|
NerdyMcNerdNerd posted:So, what exactly keeps you from popping something like a Leopard 2 with one of these? I know that the T-72s and such typically explode in a hilariously big fireball, but would many of the Western tanks fair that much better? LeClerc, Leo2, M1A2, etc. have better ammo storage to prevent that type of cookoff.
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 23:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 18:23 |
|
|
I have a question that maybe one of you guys can answer. Australia seems to have changed its opinion about the f35, after deriding it heavily before. Has it actually improved?iyaayas01 posted:
The OV 10 is such a loveable plane, I can't help but smiling when I see it
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 23:50
|
|
|
NerdyMcNerdNerd posted:So, what exactly keeps you from popping something like a Leopard 2 with one of these? I know that the T-72s and such typically explode in a hilariously big fireball, but would many of the Western tanks fair that much better? Depends on where it's hit. Frontal armor on an Abrams is ridiculous, the turret face is something like 1600mm RHA vs. HEAT. But then lots of it is penetrable by an rpg. I think that pretty much any MBT that takes a hit from a modern ATGM where that t72 looked like it did is killed, but at least some of the crew probably survives.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 00:04
|
|
|
Leo 2 has hull storage of ammo as well so that might gently caress it up a bit more compared to an M1.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 00:12
|
|
|
NerdyMcNerdNerd posted:So, what exactly keeps you from popping something like a Leopard 2 with one of these? I know that the T-72s and such typically explode in a hilariously big fireball, but would many of the Western tanks fair that much better? Western tanks keep most if not all of the ammunition/propellant charges in magazines with integrated blow-out panels and armored doors, usually located in the turret (which is why they have larger turrets). The leopard 2 actually has some shells outside the magazine next to the driver - but no separate propellant charges and they're isolated in their own little tubes to avoid sympathetic fires (one shell's propellant catching fire shouldn't light up the rest). However, as the majority of the ammunition in a western tank is kinetic penetrators even those aren't generally going to be volatile. Because of this arrangement a shell would need to hit the magazines themselves in order to cause any propellant fire or ammunition explosion because they're separated from everything else in the tank. Assuming that happens, the fire/explosion has paths of least resistance that vent everything out of the tank via the blow-out panels while the armored doors keep it out of the crew compartment and other vital areas. In a Soviet/Russian tank the ammunition and propellant is kept inside the crew compartment and in an ammunition carousel for the auto loader located directly under the floor. As a result of this arrangement: 1) Any penetration through the crew compartment has a chance of lighting up the propellant charges (super hot pillar of fire) or striking an HE/HEAT shell stored in there (BOOM). If the propellant charges light up the fire can also cook off any HE/HEAT shells stored in the crew compartment (pillar of fire...then BOOM). 2) Any penetration of the lower hull has a really good chance of directly impacting one or more HE shells in the ammunition carousel. 3) Any penetration from above passing downward through the tank is basically guaranteed to hit shells in the ammunition carousel as it passes through the floor. In any of these cases the fire/explosion has nowhere to go except directly through the crew compartment on its way either out through the hatches on top of the tank or through the turret ring by popping the turret off. Koesj posted:Leo 2 has hull storage of ammo as well so that might gently caress it up a bit more compared to an M1. That's true, but the majority of shells are stored in the magazine and each shell is stored in its own metal tube to isolate it from the others should the propellant in one start burning. In the Soviet tanks the propellant is separate from the shells and is all exposed to the crew compartment (and helpfully stored bunched up together!). Provided they keep the HEAT and HE in the Leopard 2's magazine there's still a chance of a shell or two lighting up and giving people some nasty burns, but not the entire magazine worth of propellant and nothing to actually blow up the tank. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 00:56 on Jun 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 00:30
|
|
|
Also most modern tanks have ERA armor that will explode when the HEAT warhead hits it. Which has lead to warheads with "fake" tips on them to defeat the ERA armor while the real warhead impacts the tank.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 00:37
|
|
|
Hum. Assuming you don't hit the ammo but still score a solid hit on a Leopard 2/Abrams/Whatevs, what happens? I know it depends a lot on the warhead, and that there are significant difference between something like an dedicated ATGM platform and a RPG, but I'm curious. On a related note, what's the smallest general use aircraft bomb that can reliably KO modern armor?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 00:42
|
|
|
