StarDestroyer.Net BBS

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land ... astmbt.pdf


Any opinions or comments from those familiar with military stuff?

The parallel drawn to naval warfare is somewhat questionable. For many reasons, it is vastly easier to get close to a tank without detection than it is to get close to a warship at sea. Nobody pops his head out of a 3rd storey window and unexpectedly launches a potentially lethal missile at a warship from close range.

Is it just me or does their argument simply boil down to "Missile mobiles will make tanks obsolete!"

With the new anti missile laser weapons under development I don't think an incoming missile from long range will be much of a problem for any vehicle to deal with.

Another advance in missle protection and this is moot.

My understanding of the article indicates that missles are the big threat against tanks. Take away the missles ability to be a threat, and you are back to big guns. Where's my EMP jammer?

And and unguided rocket is just a fancy bullet.

I think the Challenger-II, one of which absorbed a mind-blowing 72 RPG hits during the invasion of Iraq without losing combat function, nicely disproves the mantra of 'Heavy armor is obselete. Really. It is. Please ignore all evidence to the contrary.'.

SirNitram wrote:I think the Challenger-II, one of which absorbed a mind-blowing 72 RPG hits during the invasion of Iraq without losing combat function, nicely disproves the mantra of 'Heavy armor is obselete. Really. It is. Please ignore all evidence to the contrary.'.

I missed that one.

And just how effective is reactive armour against missles? Since the Russians are putting this stuff all over their T-series tanks...

EmperorMing wrote:

SirNitram wrote:I think the Challenger-II, one of which absorbed a mind-blowing 72 RPG hits during the invasion of Iraq without losing combat function, nicely disproves the mantra of 'Heavy armor is obselete. Really. It is. Please ignore all evidence to the contrary.'.

I missed that one.

And just how effective is reactive armour against missles? Since the Russians are putting this stuff all over their T-series tanks...

I must admit I don't know. I do know the Brits have had alot of concern about RPG's, and have been developing the means to defend against them. The mega-proliferate RPG-7 was the weapon which a British shielding(I honestly don't know what else to call it; it's a defensive electromagnetic field around the hull of an APC) project was designed to stop. And it did: A single RPG-7 should knock an APC out. The one in the test got I think a dozen hits and rolled away by itself. I think both are in posts I made way back when on the Archive board. If I hadn't of forgotten my old password, I'd get them.

Isn't the RPG kinda old though?

Don't put too much stock in this article. The end of the tank has been predicted too many times to count in the last 50 years. And it still reigns supreme.With the advent of active defense systems for tanks to defeat ATGM's and reactive armor, it's place is even more assured. The greatest threat to the tank is from it's user governments. Certain people within the US want to replace all their heavy tanks with a medium weight vehicle that is more quickly deployable. Even though experience in Iraq has shown the value of heavy armor.

In short, tanks are going to be around for a very long time.

The days of large scale tank battles between heavy tanks are most likely over, just like large scale naval warfare, and large furballs of opposing fighters. War is just too wastefull between advanced powers.

But that does not mean the heavy tank is dead. I think Iraq has shown there is still a place for a big tank like the Abrams.

Shinova wrote:Isn't the RPG kinda old though?

The RPG-7 is still excellent, it's the ammunition that's the issue. The ammo the Iraqis use is, quite simply, crap. They sometimes didn't even go off (decades old, obsolete fuses on decades old, obsolete rounds) No tank is going to survive anywhere near that amount of hits from modern RPG rounds (PG-7VR). And let's not even start with the big brother (RPG-29).

But, the principle of heavy armor is still sound, and the comparison to naval warfare is, as pointed out, misleading.

SirNitram wrote:I think the Challenger-II, one of which absorbed a mind-blowing 72 RPG hits during the invasion of Iraq without losing combat function, nicely disproves the mantra of 'Heavy armor is obselete. Really. It is. Please ignore all evidence to the contrary.'.

