Holo Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 Can anybody tell me what ammo type is Syrian army using now for their T-72's? In the light of recent events, and Russian Kornet-E missiles in theatre over there, is it posible they purchased something new and more lethal? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellfish Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 I'd almost be willing to bet that they've got a lot of steel or early tungsten penetrators like Iraq did. I can't believe they'd have any DU. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holo Posted August 21, 2006 Author Share Posted August 21, 2006 Yeah, but does it have to be DU? I think that BM-42M is tungsten and is rated (at least what the web data implies) 600RHAe at 2000m. I guess, in game terms, it would be like confronting T-34/85 against Tiger I, which can give results under 1000m (alhtough with high casulties on Russian side). So, with BM-42M maybe Syrian player would have some chance at 1500-2000m against M1A2? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellfish Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 IIRC the M-1A2 is estimated to be rated at about 950 RHAe vs. KE penetrators and like 1500 RHAe vs. HEAT. The BM-42M might not be a silver bullet, but I think it'd stand a bit of a chance frontally, but a much better chance against the side. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudel.dietrich Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 The trick will be to even hit the US player before they hit you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellfish Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 This is the 125mm ammo info I have for Syria: APFSDS 1980 3BM9/12/15? 1990s? Possible upgrade. HEAT 1980 3BK14/18? HE 1980 3OF19? Comments: Little information is available about Syrian ammunition holdings. They presumably received standard export ammunition with their initial shipments. Later shipments may have allowed the opportunity for newer ammunition, although this is conjecture. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oren_m Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 I think that you are all forgeting one little thing, modern MBT's such as the M1A1/2 can make a first round hit at a tank size target from up to 4500 m', while Soviet MBT's, from T-72 and down, can make a fist round hit at a tank size target from up to 2500 m'. So here you have a major advantage for US armor forces, so i dont think that the Syrian army will be too keen to engage with US tanks. I believe that they will relay heavily on ATGM's such as the Kornet E, Milan, Metis and even the aging Sagger. Oren_m 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoolaman Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 Does anyone know if Syria makes use of static AT guns. I know you can still buy them with modern smoothbore AT cannons attached, and I always thought the concept was no less valid now than in WW2. Especially as a cheap assymetric type way of knocking out a M1. Even better strap one on the back of a truck and you have a vehicle about as useful and survivable as a T-72 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudel.dietrich Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 Originally posted by Hoolaman: Does anyone know if Syria makes use of static AT guns. I know you can still buy them with modern smoothbore AT cannons attached, and I always thought the concept was no less valid now than in WW2. Especially as a cheap assymetric type way of knocking out a M1. Even better strap one on the back of a truck and you have a vehicle about as useful and survivable as a T-72 My sources say that Syria still fields a few of the old 100mm BS-3 guns. They field 'well over 400' of the much newer and much better but still outdated Soviet 100mm T-12 guns. For their army reserve (and if things do indeed get desperate) they can pull out the 85mm D-44 gun. Their airborne forces have a 57mm ATG avaliable but I doubt they would ever use it and I do not think the Syrians have the capability to even air deoploy their 'airborne' forces. I would expect the BS-3 and T-12 to be in the game and possibly the D-44 Problem with ATG these days what Oren mentioned. You can engage them from extreme distance once they are found, and infantry can knock them out very easily with an ATGM which also outranges them. Problem is spotting them. Fortunatly the T-12 is a massive weapon and probably could not be put into a house unless some serious work was done to gut said house. [ August 21, 2006, 06:32 PM: Message edited by: rudel.dietrich ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellfish Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 BS-3 is huge too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudel.dietrich Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 I wonder if the Syrian T-12 can fire ATGMs like the Soviet one could. I also wonder if they have any of the 125mm AT guns the Soviets introduced in the early 90s. I cannot think of the designation off the top of my head. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Balboa Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 Originally posted by oren_m: I think that you are all forgeting one little thing, modern MBT's such as the M1A1/2 can make a first round hit at a tank size target from up to 4500 m', while Soviet MBT's, from T-72 and down, can make a fist round hit at a tank size target from up to 2500 m'. So here you have a major advantage for US armor forces, so i dont think that the Syrian army will be too keen to engage with US tanks. I believe that they will relay heavily on ATGM's such as the Kornet E, Milan, Metis and even the aging Sagger. Oren_m 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Balboa Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 US 3k-4k targeting can be achieved under optimal conditions but this advantage can be easily overcome by effective use of terrain. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Ruddy Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 Originally posted by Mike S: US 3k-4k targeting can be achieved under optimal conditions but this advantage can be easily overcome by effective use of terrain. Best free software of the 21st century (so far)... Google Earth! Those mountains in the south east look nasty for an invading force to try and take. Where would the US be attacking from? Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey or Iraq? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellfish Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 Iraq would probably offer the path of least (geographical) resistance - at least in a drive on Damascus. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oren_m Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 Originally posted by J Ruddy: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mike S: US 3k-4k targeting can be achieved under optimal conditions but this advantage can be easily overcome by effective use of terrain. Where would the US be attacking from? Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey or Iraq? </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Ruddy Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 Originally posted by oren_m: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by J Ruddy: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mike S: US 3k-4k targeting can be achieved under optimal conditions but this advantage can be easily overcome by effective use of terrain. Where would the US be attacking from? Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey or Iraq? </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oren_m Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 Originally posted by J Ruddy: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by oren_m: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by J Ruddy: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mike S: US 3k-4k targeting can be achieved under optimal conditions but this advantage can be easily overcome by effective use of terrain. Where would the US be attacking from? Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey or Iraq? </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.