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

[John Kettler]

panzersaurkrautwerfer,

 

Thanks much for sharing this! The enumeration of what you're worried about is helpful. If the shell goes off a close as I anticipate it would, what would you expect in terms of blast damage? Or are the vulnerable items also a product of blast as well as frag? I understand your points about 1000 meters or less being desirable, but what I'm looking for is something doable at ranges where KE simply can't cut it frontally, in an environment in which the already formidable Abrams has ERA and may well have APS, greatly degrading (euphemism) RPGs-top attack incapable ATGMs. The T-90AM, from what I can tell, has the thermals to take on the Abrams out to 4000 meters, more than adequate for most engagements, but it simply lacks the killing power at much beyond half that distance, though I don't know where that penetration breakpoint begins. Your canister remark is both facile and intriguing, but canister is muzzle action only. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cgn1nhUEgo8#t=74

 

Now, if you had something like APERS-T, but with the tungsten balls instead of flechettes, I believe you could do all sorts of mischief, out to whatever range you might desire. The Russians, though, have no canister for engagement at knife fight distances (700 m or less), and the only APERS they have that I know of is for last ditch defense of their 122 and 152 FA. I expect we'll see a lot experimentation as Russian players work frantically to find a proper recipe for Fricassee of Abrams. Quite the tank. Sometimes, we don't get SGT Yorks out of the weapon design pipeline! It took us a very long time to get a proper modern MBT in the field, but when we did...

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

[Stagler]

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"

Ha! Murican brings his language someone else is speaking into a joke! So funny yes! Ha!

Glagtm is loaded to engage mbt. It has higher hit probability and greater effectiveness against HATO armour with dual warhead and inferior Russian sabot.

[LukeFF]

Murican 

 

You're really getting obnoxious with the use of that term.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

But it makes him hip and edgy!  

 

 

 

Glagtm is loaded to engage mbt. It has higher hit probability and greater effectiveness against HATO armour with dual warhead and inferior Russian sabot. 

 

But it loses the "who's bullet gets there first" race.  At very long range this is negated by the difficulty of long range shooting by non-missile tanks, but generally sabot is a preferred round for tank vs tank at ranges below 3 KM or so.  

 

I mean the GLATGM might be your only choice if you're in certain vehicles, but it's still inferior to a good sabot.  

[Vanir Ausf B]

And with the latest FCS the accuracy claim is suspects as well. At least within Black Sea, first shot sabot accuracy for all tanks is 90+% at 2000 meters (assuming stationary shooter and target).

[Battlefront.com]

You're really getting obnoxious with the use of that term.

Yes, it's out of line. Stagler, either debate the topic or stop posting. Insulting and attacking a person is a sure way to get yourself banned.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

But it loses the "who's bullet gets there first" race.  At very long range this is negated by the difficulty of long range shooting by non-missile tanks, but generally sabot is a preferred round for tank vs tank at ranges below 3 KM or so.  

 

I mean the GLATGM might be your only choice if you're in certain vehicles, but it's still inferior to a good sabot.

Not only inferior in terms of battlefield application, but also in terms of logistics. How many GLATGM can an individual vehicle have vs. SABOT? How may GLATGM can a nation viably stockpile vs. SABOT from an economic standpoint?

Understand that this has nothing to do with a specific nation's equipment, rather it is a straight forward issue of logistics. It is why the US doesn't drive around with vehicles exclusively armed with JAVELIN or TOW-2.

Steve

[Apocal]

Not only inferior in terms of battlefield application, but also in terms of logistics. How many GLATGM can an individual vehicle have vs. SABOT? How may GLATGM can a nation viably stockpile vs. SABOT from an economic standpoint?

 

I doubt it matters much. The cost of AFV rounds is insignificant compared to the cost of fuel, maintenance and manpower.

[Battlefront.com]

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

In way of a "no kidding, eh?" support of this statement, look at the modifications to Strykers fighting in Iraq c.2006. Early on the Stykers were found to be able to defeat HEAT RPG rounds, but often the soldiers pulling duty topside became casualties. An angled strip of armor was placed around the outer edge of the Stryker specifically to defend against "RPG splash". Not to say a SABOT through the hull would have made anybody happy, just pointing out that the US clearly recognized a specific and real threat and created a countermeasure for it. Similar things have been done to Abrams and Bradleys too, as well as fresh designs for MRAPS and Humvees.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

I doubt it matters much. The cost of AFV rounds is insignificant compared to the cost of fuel, maintenance and manpower.

