User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 2:55:14 PM EDT
[#1]
something makes me think that an abrams would butt fuck the shit out of that thing
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 3:01:28 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryI wonder if the other two tanks were even manned. No scanning even after the hit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 3:17:08 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
coming soon to a town near you  I hope not 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 3:22:26 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A lot of people laughing, but we haven't seen the Abrams in a place like Syria where that many rockets and anti-tank abilities have been taking out the slow-in-city tanks. Do we really feel that the Abrams would take all of those hits just as well? The Abrams has been getting wasted in Yemen on the regular. YouTube it. Being a weapons dealer to Arab armies means you will never go hungry. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 3:42:38 PM EDT
[#5]
American tankers know how to properly fight their tanks.The Saudis have good equipment and little desire to use it properly.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 3:44:50 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The basic T-72 design has already been pushed to it's limits under the name "T-90". The base armor is not thick enough to stop a modern 120mm NATO Sabot round. The auto-loader remains unprotected, and it will blast the turret into orbit like a Saturn V. The vehicle requires ERA to protect it adequately against threats, and this ERA does not provide 100% coverage nor multi-hit capability. The gunnery systems have been getting better. Sosna-U is a decent IR sight. The stabilization and accuracy of the main gun is probably not up to western standards yet. It does have a long range, gun launched ATGM system that most NATO tanks don't have an equivalent to, although the Israeli LAHAT is somewhat comparable and compatible with NATO 120mm and 105mm guns. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Not trying to hate, but many here on this forum, and a few friends my age faced off in more recent years against the T-72, and the T-72 crews were up shit creek.. Is this a legit upgrade, or just Russia trying to polish a turd for export? The basic T-72 design has already been pushed to it's limits under the name "T-90". The base armor is not thick enough to stop a modern 120mm NATO Sabot round. The auto-loader remains unprotected, and it will blast the turret into orbit like a Saturn V. The vehicle requires ERA to protect it adequately against threats, and this ERA does not provide 100% coverage nor multi-hit capability. The gunnery systems have been getting better. Sosna-U is a decent IR sight. The stabilization and accuracy of the main gun is probably not up to western standards yet. It does have a long range, gun launched ATGM system that most NATO tanks don't have an equivalent to, although the Israeli LAHAT is somewhat comparable and compatible with NATO 120mm and 105mm guns. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 3:47:48 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
American tankers know how to properly fight their tanks.The Saudis have good equipment and little desire to use it properly. Which makes them great candidates for the extended warranty! |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 3:52:39 PM EDT
[#8]
Sweet, new targets.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 3:56:55 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Abrams has been getting wasted in Yemen on the regular. YouTube it. Being a weapons dealer to Arab armies means you will never go hungry. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
A lot of people laughing, but we haven't seen the Abrams in a place like Syria where that many rockets and anti-tank abilities have been taking out the slow-in-city tanks. Do we really feel that the Abrams would take all of those hits just as well? The Abrams has been getting wasted in Yemen on the regular. YouTube it. Being a weapons dealer to Arab armies means you will never go hungry. Do you even export variant bro? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 4:01:11 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you even export variant bro? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A lot of people laughing, but we haven't seen the Abrams in a place like Syria where that many rockets and anti-tank abilities have been taking out the slow-in-city tanks. Do we really feel that the Abrams would take all of those hits just as well? The Abrams has been getting wasted in Yemen on the regular. YouTube it. Being a weapons dealer to Arab armies means you will never go hungry. Do you even export variant bro? The Saudi version is pretty advanced though. It ain't the tanks' fault in that case. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 4:01:42 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Do you even export variant bro? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: A lot of people laughing, but we haven't seen the Abrams in a place like Syria where that many rockets and anti-tank abilities have been taking out the slow-in-city tanks. Do we really feel that the Abrams would take all of those hits just as well? The Abrams has been getting wasted in Yemen on the regular. YouTube it. Being a weapons dealer to Arab armies means you will never go hungry. Do you even export variant bro? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 4:09:22 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You could give them futuristic super-tanks with shields and laser cannons and they'd still be blown up constantly. Poorly trained crews are always going to hold themselves back. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A lot of people laughing, but we haven't seen the Abrams in a place like Syria where that many rockets and anti-tank abilities have been taking out the slow-in-city tanks. Do we really feel that the Abrams would take all of those hits just as well? The Abrams has been getting wasted in Yemen on the regular. YouTube it. Being a weapons dealer to Arab armies means you will never go hungry. Do you even export variant bro? Pretty much this. ATGMs can ruin your day. The SA have some of the best Abrams getting smoked even with the DU. it's still better than the Iraqi army getting its ass kicked and its Abrams getting captured by a half dozens guys in a pick up truck. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 4:36:25 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Pretty much this. ATGMs can ruin your day. The SA have some of the best Abrams getting smoked even with the DU. it's still better than the Iraqi army getting its ass kicked and its Abrams getting captured by a half dozens guys in a pick up truck. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A lot of people laughing, but we haven't seen the Abrams in a place like Syria where that many rockets and anti-tank abilities have been taking out the slow-in-city tanks. Do we really feel that the Abrams would take all of those hits just as well? The Abrams has been getting wasted in Yemen on the regular. YouTube it. Being a weapons dealer to Arab armies means you will never go hungry. Do you even export variant bro? Pretty much this. ATGMs can ruin your day. The SA have some of the best Abrams getting smoked even with the DU. it's still better than the Iraqi army getting its ass kicked and its Abrams getting captured by a half dozens guys in a pick up truck. In all fairness Isis did have late model Toyota tundra's not ragged out hilux trucks |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 5:55:37 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In all fairness Isis did have late model Toyota tundra's not ragged out hilux trucks Toyota Tundra is a force multiplier! |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 8:36:07 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah i remember watching engineers do that same thing in the 80's . 135mm gun firing "plastic" rounds If I recall correctly , not really made for armor but perfect if you are clearing streets and buildings. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: We already fielded the ultimate tank for urban operations. The M728 CEV with "Demolition" Gun http://www.replicasbytyson.com/images/T-FJTACM728R_U.S.ARMY_M-728_CEV.jpg I was at a range and watched some NG engineer unit fire that thing, you can see the round travel downrange. It's huge and makes a VERY big boom. Yeah i remember watching engineers do that same thing in the 80's . 135mm gun firing "plastic" rounds If I recall correctly , not really made for armor but perfect if you are clearing streets and buildings. HEP? Basically the same as HESH? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 8:40:43 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Thales thermal. Greedy Frogs. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: A look inside a T-72B3. If I'm not mistaken, this was ordered instead of the T-90 since the T-90 was just too damn expensive, and upgrades of T-72s to this standard are ongoing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7ljz_Bm9Rk Notice the following: 1. It's loud as shit. 2. Crew communication consists primarily of yelling at each other. "Agoyn! Agoyn! Agoyn!" is the TC telling his gunner to "Fire!". 3. The autoloader is just waiting to load one of the crew into the gun along with the ammunition. 4. Bore evacuator system doesn't seem to work for shit, even with the hatches open. 5. TC appears to be firing the PKT 7.62 Coax by pressing the manual trigger, possibly because they can't even keep the normal firing system working 6. Near the end of the video, we can see that the thermal system is OK, but gets disrupted so bad by firing the main gun that it's not possible to use it for observing fall of shot. Compare this to a Soviet era T-64, and it doesn't look like much changed in their tanks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4B4Yd6q-zg Notice here the "Korzina" ("Basket") style autoloader functions a bit differently, but still does an excellent job of blowing the fucking turret off your own tank if you get hit. Notice that they're still using the same communications system of just yelling at each other in this tank as well. TC yelling "Strelyat!" at the gunner is the "Fire!" command. I understand that in the west they have this thing called a "CVC Helmet" with some kind of intercom thing so you don't need to scream and yell past your main gun to give orders. Just for giggles, inside a T-80 here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSzh2Ot2niY Pretty much just a T-64 with a turbine engine. Compare that to these: USMC M1A1's on the range: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TLhih8gijQ Inside a Leopard 2, firing on the move: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwXwrx_lkSg Thales thermal. Greedy Frogs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 9:28:43 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
US tankers typically don't set one tank out by itself. Having a platoon operating together makes it far easier to keep an eye on potential launch sites. Also, watching the videos, few, if any, of those Syrian crews are scanning, and quite often it's obvious they have no clue what's on their flanks. I've yet to see an example of the tank even knowing a missile is coming before impact. There was an early video - of I believe the Syrian engagement - where you can see the tankers hit maximum throttle when they realized it was coming in, but they still got hit/unwoke. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 9:56:10 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The man in the black pajamas, dude. That's a worthy adversary. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A little sheet metal and paint goes a long way, apparently. The best thing about the gulf and iraq wars has been undercutting russian arms sales when it became clear they posed so little danger to US equipment and tactics. I never tend to really think the Russians are on par with the US military, but you cant compare a bunch of fig eaters wearing towels on their head who can't find reverse in a Soviet tank to the Russian Military. The man in the black pajamas, dude. That's a worthy adversary. Beware the man with one AK. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 10:16:22 PM EDT
[#19]
Yes, the Brits call it High Explosive squash Head and we call it High explosive plastic. Same round... Very old school. Hits the side of the armor and the round "squashes" against the armor and the base detonating fuse ignites the plastic explosive. The explosion causes Spalling and fragmenting of the armor on the inside, sending it shooting around the interior.
