Page 10 of 13 FirstFirst ... 2345678910111213 LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 189

Thread: Kornet ATGM ,RPG-29 effectiveness against Tanks

  1. #136
    Senior Member Damian90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    2,621

    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.

  2. #137
    Senior Member Flamming_Python's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Spying on the Eurowoosies
    Posts
    13,185

    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.

  3. #138
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Curules Equi. I'm Happy.
    Posts
    12,937

    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.

  4. #139
    Senior Member Mordoror's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Backstabbing allies in a foxhole
    Age
    41
    Posts
    10,391

    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

  5. #140
    Senior Member Flamming_Python's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Spying on the Eurowoosies
    Posts
    13,185

    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.

  6. #141
    Senior Member Mordoror's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Backstabbing allies in a foxhole
    Age
    41
    Posts
    10,391

    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

  7. #142
    Senior Member Flamming_Python's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Spying on the Eurowoosies
    Posts
    13,185

    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.

  8. #143
    Senior Member Mordoror's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Backstabbing allies in a foxhole
    Age
    41
    Posts
    10,391

    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

  9. #144
    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
    11,075

    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.

  10. #145
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Curules Equi. I'm Happy.
    Posts
    12,937

    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.

  11. #146
    Senior Member Flamming_Python's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Spying on the Eurowoosies
    Posts
    13,185

    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.

  12. #147
    Senior Member Mordoror's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Backstabbing allies in a foxhole
    Age
    41
    Posts
    10,391

    Default

    ^^^^ Thanks for the info
    Appreciated

  13. #148
    Senior Member Damian90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    2,621

    Default

    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.
    Well against NATO/Western tanks not, and Israel is rather middle east country right?

    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.
    You confuse here many things my friend.

    In case of T-72 and T-90 series, removing additional ammunition from crew compartment will improve survivability, because of autoloader design. In case of T-64, T-80 and T-84 series, survivability will not improve due to autoloader design where propelant charges are stored vertically and are more exposed.

    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.
    I do not see any parameter maybe besides fuel economy and slightly firepower due to bigger gun where M-84 should outperform M1, not to mention M1A1. M-84 FCS is comparable but not better than then used FCS of M1 or any other NATO tank, currently however M-84 FCS is outdated compared to new FCS used in newer variants of M1.

    As to the Kuwaiti testing; armour was comparable to the M1A1,
    Maybe comparable with slick M1A1, not with Heavy Armor variants.

    But I highly doubt that M-84 have comparable protection even to slick M1A1 or even old M1. This is because Yugoslavian modification do not have any significant upgrades in terms of armor, it is very similiar to WarPack standard for T-72M1, however some materials were changed.

  14. #149
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    87

    Default

    Anyway, without going too deep in this conversation I'll say only one thing. ATGM are future - tanks are not. ATGM and AT unguided rockets are cheap toys comparing to tanks which costs few million $ , it's cheaper and easier to develop new ATGM that will give answer to any kind of tank-upgrade no matter how advanced it will be - even if we talk about systems like Trophy. No matter what kind of tank you will design - there will be always answer to that and that answer are ATGM and Anti tank rocket systems which are a hell cheaper than one tank like Merkava MK IV or some other new generation tank - this time I'll not even mention older tanks like T-72, Leo 1 etc etc without modern protection systems cause they're already dead in the modern warfare.

    For countries that doesn't have offensive "ambitions" all kind of ATGM and also not guided anti tank rockets are the best solution. One tank like MK4 costs about 6-7 million$ , Israel has about 300 MK4s and another 300 are in production. Now calculate how many unguided AT rockets and how many ATGM and how many modern AT mines you could buy for that money ?

    Also I wouldn't take Israel as something that can show us how powerful and useful tanks are today, why ? it's simple. Israel wasn't in some serious land war since Arabian-Israeli wars and it never faced with some serious nation with professional and skilled army equipped with advanced unguided and guided anti-tank systems. If we'll take organization like Hezbolah, Hamas , Palestinians etc as serious enemy and measure for assessment of survival tanks on modern battlefield then I don't have anything to say here anymore. Not to mention the way of war they lead between each other, especially on flat desert terrain and urban warfare. It's just not serious war - last serious war Israel had lead was before.

    Now if we go away from middle east, give me some other example where tanks have been very successful without huge losses ? but do not give me examples like "Abrams vs Iraqi terrorists" "Merkava vs Hamas and Hezbolah" etc.

    Lets take Finland as example - although this country wasn't in war since ww2, what do you believe what would gonna happen if someone would invade Finland today with for example Leo 2, Merkava, Abrams etc ? you think result will be the same like in middle east ? no way of course. And Finland is just one of examples of many that could be show.

    Tank maybe has a future only in war against terrorists but not in all cases - Israel on plain terrain maybe can use that tactics but in war against terror in areas like Checenya with hard geographical structure it's also suicide that will bring you heavy losses. In conflicts between lets say two armies equipped with huge number of all kind of AT weapon especially in areas with geographical structure that is much different than flat desert plains of Middle East I don't see a future of tank on the battlefield.

  15. #150
    Senior Member Mordoror's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Backstabbing allies in a foxhole
    Age
    41
    Posts
    10,391

    Default

    ^^
    Versatility
    Tanks are more versatile than an ATGM launcher
    they can do Atk missions, they can kill soft skin or hard skin vehicles, shoot down helos, give infantry support, break ennemy lines and make an exploitation behind, be used as armored pillboxes or assault vehicles
    ATGM cannot (or only marginaly) perform all those missions even if mounted on vehciles (like Kryzanthema)
    There was already a doom preach about tanks future in the 60s when the first efficient ATGMs were fielded
    That didn't kill the tanks
    They had to adapt but are still here and will be still here unless there is a technological leap that makes them useless
    Until then, they may be expensive, man power consuming, they may be seen as outdated juggernaut, they are not as new doctrines give them new jobs

Posting Permissions

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