Oh, it matters. A SABOT round for the Abrams costs roughly 1/10th as much as a Javelin. Multiply that by the number of Abrams out there and what a typical tank burns through when it is in a combat situation and you'll see that the number crunchers aren't going to skip over this one.

Now, if we were talking about the SABOT costing $8 and the Javelin $80 then I don't think anybody would care much. But we're talking about $8,000 vs. $80,000. Big difference.

Plus, there is still the logistics argument about how many rounds can be stored and the other argument about how quickly they can be mass produced. If you're in a war and you can't produce ammo fast enough to meet demands, that's generally considered a bad thing And this happened with several conventional rounds during OIF, which in part led to the astronomical prices of ammunition for us US civilians.

Steve

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

And with the latest FCS the accuracy claim is suspects as well. At least within Black Sea, first shot sabot accuracy for all tanks is 90+% at 2000 meters (assuming stationary shooter and target)

 

 

Sort of.  One of the things that's positively nerve wracking about long shots is the amount of time from shot to hit is just long enough for you to wonder if you've missed or not. While stopping or swerving when you see muzzle flash isn't going to save you, firing at targets around 3 KM+ there's just enough time that if the target was stopping as you fired, or starting to change directions you might miss.

 

A GLATGM can adjust for that sort of movement.  That said, it really is not a major factor until we have drivers who can see 4-5 seconds into the future. 

 

 

 

Not only inferior in terms of battlefield application, but also in terms of logistics. How many GLATGM can an individual vehicle have vs. SABOT? How may GLATGM can a nation viably stockpile vs. SABOT from an economic standpoint?

 

Oh totally.  Not to mention the simplicity of tank rounds make them pretty hard to stop through anything but armor plate.

 

 

 

Similar things have been done to Abrams and Bradleys too

 

The loader's armor set is also pretty good for letting loaders hide their smart phones on top of the tank from causal observation.  Sneaky privateses.   

[Apocal]

Oh, it matters. A SABOT round for the Abrams costs roughly 1/10th as much as a Javelin. Multiply that by the number of Abrams out there and what a typical tank burns through when it is in a combat situation and you'll see that the number crunchers aren't going to skip over this one.

Now, if we were talking about the SABOT costing $8 and the Javelin $80 then I don't think anybody would care much. But we're talking about $8,000 vs. $80,000. Big difference.

 

Plus, there is still the logistics argument about how many rounds can be stored and the other argument about how quickly they can be mass produced. If you're in a war and you can't produce ammo fast enough to meet demands, that's generally considered a bad thing And this happened with several conventional rounds during OIF, which in part led to the astronomical prices of ammunition for us US civilians.

 

I'd be extraordinarily surprised if the typical tank expended more than two or three sabots during any combat situation. If they did -- and accuracy rates held -- that would mean whole opposing tank brigades would disintegrate in the process, rendering the entire issue of round cost and replacement rates moot since you've killed all the enemy armor stone dead. As it stands, $80,000 x 4 x n-tanks is pennies compared to the yearly operating budget of a fielded tank battalion, the average combat engagement doesn't necessarily feature a high expenditure of specialized weapons and ATGMs last years if stored properly.

Edited March 8, 2015 by Apocal

[Battlefront.com]

I'd be extraordinarily surprised if the typical tank expended more than two or three sabots during any combat situation. If they did -- and accuracy rates held -- that would mean whole opposing tank brigades would disintegrate in the process, rendering the entire issue of round cost and replacement rates moot since you've killed all the enemy armor stone dead. As it stands, $80,000 x 4 x n-tanks is pennies compared to the yearly operating budget of a fielded tank battalion, the average combat engagement doesn't necessarily feature a high expenditure of specialized weapons and ATGMs last years if stored properly.