The Comp B filler works on bunkers, personnel and soft skin vehicles as well.. The threads are all the same... in the end, its still a T-72 with a horrible design for the ammo and until that changes, or they perfect a Sci Fi electronic shield that is impervious to anything... its going to blow up. And Tanks with out skill and training and good tactics, are just really big ATV's that cost a lot and blow up a lot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 10:19:45 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
HEP? Basically the same as HESH? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
We already fielded the ultimate tank for urban operations. The M728 CEV with "Demolition" Gun http://www.replicasbytyson.com/images/T-FJTACM728R_U.S.ARMY_M-728_CEV.jpg I was at a range and watched some NG engineer unit fire that thing, you can see the round travel downrange. It's huge and makes a VERY big boom. Yeah i remember watching engineers do that same thing in the 80's . 135mm gun firing "plastic" rounds If I recall correctly , not really made for armor but perfect if you are clearing streets and buildings. HEP? Basically the same as HESH? Yep... that be it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 10:31:53 PM EDT
[#21]
If I may make a couple of observations.
1) Most of what a tank shoots at isn't other tanks. Against not-a-tanks, this thing is going to be quite mean. In urban warfare, 120mm sabot rounds are less of a concern, so T-72's vulnerability to it is somewhat redundant. 2) Hubris is a funny thing. 3) Abrams, (And Leopard) are outstanding designs. Those blokes drawing up the plans back in the 1970s really knew what they were doing. 4) Abrams is a nearly 40-year-old design which has been upgraded to the extent that Congress over the last three decades has been willing to pay for it. Think about that, for a second. 5) For armies who can't afford the latest and greatest things off the showrooms, this seems to be a reasonable upgrade for the role. Private Mohammed is probably not going to be thrilled at seeing it aiming at him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 10:37:15 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If I may make a couple of observations. 1) Most of what a tank shoots at isn't other tanks. Against not-a-tanks, this thing is going to be quite mean. In urban warfare, 120mm sabot rounds are less of a concern, so T-72's vulnerability to it is somewhat redundant. 2) Hubris is a funny thing. 3) Abrams, (And Leopard) are outstanding designs. Those blokes drawing up the plans back in the 1970s really knew what they were doing. 4) Abrams is a nearly 40-year-old design which has been upgraded to the extent that Congress over the last three decades has been willing to pay for it. Think about that, for a second. 5) For armies who can't afford the latest and greatest things off the showrooms, this seems to be a reasonable upgrade for the role. Private Mohammed is probably not going to be thrilled at seeing it aiming at him. Thanks for dropping in. Was hoping you would. 
What do you think about the modern active protection systems from Russia and Israel? Think the US will seriously move to adopting a similar system like those for the M1 if faced with a ATGM threat? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2016 10:57:26 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thanks for dropping in. Was hoping you would.
What do you think about the modern active protection systems from Russia and Israel? Think the US will seriously move to adopting a similar system like those for the M1 if faced with a ATGM threat? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If I may make a couple of observations. 1) Most of what a tank shoots at isn't other tanks. Against not-a-tanks, this thing is going to be quite mean. In urban warfare, 120mm sabot rounds are less of a concern, so T-72's vulnerability to it is somewhat redundant. 2) Hubris is a funny thing. 3) Abrams, (And Leopard) are outstanding designs. Those blokes drawing up the plans back in the 1970s really knew what they were doing. 4) Abrams is a nearly 40-year-old design which has been upgraded to the extent that Congress over the last three decades has been willing to pay for it. Think about that, for a second. 5) For armies who can't afford the latest and greatest things off the showrooms, this seems to be a reasonable upgrade for the role. Private Mohammed is probably not going to be thrilled at seeing it aiming at him. Thanks for dropping in. Was hoping you would.
