Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Considering losing mobility in a poor sight line position can essentially write off a tank for the run of the battle, and mobility is the primary  defence against US then definitely Era side panels would be vital.

Edited by kinophile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTR,

You, sir, have the keen eye and deep understanding of a trained intel analyst. I am most impressed with your meticulously documented work and am grateful you are sharing it with us. Every time you post, I learn something new, though I confess I can't always follow everything you're saying, since I'm stuck with a significantly out of date knowledge base and an unfamiliarity with so much of what you effortlessly spit out. In detail.

Regards,

John Kettler

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering losing mobility in a poor sight line position can essentially write off a tank for the run of the battle, and mobility is the primary  defence against US then definitely Era side panels would be vital.

Those aren't there to protect tracks, but to protect crew from engagements in the forward 60° arc.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lzfvGSP9y8k/Uk4xJUeuYLI/AAAAAAAAA2M/lSmrT6o35KA/s1600/hit+distribution+chart+1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since this is a armor topic, I was playing a QB and my RPG-7 gunner launched a thermobaric round at a humvee and the round hit directly onto the front hood over the engine. And he reversed out of there. Now of course I'm not angry because I still got a total victory, But that needs to be looked into. I have been noticing the humvee is extremely armored for its size and purpose. While at it, Up to what caliber can the up armored humvees stop?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vladimir Tarasov,

From what I know of FAE, there should be no Hummer, as such, remaining. While I freely grant Hellfire II (AGM-114N) with MAC (Metal Augmented Charge) is bigger than the RPG's thermobaric warhead, notice what's said under capabilities for the former. Bold is mine. Given this statement of the power of thermobaric warheads to kill light armor, I'd think a direct hit would blow the daylights out of the vehicle. I would also point out that Russian superiority in explosives over the US was reported in Soviet Military Power and briefed explicitly in terms of the enormous potency of aluminum enhanced explosive to a bunch of defense contractor threat analysts at a SECRET/NOFORN/WNINTEL conference held at the CIA in 1985 in which the agency brought in all its SMEs (Subject Matter Experts) to give us the shocking lowdown. This was the Year of the Spy, and the CIA was running scared, causing it to be uncharacteristically open in explaining how things really were in terms of military-technical capabilities of US vs Russia. Back then, the US was in a terrifyingly deep hole. Talking traumatized, near catatonic attendees at the conference as the real life horror story relentlessly unfolded.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/agm-114n.htm
 

(Fair Use)

The missile is also effective against caves, light armor, trucks, radar vans, buildings, light bunkers, command and control sites, patrol boats, light ships, the superstructure of heavy ships, deck mounted weapons systems and troop concentrations.

(Fair Use)

The thermobaric RPG warhead detonation ought, based on my understanding of the way FAE works, to wreck the tires--as an absolute minimum. The overpressure should simply shred them. Worse, if it's any sort of Hummer with a weapon mount on top, this means the explosive cloud can enter the fighting compartment before it detonates. Ick! There's also the not so small matter of what happens in the engine compartment. On balance, I see no basis whatsoever, barring a dud warhead, for an armored Hummer to take a direct hit as you described and survive as a fighting vehicle at all, never mind coming out unscathed.  Additionally, Gordon Rottman, in his Osprey book The Rocket Propelled Grenade, page 51, describes RPGs with thermobaric warheads and clearly states they can defeat light armor. Please ignore the bizarre Salamanca 1812 book graphic in the sidebar.

Regards,

John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are examples from the war in eastern Ukraine and Syria on termabar grenades can destroy the objects such as BTR-80, BMP-2 and even the T-64. But the majority of the crews of BMP-2 and T-64 prefer to fight with open hatches.
that is the car after TBG-7

 http://rusvesna.su/sites/default/files/styles/orign_wm/public/sozhzhennyy_transporter_betmen.jpg?itok=2pBVA3ql

that is BTR 80 after TBG-7 http://forumimage.ru/uploads/20090614/12450055438995605.jpg

that is bmp-2 after TBG-7 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9UuqdWlF2k

about t-64 only stories

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry for doble post.

