Jump to content

Ainet as Trophy Killer, Sensor Wrecker & Paving the Way for Abrams Kill


Recommended Posts

It occurs to me that, were the requisite coding available, it might make a great deal of military sense to hit an Abrams frontally at longer ranges with Ainet, then hit it with KE. The idea would be to destroy APS, if present, and do substantial damage to things like the visionics, optics, LWR, wind sensor, radio antennas, CROWs and other things on top, with a potential bonus of distracting and maybe disrupting the crew. Conceivably, a single Ainet burst might be enough to cripple an Abrams all by itself, effectively knocking the tank out of the battle as a weapon. The idea I've presented is somewhat akin to the 30 mm stripping of Abrams as a prelude to engagement by many other weapons, just does the stripping in one shot APS can't counter. Thoughts?

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

akd,

 

I was thinking of ranges at which the Russians can't guarantee a penetration. It appears that "can penetrate" distance is now out to 2000 meters. I don't know what sort of damage a nonpenetrating hit does beyond that, so am presently in no position to say what sort of damage a hit of that sort to turret or hull might produce, relative to the sorts of damage I've already indicated should be achievable via Ainet.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MikeyD,

 

Grog specialization continues apace, I see. Austrian municipality grog! As for Ainet, (apparently not an acronym), Fofanov lists the lethal range as 200-500 meters, three times as much as for a ground burst! Believe I'll rule out Infantry in my (next incarnation) military career plans. Ainet works with any HE-Frag round. All the magic is in the special 3V-21 detonator.  Just thought of something else. Since the range is set before firing, and Ainet therefore doesn't rely on LBR, even if the Abrams shrouds itself in obscurant, the Ainet fuzed HE-Frag still goes boom at the range and azimuth planned. 

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: 200-500 meters

 

I think he's quoting max lethal effects range, or basically the distance at which fragmentation effects become entirely safe.  If it was possible to get such results from 3 KG of explosives and a special fuze, we'd be seeing a lot more flipping out about this/single artillery shells sweeping 4 KM clear of all life

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: 200-500 meters

 

I think he's quoting max lethal effects range, or basically the distance at which fragmentation effects become entirely safe.  If it was possible to get such results from 3 KG of explosives and a special fuze, we'd be seeing a lot more flipping out about this/single artillery shells sweeping 4 KM clear of all life

 

Yep. Fuze and baseplug of older F1/Mills bomb/Mk2 hand grenade can fly up to 300-400 meters, but that sure ain't the reported or realistic effective casualty radius of such grenades.  :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously, that figure is vs infantry, probably the short sleeves only variety. Clearly, not goodies on a tank rooftop, some of which live in armored housings. I did, think, though, the lethal range quoted was pretty disturbing. That was why I said what I did about future career choices.

 

Given the apparent ability of Ainet fuzed shells to go off pretty much atop the target, I think we're looking at a burst directly above or very close laterally  to the tank roof, with only a couple of meters separation from the targeted devices, if that. The frag density, never mind blast, at that range ought to shred the top of the turret, wreaking havoc on everything up there. Theoretically, the result would be a lot of damage to previously named systems, but I think there's a real possibility of an F-Kill (gun barrel) and maybe crew casualties via hatch penetration. Speccing an AFV to survive an airburst shell is one thing, but there's a huge difference between an 18 meter airburst and one more like 2 or even 1 meter above the target. The original Bradley spec was, I believe 152 mm at 18 meters AGL. No survivability planner ever tests against the kind of attack I'm proposing. The best outcome I can see for such an event, barring a US miracle, is a badly franged tank.  

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just going to keep it short and say:

 

No.

 

You'll stand an okay chance at inflicting some damage to the CROWS, simply because it's a lot of not especially well armored stuff, loader's M240 too maybe.  Hatches can take that, and the GPS/CITV  (GPS ironically by both armor, and the fact the CROW itself is bolted on top of it) are pretty well proofed against airbursts, even pretty weak near ones.  Some of the anenntas might get mauled, I think the radio ones unless it's a direct hit on the mount ought to be fine, but the sat stuff is not especially protected from the top for obvious reasons.

 

On the other hand because you need to lase the target to get that first shot in, you've likely alerted the Abrams, and he's now trying to murder you with a round that does have high lethality. 

 

If near airbursts were: 

 

 

 

The best outcome I can see for such an event, barring a US miracle, is a badly franged tank.  