What do you think about the modern active protection systems from Russia and Israel? Think the US will seriously move to adopting a similar system like those for the M1 if faced with a ATGM threat? Has anyone actually seen the stuff work outside of their own tests? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2016 12:00:32 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Has anyone actually seen the stuff work outside of their own tests? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If I may make a couple of observations. 1) Most of what a tank shoots at isn't other tanks. Against not-a-tanks, this thing is going to be quite mean. In urban warfare, 120mm sabot rounds are less of a concern, so T-72's vulnerability to it is somewhat redundant. 2) Hubris is a funny thing. 3) Abrams, (And Leopard) are outstanding designs. Those blokes drawing up the plans back in the 1970s really knew what they were doing. 4) Abrams is a nearly 40-year-old design which has been upgraded to the extent that Congress over the last three decades has been willing to pay for it. Think about that, for a second. 5) For armies who can't afford the latest and greatest things off the showrooms, this seems to be a reasonable upgrade for the role. Private Mohammed is probably not going to be thrilled at seeing it aiming at him. Thanks for dropping in. Was hoping you would.
What do you think about the modern active protection systems from Russia and Israel? Think the US will seriously move to adopting a similar system like those for the M1 if faced with a ATGM threat? Has anyone actually seen the stuff work outside of their own tests? The Israeli Trophy system has been proven in combat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2016 12:06:40 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If I may make a couple of observations. 1) Most of what a tank shoots at isn't other tanks. Against not-a-tanks, this thing is going to be quite mean. In urban warfare, 120mm sabot rounds are less of a concern, so T-72's vulnerability to it is somewhat redundant. 2) Hubris is a funny thing. 3) Abrams, (And Leopard) are outstanding designs. Those blokes drawing up the plans back in the 1970s really knew what they were doing. 4) Abrams is a nearly 40-year-old design which has been upgraded to the extent that Congress over the last three decades has been willing to pay for it. Think about that, for a second. 5) For armies who can't afford the latest and greatest things off the showrooms, this seems to be a reasonable upgrade for the role. Private Mohammed is probably not going to be thrilled at seeing it aiming at him. Point of order: The T-72's basic armor is quite thin, and unless I am mistaken it's just plain steel except for the spaces in the front of the turret filled with composite inserts, or sometimes sand. A HEAT round is perfectly capable of punching holes in a T-72, lighting up the ammo, and launching the turret...And there are tandem warhead weapons available and in insurgent hands capable of and designed for defeating ERA. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2016 12:13:34 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are those any better than a standard 120mm sabot as a practice anti-tank weapon? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not trying to hate, but many here on this forum, and a few friends my age faced off in more recent years against the T-72, and the T-72 crews were up shit creek.. Is this a legit upgrade, or just Russia trying to polish a turd for export? The basic T-72 design has already been pushed to it's limits under the name "T-90". The base armor is not thick enough to stop a modern 120mm NATO Sabot round. The auto-loader remains unprotected, and it will blast the turret into orbit like a Saturn V. The vehicle requires ERA to protect it adequately against threats, and this ERA does not provide 100% coverage nor multi-hit capability. The gunnery systems have been getting better. Sosna-U is a decent IR sight. The stabilization and accuracy of the main gun is probably not up to western standards yet. It does have a long range, gun launched ATGM system that most NATO tanks don't have an equivalent to, although the Israeli LAHAT is somewhat comparable and compatible with NATO 120mm and 105mm guns. It's primary use seems to be to extend the range that an old T-Tank can engage at. Theoretically, they give something as old as a T-55 the ability to accurately engage an M1 or similar vehicle from ranges up to 6000 meters in some cases. Theoretically, again, they can be fired and guided on the more. More likely, in practical use you need to stop and guide it in. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2016 12:48:45 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryPoint of order:
The T-72's basic armor is quite thin, and unless I am mistaken it's just plain steel except for the spaces in the front of the turret filled with composite inserts, or sometimes sand. A HEAT round is perfectly capable of punching holes in a T-72, lighting up the ammo, and launching the turret...And there are tandem warhead weapons available and in insurgent hands capable of and designed for defeating ERA. Quote HistoryPoint of order:
