Jump to content

Trophy can intercept HEAT....?


Recommended Posts

As has been mentioned elsewhere, it doesn't take an enormous amount of damage to significantly reduce the effectiveness of HEAT rounds, a single 5mm hole in the liner IIRC reduced the effectiveness of a 90mm charge by about 60%.....So chucking a cloud of shrapnel into the flight path is a viable option against these rounds.

Against a KE penetrator.....Not so much.

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead
Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW the Russian APS is confirmed for being able to block HEAT in game (I have seen BMP-3s with the module block HEAT, which is a cool thing to see) , and the physics of it make sense. As @Sgt.Squarehead mentioned to disrupt the warhead doesn't take much. Furthermore, HEAT rounds tend to have a lower velocity and are lobbed at a target: slower = easier to track and intercept. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Rinaldi said:

I have seen BMP-3s with the module block HEAT, which is a cool thing to see

The 'Drozd' APS works with the T-55AD & T-62D in CM:A too, but sadly it's not represented in the same way as the newer titles, so it's not as obvious.

It's been suggested that the new 'Afghanit' APS has a capability against KE penetrators, while I'm not fully convinced of this, it is possible as Afghanit utilises an EFP/MEFP to intercept incoming projectiles rather than a cloud of shrapnel.

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

It's been suggested that the new 'Afghanit' APS has a capability against KE penetrators, while I'm not fully convinced of this, it is possible as Afghanit utilises an EFP/MEFP to intercept incoming projectiles rather than a cloud of shrapnel.

Well to be fair a MEFP (multiple explosively formed projectiles) detonation would be pretty similar to a cloud of shrapnel. Sounds like the pattern would be more consistent and controllable, at design time. It is not clear to me how the way the cloud of metal is formed would make any difference in stopping KE penetrators. Isn't the limitation there with tracking and targeting?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

On ‎20‎/‎04‎/‎2018 at 12:56 AM, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I'd assume they would fire the EFP as a slug, perhaps with the intent to deflect or deform the KE penetrator, but an assumption is all it is.

Just so. As I understand it the HE effect of the interceptor thrown at the incoming KE penetrator can cause it to slightly skew such that the energy is no longer perfectly  in line nose to tail.  This greatly reduces the penetrating power. This was the explanation in one article a few years ago on the hopes to intercept KE projectiles. It was a German system in RD being discussed. 

All the best,

Kip.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the clarification, I vaguely recall seeing something along the lines you describe (the surname Helm rings a bell).

Do you happen know any more about the VLS mounted soft-kill systems on the T-14's turret roof.....Surely those have to be designed to defeat top attack weapons such as Spike or Javelin, but how might they go about it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

28 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Do you happen know any more about the VLS mounted soft-kill systems on the T-14's turret roof.....Surely those have to be designed to defeat top attack weapons such as Spike or Javelin, but how might they go about it?

I don't know how they do it, but agree with your sentiment. The next APS used by the T14 and any others it will no doubt be fitted to must be designed to cope with diving attack ATGMs. It will be interesting when they seriously start to market it or give up trying to hide how the combination of systems work and we too get to know  :).

All the best,

Kip.

Edited by kipanderson
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
On 7/17/2018 at 4:53 PM, HUSKER2142 said:

1282026_1000.jpg

How these "Cheburashka" will be in Europe to move along the railway, until the first tunnel is visible.

its well known western aps can defeat tunnel width and or bridge weight restrictions handily.  And swat down a couple KH66s at the same time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/17/2018 at 4:53 PM, HUSKER2142 said:

1282026_1000.jpg

How these "Cheburashka" will be in Europe to move along the railway, until the first tunnel is visible.

im just disappointed they couldnt be bothered to add shtora eyes to complement the trophy ears.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's worth keeping in mind this is the initial/test fielding on otherwise unmodified Abrams. Additionally there's some rumblings that this might be similar to the TUSK kit in that it's not part of the tank, but an additional capability that can be mounted as mission/theater requires.  

If I had to conjecture, the side sponson storage might go away in the future, or the system might be better distributed under/over armor in a built in-vs bolted on application.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^

Interesting. My conjecture is that this is an expediency mount and that, indeed, future iterations will see it incorporated in a better manner.

As far as the pictures, above, the exposed intercept explosives are painted blue. That, to me, means these are inert. Just a test sample to gather some data?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Not sure how well genuinely removable APS modules would work out, I'd imagine the radar wouldn't like it much, so I suspect that once they're on, they're on.....At least until the vehicle undergoes major maintenance or is withdrawn from the theatre.

Looking at how they're mounted, its likely just a series of lugs onto the bars on the exterior of the sponson boxes (these are usually used for hanging gear off of).  Power supply likely just branches off of the other roof top harnesses.  There's some stuff that draws power external to the tank's main armor on the roof so there's some wiring up there to work with.  If you wanted the ultimate in ghetto-rig you could just mount one of the bustlerack APUs and run the wiring directly through that, but that seems more complicated than linking into the CROWS/BFT/other equipment on the roof "grid" and takes the APU if mounted away from it's real mission.  

As far as the radar "not liking it" there's already a lot of electronics that have been pretty well soldierproofed.  This is a tank, it's going to go over some rough terrain/hit some brush regularly.  

It doesn't look like the kind of thing you'd do with just the tank crew (for the danger to the APS unit being dropped alone), but it certainly looks within the means of the Company maintenance team (either going overkill and using the M88's boom, or potentially just having 8-10 guys manhandling it off vs 4 is safer).  

First installation likely takes some doing, although with how MWOs work, it's possible there's a team from TACOM out there putting the electrical hookups on all available tanks (or just the ones getting ready to deploy to Europe as they go through), but after that, the APS modules themselves look like they just need electrical input and have their mounting lugs well secured.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Artkin said:

TUSK sure is appropriate considering the Abrams looks more and more like an elephant. 

Kinda gets to the point of having modular systems vs complete upgrades for systems that are not always required.  The boathull armor from the TUSK kit, and the commander's protective kit are really super useful...in Iraq/Afghanistan.  Otherwise it's just added weight. Same deal with the APS, while it's pretty useful in many settings, it's most optimal in conventional settings where long range ATGMs are an issue.  Realistically in a more COIN or urban fight the ERA fit is a better choice for the flanks.

Conversely if weight/transport is a premium, or it's a "as many tanks as possible" sort of deal, sending Abrams naked works well.  It's also a neat concept when you look at how big the US tank force is, or what elements of it might be on the frontlines vs not (or it'd be entirely possible to throw ERA/APS on a M1A1HC pulled out of storage at NTC vs it being something that only some sort of M1A2BM1 carried or could carry).  

An integrated APS, especially one that's something closer to what quick-kill was supposed to do seems like the optimal choice.  But looking at the legacy force into the future (or all the M1A2 SEP v2s that will be still kicking around in 2025 when the fleet standard is v3/M1A3 or something), or the need to fit tanks to theater, the modular TUSK/APS systems are a good fit.  

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...