Yet no nation has given up cannons as their primary means of defeating tanks. So obviously there is some degree of flaw in your logic or that of military planners. I think you're a pretty bright guy, but I'm going to go with the military on this one

The basic notion you are missing is that if an $8,000 round can just as easily kill that enemy tank in most situations most of the time, then why would you want it to only be armed with $80,000 rounds? That's what panzersaurkrautwerfer is arguing and clearly that is the conclusion all militaries have come to as well.

GLATGMs are fantastic weapons in the hands of units which, inherently, can not afford to be outfitted with expensive MBTs or adopting them would undermine their basic functionality. The Javelins are expensive per unit, but you are correct that tradeoff is that a US Rifle Platoon can wipe out a MBT platoon, an ATGM armed armored vehicle platoon can wipe out a MBT company, and a company of ATGM armed vehicles can wipe out a battalion easily.

And let's not forget that MBTs offer direct fire HEAT support. So if you got rid of the 120mm cannons in favor of GLATGMs, then you also have to stock sufficient amounts for non-armored or light armored threats. Either that or the MBT has to be armed with two systems and that's simply impractical. Therefore, it's an either or situation. Since infantry already have sufficient guided and non guided rocket weapons at their disposal, this would be removing something from their current support matrix. It is a weapon that, I think, no grunt would want to see removed.

Steve

[Apocal]

Yet no nation has given up cannons as their primary means of defeating tanks. So obviously there is some degree of flaw in your logic or that of military planners. I think you're a pretty bright guy, but I'm going to go with the military on this one

 

The basic notion you are missing is that if an $8,000 round can just as easily kill that enemy tank in most situations most of the time, then why would you want it to only be armed with $80,000 rounds? That's what panzersaurkrautwerfer is arguing and clearly that is the conclusion all militaries have come to as well.

 

I'm talking about using a GLATGM that costs 10x (I assume, I don't actually know the price) the price of a moderately inferior (in terms of accuracy, penetration) sabot against high-end tanks. I'm not arguing for getting rid of the gun entirely and I don't think anyone in this thread is either. American tanks don't have to worry about it since our sabot is effective against basically anything currently fielded but that isn't the case for other forces, which do possess gun-launched ATGMs.

[Jammersix]

I wish we had someone with some real inside information on these systems...

[Battlefront.com]

I'm talking about using a GLATGM that costs 10x (I assume, I don't actually know the price) the price of a moderately inferior (in terms of accuracy, penetration) sabot against high-end tanks.

The figures I used are pretty solid. $8,000 for a current SABOT shot, $80,000 for a single Javelin missile. The CLU is reusable and runs around $120,000. How much a GLATGM is for an Abrams is, of course, unknown since one doesn't exist. I would presume that it would be cheaper than a Javelin, though far less effective as well.

 

I'm not arguing for getting rid of the gun entirely and I don't think anyone in this thread is either. American tanks don't have to worry about it since our sabot is effective against basically anything currently fielded but that isn't the case for other forces, which do possess gun-launched ATGMs.

OK, got it. I was making the leap that if one is arguing for the most effective kill solution, the US already has it in the Javelin. Therefore, there has been an argument made by some that MBTs are basically obsolete. I thought you were going in that direction, but clearly you were not.

Still, my basic point is that the US is absolutely not shy about spending tons of money on R&D as well as acquisition on a per unit basis. In fact, the argument can be made that the US military is traditionally more attracted to expensive, complicated solutions than it is to more cost effective and/or simplified solutions. Yet the Abrams does not have a GLATGM. Because I don't believe that it is due to engineering reasons, it seems to indicate that this issue has been examined and the SABOT has clearly come out as being overall superior to a GLATM or an ATGM alternative. My guess is the primary reason is that the total cost benefit ratio (which includes logistics) is considered way out of line in favor of the SABOT.

 

 

I wish we had someone with some real inside information on these systems...

It would be nice, for sure. Unfortunately, militaries tend not to let their potential opponents know what the performance is. The US military is more-or-less an exception.

Steve

[Thewood1]

I hope this is relevant, but look at Russian war loads on tanks.  There are usually on 5-7 GLATMs in the load.  The rest is HEAT, Sabot, and Frag.  If the GLATMs were so effective/cost-effective, wouldn't the Russians have gone all in on them.  They seem to be the real world leaders in applying GLATMs in the field so you think they would have made the switch.