I'd like to imagine tank warfare in 20 years will involve a series of Rube Goldberg like devices on both the tank and the round trying to blow up the tank.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 00:43
|
|
|
NerdyMcNerdNerd posted:Hum. Assuming you don't hit the ammo but still score a solid hit on a Leopard 2/Abrams/Whatevs, what happens? I know it depends a lot on the warhead, and that there are significant difference between something like an dedicated ATGM platform and a RPG, but I'm curious. It punches a hole in the tank, anybody directly in the path of the projectile or molten metal stream is horribly injured/killed, and everyone else is may get some burns and possibly hit by shrapnel/spalling. Crews tend to survive most hits like that pretty well so long as the tank doesn't burn or explode, even in the Soviet tanks. The tank may even continue to function in a useful manner. Edit: Tanks don't have a whole hell of a lot of protection from above or basically anywhere except the frontal arc - even with ERA. A 500lb HE bomb, any type of guided missile, or even just the shell of a bomb filled with concrete would do the trick (this was done in Libya). Warbadger fucked around with this message at 00:53 on Jun 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 00:46
|
|
|
NerdyMcNerdNerd posted:Hum. Assuming you don't hit the ammo but still score a solid hit on a Leopard 2/Abrams/Whatevs, what happens? I know it depends a lot on the warhead, and that there are significant difference between something like an dedicated ATGM platform and a RPG, but I'm curious. Depends on where the hit happens. If its the front, probably not much. Elsewhere the impact -could- penetrate into the crew space of the tank. Spall, hot metal, fire, etc could kill everyone, or it could do nothing. Just kinda depends.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 00:48
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:Also most modern tanks have ERA armor that will explode when the HEAT warhead hits it. Which has lead to warheads with "fake" tips on them to defeat the ERA armor while the real warhead impacts the tank. Uhh no. There's NERA (non-explosive) uparmor packages for a lot of western vehicles but those are mostly applied to IFVs IIRC (MEXAS comes to mind). The "fake" tips you describe are tandem warheads where indeed the primary will defeat the ERA block/standoff armor in order for the secondary warhead to have a free ride.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 00:58
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Uhh no. There's NERA (non-explosive) uparmor packages for a lot of western vehicles but those are mostly applied to IFVs IIRC (MEXAS comes to mind). Yeah, ERA was most heavily embraced by the Israelis and the Soviets. The Abrams has the TUSK kits which are relatively widespread these days and include ERA on the more vulnerable parts of the tanks (particularly the sides), but other than that ERA isn't widely in service in Western tanks. I know the Germans have been playing around with some for the Leopard 2, but I don't believe they've put anything in service yet. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 01:11 on Jun 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 01:04
|
|
|
Didn't know that TUSK was widespread these days, still remember reading about what were only proposals back in the day  e: and old favorite of mine that someone happened to reintroduce: How to hide a task force This has implications for the current brouhaha over the Pacific Pivot as well. Koesj fucked around with this message at 02:36 on Jun 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 02:26
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Didn't know that TUSK was widespread these days, still remember reading about what were only proposals back in the day TUSK was purchased in the hundreds and was a pretty good upgrade, specifically beefing the poo poo out of side hull protection with ERA and adding a bunch of generally nice things for urban combat (remote control loader gun with thermal sight, IED protection, infantry telephone, slat armor for the rear/engine). At this point TUSK II has also started appearing, including new ERA tiles and extending the ERA protection to the side of the turret. Coincidentally ERA on the side of the turret and hull basically shits all over the areas Russian tankers were taught to shoot at on the Abrams.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 02:53
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Uhh no. There's NERA (non-explosive) uparmor packages for a lot of western vehicles but those are mostly applied to IFVs IIRC (MEXAS comes to mind). Yes, you are right and I stand corrected.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 03:44
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:That's true, but the majority of shells are stored in the magazine and each shell is stored in its own metal tube to isolate it from the others should the propellant in one start burning. In the Soviet tanks the propellant is separate from the shells and is all exposed to the crew compartment (and helpfully stored bunched up together!). Provided they keep the HEAT and HE in the Leopard 2's magazine there's still a chance of a shell or two lighting up and giving people some nasty burns, but not the entire magazine worth of propellant and nothing to actually blow up the tank. Unlike in a T-72, at least with a leo you have the option of limiting the load to just 15 rounds in order to increase your tank's survivability somewhat. In my ill-informed opinion, ammo storage is the one area where the Abrams is the clearly superior design.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 05:39
