77 replies to this topic

[Allied General]

True, most trained tankers would aim for the junction between the body and turret, where a round is likely to penetrate and kill the majority of the crew, disable the tank, and detonate the ammunition. Defensive measures on modern tanks prevent this, but as seen in 1991, most tanks in service around the world do not. Even the newest T-90s are not designed as safely as most western tanks.

There are two general types of shells.
HEAT
AP
HEAT is a general category. Mostly they are explosive and have shifted from an antitank to an anti-infantry role over the years with the development of armor. This category includes HE-Frag ammunition which is prefragmented to create intense amounts of shrapnel designed to disable light vehicles and infantry. These are mainly used by Russian tanks, and are seen much less in western armaments.
AP shells include APFSDS (Armor piercing fin stabilized discarding sabot) and APDS shells (Figure out the acronym), which by NATO naming conventions are expanded to APDS-T, APFSDS-T, APFSDS-DU, etc. DU means depleted uranium, and T means tungsten. There are other substances that are used much less which are also covered by this. The design of these shells simply revolve around armor penetration. Mostly they come in a prepackaged form, and when fired expel their casing and shoot a big rod through a target. APFSDS shells are seen more commonly in high caliber weapons and APDS shells are more likely to be used in low caliber weapons such as the 25mm Bushmaster cannon. These are much more effective against tanks than HEAT shells.
ATGMs are normally shaped charges, and are designed to penetrate armor much like AP shells.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

yay his military expertises confirm the fact that HEAT is rather out of date. What about counters to each of the shells then Spencer?

Like reactive plate armour.

[MSpencer]

ERA would destroy a HEAT shell's ability to damage a tank and essentially make it simply something that... well... turns infantry into a soup with the consistency of very chunky blood... In the absence of ERA, such as with the M1 and Challenger series of tanks, raw armor is designed to serve a superior role in deflecting the energy of the round away from the armor.
HEAT rounds are used with minor effect, and do damage, but the damage is negligible compared to an AP shell. I would prefer to be hit with 5 HE shells rather than one Sabot. A Sabot will push right through your armor and probably kill everyone inside, while HEAT will most likely not penetrate (But if it does, you're done).
The only way to defeat APFSDS is to simply build better and harder armor, and hope the other bastard's a bad shot. It also helps if you have superior fire control, like in the M1A2 SEP, which would allow you to engage a target up to twice as far as the mainstream Soviet MBTs with superior accuracy. The type of ammunition used is also a huge factor in the accuracy and usage of a Sabot. If you were to use a 1st generation Sabot vs. today's penetrators, such as the new Russian 125mm ones, or the M829A3, you wouldn't stand a chance on the battlefield.

[Allied General]

thanks for reply, reminds me of WWII when shells just bounced off T-34's

HEAT is gradually being augemented to MP-T (multi purpose tracer) i.e. destruction of lightly armoured vehicles and structures whilst SABOT, AP etc is mainly used for tank killing.

The M1A2 is good tank, shame it guzzles fuel like no 2morrow because of the turbine engine which is smaller but increased fuel consumption nulifies advantage which was originally installed in Leopards 2 but deem too expensive.

However aren't most western tanks equipped with extra safety measures like ammunition which is combustible, or sealed in water filled storage bay so that fire doesn't blow it up?

Also depends on situation of battle like israels merkeva and the swedish s tank are clearly designed more on defensive, troop surviability operations.

Edited by Allied General, 04 September 2005 - 06:20 PM.