 

Things like the US STAFF round, or other AT weapons that rely on overflight wouldn't require such precision to achieve effects. As the case is the maturation of airburst is a good reason to have another go at STAFF....but airbursting a fairly small charge is not going to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the subject of stripping stuff off: in-game, 50cals (not sure about the Russian/Ukrainian equivalents) will open up on full MBTs without player intervention and strip them of IR optics, radio, APS and smoke launchers if given enough time. It generally takes around 1.5 minutes of firing, but it has that effect.

Edited by Apocal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In WWII US tankers made heavy and effective use of *smoke rounds* to defend against the otherwise unbeatable big cats. A scathing tankers' report sent to Eisenhower late in the war about US tank capabilities praised the smoke shell alone while blasting virtually everything else. The point is - there is a long history of countering an armor threat by 'any means necessary' if your armor piercing capabilities aren't measuring up. If you're not penetrating them frontally then you're dropping smoke or artillery or autocannon fire or napalm or God-knows-what else on top of them to get the job done. I'm not sure how an airburst round is necessarily any better than a contact burst round to bust up externals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

panzersaurkrautwerfer,

 

You may be right, but my gut sense is that the shell is a lot more impressive, in terminal effects, than you think. Also, it's going off in such a way that the most effective part of the frag spray hits the top of the tank. Contrast this with Krasnopol, which lands in such a way that it's mostly relatively weak forward spray, and what frag effect there is laterally has to go through the roof armor at the worst angle for penetration. Contrast that with the Ainet fuzed detonation geometry. 23 kg shell, of which a skosh over 3 kg is explosive. It's going off directly over the tank, which is getting hit with a walloping blast (turret jam and such?) and the densest part of the frag pattern. I think your damage estimates are highly conservative because of these factors.  Lasing the target is a bit problematic, but as noted earlier, popping obscurant won't save the Abrams from that airburst. After that, theoretically, the Abrams should be much easier to deal with.

 

I really don't have a handle yet on what range the Abrams has to be to be more or less unkillable frontally by KE, but the reality, I think, is that the Russians are going to have to get creative to defeat it. I think systems like Kornet would've worked well before, but now with ERA and APS, they're not all that useful. Not sure how fast the TLGMs travel. They may or may not exceed the target velocity range of the APS. For Arena, that's 700 m/sec. No clue on the Trophy end of things. In any event, the great counter to US tank gun range advantage, the TLGM, looks pretty iffy, too. These issues ar eprecisely why I came up with the idea I did. 

 

Concur STAFF could be a winner in such a scenario, though I have no idea how EFP would fare vs rooftop ERA. It may be too quick or not "read" by the ERA as a big enough "stimulus." I've seen the TOW 2B vs T-72 vid, but don't recall whether it had rooftop ERA and if so, how much. Clearly, that warhead is murder vs an unprotected T-72 roof.

 

MikeyD,

 

Wasn't the smoke round  in question WP? I've read accounts where a Sherman crew, upon suddenly encountering a King Tiger, let fly with WP, set external crew gear on fire, and the smoke got sucked into the fighting compartment by the ventilators. The crew thought the tank proper was on fire and abandoned ship. Straight HE in the puss is, in my view, probably going to be less damaging than the same shell close airburst because it's going to hit the best protected part of the tank, not the worst. I think we'd all agree that it's easier to get through, say, 40 mm than 1300 mm. Thus, airburst seems by far the better choice. Let's say that you guys run some numbers in-house and conclude my proposed attack would do some real damage. Or maybe not as much as I believe will be the case. Regardless, it then becomes a matter of letting us do it by explicitly permitting direct targeting of the tank, which, I believe, the AI isn't "trained" to do presently. 

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: WP

 

It had to do with causing the ventilation system on the target tank to ingest the special happy fun super-thick smoke WP produces.  Given the nature of fires in tanks, the decision cycle to bail out of the tank is usually truncated without the proper inquiry to if the outside of the tank is the on fire part or not.  Also a hit going off on the frontal slope would totally ruin whatever aim the German tank had, crew evacuation our not.

 

Re: Oh god why are we still talking about this

 

There's two separate issues to discuss: Why airbursts are not the tank eliminator, and why replicating tactics that don't exist based on internet warrior ideas is bad.