|
|
|
Everything I've heard said they went into the Abrams design with crew survivability as a hugely important aspect of the design.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 05:42
|
|
|
Invalido posted:If I remember correctly, the leo2 has room for 15 rounds in the turret magazine and almost twice that amount right next to the driver. While there are indeed separate tubes for each round, and while the on-board fire extinguisher system is ridiculous, I think a propellant fire confined to just a single round stored in the chassis would be really bad news for the entire crew at the very least, especially if the hatches were closed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 05:56
|
|
|
How widespread are anti-spalling curtains? I heard they were a thing. Kevlar most likely.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 06:02
|
|
|
Alaan posted:I'd like to imagine tank warfare in 20 years will involve a series of Rube Goldberg like devices on both the tank and the round trying to blow up the tank. Alaan, meet the RPG-30:  Not one rocket, but TWO. They fire in tandem, with a slight delay - the first rocket fires about a quarter of a second before the main rocket. It's job is to confuse active protection systems like Arena and Trophy, who work by combining a fast Doppler radar and a fire control system which fires some kind of countermeasure, either an explosive charge or kinetic projectiles, towards the incoming rocket. The first rocket of the RPG-30 triggers the active protection, or detonates the reactive explosive plating, paving the way for the main rocket, which will arrive too soon for the fire control system of the active protection to acquire and defeat the new incoming threat. The Israelis claim they've refined an active protection system to deal with this, but I can imagine my rear end in a top hat nonetheless being clenched nice and tight if I was sitting inside a Merkava knowing I was facing this weapon. e: jesus gently caress http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drozd  Wikipedia posted:When the incoming round is at 7 m range — the Drozd fragmentation warhead detonates, spreading 3-gram slugs to destroy the incoming round. The Drozd system was relatively complex, requiring a radar array and two launch tubes on each side of the tank turret, and a large electronics package on turret rear. Force de Fappe fucked around with this message at 10:22 on Jun 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 10:18
|
|
|
Sjurygg posted:
I always thought that these "spray fragments at the incoming RPG/ATGM with explosives" active protection systems would be literal murder on any troops operating neat the tanks. Shoot an RPG at the tank, pulverize any troops nearby.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 10:36
|
|
NosmoKing posted:I always thought that these "spray fragments at the incoming RPG/ATGM with explosives" active protection systems would be literal murder on any troops operating neat the tanks. Its not like infantry is typically arrayed in a box around the tank. In Fallujah(Phantom Fury), tanks would operate slightly ahead of the infantry. No doubt there were times when infantry was forced to seek cover adjacent to tanks but that isn't ideal(even without active missile/rocket defenses). http://www.2ndbn5thmar.com/tank/tirefs/charlieaar.pdf There is a better AAR out there but I can't find it right now. vains fucked around with this message at 10:55 on Jun 3, 2013 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 10:53
|
|
|
priznat posted:How widespread are anti-spalling curtains? I heard they were a thing. Kevlar most likely. That is something pretty much every tank has these days East or West. It's one of the reasons crews usually survive a hit so long as the tank doesn't catch fire or explode.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 13:01
|
|
|
Memento1979 posted:My understanding (I haven't read the procurement requirements) is that this is one of the big reasons that the Australian Army decided to buy the Abrams; crew survivability was a very high priority, if not priority #1. We picked up the TUSK as well; while I can't recall the last time we fielded an MBT in anger, it's probably prudent to think the next time we do will be in a heavily populated area. I'm half remembering something I read in a book about the Abrams way way back when I was deep into my armor geek phase (so . . . middle school I think?) so take this with a grain of salt, but as I recall crew survivability was straight up, 100%, no questions priority #1 in the Abrams design. You have to remember that it was designed in the 70s, at the very height of the post-Vietnam hangover. The US military was acutely aware that a combination of changing political values in the US and the beginning of truly modern news coverage and mass media meant that they were stuck protecting a population which had utterly zero tolerance for casualties of any kind. It was arguably far, far preferable in most situations that the US was likely to find itself in (either operating with total material overmatch a la Vietnam or very close to large supply bases and supply lines, as in most Cold War defensive scenarios) to take 2 or 3x vehicular losses while keeping crew casualties to an absolute minimum than to accept higher crew losses in exchange for more active vehicles on the front at any given time. From what I recall they pretty much designed the most well protected box they could loving think of that would fail safe in a billion ways in order to save the crew, and then figured out how to build a high quality MBT around it. Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 13:47 on Jun 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 13:39