[John Kettler]

Just yesterday, I was over on Fofanov's site, where he had a bit of a bombshell on the (how I hate the awkward term and, worse, vocalizing of it) GLATGM for the T-64. Simply going from the pure gun tank to the GLATGM version caused a whopping 20% increase in the cost of the tank, never mind the price of the missiles. This was precisely because providing such weaponry was exactly what Russia wasn't good at: producing tons of very high tech precision machinery and miniaturized, shock and acceleration hardened electronics ( AT-3/9M14 was 115m/sec, while the AT-8/9K112 was 400 m/sec) on both the missile and the tank mounted radio command guidance system. An ATGM is vastly more complex than a VT fuze, and while breaking a 50% fuze triggering rate was enough to rush VT into production during WW II, that's absolutely intolerable when building and employing very pricey guided missiles.

 

We're used to automated manufacturing, but back then, it was all manual assembly, and everything had to be right, else the missile might catch fire or even blow up in the tube, never mind crash after launch. To give some idea of costs, the Gen One BGM-71 TOW, which wasn't fired from a cannon, therefore had much more relaxed design criteria, cost $5000 each, in 1978 dollars. That was nearly half of my salary when I first got to Hughes. That price was just for the missile, whose actual brains stayed home on the launcher.

 

The chief reason for the GLATGM was to kill Western tanks at ranges from which they would be unable to reply and to do so with very high probability. In turn, this was driven by the very real range limitations of the latest deployed Russian tank cannon of the period, the 115 mm 2A20 smoothbore on the T-62. The issue wasn't so much the ballistic performance of the gun as it was the relatively crude fire control. The effective range of that gun was 1500 meters, after which a Russian Tank Company had to resort to Platoon volley fire out to 2000 meters and Company volley out to 2500. This is straight out the the UNCLASSIFIED DIA 1980 manual THE SOVIET TANK COMPANY (U). Very bad against NATO forces which trained for rifled cannon engagements out to 3000 meters. The AT-8/9K112 had a maximum range of 4000 meters, a worthwhile reach extension even when the T-64 got on the scene with, in short order (early ones armed a la T-62; saw pics myself), the 125 mm smoothbore 2A42, whose effective range was 2000 meters. The Russians weren't looking to kill every NATO tank in sight. Rather, with the meager (4 rounds/tank) missile allocation per very expensive missile added tank, they expected to inflict painful losses on the already outnumbered NATO forces, disrupting their cohesion and ability to defend effectively. AT-8/9K112 was also intended to deal with the ever worsening attack helicopter threat. 

 

Since my Ainets vs Abrams idea seems rather unpromising so far in light of BTDT feedback, I find myself wondering what might happen were we to put a thermobaric warhead on a GLATGM? I know Kriz has a missile with one, but am unaware whether any tests were ever done, by the US or Russia, of a thermobaric warhead equipped ATGM vs a tank or even light armor. Test footage I have seen shows the thermobaric is quite effective vs buildings, but that's hardly useful. It occurs to me the thermobaric warhead could be capable of doing something to a tank mere ordinary explosives blast couldn't: get inside the engine compartment and other openings, say fighting compartment air intakes, then exploding. 

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited March 9, 2015 by John Kettler

[Apocal]

OK, got it. I was making the leap that if one is arguing for the most effective kill solution, the US already has it in the Javelin. Therefore, there has been an argument made by some that MBTs are basically obsolete. I thought you were going in that direction, but clearly you were not.

Still, my basic point is that the US is absolutely not shy about spending tons of money on R&D as well as acquisition on a per unit basis. In fact, the argument can be made that the US military is traditionally more attracted to expensive, complicated solutions than it is to more cost effective and/or simplified solutions. Yet the Abrams does not have a GLATGM. Because I don't believe that it is due to engineering reasons, it seems to indicate that this issue has been examined and the SABOT has clearly come out as being overall superior to a GLATM or an ATGM alternative. My guess is the primary reason is that the total cost benefit ratio (which includes logistics) is considered way out of line in favor of the SABOT.

