70 RPG's?!!

Sokar · Post by **Sokar** » 2003-04-02 07:22pm

irishmick79 wrote:Wouldn't velocity be important when figuring in the slope of the armor as far as HEAT round impacts are concerned? The more the armor is sloped, the more armor the core of the HEAT round would have to penetrate, right? So a higher velocity would help the HEAT round penetrate more armor, if my line of thinking is correct. If I'm way off base here, let me know.

Not really, actually excess velocity on a HEAT round could actually be a bad thing. If it hits to hard , the shaped charge could tilt or deflect all together and then all you get is a loud bang/flash and no penetration. The jet of molten metal already moves at about 25,000 fps so the extra 60 - 80 fps imparted by the warhead wont help it any. Most HEAT rounds actually travel fairly slowly compared to most other weapons to try and get a clean strike in.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-04-02 07:43pm

Since the RPG has already been extensively covered, I'll just talk about this 'light forces' nonsense- it's an incredibly stupid idea IMO, and the US Army is going the same way. In our lifetime they plan to have nothing but a common 20-ton wheeled chassis to perform absolutely every task on the battlefield.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-04-02 07:48pm

I'm surprised that the Iraqis were able to fire that many RPG's at a single tank, although I'm not surprised at all that the tank was able to withstand the barrage.

Sokar · Post by **Sokar** » 2003-04-02 07:59pm

Vympel wrote:Since the RPG has already been extensively covered, I'll just talk about this 'light forces' nonsense- it's an incredibly stupid idea IMO, and the US Army is going the same way. In our lifetime they plan to have nothing but a common 20-ton wheeled chassis to perform absolutely every task on the battlefield.

I disagree with this entire 'light forces' thing. While its very useful to have some light forces, that can travel quick and deal with the little brush fire wars we'll have to deal with, we still need the Heavy Divisions. Probably th best ratio would be 2 Light Divisions to each Heavy Armored Division.
The 20-ton Super LAV thats in the works will do very well in situations like Kosovo, Somalia or any other minor conflict. But , we should under no circumstances chop all our Heavy armor.

Rubberanvil · Post by **Rubberanvil** » 2003-04-02 08:30pm

Sokar wrote:The 20-ton Super LAV thats in the works will do very well in situations like Kosovo, Somalia or any other minor conflict.

have any information and/or links on the armor protection they have or don't have?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-04-02 08:55pm

irishmick79 wrote:Wouldn't velocity be important when figuring in the slope of the armor as far as HEAT round impacts are concerned? The more the armor is sloped, the more armor the core of the HEAT round would have to penetrate, right? So a higher velocity would help the HEAT round penetrate more armor, if my line of thinking is correct. If I'm way off base here, let me know.

The slope does matter, in that the jet must go through more armor. But the impact velocity is totally irrelevant. The jet is formed and propelled by the explosives in the warhead; the speed of a shell or missile is tiny compared to that of the blast.

Though many HEAT armed missiles actually are lofted towards the target, which reduces the effectiveness of sloping increase the armor which must be penetrated. And then some like Javelin come in at fairly steep dives, which in addition to making sloping basically irrelevant, also drop the missiles down onto the vehicle roof.

irishmick79 · Post by **irishmick79** » 2003-04-02 08:57pm

Ok. That makes more sense. Thanks for clearing that up skimmer.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-04-02 08:59pm

Vympel wrote:Since the RPG has already been extensively covered, I'll just talk about this 'light forces' nonsense- it's an incredibly stupid idea IMO, and the US Army is going the same way. In our lifetime they plan to have nothing but a common 20-ton wheeled chassis to perform absolutely every task on the battlefield.

Except the US Army does intend to retain some heavy forces. We can have a division of light infantry anywhere in the world in a few days, but then it will be six weeks plus at the very best before anything else can arrive, by sea. Just take a look at how long its taken to move the forth infantry divisions equipment from Turkey to Kuwait.