The T-72's basic armor is quite thin, and unless I am mistaken it's just plain steel except for the spaces in the front of the turret filled with composite inserts, or sometimes sand. A HEAT round is perfectly capable of punching holes in a T-72, lighting up the ammo, and launching the turret...And there are tandem warhead weapons available and in insurgent hands capable of and designed for defeating ERA. Insofar as we are speaking purely of T-72, and not the latest T90 variants, yes, they are predominantly steel with inserts. Considered surprisingly good in US testing. May not stop a Maverick or TOW, but should be somewhat capable against most hand-held stuff that is the fear of urban tankers. As you can imagine, tandem warheads have been around a while, there are triple-level ERA blocks now available, as well as the active defenses. The Russians have been mucking around with active defenses for a couple of decades now, they've probably figured out the majority of it. What do you think about the modern active protection systems from Russia and Israel? Think the US will seriously move to adopting a similar system like those for the M1 if faced with a ATGM threat? The US is (finally) testing Trophy, instead of mucking about with its attempts at home-designing one. The system works, and more countries have started acquiring it. FWIW, the jammers found on USMC M1s are active defenses, but soft-kill types. It's primary use seems to be to extend the range that an old T-Tank can engage at. Theoretically, they give something as old as a T-55 the ability to accurately engage an M1 or similar vehicle from ranges up to 6000 meters in some cases. Theoretically, again, they can be fired and guided on the more. More likely, in practical use you need to stop and guide it in. Sortof. The primary intended target was missile launching vehicles, with a useful secondary function against helicopters. Unlike, say, TOW, the Russian tank-launched missiles are supersonic. But, yes, firing from the short halt will be more accurate at those sorts of ranges. (Think about how big your target will be in the sight) |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2016 12:55:10 AM EDT
[#28]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2016 9:50:46 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It would have to be written in Farsi. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Does it come with a manual about how to have a professional infantry support armor for the syrians? It would have to be written in Farsi. I thought Farsi was spoken in Persia/ Iran? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2016 10:28:26 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Insofar as we are speaking purely of T-72, and not the latest T90 variants, yes, they are predominantly steel with inserts. Considered surprisingly good in US testing. May not stop a Maverick or TOW, but should be somewhat capable against most hand-held stuff that is the fear of urban tankers. As you can imagine, tandem warheads have been around a while, there are triple-level ERA blocks now available, as well as the active defenses. The Russians have been mucking around with active defenses for a couple of decades now, they've probably figured out the majority of it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Point of order:
The T-72's basic armor is quite thin, and unless I am mistaken it's just plain steel except for the spaces in the front of the turret filled with composite inserts, or sometimes sand. A HEAT round is perfectly capable of punching holes in a T-72, lighting up the ammo, and launching the turret...And there are tandem warhead weapons available and in insurgent hands capable of and designed for defeating ERA. Insofar as we are speaking purely of T-72, and not the latest T90 variants, yes, they are predominantly steel with inserts. Considered surprisingly good in US testing. May not stop a Maverick or TOW, but should be somewhat capable against most hand-held stuff that is the fear of urban tankers. As you can imagine, tandem warheads have been around a while, there are triple-level ERA blocks now available, as well as the active defenses. The Russians have been mucking around with active defenses for a couple of decades now, they've probably figured out the majority of it. You know quite a bit more about this than I do, so I'll ask what may in fact be stupid questions. 1) Are there any legacy combloc/ current Russian ATGM systems with top-attack capability? Most of the RPG systems I looked up seem to be un-guided "dumb" weapons, tandems notwithstanding. Of course, against armor in an urban setting, with no infantry support, if you own the tall buildings, it doesn't really matter as long as you have backblast safe systems. Or just don't give a crap about trading yourself for a tank. 2) ERA. I've never understood how one ERA panel blowing out doesn't sympathetically det, at a minimum, the charges adjacent to it (to say nothing of all the contiguous charges). I imagine they're encased in serious sheet steel, at a minimum, or even mild plate steel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2016 10:34:45 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You know quite a bit more about this than I do, so I'll ask what may in fact be stupid questions. 