|
ERA question: once a given panel of ERA has been triggered, is that section of the tank basically unprotected? If it is, why not just launch a staggered volley of HEAT projectiles?
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 11:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 01:42 |
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:ERA question: once a given panel of ERA has been triggered, is that section of the tank basically unprotected? If it is, why not just launch a staggered volley of HEAT projectiles? Because the tank is going to move
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 11:06
|
|
|
And putting 2 warheads on the one projectile is much easier (tandem HEAT).
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 11:06
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:ERA question: once a given panel of ERA has been triggered, is that section of the tank basically unprotected? If it is, why not just launch a staggered volley of HEAT projectiles? That is essentially what tandem HEAT do. You have two HEAT charges on the same projectile, the first one smaller to trigger the ERA, a precursor charge, and then the second larger one. This is why you'll see modern RPG-7 rounds that are longer then some of which you're used to. More modern ERA like Relikt is supposed to combat this somewhat, not sure of the details though. This double tap idea is actually one of the routes you can defeat Active Protection Systems with as well, you fire a projectile to trigger the APS blast, then try to squeeze your actual damaging round into the small delay the system needs to reset for the next engagement. They differ though in that tandem HEAT is one projectile with two spaced warheads, while the APS defeat specifically requires two projectiles.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 11:09
|
|
|
I was reading a while ago about a russian counter-HEAT system that involved two conducting layers sandwiched in the armour, essentially turning the armour plating into a gigantic capacitor. Once a HEAT jet bridged the two layers there would be a massive electrical discharge through the copper jet, vaporising part of it and creating an internal explosion that disrupts the jet. Then the capacitor recharges off the tank engine so it can function again. Can't remember where I read that though, so I don't know if it's actually real.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 11:29
|
|
|
happy anniversary of the battle of luetzen
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 11:57
|
|
|
Happy day nobody cares about to you too!
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 12:06
|
|
|
my dad posted:Happy day nobody cares about to you too! I care  (also the second relief of Lucknow!)
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 12:15
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:happy anniversary of the battle of luetzen Time to build an autobahn over it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 12:29
|
|
|
Hazzard posted:Time to build an autobahn over it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 12:43
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:happy anniversary of the battle of luetzen Sherman began his march yesterday. https://youtu.be/A5ra9cXx1-o
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 13:21
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:I was reading a while ago about a russian counter-HEAT system that involved two conducting layers sandwiched in the armour, essentially turning the armour plating into a gigantic capacitor. Once a HEAT jet bridged the two layers there would be a massive electrical discharge through the copper jet, vaporising part of it and creating an internal explosion that disrupts the jet. Then the capacitor recharges off the tank engine so it can function again. That sounds more like some UK system that I have heard of.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 13:39
|
|
|
spectralent posted:This might be a question more for the cold war thread but I can't really find it, so [...] On top of the obvious answers to your questions, let me pose one of my own (and it's an honest one, really!): why are you thinking of the Cold War as some kind of monolithic timeframe? Over the course of 45 years there will be *some* see-sawing between offensive and defensive measures in general, and the roles and capabilities of infantry in particular.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 13:54
|
|
|
Another point is that it's not like the two sides were uniform. A lot of the best toys just weren't available in most of the wars in this era.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 13:59
|
|
|
100 Years Ago General Boroevic appeals once again for reinforcements to the Isonzo (it's just started to snow on the lowland areas as well as in the mountains) and discovers that the Chief is now taking a personal interest in his theatre. Winston Churchill rejoins the Army, Bernard Adams sees the immediate aftermath of a mortar falling in his trench (with bonus comedy Welshman), and Herbert Sulzbach and his mates are arsing around in No Man's Land.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 14:19
|
|
|
Hey Hegel, what would your guys have thought of Sherman's march anyway?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 14:22
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:I was reading a while ago about a russian counter-HEAT system that involved two conducting layers sandwiched in the armour, essentially turning the armour plating into a gigantic capacitor. Once a HEAT jet bridged the two layers there would be a massive electrical discharge through the copper jet, vaporising part of it and creating an internal explosion that disrupts the jet. Then the capacitor recharges off the tank engine so it can function again. There was a WWII era suggestion by some Russian guy to do this to combat regular AP. The idea was that the shell would penetrate one layer of armour, make contact with the other, and then melt from the electric current. Needless to say, they didn't build it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 14:53
