as T-90 have thermal sight for gunner. Educate Yourself!

    BTW, Abrams thanks to it's gas turbine, has a way huge thermal signature than pretty much any diesel tank.
    Myth, gas turbine engine do not have higher thermal signature than a Diesel. I seen photos of Diesel and Gas turbine powered tanks in thermal sight from other tanks, no significant difference.

    Moreover, T-90 have a "long arm" for tank-to-tank battle - barrel launched ATGMs.
    It is LOS weapon, no real advantage in Europe, even desert are not flat enough everywhere to use them. NATO is working on BLOS GLATGM's with much higher range (they can also be used in LOS).

    Note: BLOS - Beyond Line Of Sight, LOS - Line Of Sight.

    About APFSDS - In 1991, when M829A1 entered in service, Soviet tanks get DU shell ZBM-48 'Svinets' with same armor penetration as M829A1. But USSR collapsed, and previous generation DU APFSDS ZBM-33 'Vant' (M829 analogue) still more common. However, with strenghtening of economy, existing gap in capabilities would close.
    First things firts. If You would have some knowledge You would know that proper designation is 3BMxx (where xx is number) not some ZBM thing. Second M829A1 is long ago outdated, M829A2 also, currently basic APFSDS is M829A3 and M829A4 soon will be fielded. Gap closed only to level of M829A2 with new Russian APFSDS with penetrator ~740mm long, while M829A3 have 800mm penetrator long and the whole projectile is 900mm long (penetrator + ballistic cap).

    Now only targets of Abrams tanks is an infantry and buildings. And against them Abrams doesn't even have HE shells
    Wrong! Again , For M1 there are several HE shells, M908 HEOR currently in use in US Army and USMC, USMC recently purchased DM11 programmable HE as interim solution before new AMP (Advanced Multipurpose) round will be fielded. AMP is highly advanced ammunition that will replace M830 HEAT, M830A1 MPAT, M908HEOR and M1028. AMP use programmable fuze, and is even capable to perforate front turret armor of T-55 tank (nice for HE ammunition eh?). There were photos somewhere in one of official documents after tests of this ammunition against T-55, I was impressed.

    @Cyborn, please, read something serious not that crap that You feeding yourself.

    Yeah, nice design. Radiator grills tilted forward, so enemy can more clearly see them in thermal sight and more easily struck them. And how the **** they suppose to load the main gun?
    These are not radiator grill but air intakes, so no thermal signature there. And gun is loaded by autoloader. You seems to know absolutely nothing about autoloader design from USA. And guess where was first project of carousel autoloader designed, yup in US of A.

    In one of Richard Hunnicutt books there are drawing of proposed tanks designs from 1950's with carousel type autoloaders.

    Nonsense; both the Kornet and Metis were used to powerful effect against the Merkava Mk.3 & Mk.2 during the 2006 Lebanon War; although for the most part older ATGMs and RPGs were used against these older tanks.

    There was a v. good link that I had, but I lost it.
    @Flamming_python, I never said that non Kornet was ever used against tank. This is some misunderstanding or mistake.
    Last edited by Damian90; 03-31-2012 at 08:46 AM.

  5. #140
    Senior Member Flamming_Python's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Spying on the Eurowoosies
    Posts
    11,928

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Damian90 View Post
    @Flamming_python, I never said that non Kornet was ever used against tank. This is some misunderstanding or mistake.
    Yeah, mistake. Yours

    Quote Originally Posted by Damian90 View Post
    Kornet was unabale to perforate frontal armor of Merkava Mk.4 turret.

    Kornet was not used against any other western tank.
    Your words dude. I take them to mean that you believe that the Kornet was not employed against any other Western tank than the Merkava Mk IV (if we are to classify Israel as a Western country). Which is false.

    And as for your debate with Cyborg; AFAIK this was a problem not because of the carousel auto-loader (which is shielded from the crew compartment by a thick metal plate), but because of the practice employed by T-72 crews to store spare ammo/charges right in the compartment. The Russian ERA-equipped T-72s and T-80s took dozens of hits in Chechnya from multiple directions and often from above ground-level - before being put out of action. Perhaps a good part of the reason was that many Russian tankers simply moved all spare ammo out of the crew compartment, and withdrew from action temporarily when the ammo in the auto-loaders was used up, in order to retrieve the spare ammo and load it.

    This is obviously not such a great situation but far from a significant design problem (it lowers the effective ammo load rather than crew survivability) - the next Russian tank will implement a different design that will do away with any storage of any ammo near the crew; but although the neccessity for such a design change is recognized; the Russian MoD tellingly, is no hurry to introduce such a tank.

