Kyle Harmse

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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!

+2 :luxhello:

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!

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.

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

That... was too awesome

The Swedes also have a healthy respect for tanks and defence budgets

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.

The Colonies, perhaps Killjoy? The States or Canada seemingly still see the value of tanks (and have the cash for them).

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

They might as well scrap the new aircraft carrier and start building battleships again, in keeping with the theme :-P

Fair enough Ah, the frustrations of never having any military experience of my own. *edit* Historical analysis will have to do.

I wouldn't expect anyone to violate OPSEC or a NDA, especially not for a current MBT :-O Though, there's lots of publically available pics of people who have done so for various components of the armour, like these from this article (http://btvt.narod.ru/raznoe/leopard2/Leo2a4.htm): The author took these from Polish Leo 2A4's. We don't know the composition of these armour plates, naturally, so all I was asking for as some guesstimations. Please don't blacklist me, BND agents :-O To clarify Volcano, this is how I get killed a lot (if I'm being foolish and engaging without obscuration): Most reverse slopes aren't steep enough for me to completely obscure the sloping part of the upper front roof. BM-32s and BM-42s that would and are stopped by the turret front proper, that hit the roof this way tend to kill me this way around half the time.

Now that is some tabletop wargaming I'm sure these sort of simulations are run at Army Colleges though... to the google search bar!

To be clear, yes, I know the Leo is modelled with 478mm effective RHA on its front roof and the Abrams with 802mm. What I'd like to know is how those figures match with the tank's actual construction. For example, this article: http://btvt.narod.ru/raznoe/leopard2/Leo2a4.htm, claims that the Leo has 70mm (or the equivalent of 574mm of RHA) of front roof plate, and that the section in front of the commander is much thicker still. :-P Point being, it seems like the upper quarter of the Leo's turret is under protected from the front- which is a reasonable compromise to make when one considers that in a good hull down position that profile is reduced, ricochets are more likely, and real world human gunners are unlikely to be aiming at its "glass forehead". I'd just like to hear from some knowledgeable folks about what they reckon it is (a definitive tape measure pic would also be great :-P)

Sorry to pester you gentlemen I notice that at least 80% of the kills the AI gets on me in the Leo 2A4 (hull down) is through shots to the turret front roof. I'm trying to get a sense of the general levels of protection provided by front turret roof and glacis plates on modern MBTs. Consensus on what I've read so far is that, in general, it's surprisingly thin steel (40-70mm), obviously inclined at under 10 degrees obliquity. Can you guys give me some figures for, say, the Leo 2A4, the M1A1, and the Challenger? Judging by the Steel Beasts model, the front turret roofs are 40mm for the Leo and 80mm for the Abrams. Close enough?

I think SSnake said it best: No one is coming out of that battle looking good.

Bucs, Thuds and 'Varks are indeed going to have a hard time of things, circa 1975... but by 85 things are looking a little different. Early 80s, the Brits and Germans are flying Tornadoes as well, and the French and Brits are flying Jaguars (though the Jag is a bit on the short range end of BAI missions). Put some Weasel Police (Wild Weasel SEAD planes with anti-radiation HARM missiles) in the air, and any stationary or semi-stationary is going to have a dreadful time of it if they keep pinging. Granted, by this stage the SA-10 and SA-11 are in service, but they need to deal with SEAD missions first before they can attack BAI planes. Again, true enough Hedgehog, though its reasonable to think that even with toss or lob bombing a reasonably skilled pilot is going to get lucky taking out a fuel or ammo dump, or slowing down a logistics train Sure, the Soviets would have been great at bridging stuff. Pontoon bridges are fairly easy to construct, and they had MT-55s by the thousands- what I'm talking about are the arterial bridges further back- road and railway bridges that are a bigger issue to fix. Taking such a target out isnt going to stop the advance, but it is going to *slow* it. Turning the flood into a trickle, as it were. On a highway, sure- though those are going to be tempting to crater bomb/mine. Long term though, it becomes a traffic nightmare if your logistics train mingles across units. People get lost, or stuck behind broken down vehicles. God help you if you throw a track. The Egyptians had that problem in the Sinai in 67, and the Syrians on the Golan in 73. Though I'm sure the Soviets are in a league above in terms of organising their logistics and traffic, a full scale attack on the West would have been... complicated... logistically to say the least. At Cuito Caunavale in 1987, for example, South Africa struggled to keep the equivalent of a mechanised brigade supplied 100km into Angola :-P. And they were only 250km away from their staging bases in Namibia. It was a major deciding factor in being unable to take the town (along with some bad higher echelon decision making). Indeed again, the job of blunting an initial attack would have fallen on conventional ground troops, European air forces and USAFE. It wouldn't have taken long for the 37th and 49th Wings (F-117 drivers)) to redeploy to forward bases in Europe though, specifically RAF Lakenheath- where they had pre-prepared facilities. Overall, pre 1985-ish, things look pretty grim for NATO, though their odds start improving after. Before though, those Soviet regiments really do look like they could make the Channel in three weeks, maybe four.* *Excluding nuclear war of course

Fair enough point, although not everyone on the defence is going to be engaged all the time. A reserve force's crews are likely to be fresh enough to take over fighting at night, and its surprising what just an hour of sleep and some food can do to help with fatigue. :-P

Technology marches on, eh? It illustrates pretty eloquently the power of pressure and density, when you consider the Bofors is kind of in the same league as a 2pdr :-P APFSDS harnesses muzzle energy extremely efficiently, compared to old solid shot anyway. I would wager that Denmark quite liked the prospect of tapping into 35mm ammunition being developed by Oerlikon/Rheinmetall for the Gepard and for naval air defence. AHEAD is quite a versatile round, if perhaps not as ideal for ground warfare as the Swedish P3 40mm. Having a common 35mm caliber for ground/naval forces is going to simplify logistics a lot. IIRC, Oerlikon also developed AHEAD ammo in 30mm, not sure if its compatible with the Finns Bushmaster. Which I'm fairly certain was a decision made with an eye on equipping with future US developed rounds for the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (which is dead now) or the GCV (which looks like its dying).