 

 

Yeah, I'm not the anti-heavy armor guy by any means, although people sometimes assume I am because I don't hate on Strykers or BTRs. Anyway, I'm pretty sure we're satisfied with sabot for our tanks because our sabot (as far as anyone professes) is sufficient for popping everything it will realistically face. I think the calculus would shift a bit if we were the ones having to deal with 950-1300mm of RHAe in the forward arc before ERA. A bit of a counter-factual though, none of our opponents are developing thick fronts like that, preferring tanks that can actually, y'know, ford rivers and stuff.

 

 

Since my Ainets vs Abrams idea seems rather unpromising so far in light of BTDT feedback, I find myself wondering what might happen were we to put a thermobaric warhead on a GLATGM? I know Kriz has a missile with one, but am unaware whether any tests were ever done, by the US or Russia, of a thermobaric warhead equipped ATGM vs a tank or even light armor. Test footage I have seen shows the thermobaric is quite effective vs buildings, but that's hardly useful. It occurs to me the thermobaric warhead could be capable of doing something to a tank mere ordinary explosives blast couldn't: get inside the engine compartment and other openings, say fighting compartment air intakes, then exploding. 

 

Not much, since tanks are relatively well-protected against overpressure and what little access does exist wouldn't be sufficient for the aforementioned effect to be lethal inside the vehicle. You're stuck back at trying to get a warhead inside, then detonating it, which is difficult on the best of days.

[Battlefront.com]

Yeah, I'm not the anti-heavy armor guy by any means, although people sometimes assume I am because I don't hate on Strykers or BTRs.

It would be hard to find anybody who spent some time running around in 180 pounds of gear in 120 degree and 90% humidity who didn't have few grumbles about his armored counterparts, defense spending priorities, or defense industry profiteering

Anyway, I'm pretty sure we're satisfied with sabot for our tanks because our sabot (as far as anyone professes) is sufficient for popping everything it will realistically face. I think the calculus would shift a bit if we were the ones having to deal with 950-1300mm of RHAe in the forward arc before ERA. A bit of a counter-factual though, none of our opponents are developing thick fronts like that, preferring tanks that can actually, y'know, ford rivers and stuff.

Yup. Until an opponent invents a new form of protection against solid shot, be it passive, reactive, or active, there's not much incentive for the US to significantly alter it's current fleet of MBTs. I for one haven't heard of anything coming down the pike that fits that definition, so I'm presume the battlefield in 10 years' time will look similar to the one we have now and even 10 years ago.

Steve

[BTR]

Since my Ainets vs Abrams idea seems rather unpromising so far in light of BTDT feedback, I find myself wondering what might happen were we to put a thermobaric warhead on a GLATGM? I know Kriz has a missile with one, but am unaware whether any tests were ever done, by the US or Russia, of a thermobaric warhead equipped ATGM vs a tank or even light armor. Test footage I have seen shows the thermobaric is quite effective vs buildings, but that's hardly useful. It occurs to me the thermobaric warhead could be capable of doing something to a tank mere ordinary explosives blast couldn't: get inside the engine compartment and other openings, say fighting compartment air intakes, then exploding. 

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Thermobaric would make it exceedingly anti-infantry. Currently 9M119F1 fills that role with HE warhead without taking away anti-vehicle role. Video here at the bottom.  

[dan/california]

I wish we had someone with some real inside information on these systems...

The people who know the classified details can't talk about them without nuking their careers.  They like this little herd of amateurs, but not that much.  And the specifics here are far more public than many of the aircraft based systems, if only because the companies that make the stuff advertise them constantly in pursuit of foreign sales.  A lot of the aircraft radar and ECM is a complete black box without the right clearances and a degree in something complicated.

[dan/california]

It would be hard to find anybody who spent some time running around in 180 pounds of gear in 120 degree and 90% humidity who didn't have few grumbles about his armored counterparts, defense spending priorities, or defense industry profiteering

Yup. Until an opponent invents a new form of protection against solid shot, be it passive, reactive, or active, there's not much incentive for the US to significantly alter it's current fleet of MBTs. I for one haven't heard of anything coming down the pike that fits that definition, so I'm presume the battlefield in 10 years' time will look similar to the one we have now and even 10 years ago.

Steve

The very big change is APS.  Tanks that have have degree of battlefield dominance that hasn't been seen since the invention of the first shaped charges in 42-43.  The game illustrates this quite nicely by the way.