 

a. As stated, the impact of a PD fused weapon on the tank apparently is not able to knock out a tank.  This is pretty well established, and agreed on.  The question is however, why a much smaller explosive charge exploding away from the vehicle will result in anything but inferior effects.  Here's some things to consider:

 

1. The Precision type artillery rounds (which have much larger warheads and destructive potential than the HE type tank rounds) have all been tested, and indeed to some degree designed to be capable against armor type targets.  None of them use this apparently tank blinding/crushing/better than PD airburst attack.  They all point detonate because people who are still paid to do these things have determined point, or point delayed type fuze are the only rounds that really are worthwhile shooting at tank type targets.

 

2. VT can be set for different altitudes.  If airburst is a highly lethal tank maimer, why are anti-vehicle missions still this inferior PD system?

 

3. Abrams especially has been hit by close airburst analogs.  In Iraq for a time the insurgents were strapping IEDs to overpasses because Jubul Al Kettlar or something told them it would render the tank a mission kill.  In practice it shredded topside gear, but did not effect the tank significantly.  It was a different story with truck type targets obviously, but outside of EFPs, massive IEDs (like aviation bomb derived ones), and RPG-29 from flank/top shots, there wasn't much that was reliable against M1s.  

 

 

Either way as a tangent, we all place way too much emphasis on max range standoff shoots.  It's not a realistic representation of engagements, and even further down the road, engagement with marginal tactics at long range is....dumb.  The better tactic is to use what you have to force the enemy to fight at your optimal range, rather than trying to figure out if you strap enough tinfoil to a AT-14, it'll convince the APS sensors that it's actually a low flying commercial jetliner (Which of course subjects it to BUK intercept)

 

b.  Making up tactics that troops might, or might not try based upon backseat quarterback opinions from the internet is questionable.  If the Russian manuals advocated a airburst over the tank and a sabot chaser, then bam, should be in the game, but we go down a slippery slope when we start including behaviors based on player "if I was a tankman!" ideas.  We're playing this game to see broadly realistic behavior, not what forum user #120 would do if he was a T-90 commander.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are not all back seat quarter backs, neither are all of us illiterate in languages other than english and unable to read manuals.

Anycase, engagement of mbt by mbt favours the shot of glatgm.

Also, no such documentation would exist at present because Russia does bot face enemy with aps. So your point is irrelevant about doctrine.

Edited by Stagler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he's coming onto me.  This makes me very uncomfortable.

 

 

 

Anycase, engagement of mbt by mbt favours the shot of glatgm.

 

Interesting idea.  That said no.  Your average tank engagement range will favor the gun round.

 

 

 

Also, no such documentation would exist at present because Russia does bot face enemy with aps. So your point is irrelevant about doctrine. 

Russian anti-robot plans are actually pretty well documented.  In terms of how they'd react to an APS based enemy, again if there was something showing a pattern of thought away from the forum, cool, got it.  On the other hand if we start backseat tanking everything, we start wandering into trying to figure out how TOWs would be employed in an APS environment, and we're seeing less "this is a reasonable guess at how a tank crew behaves" and more "this is how the forum thinks a crew should behave"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

panzersaurkrautwerfer,

 

I previously explained why I thought the Ainet was more dangerous to the tank than the Krasnopol. The kind of airburst I'm talking about is way closer than the typical VT HOB. The Ainet type engagement is more akin to a contact detonation, with the shell lying on the tank roof, than it is to they typical VT shoot. Full marks for Jabul Al Kettlar. That was so arch (had to say it) funny and unexpected I had a very nice laugh out of it. Was unaware of IEDs on the underside of underpasses. Of what did they consist, and what was the standoff range? If you're talking about, say, a 122 howitzer shell going off directly above the tank with maybe 2 meter clearance between IED and the tank roof, and the tank emerging largely unscathed, then maybe my idea flat out won't work. If it's something else altogether, such as a weapon mostly blast producing, then it may not tell us much regarding the situation under discussion here.

 

Stagler,

 

 I'm not sure whom you're characterizing as "backseat quarterbacks," but I was deeply involved (11 years and change) in a whole series of military programs, many specifically geared toward killing tanks: Maverick, WASP, TOW and Assault Breaker, among others.

 

Russia not only has begun thinking about APS, it has fielded one such response, the RPG-30. I strongly suspect there are other goodies, of the guided sort, likely to have similar features. It's a good thing miniaturization has progressed the way it has, for we're now seeing the PENAID emerge as an important tool in beating, or at least degrading, APS.