1) Are there any legacy combloc/ current Russian ATGM systems with top-attack capability? Most of the RPG systems I looked up seem to be un-guided "dumb" weapons, tandems notwithstanding. Of course, against armor in an urban setting, with no infantry support, if you own the tall buildings, it doesn't really matter as long as you have backblast safe systems. Or just don't give a crap about trading yourself for a tank. 2) ERA. I've never understood how one ERA panel blowing out doesn't sympathetically det, at a minimum, the charges adjacent to it (to say nothing of all the contiguous charges). I imagine they're encased in serious sheet steel, at a minimum, or even mild plate steel. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Point of order:
The T-72's basic armor is quite thin, and unless I am mistaken it's just plain steel except for the spaces in the front of the turret filled with composite inserts, or sometimes sand. A HEAT round is perfectly capable of punching holes in a T-72, lighting up the ammo, and launching the turret...And there are tandem warhead weapons available and in insurgent hands capable of and designed for defeating ERA. Insofar as we are speaking purely of T-72, and not the latest T90 variants, yes, they are predominantly steel with inserts. Considered surprisingly good in US testing. May not stop a Maverick or TOW, but should be somewhat capable against most hand-held stuff that is the fear of urban tankers. As you can imagine, tandem warheads have been around a while, there are triple-level ERA blocks now available, as well as the active defenses. The Russians have been mucking around with active defenses for a couple of decades now, they've probably figured out the majority of it. You know quite a bit more about this than I do, so I'll ask what may in fact be stupid questions. 1) Are there any legacy combloc/ current Russian ATGM systems with top-attack capability? Most of the RPG systems I looked up seem to be un-guided "dumb" weapons, tandems notwithstanding. Of course, against armor in an urban setting, with no infantry support, if you own the tall buildings, it doesn't really matter as long as you have backblast safe systems. Or just don't give a crap about trading yourself for a tank. 2) ERA. I've never understood how one ERA panel blowing out doesn't sympathetically det, at a minimum, the charges adjacent to it (to say nothing of all the contiguous charges). I imagine they're encased in serious sheet steel, at a minimum, or even mild plate steel. 1. As far as I know, there aren't any combloc or current Russian top attack ATGMs. They've been slow to develop that, IIRC preferring to make longer range missiles with larger main warheads. 2. Probably some ERA blocks do sympathetically detonate sometimes. The key is finding an explosive that can be detonated by a large caliber gun round, but isn't sensitive enough to go off from other weapons hitting it, and not so powerful that it detonates the other blocks. However, if the ERA goes off and sets off several other blocks around it, it's probably worth it if it saves your life. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2016 10:35:35 PM EDT
[#32]
The barrel on that cannon needs to be half that length.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2016 10:43:54 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote History<George_Luz> "Is there a problem, Captain Sobel?" </George_Luz> |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2016 10:50:41 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I thought Farsi was spoken in Persia/ Iran? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Does it come with a manual about how to have a professional infantry support armor for the syrians? It would have to be written in Farsi. I thought Farsi was spoken in Persia/ Iran? Correct. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2016 12:46:07 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The barrel on that cannon needs to be half that length. There's going to be trade offs for that, and some may not be acceptable. The 125mm that's on it slings HE-Frag shells like OF-26 at a muzzle velocity of about 850 m/s. The tank can lob those out to a maximum range of something like 5000 meters, but obviously at that range you're using it like artillery. It can sling HEAT rounds out to a maximum range of about 2700 meters, with a muzzle velocity of 900 m/s or so. Now you can of course cut that barrel down to half length, and give up muzzle velocity. Take the ranges on those HE and HEAT rounds and reduce them, drastically, and you'll totally ruin it's usefulness for firing KE anti-tank rounds, which is it's primary anti-armor weapon. If all you wanted was an urban fighting machine, you could have gotten a BMPT instead of a modified T-72. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2016 3:21:19 AM EDT
[#36]
Anyone know what the difference between the flat box shaped ERA on the M1 TUSK vs the rounded shield shape tiles added to the block ERA on the TUSK II? EFP protection?