I ask http://lostarmour.info community members to tell me some cool stories about thermobar VS armor

1. http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/2887/931/original.jpg?w=800&h this ukrainian tank was destroyed by multiple rpg and thermobaric hits, rebels call 8 hits and then + 2 RPO hits. That was T-64bv.

2. http://lostarmour.info/media/images/id3549-07.jpg this two BMPs was killed by RPO. http://lostarmour.info/media/images/id3550-02.jpg the big hole is too big for any caliber

3. http://lostarmour.info/media/images/id4788-05.jpg this BTR-3E is candidate, RPO

4. http://lostarmour.info/media/images/id5941-01.jpg this is last

That's only gossips, no 100% facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this BTR-3E is candidate, RPO

 

 

About BTR-3E guys from "Azov" (that was their APC, lost during battle for Shyrokyne) told it was hit from the tank, but HEAT or HE shell blew up on the cage armor. Driver was wounded, but all crew successfully escaped. 

Edited by Haiduk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

About BTR-3E guys from "Azov" (that was their APC, lost during battle for Shyrokyne) told it was hit from the tank, but HEAT or HE shell blew up on the cage armor. Driver was wounded, but all crew successfully escaped. 

yes, RPO -  is jast version from pro-russian rebels

id4788-01.jpg

Edited by Wieking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wieking,

Bravo on the scary pics and video.  After seeing that stuff, I may need counseling!

Vladimir Tarasov,

Very happy to help in any way I can. Sometimes my oft outdated (started becoming obsolete beginning mid '89) RUS weapon knowledge base is still germane, as it was here. Nor does it hurt there was some decent material available online which was current.

Haiduk,

Those Azoz boys had a very nice ride, considering that it had all the bells and whistles on it of a modern AFV (30 mm auto cannon, advanced ATGM, full gun stabilization, thermals, etc.)

Conclusion

Clearly, the RPO-A and TBG-7 are to be avoided at all costs by light armor for sure and maybe MBTs, both for real and in CMBS. Additionally, I am now certain I made the correct call regarding the survival expectancy of that armored Hummer from a direct TBG-7 hit. Barring a dud, it seems to me only a question of in how many ways, and how spectacularly, it was killed.

Regards,

John Kettler

 

Edited by John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wieking,

Bravo on the scary pics and video.  After seeing that stuff, I may need counseling!

Conclusion

Clearly, the RPO-A and TBG-7 are to be avoided at all costs by light armor for sure and maybe MBTs, both for real and in CMBS. Additionally, I am now certain I made the correct call regarding the survival expectancy of that armored Hummer from a direct TBG-7 hit. Barring a dud, it seems to me only a question of in how many ways, and how spectacularly, it was killed.

Regards,

John Kettler

 

sorry about that.

Its also important that some Humvee's have frag kit 6 armor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frag_kit_6

Whis this armor humvee have 12 inches (300 mm) of armor on each side of the vehicle, more than any BTR. I gues weak points are - armor glasses, wheels and open turret. Some crew's can be wounded, maybe killed, and vehicle immobilized as minimum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haiduk,

Those Azoz boys had a very nice ride, considering that it had all the bells and whistles on it of a modern AFV (30 mm auto cannon, advanced ATGM, full gun stabilization, thermals, etc.)

 

"Azov" is a regular National Guard unit (officially they named "special purpose detachment "Azov") and they are under protection of minister of Internal Affairs Avakov, so they equipped with large number of modern small arms of "Fort" weapon factory (Israeli clones), APCs BTR-3E, Cougar, Shreck, has tank company and artillery battalion. More, they train own personnel by own programs, which differ from state program for National Guard and has own TO&E structure, differ from other NG units.

Edited by Haiduk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as I was supposing in 2014, 12.7mm made it onto the T-90MS as it would have for Ru MoD contract. 

Well at last guessed a normal machine gun to put, instead of foolish PKT of 7,62 mm.

Ну наконец то додумались нормальный пулемёт поставить , вместо дурацкого ПКТ 7,62 мм .