 

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/11/20/rpg-30-unveiled-the-m1-abrams-killer/

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of what did they consist, and what was the standoff range? If you're talking about, say, a 122 howitzer shell going off directly above the tank with maybe 2 meter clearance between IED and the tank roof, and the tank emerging largely unscathed, then maybe my idea flat out won't work. If it's something else altogether, such as a weapon mostly blast producing, then it may not tell us much regarding the situation under discussion here.

 

The composition was mixed, but it was fragment-producing. Many water coolers were lost, RIP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Was unaware of IEDs on the underside of underpasses. Of what did they consist, and what was the standoff range? 

 

Drive under your average American highway overpass/underpass and that's about spot on.  Truck size is one of those universal logistical constraints, so they're all pretty much within a pretty narrow spectrum of height.  In terms of composition, 100% your most common devices were simply some manner of explosive projectile, wired to a remote detonator until we found ways to deal with those (then it turned to command wire, and later various improvised pressure plates/IR triggers).  Your projectile size varied, but 122 MM, 152 MM given their common status in the old Iraq Army were very common, as were various tank shells.  Occasionally you'd see odd stuff (aircraft bombs) or old stuff (mortar rounds the insurgents didn't trust to shoot often became anti-personnel IEDs, or even simply decoy/distraction elements to draw attention from a larger device), but rest assured, if the Soviets sold some manner of HE device to the Iraqis, there's examples of it being used as an IED.

 

Either way Apocal's comment is about right, those sort of fragmentation devices murdered externally stored coolers and baggage, spiderwebbed armored glass, but generally even fairly modest standoff was enough for heavier vehicles to just out and out shrug off if the IED was based around fragmentation effects, even from above.

 

 

 

 I'm not sure whom you're characterizing as "backseat quarterbacks," but I was deeply involved (11 years and change) in a whole series of military programs, many specifically geared toward killing tanks: Maverick, WASP, TOW and Assault Breaker, among others.

 

And that's cool and all, but it's like, I was an armor officer for eight years, but I could not tell you much at all about setting up an artillery PAA despite it being something related to my job field.  You're talking about a lot of anti-tank systems, but they're all ones involving pretty massive, or very focused AT warheads.  Additionally you've never really cleared up what you did with said systems, but from your other stories it sounds like you were not part of the warhead team, which is to say you might be able to tell us lots about an ATGM as a system, but in terms of specific anti-tank effects, you might not be as good as someone who has exposure to both tanks and at least access to some understanding of how said tanks deal with certain weapons effects.

 

 

 

To me, as a gamer, we are wandering into Steel Beasts territory, not CM.  The level of detail expected means some people might be playing the wrong game.

 

I concur with this statement.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that's cool and all, but it's like, I was an armor officer for eight years, but I could not tell you much at all about setting up an artillery PAA despite it being something related to my job field.  You're talking about a lot of anti-tank systems, but they're all ones involving pretty massive, or very focused AT warheads.  Additionally you've never really cleared up what you did with said systems, but from your other stories it sounds like you were not part of the warhead team, which is to say you might be able to tell us lots about an ATGM as a system, but in terms of specific anti-tank effects, you might not be as good as someone who has exposure to both tanks and at least access to some understanding of how said tanks deal with certain weapons effects.

 

Word of advice: be very, very, very skeptical of anything John Kettler writes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

panzersaurkrautwerfer,

 