I would much rather have vehicles that are defeated by auto cannons then to have light infantry being shredded by the coaxial machine gun.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-04-02 09:06pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Vympel wrote:Since the RPG has already been extensively covered, I'll just talk about this 'light forces' nonsense- it's an incredibly stupid idea IMO, and the US Army is going the same way. In our lifetime they plan to have nothing but a common 20-ton wheeled chassis to perform absolutely every task on the battlefield.
Except the US Army does intend to retain some heavy forces. We can have a division of light infantry anywhere in the world in a few days, but then it will be six weeks plus at the very best before anything else can arrive, by sea. Just take a look at how long its taken to move the forth infantry divisions equipment from Turkey to Kuwait.

I would much rather have vehicles that are defeated by auto cannons then to have light infantry being shredded by the coaxial machine gun.

Are we talking about Stryker, or FCS? Stryker- you're right, it's not meant to replace the heavies- but FCS will.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-04-02 09:21pm

Vympel wrote:
Are we talking about Stryker, or FCS? Stryker- you're right, it's not meant to replace the heavies- but FCS will.

I've seen stuff that's says contrary. However I am talking more about Stryker, FCS seem to be still evaluating its equipments prior to even doing significant technology demonstrations. Though a few single demonstrators have been built; though mostly they've been private jobs made by potential contractors seeking to make them selves look better.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-04-02 09:40pm

http://www.iraqwar.ru/iraq-browse_image ... 62&lang=en

Damn. That's a big ass hole.

Strafe · Post by **Strafe** » 2003-04-02 09:47pm

Vympel wrote:http://www.iraqwar.ru/iraq-browse_image ... 62&lang=en

Damn. That's a big ass hole.

What weapon did that? The Kornet(sp?)?

Post by **Beowulf** » 2003-04-02 09:55pm

Vympel wrote:
Link to image

Damn. That's a big ass hole.

Dress thy links, Vympel!

Hmm... Seems to have blown off the track skirt, but doesn't seem to have done much else. Maybe if there was a different view...

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-04-02 09:57pm

Strafe wrote:
What weapon did that? The Kornet(sp?)?

It could've been a few of the anti-tank weapons in Iraq's arsenal- that is a vulnerable spot on the Abrams, after all. Me, I dispute that Kornets are even in Iraq but hey- best advertizing KBP Tula ever got.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-04-02 10:01pm

Strafe wrote:
Vympel wrote:http://www.iraqwar.ru/iraq-browse_image ... 62&lang=en

Damn. That's a big ass hole.
What weapon did that? The Kornet(sp?)?

Its highly unlikely Iraq has any Kornets
I don't see any hole in the armor, just a side skirt blown away, which is what suppose to happen.

Sokar · Post by **Sokar** » 2003-04-02 11:44pm

Nay on the Koronet, thats the end result of a RPG hit on the track skirt.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2003-04-03 12:28am

"Apaches are not heavily armoured and it takes just one rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) to bring one down. Compare that with one British Challenger near Basra which survived being hit by 70 RPGs."

Am I the only one who thinks it is stupid to compare a helicopter gunship to a MBT?

Sokar · Post by **Sokar** » 2003-04-03 01:03am

Kamakazie Sith wrote:

Am I the only one who thinks it is stupid to compare a helicopter gunship to a MBT?[/quote]

Its not a good analogy at all, but for the debate that individual was in , it worked. The MoD is considering scaling back its heavy armor forces in favor of light units, with their prime tank hunter being the AH-64 Apache rather than using another tank for the job. He was just comparing how much more survivable the Challenger II's are over such a light unit. I think they gone round the bend on this idea. Helos, while marvelous in many roles are just not survivable enough to replace real armor. Its just cost saving foolishness to think other wise.

Darth PhysBod · Post by **Darth PhysBod** » 2003-04-03 05:24am

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Ted wrote:
Challenger II uses 2nd gen Chobham armour, M1A2 uses DU armour.

In 1990, the Challenger II was the best protected tank in the world.
Actually, the M1A2 uses Depleted Uranium on top of Chobham, as does the M1A1HA. The Challenger II might have better protection against HEAT warheads, but the M1A1HA and above are better off against Sabot rounds, which shatter Chobham and to a lesser degree Dorchester.