|
|
|
I think it's still listed on Wiki as an actual "ERA" type, along with expanding rubber(?) ERA
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:I was reading a while ago about a russian counter-HEAT system that involved two conducting layers sandwiched in the armour, essentially turning the armour plating into a gigantic capacitor. Once a HEAT jet bridged the two layers there would be a massive electrical discharge through the copper jet, vaporising part of it and creating an internal explosion that disrupts the jet. Then the capacitor recharges off the tank engine so it can function again. That sounds like a great way to fry some unsuspecting infantry that come into contact with the tank, or a crew member bailing out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:That sounds like a great way to fry some unsuspecting infantry that come into contact with the tank, or a crew member bailing out. I doubt the outer layer would be that easily punched through, if it couldn't withstand at least small arms fire then it would be just too easy to short circuit. I do recall Brits were researching something like that just now... ah, here it is: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/7487740/Star-Trek-style-force-field-armour-being-developed-by-military-scientists.html quote:At a test in 2002, senior British Army officers saw the chassis of a Warrior infantry carrier, which was fitted with the early electric armour, survive repeated attack by RPGs before being driven away with only minor damage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
Does anyone know if it works? making your armor better by putting holes in it is either completely retarded or completely genius with no room in between.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 15:46
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Did you ask the same question on /hwg/ by any chance? Yeah, though I figured I'd get more in-depth answers here. Koesj posted:On top of the obvious answers to your questions, let me pose one of my own (and it's an honest one, really!): why are you thinking of the Cold War as some kind of monolithic timeframe? Largely because I know little about the actual hypothetical conflict between NATO and the WarPac and don't really know how best to point to the bit of time I mean regarding a theoretical engagement 
spectralent fucked around with this message at 15:55 on Nov 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
There's been a number of postwar conflicts where an engagement between relatively well-equipped infantry and armor was anything but theoretical though; some of them are even being fought right now! Unsupported tanks lumbering towards prepared positions across open terrain didn't end well for the Israelis in '73, Russian armor supposedly did an extremely poor job against their own infantry AT weapons in the urban terrain of Grozny, and across the Middle East you can today see how 1980s tanks fare against contemporary ATGMs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
Yeah; I suppose the issue was I was mostly thinking of a conflict where there's your dudes vs their dudes in a big dust-up, rather than modern urban combat against what's essentially a guerrilla force. Though Israelis in '73 sounds like exactly the kind of thing I was thinking of. I'll have to check that out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Yeah, though I figured I'd get more in-depth answers here. Small internet!
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
I think that unless somebody does something incredibly dramatic, tanks are going to be operating in and around infantry for the foreseeable future, and for the continued crew morale and operational status of the tanks it really ought to be on the same side as them. The times when that isn't the case tend to show why militaries normally endeavour to make it the case.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
WW2 Data Back with more Imperial Japanese Navy Ammunition and more 120mm rounds. How were the propellant sticks arranged in the incendiary round? What round had a feature similar to U.S. projectiles? Check inside!
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Sherman began his march yesterday. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
Monocled Falcon posted:Hey Hegel, what would your guys have thought of Sherman's march anyway? The actual march, which was quite civilized in that his troops were under orders to not loot and pillage (to varying levels of punishment to include hanging) and even pay for foraged supplies, or the image the South pushes in that he burned a bloody swath through the CSA, when in fact it was the South that committed a scorched earth campaign? I mean was a bloody minded general when he put his mind to it, but the March to the Sea was incredibly civilized.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
Coffeehitler posted:The actual march, which was quite civilized in that his troops were under orders to not loot and pillage (to varying levels of punishment to include hanging) and even pay for foraged supplies, or the image the South pushes in that he burned a bloody swath through the CSA, when in fact it was the South that committed a scorched earth campaign? now if you're asking me what their officers would have thought of it, "under orders to not loot and pillage (to varying levels of punishment to include hanging)" sounds like a good idea, if you can enforce it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
If I remember correctly, Sherman put out to all of his officers that the directive about looting was to be followed and that there were a handful of officers that were punished for not following it. I think the only serious bit of infrastructure that was targeted were things that directly affected the war effort, so rail lines and the like. However, the burning of farms was done by Southern troops retreating ahead of Sherman's advance. e: unfortunately, I don't have any of my books on the subject with me so I can't double check.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