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I'm half remembering something I read in a book about the Abrams way way back when I was deep into my armor geek phase (so . . . middle school I think?) so take this with a grain of salt, but as I recall crew survivability was straight up, 100%, no questions priority #1 in the Abrams design. There were a few reasons survivability (not just for the crew - for the tank as well) was a big thing. NATO expected to be using them in a highly mobile defensive role. The more survivable the tank, the less likely you'd need to leave it behind when falling back to the next set of positions. Experienced crews were also considered (probably correctly) to be more difficult to replace in wartime than tanks. Even as complex as the M1 was, we built nearly twice as many of them as the Soviets built T-80s during the same time period. It was also the first US tank built on the "see first: shoot first: hit first" philosophy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 13:59
|
|
|
Considering the media climate at the time that makes a hell of a lot of sense. I'm perfectly happy with that being the main driver behind tank design; it's a lot easier to replace steel and composite boxes than it is to replace the people in them. I really am wracking my brain to think of a time we have sent tanks overseas since we fielded Centurions in Vietnam. We had engineers overseas for UNTAG attached to UN transport, Air Defence on a few naval vessels in Iraq I and we only had thin-skinned personnel carriers in East Timor. Special forces to Afghanistan were in various Land Rovers (I think), pretty sure we only had ASLAVS again in Iraq II as our armour.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 14:02
|
|
|
Memento1979 posted:Considering the media climate at the time that makes a hell of a lot of sense. I'm perfectly happy with that being the main driver behind tank design; it's a lot easier to replace steel and composite boxes than it is to replace the people in them. edit: I am a retard. You are an australian. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 14:08
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:edit: I am a retard. You are an australian. What's the difference?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 15:18
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I'm half remembering something I read in a book about the Abrams way way back when I was deep into my armor geek phase (so . . . middle school I think?) so take this with a grain of salt, but as I recall crew survivability was straight up, 100%, no questions priority #1 in the Abrams design. It was. Transportability was last. Priorities, in order, were crew survivability; surveillance and target acquisition performance; first-round and subsequent hit probability; minimal time to acquire and hit; cross-country mobility; complementary armament integration; equipment survivability; crew environment; silhouette; acceleration and desaceleration; ammunition and stowage; human factors; production; operational range; speed; diagnostic maintenance aids; growth potential; support equipment; and transportability.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 15:24
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:TUSK was purchased in the hundreds and was a pretty good upgrade, specifically beefing the poo poo out of side hull protection with ERA and adding a bunch of generally nice things for urban combat (remote control loader gun with thermal sight, IED protection, infantry telephone, slat armor for the rear/engine). At this point TUSK II has also started appearing, including new ERA tiles and extending the ERA protection to the side of the turret. Coincidentally ERA on the side of the turret and hull basically shits all over the areas Russian tankers were taught to shoot at on the Abrams. It never ceases to amaze me how many times we have to learn this lesson.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 15:45
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:What's the difference? Alcoholism. Memento1979 posted:Considering the media climate at the time that makes a hell of a lot of sense. I'm perfectly happy with that being the main driver behind tank design; it's a lot easier to replace steel and composite boxes than it is to replace the people in them. Assuming you got into a big conventional conflict, could you even make modern planes and armor fast enough to replace losses?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 15:46
|
|
|
Data from the '73 Yom Kippur war indicates that production rates couldn't keep up with missile expenditures, much less combat losses of tanks and aircraft.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 15:49
|
|
|
NerdyMcNerdNerd posted:Alcoholism. It's a combination of new production and reserves. It's a lot easier to stockpile new tanks than it is to stockpile new crews. Also if a tank is disabled but not killed then it can possibly be brought back to combat effectiveness (Provided it's recovered, of course).