[M.E.C.H.]

thanks for reply, reminds me of WWII when shells just bounced off T-34's 
HEAT is gradually being augemented to MP-T (multi purpose tracer)  i.e. destruction of lightly armoured vehicles and structures whilst SABOT, AP etc is mainly used for tank killing.
The M1A2 is good tank, shame it guzzles fuel like no 2morrow because of the turbine engine which is smaller but increased fuel consumption nulifies advantage which was originally installed in Leopards 2 but deem too expensive.
However aren't most western tanks equipped with extra safety measures like ammunition which is combustible, or sealed in water filled storage bay so that fire doesn't blow it up?
Also depends on situation of battle like israels merkeva and the swedish s tank are clearly designed more on defensive, troop surviability operations.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with the SABOT, as for tank penetration.. the most used is rockets so...! Stuff like : Milan, TOW, Dragon, Mamba, Sagger, Swing Fire... all those are armor piercing rockets.... Those penetrate even the most ! But when it come to who can penetrate everything then it comes to the UD shells... But as we can see we are way off topic ! So lets get back ! I think that another very good plane is :YF-23 Black Widow 2

But i think that Berkut is the kick ass plane... The Best Of The Beast !

[MSpencer]

YF-23 actually lost the competition to the F-22, because the -23 was too expensive and lacked some of the enhanced aeronautical capabilities of the -22.
Also, the Milan, TOW, Dragon, and AT4 tend to be more of a hybrid between HEAT and AP, employing advanced shaped charging to punch a hole through armor.
I suppose the Berkut is a good plane if you like having a limited HUD with steam gauges. It's like comparing the SU25 to the A-10. The aeronautics immediately sell the Thunderbolt to me, because I can tell you that the HUD alone is the most useful tool in a fighter or CAS aircraft.

[Allied General]

ATGW has questionable accuracy and effectiveness as seen in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, 1956 Sinai Campaign, they tend to be more effective when in some form of automative especially an helicopter.

AGTW seem to be multi purpose role weapons and the infantry type are often single shot weapons. I remember that during the Falklands the SAS found the Milan very useful as expensive bunker buster.

F22 is good plane, just damn expensive.

So whats the best weapon system to shoot one down?

Edited by Allied General, 05 September 2005 - 04:39 PM.

[M.E.C.H.]

ATGW has questionable accuracy and effectiveness as seen in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, 1956 Sinai Campaign, they tend to be more effective when in some form of automative especially an helicopter.
AGTW seem to be multi purpose role weapons and the infantry type are often single shot weapons. I remember that during the Falklands the SAS found the Milan very useful as expensive bunker buster.
F22 is good plane, just damn expensive.
So whats the best weapon system to shoot one down? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey !!! WOW calm down the F-22 isnt a space craft ! It isnt the best of the best and better from the best ! iT CANNOT destroy a whole squadron alone... So lets speak about reality ! If someone want to buy an aircraft, then he must understand for what purpose he gonna use it... Well i live in rhodes, here in greece we dont need F-22 for us F-22 is crap plane, cause here we need planes for fast chasing and dog fights, so we have F-16Block 52 ! This is the best plane for our purpose and also we have Mirage-2000 which also is flying like a kite, preety darn good for our purpose... Here in Rhodes, every (but everyday) Turkish F-16 are inserting in our place... That happens above from my house everyday.... (Hey i have watched too many live dogfights ) So we have to clear for what purpose its better the F-22 and for what the Berkut, as for the capabilities the Berkut owns the crown !

[MSpencer]

Yes, but both of you neglect the fact that the F-22 would probably never merge with a bandit in the traditional sense.

[Allied General]

Yes, but both of you neglect the fact that the F-22 would probably never merge with a bandit in the traditional sense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

uh i just said it was more expensive, so you probably have less of them to use ...

[MSpencer]

It's more expensive, but one could probably take down a flight of inferior fighters.
One F-22 took out six F-15Cs without them ever actually getting a radar lock. Ant it's not like it was jamming them like the old Bear-Es would do if we ever went up against them (The AIM-120 AMRAAM has a home on jam option that lights up even the largest radar jammers), no no, they never even made visual contact, and all six were taken out.
Berkut? Hah. If it took down 6 F-15Cs with exceptional pilots with superior training and flight time, it would make a snack of an entire squadron of Berkuts.

[Allied General]

well its no suprise since american pilots are in more operations, they shoot, light up more enemy targets then most other countries hence the experience.

http://www.afa.org/m...999/0999f22.asp

Its not perfect as you deem it to be MSpencer. Your own government even acknowledge that.