Coffeehitler posted:If I remember correctly, Sherman put out to all of his officers that the directive about looting was to be followed and that there were a handful of officers that were punished for not following it. Pretty much. As far as I know, the image of Sherman burning down the South largely comes from Gone With the Wind, which not only was a fictionalized account but wasn't even set during the March to the Sea. Not that Americans would let such things interfere with their impressions of pop history. While some damage was caused to wealthy estates and such, the vast majority of economic damage came from Confederates practicing scorched earth tactics, Sherman's forces breaking up the rail lines (which were legitimate military targets), and the liberation of tens of thousands of slaves. Sherman's March was traumatizing for the South, but largely because it was such a shock for the citizenry to realize how weak their military really was. Kaal fucked around with this message at 21:00 on Nov 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure there was at least an element of when possible gently caress the planter aristocracy over which is one of the least objectionable actions conceivable in a war. At the very least they were established as the preferred targets of foraging.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
I seem to recall that Sherman took the brakes off when he crossed into South Carolina, it being the "birthplace of treason", then put 'em back on once they crossed into North Carolina.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
tbh i think the entire 18th and 19th centuries would just puzzle them
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
jng2058 posted:I seem to recall that Sherman took the brakes off when he crossed into South Carolina, it being the "birthplace of treason", then put 'em back on once they crossed into North Carolina. And back off in Virginia if I remember right, since SC and Virginia really didn't have much opposition (well once WV split off Virginia didn't).
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Kaal posted:the vast majority of economic damage came from Confederates practicing scorched earth tactics This isn't even close to true. The CSA hardly had any soldiers in Georgia at the start of the campaign and those that were there were driven out very quickly. The vast majority of the economic damage Sherman inflicted came from the destruction of things like mills and cotton gins, the expensive industrial-type stuff that supported the cotton plantations, as well as the cotton itself and of course the railroads and other transportation infrastructure (you can see how he prioritized these efforts in SFO 120). There wasn't nearly as much of the "burning of farms" as most people seem to think: the "foraging brigades" generally just took what they wanted provision-wise and then left the rest of it be unless it was of unique value (see afmorementioned targets) or if some bushwhackers or irregulars or whoever else tried to resist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
In short, Sherman adopted a total war strategy wherein he attacked the industrial and economic underpinnings of the confederate war effort. He was stringent in sticking to causing as little non-econ/ind/mil damage as possible but when one needs to come up with a reason they lost a war without really losing it, certain poetic licenses are taken, such as Sherman sowing fields with the charred corpses of white babies and lighting every building on fire as he passed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
Sunshine Mix posted:I've always been interested in the Falklands War. I'm pretty familiar with most of the high-level strategic stuff; any recommendations books concerning tactics or the experiences of men on the ground/at sea? You'll have probably read Sharkey Ward's Sea Harrier book? Rick Jolly has written a couple of books (I think) on the medical side of things that were quite ' men on the ground'. There's any number, really, of 'experience' books. If you're interested in South Georgia then Operation Paraquat is good - from a general history point of view, but then the forces involved were small enough that individual actions are covered quite a lot. Unfortunately relatively rare and expensive these days. Sorry I cannot be of more help (and hoping I'm remembering correctly) - I'm away from my books at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 01:42 |
|
|
Mazz posted:That is essentially what tandem HEAT do. You have two HEAT charges on the same projectile, the first one smaller to trigger the ERA, a precursor charge, and then the second larger one. This is why you'll see modern RPG-7 rounds that are longer then some of which you're used to. More modern ERA like Relikt is supposed to combat this somewhat, not sure of the details though. The way 'heavy' ERA like Relikt resists tandem charge is very simple, there is armor plate over the ERA charges ! Something like 30mm at 60 degrees IIRC, it's not that much but it's enough to resist the small precursor charges on tandem charge ATGM and incidental autocannon fire. In that vein, i thought you guys might appreciate some pictures of what relatively modern armor arrays look like, so here is a T-72B turret cut open :  And here is what is very likely the beginnings of Burlington armor as a proposed Chieftain upgrade, and probably fairly similar to what is in Abrams/Leopard2/Challenger to this day :  Those are both rubber core sandwiched between steel plates, commonly described as NERA. Very similar concepts as you can plainly see. As a bonus, have a CIA report from 1980 that is, in a very professional and measured tone, freaking the hell out about the T-72 : http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/DOC_0000624298.pdf Kafouille fucked around with this message at 01:12 on Nov 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 01:09
|
|