Well IIRC Challenger II uses much improved armour over DU plate applied over Chobham (supposedly DU nuggets imbedded in it, as well as tungsten rods). Improved to the point where the US wanted it for their M1A2 SEP (some rumours say they got it for the SEP, others say not). Dorchester apparently though I've also heard it referred to by guys in the REME as Winchester, Janes simply refers to it as second generation Chobham, whatever its offically called its good stuff.

BTW why would Chobham shatter? Isn’t it analogous to a large bail of straw in that it absorbs the rounds rather than trying to deflect them?

Original Chobham may not be as effective against K.E impacts as RHA but as its much lighter you can have the stuff measured in feet rather than inches (front turret on the challenger I at Bovington tank museum appears to be ~80-90cm thick!)

I'm still not sure why the tank would sit around to take 70 RPG hits, there is plently of expensive kit (think thermal site, commanders site) on the outside to be damaged by RPG fire even if penertration isnt an issue.

Darth PhysBod · Post by **Darth PhysBod** » 2003-04-03 05:33am

Vympel wrote:http://www.iraqwar.ru/iraq-browse_image ... 62&lang=en

Damn. That's a big ass hole.

I think that one appeared on a video shown on sky news (without the guy in the foreground) so much for "photo's the try to hide"

(I dont believe it is an M1A2 as they dont have any on the fontline yet, p[lus on the video the USMC markings where visible, they use M1A1)

I have heard it was fraticide, a cobra firing at it but who knows?

Rubberanvil · Post by **Rubberanvil** » 2003-04-03 05:38am

Sokar wrote: Helos, while marvelous in many roles are just not survivable enough to replace real armor. Its just cost saving foolishness to think other wise.

That won't get drilled into the politicians heads until their country's military loses a rather large number of men and equipment due to their cost-saving measures

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-04-03 05:50am

Evil S'tan wrote: BTW why would Chobham shatter? Isn’t it analogous to a large bail of straw in that it absorbs the rounds rather than trying to deflect them?

Chobham, IIRC is still ceramic. And as you all know, ceramics are
brittle and shatter easily, compared to metal, which is malleable

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-04-03 05:57am

Evil S'tan wrote: I think that one appeared on a video shown on sky news (without the guy in the foreground) so much for "photo's the try to hide"

Venik is not known for his objectivity, but he could've been referring to the American networks not showing this stuff *shrug*

(I dont believe it is an M1A2 as they dont have any on the fontline yet, p[lus on the video the USMC markings where visible, they use M1A1)

There's a very easy way to tell if a tank is an M1A2- look for the CITV. This one doesn't have one, therefore it's an M1A1/M1A1HA.

I have heard it was fraticide, a cobra firing at it but who knows?

The tank was definitely hit by something that causes a big bang. It'd be quite hard to see the penetration hole, if any, because it looks like it would be in the scorched shadows where the roadwheels are.

Dirty Harry · Post by **Dirty Harry** » 2003-04-03 06:00am

Admiral Valdemar wrote:The MoD's budget has repeatedly been butchered by Labour and the Tories over the years. The recent arse kissing Blair has done with Bush about us working with the US militarily should call for more military spending you'd think.

I know we no longer have an empire or need for a large force anymore, but this is getting beyond the Pale.

As if that wasn't enough, the Navy and the RAF are ganging up on the Army and supporting this rubbish!

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2003-04-03 06:20am

Sea Skimmer wrote: HEAT missiles like Kornet or Javalin that can defeat the latest tanks through the frontal arc are fairly rare, for now. The biggest missile threat over the frontal arc is overly top attack missiles, which have downward firing explosively forged penatraitor. These missiles can be quite small, but will probably destroy any tank in existence. The TOW-2B and Sewdish Bill-2 are examples of such missiles.

Here is some cool videos of bill 2 blowing stuff up

I guess its a good thing we did't sell Saddam any of those