Jump to content

Weapons: Ukrainian Tanks


Recommended Posts

From a different show (?) altogether, here's Oplot-M. Unfortunately, the coverage is sparse relative to the sorts of videos on weapons we're used to seeing. Maybe it's a clip?
 

It certainly is a good looking tank. Also enjoyable is the lack of music, so the viewer can experience what it sounds like for a change.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to post
Share on other sites

Armorgunner,

Since I'm not sure whether or not this will fly with the Mods, am going to break the link and remove the standard tail end, but the post has some great material on Duplet and even Russian live fire tests on a complete tank fitted with Kontakt-5.

http://www.steelbeasts.usual/topic/8249-t-90-still-too-soft-a-target/

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2017‎-‎03‎-‎07 at 6:12 AM, John Kettler said:

Armorgunner,

Since I'm not sure whether or not this will fly with the Mods, am going to break the link and remove the standard tail end, but the post has some great material on Duplet and even Russian live fire tests on a complete tank fitted with Kontakt-5.

http://www.steelbeasts.usual/topic/8249-t-90-still-too-soft-a-target/

Regards,

John Kettler

How do i activate the broken link? I want to see that John.

Edit: I found out how to do

Thanks once again John

Edited by Armorgunner
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Armorgunner said:

yes if it works as it should, but like all ERA. It leaves a big ballistic hole after it goes of. All modern armor do that, but the ballistic hole is much bigger on ERA equipped tanks. 

Forgive my ignorance - the ERA exploding out creates a hole/damage to the armor behind it? I thought ERA has a backing plate, to prevent blowback and maximize forward explosive power?

 Or do you mean that the ERA being used up leaves a large hole in the ERA coverage? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, kinophile said:

Forgive my ignorance - the ERA exploding out creates a hole/damage to the armor behind it? I thought ERA has a backing plate, to prevent blowback and maximize forward explosive power?

 Or do you mean that the ERA being used up leaves a large hole in the ERA coverage? 

The latter of cource. It leaves a big hole, not covered by ERA. Ceramic armor as an example leaves a ballistic hole to, wider than the diameter of the first round hit. But not as big as of used up ERA kits. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

And there is a reason why there is ERA on some tanks in the first place. The base armor is not giving enough protection against a given threat. So when that extra ERA protection is gone, after the first hit. The tank has a ballistic hole in that place. It does however not mean, that everything can penetrate that hole. But more qualified threats will.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, IMHO said:

@Armorgunner, you can also elaborate on the pre-stressed ceramic matrices - the weakened area size should they break and less protection from the backplate...

Advances on ceramic armor has made the ballistic hole a lot smaller today. In the mid 80´s, there where quite big gaps after the first hit.

Edit: I could have miss understood you however? 

Edited by Armorgunner
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yepp. And multi-hit capabilities are improved as well. Ceramics production methods, approaches to multilayering etc. I just wanted to point that compared to ERA - the main armour plate after ceramic tiles is weaker so the area will be way less resistant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, IMHO said:

Yepp. And multi-hit capabilities are improved as well. Ceramics production methods, approaches to multilayering etc. I just wanted to point that compared to ERA - the main armour plate after ceramic tiles is weaker so the area will be way less resistant.

Yes thats true. But in the same way, there is that the main armor behind those used up ERA plates could be damaged to. Like the primitive form of AMAP armor found on most Russian made tanks. Most probibly the ERA kit did not prevent the penetrator to reach the base armor, just weakened it.

Sorry i´m in the middle of nightening the kids, at the same time i´m write here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

The 'Knife' reactive armour looks a very neat solution.  B)

This is Duplet ERA which protects tank from tandem HEATs. Nozh can't resist to tandem warheads (but can reduce its effectiveness approx on 20 %).

Edited by Haiduk
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a Ukrainian tank, but it is a Ukrainian weapon :D  At least one that is in development.  It is the Stunga-P ATGM, which is the Ukrainian designation for the joint Ukraine-Belarus Skif program.  It has a soft launch capability and 5km range guided by a manual or fire-and-forget laser guidance system.  This is the more expensive, powerful of two systems that the Design Bureau LUCH is getting ready to produce.  The other system is Corsar, which is much lighter, less punch, shorter range, manual laser aimed, and I'm guessing much less expensive.

http://defence-blog.com/news/ukraine-successfully-test-fires-stugna-antitank-missile-system.html

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

or fire-and-forget laser guidance system. 

No, SACLOS. 