TUSK 
TUSK II 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2016 3:39:30 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Anyone know what the difference between the flat box shaped ERA on the M1 TUSK vs the rounded shield shape tiles added to the block ERA on the TUSK II? EFP protection? TUSK https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/Abrams-transparent.png TUSK II http://www.operatorchan.org/v/src/145301674120.jpg i wonder how much of an issue it is that the commanders sight is completely blocked to the right and rear? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2016 3:44:40 AM EDT
[#38]
<George_Luz> "Is there a problem, Captain Sobel?" </George_Luz>
"A fence, sir." |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2016 4:27:46 AM EDT
[#39]
If the Russians were serious, they'd tie a bunch of floatation vests all over that thing.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2016 4:32:02 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Anyone know what the difference between the flat box shaped ERA on the M1 TUSK vs the rounded shield shape tiles added to the block ERA on the TUSK II? EFP protection? TUSK https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/Abrams-transparent.png TUSK II http://www.operatorchan.org/v/src/145301674120.jpg Both are explosive reactive armor. If I'm not mistaken the flat one is M19 ARAT-1, and the curved if M32 ARAT-2. They should both function the same way. ARAT-2 seems to be much thinner and lighter, and sometimes you'll see it layered over the top of ARAT-1. ETA: It probably provides some EFP protection, but I think it's mostly for shaped charges. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2016 4:51:44 AM EDT
[#41]
ERA tests from YT
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2016 5:01:27 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I can just envision a crazy Ivan in there hitting things with a wrench to get them to work. Three Ivans. Driving Ivan, using his tactical wrench to shift gears. Gunner Ivan, using his tactical wrench to unjam it every time he fires a shot. And then there's Commander Ivan, using his tactical wrench to perform percussive (Or is it Concussive?) maintenance on the crew. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2016 5:12:20 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thales thermal. Greedy Frogs. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
A look inside a T-72B3. If I'm not mistaken, this was ordered instead of the T-90 since the T-90 was just too damn expensive, and upgrades of T-72s to this standard are ongoing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7ljz_Bm9Rk Notice the following: 1. It's loud as shit. 2. Crew communication consists primarily of yelling at each other. "Agoyn! Agoyn! Agoyn!" is the TC telling his gunner to "Fire!". 3. The autoloader is just waiting to load one of the crew into the gun along with the ammunition. 4. Bore evacuator system doesn't seem to work for shit, even with the hatches open. 5. TC appears to be firing the PKT 7.62 Coax by pressing the manual trigger, possibly because they can't even keep the normal firing system working 6. Near the end of the video, we can see that the thermal system is OK, but gets disrupted so bad by firing the main gun that it's not possible to use it for observing fall of shot. Compare this to a Soviet era T-64, and it doesn't look like much changed in their tanks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4B4Yd6q-zg Notice here the "Korzina" ("Basket") style autoloader functions a bit differently, but still does an excellent job of blowing the fucking turret off your own tank if you get hit. Notice that they're still using the same communications system of just yelling at each other in this tank as well. TC yelling "Strelyat!" at the gunner is the "Fire!" command. I understand that in the west they have this thing called a "CVC Helmet" with some kind of intercom thing so you don't need to scream and yell past your main gun to give orders. Just for giggles, inside a T-80 here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSzh2Ot2niY Pretty much just a T-64 with a turbine engine. Compare that to these: USMC M1A1's on the range: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TLhih8gijQ Inside a Leopard 2, firing on the move: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwXwrx_lkSg Thales thermal. Greedy Frogs. I noticed that too 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2016 3:40:18 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
To use those vision blocks the TC still is going to expose a lot of his head. You'd think they'd put them a little lower to, I dunno, reduce cranial evacuation. Yea, seems like an odd location. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2016 7:06:23 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Urban combat means firing RPGs (AT4s...) from a few stories up directly into the tops of those things. Good luck! THIS I was expecting to see a shit load of additional protection for such top-down attacks and all I saw was fail. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2016 9:40:44 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
THIS I was expecting to see a shit load of additional protection for such top-down attacks and all I saw was fail. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Urban combat means firing RPGs (AT4s...) from a few stories up directly into the tops of those things. Good luck! THIS I was expecting to see a shit load of additional protection for such top-down attacks and all I saw was fail. I wonder if the active protection systems can engage a rocket fired from above like that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2016 9:45:13 PM EDT
[#47]
There is a picture out there with a russian APC without a turret and a guy sitting in the turret ring something about only needing igor someone find it
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2016 9:47:33 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I thought Farsi was spoken in Persia/ Iran? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Does it come with a manual about how to have a professional infantry support armor for the syrians? It would have to be written in Farsi. I thought Farsi was spoken in Persia/ Iran? whoosh |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2016 9:49:47 PM EDT
[#49]
Some other photos
T-90MS 
The T-90MS commanders' new independent panoramic sight is coupled with the UDP T05BV-1 elevated, remotely controlled weapon station mounting a 7.62mm machinegun. 
The T-90MS Kalina fire control system comprises improved fire control computing modules and modern, stabilized optronics. 
Link
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2016 12:08:20 AM EDT
[#50]
BMP ERA test video
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