    BTW, if you want to compare the T-72 and the M1 Abrams for example; a good place to look at will be at the 1991 Gulf War. But not at Saddam's tanks though. Rather, Kuwait's M-84s that the Americans gave much praise to, and which equaled or exceeded the M1 Abrams of the time in a number of key parameters.
    Last edited by Flamming_Python; 03-31-2012 at 01:03 PM.

  6. #141
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Curules Equi. I'm Happy.
    Posts
    12,956

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tanks_alot View Post
    Of course it matters, first of all and most importantly because the IDF cares about the lives of it's soldiers, but beyond that, technical teams repair tanks on the spot and bring them back into the fight. this skill gave the IDF armor corps an edge over it's enemies during the Yum Kipur war, because tanks and crews would return to the fight, however dead soldiers cannot return to fight, even if the tank is quickly repaired.

    Only a handful of tanks were total loss during the Second Lebanon war.

    And? there isn't such a thing as an unpenetrable tank and never was, you jump into wild conclusions over the simple fact of life that tanks can be penetrated. the question isn't wheter a tank can be penetrated or not, but the % of it's penetration rate and the damage it causes.


    That's a theortical discussion. some claim that the future of tanks is a significant reduction in weight and size and perheps even moving into unmand territory, but the IDF is really not there yet.
    It doesn't matter in this discussion. The question was does it go through? Yes.

    Now does it matter in general. Off course it does. On many levels. The tank disabled can be isolated and the crew captured alive. It can be disabled but recovered and repaired. It can still provide protection for the crew or it can be recovered by the Enemy if the IDF looses ground.

    It's akin to the small calibre bullet. Mean to wound and not to "kill". If you have to risk two other tanks to save the immobilized tank exposing them to the same threat level, we can argue that it isn't such a good deal. So while it's good for one tactical situation, it might be disastrous for another one.

    Again, I simply answered to the Necro OP. Nothing more nothing less. Now does the damage inflictes matter, of course it does. Did it matter for the OP? It didn't.

    Last but not least. Tanks are here to stay. It has never been my view they should disappear, the idea behind the other thread was the cost an offensive weapon has when reciprocated by defence and how the current APS systems have to be flawless. While I reckon I was cheeky, my POV came by the fact that no other military out there has the luxury of a "door-step" insurgency.

  7. #142
    Senior Member Mordoror's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Backstabbing allies in a foxhole
    Age
    41
    Posts
    9,857

    Default

    BTW, if you want to compare the T-72 and the M1 Abrams
    Ak>M16 ? (/jk)
    I never understood that need to compare a late 60-early 70 tank with an early 80 tank
    It would be like comparing a PzI/II and a Panther/Tiger
    10 years of difference makes a lot but people are too often forgetting this
    especially when you know that T72 is a generci term and that between a T72A, T72M, T72M1, T72G, M84 there is big differences in term of FCS, armor composition, etc etc etc

  8. #143
    Senior Member Flamming_Python's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Spying on the Eurowoosies
    Posts
    11,928

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mordoror View Post
    Ak>M16 ? (/jk)
    I never understood that need to compare a late 60-early 70 tank with an early 80 tank
    It would be like comparing a PzI/II and a Panther/Tiger
    10 years of difference makes a lot but people are too often forgetting this
    especially when you know that T72 is a generci term and that between a T72A, T72M, T72M1, T72G, M84 there is big differences in term of FCS, armor composition, etc etc etc
    Well, perhaps because the current Russian MBT; the T-90, is based off the T-72 design and is basically a heavily modernised and overhauled T-72. To a lesser extent - it's the same with the Yugoslavian M-84 - which is like a Yugoslavian version of the T-72B. So comparing a Yugo T-72B to a 1991-era M1 Abrams; when they were both used in the same war (although on the same side), is probably the closest approximation we have to comparing the performance of a modern-day T-90 and M1 Abrams.
    Last edited by Flamming_Python; 03-31-2012 at 12:15 PM.

  9. #144
    Senior Member Mordoror's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Backstabbing allies in a foxhole
    Age
    41
    Posts
    9,857

    Default

    Well, perhaps because the current Russian MBT; the T-90, is based off the T-72 design and is basically a heavily modernised and overhauled T-72.
    Like a M1A1 or a M1SEP is a heavily modernized and overhauled M1
    Why not compare (if comparison is needed) a T90/T90S and a M1A1 then
    rather than a M1A1 and a T72A

    back in the days it would have been smarter to compare M60 (and overhauls) and T72 (and overhauls)
    and to compare M1 vs T80
    You compare in the same league not cross leagues

  10. #145
    Senior Member Flamming_Python's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Spying on the Eurowoosies
    Posts
    11,928