Too bad that never happened. One Challenger II did get hit dozens of times by about 70's RPG's however it was immediately disabled, had its gun knocked out and the turret jammed. It only avoided being destroyed because the Iraqi's couldn't get in any flank shots and where firing only at the frontal arc from a considerable range.

SirNitram wrote: I must admit I don't know. I do know the Brits have had alot of concern about RPG's, and have been developing the means to defend against them. The mega-proliferate RPG-7 was the weapon which a British shielding(I honestly don't know what else to call it; it's a defensive electromagnetic field around the hull of an APC) project was designed to stop.

Its not an electromagentic field, its merely a metal plate which carries a strong electrical charge that vaproizes the warhead jet of small shaped charges on contact.

And it did: A single RPG-7 should knock an APC out. The one in the test got I think a dozen hits and rolled away by itself. I think both are in posts I made way back when on the Archive board. If I hadn't of forgotten my old password, I'd get them.

The only tests I've ever heard of involved a Warrior IFV, which is already well protected against RPG's, basically immune to the basic versions over the frontal and part of the sides, and single shots against it which the electric plating did defeat. However the system can only beat small warheads and isn't very light. Its main advantage for light armor would be that alot of lightly armored vechicals don't have strong enough hulls to take the blast of exploding reactive armor and it should have some capability to ttake multipul hits on the same area. Though I doubt its going to come through the blasts intact, and it sounds like a pretty damn heavy system.

Sea Skimmer wrote:

SirNitram wrote:I think the Challenger-II, one of which absorbed a mind-blowing 72 RPG hits during the invasion of Iraq without losing combat function, nicely disproves the mantra of 'Heavy armor is obselete. Really. It is. Please ignore all evidence to the contrary.'.

Too bad that never happened. One Challenger II did get hit dozens of times by about 70's RPG's however it was immediately disabled, had its gun knocked out and the turret jammed. It only avoided being destroyed because the Iraqi's couldn't get in any flank shots and where firing only at the frontal arc from a considerable range.

It was hit by 1970s era RPGs or around 70 RPGs?

In anycase, that protectiong saved the crew and if it had been a Stryker, I doubt anyone would walk away from it.

EmperorMing wrote:And just how effective is reactive armour against missles? Since the Russians are putting this stuff all over their T-series tanks...

Against most missiles it is pretty effective. However, some missiles have a top-attack warhead or flight profile (such as Javelin) which negates that ERA and the top armor of a tank is pretty weak at any rate. Against things like LOSAT no reasonable amount of ERA is going to stop it.

That, my friend, is why efficient solid-state laser turrets like on the fictional Paladin from C&C: Generals are the future. We just need MTHEL shrunk.

The "desired" tank replacing missile carrier uses arcing flight paths for its missiles, thus defeating the weak armour at the top of MBTs.

Well, all in all, that sounds nice. Put some problems still appear:

- Cost factor. Guess whats more expensive. An APDS round or a guided missile? Remember, both have the same kill value if deployed under perfect circumstances.

- Survival factor. This is heavily for the MBT, as the concepts provided till now from the Carriers are more on a basis of "very" light armoured vehicles, which are easy to destroy/damage with even RPGs from an Infantry unit.

-Jamming. You dont need designated ECM on MBTs against that. The whole theater of war (lol, uhmmm...) is a partial ECM shield against everything but direct fire weapons. Especially on Infantry/Vehicle fighting level.
Every additional packed ECM, should render Missile Carriers obsulute(sp?).

- Specialist role. That is what a Missile Carrier would be, a specialist against armoured vehicles. MBTs are at least moderate at fighting Infantry.

-Dependent. The missile needs a designator/targeter. That would be Infantry. Helicopter can shoot them by themself same for any other MBT, and light armoured vehicle just shouldnt be in line of sight of a MBT.

Thats what i see of this concept. Many negative aspects. Positive? Nah, nothing what couldnt be achieved by other means (Ground attack Jets/Helicopters, other MBTs, Artillery).

