Jump to content

Kyle Harmse

Members
  • Content Count

    54
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Kyle Harmse

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 05/07/1990

Personal Information

  • Location
    Johannesburg, South Africa
  • Occupation
    History student, University of Johannesburg
  1. Sure, DM-11 is probably unnecessarily complicated compared to a HESH round and as we've said already rifled is superior for full-bore rounds. It's just that sub mil dispersion for smoothbore guns firing APFSDS is pretty impressive, and pretty good for anti-tank work at 2-3km :-P *edit* Also illustrates your point of minor variations nicely, and shows how important it is to have a gun/FCS rounds properly "tuned"/zeroed for a round too :-P Interesting insight as always Ssnake. Maybe worth a spot of research one day.
  2. Hehe, you got me, though I was trying to say that there's a whole family of fin stabilised rounds now including kinetic energy long rods, HE and HEAT. Tech has marched on, and its just strange to hear rifling still being touted as an accuracy enhancing feature on tank guns, HESH and older rounds notwithstanding.
  3. Fin-stabilised APFSDS and the new DM-11 fired out of L44 smoothbores are pretty accurate Killjoy :-P Considering that their stabilisation is independent of the barrel, just like British APFSDS rounds are.
  4. Hey Mick, In addition to what DarkLabor mentioned, smoothbore guns in general also impart less resistance on the rounds as they're fired, meaning higher muzzle velocities. A well designed slip-ring belt for a rifled round can minimise this effect, but in general APFSDS rounds from smoothbore guns have a 100m/s advantage over rifled guns of the era. Not to imply that the L30 is inferior, it's just a design/doctrine decision which adds an extra hurdle to APFSDS performance. DL, I imagine any composite armour- ceramics, plastics, rubber spacers, etc- are likely going to interfere with this shockwave? It seems to me that HESH is going to struggle against the composite-armoured portions of, say, a T-72B?
  5. Hadn't realised, my mistake. Maybe one day, fifty years from now the answer will be debated in some historical forum somewhere. And some civvy will ask OPSEC questions about those fancy new energy shields
  6. Afternoon gents, The way Trophy, Arena and other ADS systems are developing, I was wondering if any of you have any input in terms of how these systems may one day be defeated? SAAB's LEDS-150 and Trophy supposedly have the capability to knock down even APFSDS rounds (by breaking their fins). Some strategies I've been idly contemplating: 1) Defence saturation. I doubt even a fast reacting system is going to be able to shoot down 4 APFSDS rounds coming at it at once, should an entire platoon concentrate fire and fire at once. This of course requires very close coordination and control between vehicles. Or a cluster-munition warhead on an ATGM, that could work too. Or multiple air-bursting 40mm rounds going off on it. Etc. 2) Hardened rounds. Rounds could in theory be "hardened", either physically (tougher fins on APFSDS) or by equipping them with countermeasures. I imagine a radar-jamming head on an APFSDS isnt going to be cheap, but perhaps it could have a chaff dispenser of some kind? 3) Faster rounds. Faster "vampires", slower reaction time for the system, right? Electro-thermal 120mms, anyone? :clin: Obviously, this is a long-term technological advancement in propellant for guns/rocket motors for ATGM. 4) Dedicated anti-ADS rounds. How about a giant 120mm equivalent of the 35mm AHEAD round? Or an airbursting chaff/flare round? One shooter vehicle in a platoon can blind hostile ADS, whilst the rest can smack the targets with conventional rounds. Anyway, Idle Speculation Man away!
  7. That's what I was trying to get at with my previous posts :-P Thanks SSnake for clearing up the over-correction--> crashing issue. :luxhello: Well played!
  8. All true Alfa :-D I'd try and hit the second target too, I was just thinking of reasons why it might not work :-P I was playing a scenario in the Brad the other day and hitting targets at the veeerrrryyyy edge of its range is often a pain. It just occurred to me to mention :-P Also, at long range, an apparently small correction (to the shooter) can translate to a surprising amount of movement and G for the missile. Well within its design limits I would think, unless you're REALLY yanking at the sight.
  9. From what I understand: the rocket motor in these missiles gives them a limited amount of energy the operator needs to conserve. For small corrections on one target, no problem (unless you clip the wire, like you mentioned ) For larger corrections (like when you're switching targets) though, the added distance of flight and air resistance of turning makes it fly much less efficiently. At the edge of your range, the missile may run out of airspeed before it gets there. Also, the whipping motion of big corrections might sever the control wire as well. The above reasons is why TOW operators are told: keep your crosshairs on the target and DO NOT try and "fly" or "steer" the missile, I think. Also, to not drive a 50 000 dollar missile into the ground for no reason
  10. The Swedes also have a healthy respect for tanks and defence budgets
  11. All with shots to weak points in the Leo's armour- which exist out of necessary design compromise on pretty much every tank ever built. Including the Challenger 2. *Edit* Which is of course the smart way to go about targeting a hostile vehicle.
  12. The Colonies, perhaps Killjoy? The States or Canada seemingly still see the value of tanks (and have the cash for them).
  13. Okay, figured out why I was getting killed by those shots. Turns out I was not on as steep a slope as I thought I was, exposing the front edge of the roof too much. Also, I'll quit bothering you guys with all these finicky technical questions. It's in poor form, kind of like asking a lady how much she weighs
×
×
  • Create New...