Also could you post a link telling us where u got your info from?

Also this is deviating from plane specs ... your are considering operations where the USA has faced little to inferior resistance and also taking into account pilot skills.

The Leopard 2 would have equal if not great performance then the M1A2 if both crews were of equal performance.

Hence please do not use crew training and instead focus on neutral specifications of the system cos in all out war, proper world war, u ain't gonna have infinite number of personnel with x years of experience.

Edited by Allied General, 07 September 2005 - 10:10 PM.

[MSpencer]

When assessing the war-waging capability of a country, one must take into account personnel experience. To not do so is to effectively cripple your own abilities, giving even the most lackluster foe a decisive advantage.
You can always say a weapon system is the decisive advantage, but the men and women who man them are.
Also, weapons systems are more limited than qualified pilots. There's no incredible excess of airplanes for air forces to play with, in fact, there are usually many more pilots than airplanes. It's likely that you'd run out of Raptors much faster than pilots.

Also, the F-15 comment was taken from a History Channel documentary. One of those small, minute details that they don't play up.

[Allied General]

fair point but in war you won't always have experience on your side, people get drafted, signed up.

Not meaning to offend but take vietnam or any past world war where we had 18 year old raw recruits.

In a global war, technology vs numbers could be a deciding factor.

You should know that USA is increasingly relying more on "smart" weapons

[M.E.C.H.]

fair point but in war you won't always have experience on your side, people get drafted, signed up.

Not meaning to offend but take vietnam or any past world war where we had 18 year old raw recruits.

In a global war, technology vs numbers could be a deciding factor.

You should know that USA is increasingly relying more on "smart" weapons

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Smart weapons because dumb pilots !!! Just joking ! Allied general nice avatar ! Who she is ???

[Athena]

Stop being offtopic, if you want to ask, add him to your MSN or PM him :S (in case you must then make a new topic or so).
I personally liked his very old avatar better, with the picture of some cartoony general.
Now talk about planes again. AG, what do you mean by 'smart weapons'?

[Allied General]

Stop being offtopic, if you want to ask, add him to your MSN or PM him :S (in case you must then make a new topic or so).
I personally liked his very old avatar better, with the picture of some cartoony general.
Now talk about planes again. AG, what do you mean by 'smart weapons'?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

to M.E.C.H. look at custom member titles and don't spam.

As for smart weapons, guided munitions

[MSpencer]

One bomb that can fly through a window and take out the building is better than 30,000lbs of ordnance to level the city, just to take out the building. Think Germany, 1942-1945, and Japan, 1944-1945. If only we had precision guided munitions then...

[Allied General]

One bomb that can fly through a window and take out the building is better than 30,000lbs of ordnance to level the city, just to take out the building. Think Germany, 1942-1945, and Japan, 1944-1945. If only we had precision guided munitions then...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

arms race anyone? Also guided weapons can't always guarantee success look at sadam and your attempts to cut the "snakes" head off.

pilot error however can make a smart weapon dumb or a dumb weapon smart though.

Wasn't more bombs dropped on nam then in WW2?

Edited by Allied General, 11 September 2005 - 04:28 PM.

[MSpencer]

The smartest weapon we had then was the AGM-78 Standard ARM. Vietnam never saw the use of one laser guided bomb.
Also, Saddam Hussein was so paranoid that he had 15-20 hiding spots all around the country. Where do you think he was the day that we went into Kuwait? Far... far away.

Also, yes, pilot error can screw everything up, but pilots are well trained and rarely make mistakes. All the mistakes you've heard of in Iraq are after thousands of successful sorties without one mistake. The odds catch up with you, and I'd much rather be on the battlefield today with close air support overhead than in 1940, where pilot error was rampant.

Edited by MSpencer, 11 September 2005 - 09:13 PM.

[Allied General]

true in WW2 and cold war propoganda was key.

Too many new channels out there .. although CNN and co all seem pro war.

Its a world where war is almost like a video game.