 

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

manual laser aimed

Already no, alas. Too hard to stabilize a guidance from shoulder launch. Now upgraded system with light tripod is testing. 

corsar_1.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

No, SACLOS. 

Hmm.  That is what I had read in several places and it is the thing that makes sense.  But a couple of other websites specified "fire and forget".  Either that is out dated information or it s simply incorrect.

57 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

Already no, alas. Too hard to stabilize a guidance from shoulder launch. Now upgraded system with light tripod is testing.

Yes, I should have mentioned that.  It is a tripod mounted weapon and is still much lighter than the Stunga-P, but it is not a guided shoulder launched system.

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve,

That looks more like a photographer's tripod than something to support an ATGM launcher. But if it works, and it certainly contributes to battlefield rapid movement with and without vehicles, who cares? It strikes me this would be a natural for a pintle mount for something as small as a motorcycle, with the tripod carried for use in areas where the vehicle can't go. Rat Patrol with a very big and ferocious rat!

LBR is not, and never was Fire and Forget. Mind, you can get the effect of it by implementing a target tracking system which then tell the laser guidance beam where to point until missile destruction, which would be evident to the receiver by cessation of the backlink to the launcher.  In the game, at least, the only ACLOS system is the Krizantema, and that's only on the radar side. Once Lock On is obtained, the missile can be fired, after which the operator can do something else until weapon impact. It may (note conditional) be possible to have the radar side of the Kriz perform autonomous search and engagement with the real gear, but my memory's spotty on that issue. The AWG-9 FCS on the F-14 could search, assess and select the most threatening targets, and I believe the crew could just let the computer handle the rest, but the crew could always override the computer. The Kriz problem is vastly easier, since we're not talking automatic tracking of 24 and engaging 6, nor of having to scan immense volumes of sky, either. Instead, the engagement parameters are highly contained by virtue of minuscule radar height, narrow beam and very short (relative to the air-to-air case, in which that peerless missile wizardry (nothing on the planet could do this) was recorded out to some 80 nautical miles). Target acquisition and engagement ranges which will vary depending on a number of factors, starting with target size. 

Guys, this has some great stuff in it (much of it unfamiliar to me), of which one of the highlights was a sequence showing the automated command and control system, either their FBCB or something earlier, in use. From what I saw, it looked pretty capable. The considerable panel discussion practically drove me nuts, since it was obvious important information was being conveyed, but I could pick out only a word or two here and there and there was nothing to see!

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, John Kettler said:

Guys, this has some great stuff in it (much of it unfamiliar to me), of which one of the highlights was a sequence showing the automated command and control system, either their FBCB or something earlier, in use

Neither BM Oplot nor BTR-4 havn't anything simiar to FBCB. Yes, BM Oplot has TIUS-NM system, which allows to determine own coordinates (GPS/GLONASS) and heading, displays waypoints and routes and exchages this information between tanks of own unit (battalion level maximum). Also this system dislays deployment of subordinated tanks relatively to the tank of platoon, company and battalion commander and allows to give simple commands and telecode information via radiochannel. But system can't display tactical situation, so this is "simple PDA with GPS and SMS featuers" %). Since 1.04 this is implemented in CMBS - BM Oplot received "PDA" device.      

Link to post
Share on other sites

Haiduk,

As ever, I appreciate your insights and knowledge. In light of what you you've told me, guess a better characterization would've been "some sort of automated troop command system using multiple digital displays." But even that would've been overstating it. That said, as long as you can keep Ivan out of the network, it's a huge improvement over radios and signal flags!

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to post
Share on other sites

Haiduk,

Am making a judgment call here, but I've decided that since it's great look at the T-64 in combat, this is a good place for this video. Actions were evidently mid-February 2017. After the initial action and the tank backing up, there's a pronounced lull, so I suggest you skip forward to the 7:00 mark and resume watching from there. Video has a great 360 degree study of a dirty and worn tank, thanks to a Go Pro mounted atop the muzzle and looking back at the tank in one sequence.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, John Kettler said:

Haiduk,

Am making a judgment call here, but I've decided that since it's great look at the T-64 in combat, this is a good place for this video. Actions were evidently mid-February 2017. After the initial action and the tank backing up, there's a pronounced lull, so I suggest you skip forward to the 7:00 mark and resume watching from there. Video has a great 360 degree study of a dirty and worn tank, thanks to a Go Pro mounted atop the muzzle and looking back at the tank in one sequence

 

John Kettler

Vivid green grass tips that this is not mid-February action :). This is just old video, re-uploaded in Feb 2017. I forgot where it filmed, but this is 2015 or 2016 year.

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...