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mordoror View Post
    Like a M1A1 or a M1SEP is a heavily modernized and overhauled M1
    Why not compare (if comparison is needed) a T90/T90S and a M1A1 then
    rather than a M1A1 and a T72A

    back in the days it would have been smarter to compare M60 (and overhauls) and T72 (and overhauls)
    and to compare M1 vs T80
    You compare in the same league not cross leagues
    T-90s and T-80s have never been fielded in the same war or even the same location/terrain or similar circumstances as the M1 Abrams. We simply have no way of knowing for example, how a M1 Abrams will fare in Chechnya, or a T-80 in Iraq. So it's very hard to compare their specific qualities and characteristics directly, as they function in the real world.

    We do however have the example of the M-84 (equal to T-72B) and an earlier version of the M1 Abrams; being not only fielded in the same war and on the same side (albeit not by the same army), but also of Kuwaiti testing of the M-84 against the M1 Abrams after the war too, which also revealed some good information. All of this data is more valuable than all of the paper comparisons in the world, even considering that T-72 and M1 Abrams tech has moved on since 1991.

  11. #146
    Senior Member Mordoror's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Backstabbing allies in a foxhole
    Age
    41
    Posts
    9,857

    Default

    but also of Kuwaiti testing of the M-84 against the M1 Abrams after the war too, which also revealed some interesting results.
    Do you have some infos about that ?
    Never read anything on this and i am interested about it, given that the M84 is a Yu highly modified version of the T72M/M1

  12. #147
    On Belay... Climb on Climber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Buenos Aires in body, the beautiful and green Sharon in my heart
    Age
    46
    Posts
    10,872

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypriot View Post
    ok bro sr..
    Lol at you calling a Mod, Bro, pretty funny

    Quote Originally Posted by KoTeMoRe View Post
    It doesn't matter in this discussion. The question was does it go through? Yes.

    Now does it matter in general. Off course it does. On many levels. The tank disabled can be isolated and the crew captured alive. It can be disabled but recovered and repaired. It can still provide protection for the crew or it can be recovered by the Enemy if the IDF looses ground.

    It's akin to the small calibre bullet. Mean to wound and not to "kill". If you have to risk two other tanks to save the immobilized tank exposing them to the same threat level, we can argue that it isn't such a good deal. So while it's good for one tactical situation, it might be disastrous for another one.

    Again, I simply answered to the Necro OP. Nothing more nothing less. Now does the damage inflictes matter, of course it does. Did it matter for the OP? It didn't.

    Last but not least. Tanks are here to stay. It has never been my view they should disappear, the idea behind the other thread was the cost an offensive weapon has when reciprocated by defence and how the current APS systems have to be flawless. While I reckon I was cheeky, my POV came by the fact that no other military out there has the luxury of a "door-step" insurgency.
    I am not going to get into this necrotic discussion, but I understand you dont know or understand IDF doctrine and Israeli way of thinking and psychology or You can disagree but is our doctrine and it works for us.

  13. #148
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Curules Equi. I'm Happy.
    Posts
    12,956

    Default

    It has nothing to do with the IDF here. Does it?

    The Israeli way of thinking can't be differing that much from other Stanag countries.

  14. #149
    Senior Member Flamming_Python's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Spying on the Eurowoosies
    Posts
    11,928

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mordoror View Post
    Do you have some infos about that ?
    Never read anything on this and i am interested about it, given that the M84 is a Yu highly modified version of the T72M/M1
    Well yes the M-84 is a Yugoslavian version of the T-72M that incorporated some newer technology to make it better even than the original T-72A that the T-72M was a downgrade of. Dunno how it compares to the T-72B; I looked at some specs; lower top speed (60 km/h vs. 80 km/h), engine is a little less powerful and older, slightly less ammo load, no guided AT shells (like the Svir for the T-72B), considerably worse armour (half the performance vs. HEAT rounds). However this is not the whole story, as in some measures such as FCS, optics, etc... it may be as good as the T-72B. I heard some things here and there but nothing concrete. Basically we can take it as perhaps half-way between the T-72A and T-72B. BTW interestingly enough - the latest M-84 variant is very similar to a T-90.

    As to the Kuwaiti testing; armour was comparable to the M1A1, gunnery and mobility was better than the M1; top-speed, night-fighting capability and crew-comfort was worse. I don't have any sources or anything though, it's just some things I heard. The US army was also apparently impressed with the M-84.

  15. #150
    Senior Member Mordoror's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Backstabbing allies in a foxhole
    Age
    41
    Posts
    9,857

    Default

    ^^^^ Thanks for the info
    Appreciated

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •