[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/AKM/ - Guns, weapons and the art of war.

"War can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun." - Chairman Mao
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon


 No.1376

Since tank warfare is a hot topic right now I'll drop some good tank vids.

First vid is a long one covering American tanker school.

 No.2233

Russian tank in the Siege of Mariupol

 No.2780

T-80BVM has apparently set the new world record for a long-range kill against an armored vehicle.
https://crithis.quora.com/Russian-T-80BVM-might-just-have-set-a-kill-range-record

 No.2842

File: 1680640408230-0.png (612.38 KB, 800x533, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1680640408230-1.png (673.41 KB, 1200x650, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1680640408230-2.png (884.16 KB, 1360x887, ClipboardImage.png)

So as Russia's constant upgrades to its T-72B3s & T-90M prove the tank can still be relevant in this age of top-attack ATGMs & drone strikes. That said I feel that the future of tank design is going to involve increased roof armor & sideskirt protection. The latter is already in progress for Russian tanks, as they've mounted large ERA blocks on the sides of the turret, hull & back of the turret for the T-72B3s & T-80BVMs, & the bustle on the T-90M also has ERA. Roof ERA is pretty common in Russian tanks & is being upgraded. However ERA cannot protect thin armor from heavy HEAT & APFSDS attacks. Part of the reflections on tanks from WW2 & early Cold War tank fighting (in the Middle East) revealed that most impacts came on the frontal aspect of the tank hull & turret, thus the armor thickened there on tanks heavily. The advent of ATGMs from choppers & the like prompted the return of roof-mounted heavy machineguns to counter them. The improvement of HEAT & sabot ammunition prompted ERA (for the USSR) to improve armor protection without increasing weight as much. The experiences in Afghanistan & Iraq prompted urban combat gear in US tanks that similarly improved such protection.
Now we have drones & top-flying ATGMs so new tank designs are going to get thicker roof armor & larger side-skirt armor, in response to these new threats.

 No.3079

It's been some time since this got talked about but active protection may be an actually fielded thing in Russia. They used captured NATO munitions as well as their own to perfect the Arena-M APS. Maybe we'll see it in action.
https://southfront.org/russia-to-equip-main-battle-tanks-with-arena-m-active-protection-system/
Previous prototype Арена-Э
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WXQm3dpr9Q

Максимальная скорость боеприпаса от которого может защитить КАЗ «Арена» - 70-700 м/с
Начальная скорость подкалиберного снаряда ——– 1715 м/с,
Начальная скорость кумулятивного снаряда ЗБК-14 - 905 м/с.
ПТУР «Атака» имеет скорость ——————————–550 м/с.
РПГ-29 «Вампир» скорость ракеты ————————-255 м/с
9М113 «Конкурс» - скорость ракеты ————————208 м/с
ПТРК «Фагот» (Ракета 9М111) средняя ——————- 183 м/с
———————————-Максимальная —————– 240 м/с
ПТРК «Метис» ———————средняя —————-180-200 м/с
———————————-Максимальная —————– 223 м/с

"Арена-Э" - ….Время реакции системы составляло 0,07 секунд.
- опасная зона комплекса для пехоты, состояла 20-30 м и была относительно мала, при срабатывании защитных снарядов не образовывались побочные убойные осколки. Помимо этого, КАЗ предусматривал внешнюю световую сигнализацию, предупреждающую пехотинцев, находящихся позади боевой машины, о включении комплекса.
- стоимость КАЗ на 2006 год составляет 300 000 долларов.
- Масса «Арены» достигает 1300 килограмм

 No.3089

>>2842
I dunno about that, I suspect it will go more the way of the Armata where the armour is concentrated around a uniform crew compartment, protecting them from penetrations and ammo rack explosions, while the rest of the tank is relatively less armoured and then eventually tanks will just be drones and armour will be light for cost saving and to make more tank drones out of the same amount of steel.

There's some problems with putting a lot of armour on the turret roof
>Makes the tank more top heavy and less stable
>Thicker armour reduces volume inside the tank meaning the tank needs to be either taller, or have less space for gun depression, or both
>A heavier turret is going to be slower at turning, harder to stabilise on the move and takes away from the weight allowance for the gun

Ultimately, you're just not going to be able to fit the kind of armour you'd have on the turret/hull front on the turret roof, the amount you might actually be able to fit on the turret is quite likely to not be enough to prevent a penetration anyway, while at the same time both Javelin teams and helicopters are extremely vulnerable in their own way and are only useful either defensively or when the enemy is making a mistake. A tank getting knocked out by a Javelin or helicopter is therefore a strategic problem IMO rather than the tank being too vulnerable. Earlier in the Ukraine war, Russia overextended not anticipating much resistance from Ukraine so they were prone to ambushes and presumably wasn't going to the length required to provide solid air support to the advancing tanks from helicopters.

 No.3090

File: 1681660206033-0.png (640.87 KB, 1024x426, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1681660206033-1.png (966.8 KB, 1024x520, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1681660206033-2.png (966.11 KB, 1024x603, ClipboardImage.png)

>>3089
>eventually tanks will just be drones
<armour will be light for cost saving
At that point it stops being a tank

>it will go more the way of the Armata where the armour is concentrated around a uniform crew compartment, protecting them from penetrations and ammo rack explosions, while the rest of the tank is relatively less armoured

Based on the lessons of the war that's a terrible idea. Tanks are going to get mobility killed constantly & even if the crew survives getting knocked out, they still need to escape the enemy lines. It's a huge waste of resources.
>Makes the tank more top heavy and less stable
That's not really an issue. A couple ERA blocks & some thickening of Roof armor isn't going to increase weight significantly & the wide, squat positioning of tanks means they have a low center. The proof of this is in Western tanks & their immense turrets.
>Thicker armour reduces volume inside the tank meaning the tank needs to be either taller, or have less space for gun depression, or both
that's actually a valid argument, BUT this can be mitigated by slight widening of the hull/ turret, not to mention modern electronics making everything more compact (such as current thermals, that mean the gunner can sit back to look at targets in a more relaxed position & there's plenty of space in front of them. As for gun-depression, making the gun mantlet larger & higher up on the turret by a little & having it stick out from the turret slightly.
>A heavier turret is going to be slower at turning, harder to stabilise on the move and takes away from the weight allowance for the gun
Modern hydraulics & other systems negate this, not to mention that the proof of that is in Western tanks that turn their massive turrets rather fast. The heavier turrt i actualy easier to stabilize in some regard since the higher weight mean its less vulnerable to being moved by the motions of driving & firing. As to gun weight, 152mm guns of massive size have been tested, so there is a large margin for weight.
Basically my point is that since Western tanks have huge turrets easily having the weight & size considerations relative to the issue at hand. They're oversized IMO, but are a good demonstration of practical upper limits in tank turret size. Something closer to the T-90M turret but a little taller (like the Armata turret) is a good compromise.

>the amount you might actually be able to fit on the turret is quite likely to not be enough to prevent a penetration

Not alone yes, that's the reason I'm not saying make Roof armor as thick as the frontal glacis or something, but alongside ERA? It can reduce penetrations from top attacks.

 No.3091

I heard someone say that Chinese tanks have lighter armor than USA tanks so they would be easily destroyed if China got invaded. Couldn't find any source, they proly just made it up lmao.

(they're not getting invaded anytime soon tho, we hope, ignore that claim)

 No.3092

>>3091
I mean China operates some lighter MBTs for operations in the Himalayas & some assault tanks for beach landings, but its pretty much the same armor as any other tank on their mainline MBTs. Technically the Abrams has heavier armor because of DU but that's not any guarantee.

 No.3093

>>3090
>At that point it stops being a tank
I don't see why you'd come to that conclusion, light tanks have existed since WW1.
>Tanks are going to get mobility killed constantly & even if the crew survives getting knocked out, they still need to escape the enemy lines. It's a huge waste of resources.
Isn't that true of all armour then? No amount of armour is going to stop a track from getting shot off and engine/transmission compartments tend to be the least armoured parts of a tank anyway, since the logic is that it would *only* be a mobility kill and the engine block should absorb the shell and save the crew. The Merkava even has its engine and transmission in the front of the tank for this purpose.
>BUT this can be mitigated by slight widening of the hull/ turret
The internal volume of the tank isn't agnostic towards which dimension you're giving space to, the IS-3 had an extremely wide turret but it was still very cramped due to how low the turret roof was.
>As for gun-depression, making the gun mantlet larger & higher up on the turret by a little & having it stick out from the turret slightly.
That's still going to involve making the tank taller, like if the armour is growing downwards with its increase of volume, I don't understand how placing the gun higher up in the turret is possible.
>Modern hydraulics & other systems negate this
Well not really because modern tank turrets are already as big and as heavy as modern hydraulics will allow for that turret speed armies want. If you sacrifice speed for still-not-enough-armour on the roof, you're just making the tank less responsive and more vulnerable to threats.
>Not alone yes, that's the reason I'm not saying make Roof armor as thick as the frontal glacis or something, but alongside ERA? It can reduce penetrations from top attacks.
It still wouldn't be enough, a Javelin still penetrates hundreds of millimetres of steel, even with the ERA, that's not going to prevent a penetration unless the armour underneath it has significant thickness either with steel or composite armour.