I was the Soviet Threat Analyst for the OA (Operations Analysis) department of Hughes MSG (Missile Systems Group), Canoga Park, California from February 14, 1978-September 12, 1984.  We did weapon effectiveness, countermeasures, force on force modeling, established performance requirements, developed lateral and new applications of existing weapons for an array of tactical missiles and related weapons, many of which were antitank and other categories of strike. I was also involved in a strategic program. Did I design the warheads? No. Was I intimately involved? Absolutely. Did I have access to warhead performance data? Yes. I worked independently and in teams on the systems I named. I was privy to the results of classified warhead tests for a bunch of antitank weapons from Maverick through the Skeet submunition on Assault Breaker. I've spent time in JMEM when it consisted of a huge stack of giant orange binders, most classified, including the one which meticulously analyzed (wonderful pics) tank kill causation in the 1967 War. I've studied the WSEG (Weapon System Evaluation Group) report on the Yom Kippur War. I've pored over analyses of all sorts of attacks, including reviewing and assessing strike video before any analysis was readily available. I spent a great deal of time trying to figure out how to kill various Russian targets. All at once or piecemeal by beating down individual weapon systems on a strike cruiser absent a big enough weapon to do the job. I've also worked DAS issues for US AFVs. Laser guided AS-9 and AS-10 were very scary in their time, and M113s were quite killable even from a near miss.  Additionally, I used to personally and privately consult for Dr. Hans Mauer, who was CTO for MSG, ex- Paperclip scientist and technical genius. One such discussion ultimately resulted in TOW 2B Aero. I've worked in all of the following weapon areas: antitank, air-to-air, air-to-ground, antiship, runway attack and rapid repair, SAM, DEW, Deep Strike, Spec Ops, anti SUAWACS and more.  

 

As I said before, I've never served; I have spent, all told, a few hours in operational tanks in the field; haven't been shot at, been mined or broken track in a swamp. I'm perfectly happy to learn from those lie you who've been in combat, including my now retired brother George, who have years of experience. Indeed, I relish and appreciate getting the insider perspective of the BTDT crowd, whether still serving or retired. I am a lifelong student of weapons and war. I freely grant my knowledge base is badly out of date in places, but a great deal of what I learned is still quite useful. I'm glad I made the suggestion I did, for it's taught me a great deal in the process. If it's not operationally viable in real world terms, therefore even theoretically in game terms, I'm fine with that.

 

If my memory of underpass height is correct, then I'd say that a static detonated 122 from above is a bit high as far as my estimated Ainet HOB (1-2 m), but certainly should give at least some sense of what to expect. Igloo thanks the insurgents for increasing cooler sales via KBR!

 

LukeFF,

 

I do wish you'd stop confusing your unit motto with acceptable social behavior--which yours isn't.  Your compulsive need to snipe at me indicates insecurity on your part and doesn't reflect well on you. 

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's cool and all, but I'm just leaving active service with the US Army, having served in both in armored cavalry (in the post BCT reorganization days), and combined arms battalions.  I went to Iraq twice (with associated train-ups and exposure to CALL documents, NTC and JRTC rotations), and spent the last part of my career in South Korea.  I was pretty well versed in threat/not a threat type systems both conventional and unconventional.  As much as there's this image of the Army brainwashing us to be blind lemmings, convinced of how invulnerable we were, this really is not the case, we were all pretty well aware of our mortality and things that could ruin our day (sort of important in the sense of making intelligent choices in not getting killed).  I could ramble on more about what I know, but that's the pertinent part.

 

A near, fragmentation type round explosion from above would have me worried about:

 

1. My CROWS.  It's not well armored and if it's well peppered there's a good chance of it being knocked out

2. BFT antenna. It's fairly flat, and unarmored from the top (which makes sense as it's sort of hard to transmit/receive through armored plate).  

3. Loader's MG. 

4. Personal gear on top of the tank and tools stored in the sponson boxes. 

5. Radio antennas.  Given the small size of the mounts, and the flexibility of the antenna itself, it'd take some very lucky fragments to get both of them, but a hit would be pretty annoying

 

I'd worry a bit about the CITV but that's just because I'm protective of it.  Open hatches would be super bad day, but against fragmentation effects they're pretty sturdy.  

 

All the same it's almost like arguing I should open an engagement under 1000 meters with canister, because that would do some pretty major damage to optics, ERA, possibly gun tube etc.  Which is true, but none of those effects are especially sure, and my odds of killing the tank are pretty much zero.  Even if Russian ERA worked as well as they claimed against sabots (which is another eeeeh conversation), I'd still feel safer firing a sabot as it stands a better chance of finishing the fight.  

 

On the other end of the stick, if I was using T-90s to face down Abrams, I would:

 

1. On the defense, select terrain that set my engagement areas at sub 1000 meter ranges, or if that was not possible, I would keep the tanks turret down, keep a scout/FO team observering the approach, then initiate with artillery and massed tank fire once the lethality gap was closed

 

2. On the offense is trickier.  I would still lead with artillery if possible to suppress the tank.  Again the optimal engagement is the sub-1000 meter range, so closing using terrain is usually a good idea.  Also massing on part of the defense would be clever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...