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 15:52
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:It was. Transportability was last. Priorities, in order, were crew survivability; surveillance and target acquisition performance; first-round and subsequent hit probability; minimal time to acquire and hit; cross-country mobility; complementary armament integration; equipment survivability; crew environment; silhouette; acceleration and desaceleration; ammunition and stowage; human factors; production; operational range; speed; diagnostic maintenance aids; growth potential; support equipment; and transportability. The reason for my previous comment is that apart from power plant and ammo storage, the two tanks appear rather similar; same gun and (I think) track system, same crew layout, fairly equal size and weight - which implies a similar amount and distribution of armor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 16:06
|
|
|
Invalido posted:which implies a similar amount and distribution of armor. Not really. If you are dedicating more space and weight to the engine in a Leo2 (which seems to be what you're saying the engine-related trade off was) you have less volume and weight for armor. Of course that's assuming identical armor types. Once you get into the various mass:volume:hardness ratios for all the various composites etc out there you're probably deep into territory where you can't assume much just based on the rough size and weight of the final object.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 16:12
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:It's a combination of new production and reserves. It's a lot easier to stockpile new tanks than it is to stockpile new crews. Also if a tank is disabled but not killed then it can possibly be brought back to combat effectiveness (Provided it's recovered, of course). Bingo. And if the death of the tank doesn't involve a massive plume of fire melting everything in the crew compartment and other vital areas of the tank (or a earth shattering KABOOM) then chances are the tank can be repaired (or potentially still able to function!).
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 16:24
|
|
|
Newer Leo's also have the latest 120mm L55 from Rheinmetall, specifically the 2A6 I think.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 16:25
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Not really. If you are dedicating more space and weight to the engine in a Leo2 (which seems to be what you're saying the engine-related trade off was) you have less volume and weight for armor. The leo engine compartment is surprisingly lightly armored - the top hatch is about 20mm of steel for example. While the engine itself is heavier, a gas turbine needs more fuel, which is weight and volume that needs armor enclosure. While fuel can act as an absorbent of kinetic force, the same can be said for an engine block, as evidenced by the Israeli school of tank design. Also, a diesel might work long enough to get you out of a bind and back to relative safety even if it has taken some damage while a turbine is less resilient, needing more protection to avoid outright mobility kills. As for armor type and thickness, sure, there are variations, but tank armor is limited by weight more than thickness anyways. While a gas turbine might give you a ton or three of extra weight to spread around, I think it is reasonable to assume that German and U.S. tank designers drew the same post-Six-day/Yom Kippur war conclusions about where to put it to best protect the most important bits. Then again, it might just be that the depleted uranium armor of the M1 is super-duper awesome and no other substance or combination of substances can offer anything close to the same amount of protection ton for ton?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 17:53
|
|
|
Invalido posted:Then again, it might just be that the depleted uranium armor of the M1 is super-duper awesome and no other substance or combination of substances can offer anything close to the same amount of protection ton for ton? I have no idea what M1 armor is made of (I don't think anyone outside of military engineers etc really does - it's beyond classified), but it's not DU. Some kind of layered composite of all sorts of crazy metals and non-metals as best I understand. Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Jun 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 18:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 18:23 |
|
|
There's a DU layer in the later models, starting with later A1s, I believe. It protects the front and front-side aspects on the turret and hull with the Chobham. The rear-sides and rear just has RHA.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 18:31
|
|