As I said, it's a tactical issue because the Javelin is flawed and isn't necessarily a silver bullet that invalidates the concept of a tank, there's also atypical ways of dealing with Javelin missiles, for example there already is hard-kill active protective systems that shoot missiles out of the sky that are approaching level to the ground, no doubt this will be developed to work in the vertical to counter missiles approaching from above and also the Javelin doesn't work by magic, there is radios and sensors and navigation systems all involved in firing and guiding that missile to its target, each a potential vector for an exploit that will interfere with the missile and cause it to miss or detonate prematurely, it's just a matter of time to reverse engineer captured examples to see how they work and Russia surely has many of them now.

 No.3094

>>3093
It's not about light armor, it's about it being a drone. At that point it's not really a tank, just an armored autonomous fighting vehicle. It's like making a BMP completely automated.
>Isn't that true of all armour then?
No, armor & its placement is meant to be balanced against mobility & resource viability, that's the reason 3rd generation NATO tanks have fairly low numbers compared to Soviet counterparts, they're far too resource heavy. This is also the reason that starting from mid WW2 & after the main, thickest armor on tanks sat in the frontal 30-45 degrees on the hull front & turret front. Roof, sides & rear are less targeted in direct combat, & no amount of armor is going to protect the top from an aviation bomb (BUT improved upper armor can fight off top-attack HEAT & suicide drones). Point is armor placement reflects the main threats to an AFV & the expected requirements. That's the reason heavy APCs like the Puma are retarded, they're still no match for a tank or ATGM, so uparmoring them for anything past 30mm/155mm airburst is moronic. A tank should be able to take a hit & even a penetration yet keep going as long as the armor manages to protect the key features. You're never going to ensure crew protection at 100% because that's just not possible, placing them all in a capsule isn't removing the problem of the electronics & hydraulics in their place being open for damage & needing protection too, thus up-armoring there occurs, negating the entire point. The point of improving roof armor in current combat is because a slightly thicker roof + ERA is going to be able to help dissipate HEAT warheads even if they penetrate so internal impacts are minimized. That's the reason the Abrams ought to uparmore its bustle, because it is easy to penetrate & even if it leaves the crew alive, the tank is nigh-unarmed & open to consecutive attacks. This happened in the Gulf, a Type 69 (Chinese T-62) penetrated an M1A2 in the bustle, leaving it ammunitionless, if it hadn't been for the constant air support, allied tanks & god's luck that they had one shell in the barrel, that Abrams would have been taken out utterly. Hell this has happened to many Saudi Abrams.
>That's still going to involve making the tank taller
Not if you shift the gun mantlet up in the turret, but not the actual turret itself. Essentially the gun is a bit higher in the front of the turret, there's plenty of space left over & turret dimensions aren't even necessary to change much. The height increase is going to be at most 10 centimeters, insignificant in todays combat environment. I'm going to try an Oekaki this if I can.
>a track from getting shot off
Ah but a track is an easy field repair, even a single man can jury-rig a fix, unlike internal components. The Engine block being used as armor in the Merkava is because it's armor is trash & the tank is a glorified, heavy IFV, almost no other tank in the world uses this set up for a reason. Getting your engine taken out is a death sentence for any tank not surrounded by friendlies & so condemning the crew too. The reason BMP-1s & 2s had frontal engines (besides the need to let troops come out the back) is the fact that a more thinly armored AFV can afford to be taken out, because unless it has a tank level of armor, the penetration can kill the crew otherwise so you can either bail or die. A tank isn't permitted that.
>The internal volume of the tank isn't agnostic towards which dimension you're giving space
True, but in a tank you forget THE HULL. You can lean back, forward, to the side etc. & you must be able to push the hatch up using your head in cases of emergency. The IS-3 also isn't that cramped. The T-72 early versions are a bit cramped (although not by much even compared to the Leo-II) because of the electronics/sights/fire-controls, that sit on the horizontal axis to the sides & front of tanker. Height isn't a big issue, that's just an old wives tale from anti-Soviet Cold Warriors, the same morons that said that T-72 autoloaders rip the arm off the gunner.
>Javelin still penetrates hundreds of millimetres of steel
Good thing modern COMPOSITE armor isn't just steel, & can be thinner yet equate to much thicker steel. That's the reason the T-64 was so groundbreaking - the composite armor permitted it to have the protection of a heavy tank, yet far less weight & actual armor thickness. The same can be applied to Roof armor. Moreover the Javelin's penetration is overrated. The overfly HEAT is limited because the 2 modes of attack mean that a tandem charge (necessary against ERA) is impossible to utilize in a large enough calibre to properly hurt the vehicle. Most Javelin kills have been against softer targets. Against tanks using ERA it's notably failed to induce catastrophic penetration (i.e. hitting ammunition or key components. A notable incident from early 2022 had a javelin hit a T-72B3. The attack penetrated but because it lacked the ability to go through, only caused a fire. The tank continued to keep going, still battle-capable. Improving the roof armor a bit already makes it even more survivable against such attacks.
>hard-kill active protective systems
Yes that is also true, but those have a risk of harming nearby troops, making it impossible to use on a 360 angle unless they seek to operate alone.

TL;Dr: I'm not saying slap on a ton of armor, but improving its thickness by about half + ERA is going to improve survivability against top-attacks & the increase in height is going to be negligible.

 No.3095

File: 1681770119996.png (9.31 KB, 500x250, Oekaki.png)

>>3094
>>3093
Kinda crappy (Oekaki is not very good for precise illustration) but this is what I mean by the roof armor & shifting the gun up the turret a bit

 No.3097

File: 1681837321923.png (425.87 KB, 723x462, Leo 2A4 turret bent.png)

>So a friend of mine figured out what happened. Apparently the Ukrainians drove another tank up the front and knocked off the turret. Pure bad training and incompetence.
https://southfront.org/first-german-leopard-2a4-tank-destroyed-by-ukrainian-soldiers/

 No.3403

https://topwar.ru/218805-obstrel-tanka-t-55-kumuljativnymi-snarjadami-iz-granatometov-raketnyh-kompleksov-i-sau.html

http://real.mtak.hu/81246/1/HT_2018_3_Book_cikk_02_u.pdf

A T-54 being test-fired on by various weapons by the Hungarians to test its armor against modern anti-tank weapons. The conclusion is that the T-54 base model is unable to successfully resist common modern anti-tank weapons. Whether the T-55M, with its increased armor and modernized systems is similarly vulnerable is unknown but likely. Kontakt-1 ERA likely increases survivability by a high margin however. This makes sense as in 1988, the Americans conducted similar tests, only they simulated a fire raid with 155 mm high-explosive shells on a tank column*.

*Source: Article from Field Artillery Journal, USArmy, Nov/Dec 2002.
https://pdfcoffee.com/who-says-dumb-artillery-rounds-canx27t-kill-armor-pdf-free.html
https://imgur.com/gallery/gIjCo

 No.3404

File: 1686686045416.png (616.78 KB, 800x446, ClipboardImage.png)

https://topwar.ru/218854-kombinacija-sistem-vooruzhenija-ne-imeet-sebe-ravnyh-v-zapadnoj-presse-kommentirujut-rabotu-bmp-4m-po-unichtozheniju-punkta-vsu-s-dalnej-distancii.html
A BMD-4 hitting Ukrainian positions from long range using it's 100mm gun, corrected by drone recon. Very accurate impacts according to reports.

 No.3449

File: 1687492180171.png (313.91 KB, 967x354, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2842
On the topic of the T-90M, I noticed very quickly that the distinct Shtora "eyes" featured on the T-90 are not present on the T-90M, I looked into it recently.

First, what is the Shtora system? The "Shtora" complex is a means of active protection of armored vehicles from the defeat of the WTO, in which a laser is used to aim at the target. These are Dragon, TOW, Milan, Maverick, Helfire guided missiles, Copperhead artillery guided missiles, and other ground-based and air-based missiles. The complex was put into service in 1989.

Sensitive sensors "Shtora" detect the source of laser radiation, warn the crew of the vehicle and at the same time issue a command to automatically use means of jamming the enemy's weapon control systems - aerosol grenades and infrared searchlights. After three seconds, the grenades create an aerosol screen 55–70 meters from the tank to counteract laser radiation and “cover” the target from the gunners of enemy artillery systems. An infrared searchlight from a range of 2.5 kilometers "blinds" the rocket and changes its flight path.

The complex provides all-round protection against several guided missiles in the vertical sector from -5 to +25 degrees. The high (0.54‒0.9) probability of Shtora disrupting guided missiles and guided projectiles at the target reduces the probability of hitting it by 3‒5 and 1.5 times, respectively. The reaction time of the complex after detecting an attacking target does not exceed 20 seconds. Along with the protection "Shtora" can be used to detect enemy firing points.

The answer to the lack of the "Eyes" on the T-90M boils down to a simple fact that the Shtora system no longer works against more modern ATGMs or much older, analog RPG systems like the RPG-7 in terms of causing visual cover against them. The principle of the Shtora's functionality lies in it turning on a bright IR light that blinds 2nd and early 3rd generation ПТУР systems, causing the ATGM crew to be unable to accurately target the tank and so miss or hit a non-vital area. Modern systems no longer function like this, although blinding IR systems are still useful in areas like the Middle-East, where newer ATGMs are more rare.

https://archive.is/tzoC0
https://archive.is/z75Lw
https://archive.is/JbTsd
http://btvt.narod.ru/4/shtora1/shtora1.htm

 No.3537


 No.3588

First AMX-10RC's taken out from a month back or so
https://archive.ph/OyMsC

 No.3642

File: 1691294019593.png (466.37 KB, 775x629, ClipboardImage.png)


 No.3657

File: 1691788133250.png (357.69 KB, 800x481, ClipboardImage.png)

I find Soviet artillery systems fascinating, especially how well organized their system of SPAGs are in a variety of calibers and purposes, with immense throw-weight and distance along with staggering accuracy for artillery systems. American M-109s, Panzerhaubitz-2000s, M-110As and AS-90s pale in comparison in almost every regard, making it obvious why Russian artillerymen primarily dominate artillery duels against such systems in Ukraine
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/2%D0%A17?useskin=vector

It's interesting to notice that unlike the usual 122, 125 and 152 millimeter guns typical to Soviet production, a lot of light artillery platforms typically used by the desant utilize 120mm guns, in part because it permits them to utilize Western 120mm ammunition as part of long-term deep-strike capability, when cut off from their own resources, thus systems like the Nona, Vena, Lotus etc.
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/2%D0%A19?useskin=vector
https://war-book.ru/samohodnaya-artillerijskaya-ustanovka-2s42-lotos/
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/2%D0%A131?useskin=vector

 No.3664

Burgers on the T54 and T55.

 No.3665

>>3664
Link to the yootube in case anybody wants to watch it there for some reason https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGMw6FANEno

 No.3667

File: 1693103785612.jpg (115.77 KB, 1459x960, T-55M5.jpg)

>>3664
>>3665
Saw this recently. Frankly its a bit inaccurate and low on actual information on the T-55. Russian VGTRK documentaries have some extensive documentaries on the T-55 and other tanks.

 No.3701


 No.3703


 No.3785

File: 1695759337595-0.png (188.41 KB, 763x705, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1695759337595-1.png (85.5 KB, 743x191, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1695759337595-2.png (447.69 KB, 810x873, ClipboardImage.png)

Western Tank enthusiasts love to brag about superior optics, yet friendly fire was a constant problem.
>Of the nine Abrams destroyed, seven were due to friendly fire, and two were intentionally destroyed to prevent capture after they became disabled.
>The inability to effectively distinguish friend from foe at long ranges con- tributed to incidents of U.S. forces' mistakenly firing on friendly units. In an August 13, 1991, press release, the Department of Defense reported 28 friendly fire incidents. Ten of these incidents involved U.S. tanks hitting other friendly targets. Some Bradley crews we spoke with said they feared friendly fire from Abrams tanks more than they feared the enemy. They also noted that Bradley Fighting Vehicles could easily be mistaken for enemy armored personnel carriers at long ranges. While better sights would help identify targets, Bradley and Abrams commanders and crews


Unique IPs: 15

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]