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as I was supposing in 2014, 12.7mm made it onto the T-90MS as it would have for Ru MoD contract.

 

Why does Armata have PKT then, if such is inevitable?

p.s. 12.7mm on T-90MS was seen on static display at RAE this year, but cool to see it in action.  Also nice interior shots.

Edited by akd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does Armata have PKT then, if such is inevitable?

p.s. 12.7mm on T-90MS was seen on static display at RAE this year, but cool to see it in action.  Also nice interior shots.

What we saw on the parade were factory trial vehicles, not army trial ones. I am almost willing to bet money army trial versions have 12.7 loud-out, and that 12.7 is a serious point in the requirements.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did a bit of a "ideal gas" situation test.

Parameters:

  • Conditions perfect, noon, visibility 100%. 
  • T-90MA - 2A46M-5 gun firing 3VBM22 or 3VBM23 on a M1A2 SEP V2 at 3981m rage/ crew veteran/ Leadership 0.
  • M1A2 Sep. V2 M256A1 gun firing M829A4 at a T-90MA at 3980m range/ crew veteran/ Leadership +1.

Results:

T-90MA engaging M1A2 SEP V2:

Hit - weapon > 120mm cannon destroyed
Miss
Hit - weapon mount > 12.7mm MG destroyed
Hit - left front turret > no penetration
Miss
Miss
Hit - left front turret> no penetration
Miss
Miss
Hit - lower front hull> no penetration
Hit - upper front hull> no penetration
Miss
Hit - weapon mount> penetration/ casualty> commander/ 7.62mm coax destroyed/ CITV destroyed/ IR optics destroyed/ FBCB2 destroyed
Reload test
Hit - lower front hull> no penetration
Hit - right front turret> no penetration
Miss
Miss
Hit - lower front hull> armor spalling/ no damage
Miss
Hit - weapon mount> partial penetration/ no damage
Miss
Hit - left front turret> no penetration
Miss
Miss
Hit - upper front hull
End test

Seems alright. Weird weapons mount penetration, but otherwise fine. I'm not sure whether upper front hull on an M1A2 would handle an APFSDS even at 4k meters, however I lack indication that it wouldn't. 

M1A2 SEP V2 engaging T-90MA:

Miss 
Hit - weapon mount> penetration> knocked out through catastrophic explosion (!) 
Reload test
Miss 
Hit - forward top hull (hatch area)> penetration> knocked out, two crew survived.
Reload test
Miss 
Miss
Hit - ERA (front glacis)> no penetration
Hit - lower left hull (hit mark shows track area)> penetration> knocked out, two crew survived.
Reload test
Hit - superstructure front hull (right side)> penetration> knocked out through catastrophic explosion (!)
Reload test
Miss
Hit - lower front hull (center)> penetration> knocked out through catastrophic explosion.
Reload test
Hit - superstructure front hull (far left side)> penetration> destroyed, all crew survived.
Reload test
Miss
Hit - front turret (?)> penetration> knocked out through catastrophic explosion (!)
End test

This seems a little wonky to me. 87.5% chance to frontally knock out a T-90MA at 4km from first round, 71.4% chance to cause a catastrophic detonation at 4km frontally. I might be missing something, but a catastrophic detonation through an HMG weapon mount? Lower left, lower center and hatch hull penetrations are legit, but landing frontal center glacis shots that cause that much damage at 4km? I wander if anyone has data to support such weapon effectiveness.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The M829A4 will still probably punch through 680mm of armor at 4000 meters and was designed to defeat Relikt . If the round  defeats Relikt (75-80% of the time)  the  base armor is less than 680mm on most of the frontal turret and frontal Hull. So I guess this is what the game intends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does it cause a nuclear explosion almost every single time? I could see such overmatch at 1000-1500m or so, where frontal penetration may be enough to reach the autoloader and whatever ammo that is stored vertically behind it (3+m LOS), but to assume that happens at 4000m? Really feels like reading a marketing brochure or something. 

Share this post


Link to post
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
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...