MBTs will stay where they are...in service. And i would be surprised if the concept of a heavily armoured vehicle will ever fall from grace...

just my 2 cp.

here´s the futur:

http://web.mit.edu/isn

(even if it´s not, let me keep my illusions because it´s cool)

As great as super soldiers are (provided the return on investment exists), they're not exactly replacements for tanks now, are they.

Admiral Valdemar wrote:
It was hit by 1970s era RPGs or around 70 RPGs?

Around 70 RPG's, which date in design from the 60's.

In anycase, that protectiong saved the crew and if it had been a Stryker, I doubt anyone would walk away from it.

If it had been a Stryker it probably could have gotten out of there, since the first hit on the wheels wouldn't disable it, while the Challenger II was immobile at once from a track hit.

Admiral Valdemar wrote:As great as super soldiers are (provided the return on investment exists), they're not exactly replacements for tanks now, are they.

Not unless they can haul forty or so fifty to sixty pound shells and something to shoot them with.

Bleh..the Author has never heard of 'continous R&D'? or infantry? or artillery? combined armes?
Armour does not operate in a vacum or does the author think that a modern general will make the mistake of Marshall Ney at Waterloo with the French cavalry?

My understanding is that reactive armour is pretty effective against HEAT rounds. I'd expect the same impact for RPGs. Although it is always offensive vs defense in terms of R&D.

RPGs aren't really effective anti-tank weapons except in limited circumstances. Generally, they are good APC killers and are pretty handy but 70+ to try to take out one tank is not effective. Cities are one perfect place for them since you can hit the relatively thinner armour on top rather than the thicker and angled armour on the tank sides.

Also, the main reason big battlewagons died is something called airplanes (and not missiles) and the hugh engagement lenghts they brought. You could no longer expect to hit your enemy ship's with 16 inch guns - it became the roll of the planes to destroy them. Main guns don't reach 50 km+.

Lastly, 8000 yard range for missiles is nice, but how do you aim it? EW can spoof and distort most signals. Even in precision munitions, they try to illuminate the area (generally with lasers) before dropping them to get the most precise hits. At this range, it becomes more of an artillery piece, which tends to wound rather than kill. These aren't cruise missiles which have incredibly detailed targetting aids (and they are also really expensive to boot).

IIRC, the missiles they're working on have a MMW radar in them to look for targets. They might also have an IIR seeker as well.

As for the death of the big battlewagons, I think the real gist of that argument was that armor died on warships because you simply couldn't protect a ship anymore with it.

Jalinth wrote:My understanding is that reactive armour is pretty effective against HEAT rounds.

Current generation heavy ERA on the late T-series tanks is also effective against modern 120mm APFSDS

RPGs aren't really effective anti-tank weapons except in limited circumstances. Generally, they are good APC killers and are pretty handy but 70+ to try to take out one tank is not effective. Cities are one perfect place for them since you can hit the relatively thinner armour on top rather than the thicker and angled armour on the tank sides.

As I said, the ammunition wasn't good enough. Modern RPG rounds can kill much easier and more reliably.

Lastly, 8000 yard range for missiles is nice, but how do you aim it? EW can spoof and distort most signals. Even in precision munitions, they try to illuminate the area (generally with lasers) before dropping them to get the most precise hits. At this range, it becomes more of an artillery piece, which tends to wound rather than kill. These aren't cruise missiles which have incredibly detailed targetting aids (and they are also really expensive to boot).

I think they're placing their faith in imaging-infrared guided weapons to the general target area by combined INS/GPS. Of course, they are under the delusion that this will be cheap.

This guys paper should have focused on getting a cheap, easily mass-produced, man-portable *unguided*weapon that can be carried by any infantryman. Said weapon should have range and be as accurate as possible all across its range envelope.

This weapon should be more capable than the current generation of RPG's and AT-4's.

I don't know how accurate the modern RPG and AT-4 rounds are at this time, but I am sure that such weapons are already there or headed in this direction.

And I am not including TOW or Hellfire-like weapons.