It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I feel Tanks are no longer useful, but Russia's most advanced Tank

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by llfrequencyll
oh and BTW, I dont think the lelerc is much of a tank, I think the best anti ATM tank would be the Russian t-95.


en.wikipedia.org...

not black eagle tank, thats just the base design.

www.fas.org...

cool anti ATM tech.

" The T-90 is equiped with the TShU-1-7 Shtora-1 optronic counter measures system which is designed to disrupt the laser target designation and rangefinders of incoming ATGM."


US ant tank missiles can use mm wave radar and are countermeasure resistant




posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158

Originally posted by psteel
If the base armor on the tank prior to mounting the ERA is 900-1000mm vs HEAT warheads then it don't matter what the Tandem charge does, its not enough to penetrate. Top attack is a niffty concept as long as it works. Overflying target means additional problems in target discrimination prior to firing that will reduce hit probabilty and also leaves the missile vulnerable to electronic decoying.

While the APFSDS is impressive it overates some of the penetration. At combat range penetration of 800 is the norm and with 200mm reduction that means a base armor of 600mm is all thats needed. Thats 1990 M-1A1HA level. If the Russians have not already exceeded that level of protection, they soon will....and as was pointed out Kontakt 5 is being replaced by Kaktus which is better [not sure how]. Looks like better coverage which is the main stubbling block of most ERA, since they only achieve coverage levels of around 50%.


top attack munition shave been developed hence the the abrams XM 943 ammunition missiles are also getting skiled in this plus a good shot in the wheels will stop it moving. do u have any proof they're overrrated because the US's latest DU penetrator is calssified


the latest ones are countermeasur e resistance and do u understand how tandem warheads work. theres 2 warheads one detonates thea rmor once it has laready been damaged a powerful shot in the ame place and it will easily pnetrate thats waht the precursor and main warhead do if your tank had 1000mm protection it wouldnt atter because once my precursor charge has penetrated some tht will be much easier for the main warhead to go through..



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Yea true that the U.S. has CCM. I still think Russia is gonna hab CCM tech as well. In that case I no idea whatll happen lol



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 05:02 PM
link   
chec out what happened to a tank when it got hit by the javelin users.rcn.com... its pretty funny



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158
chec out what happened to a tank when it got hit by the javelin users.rcn.com... its pretty funny


What a video. Amazing


Justin



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158
chec out what happened to a tank when it got hit by the javelin users.rcn.com... its pretty funny


what version of t-72 was that. it didnt even have any composite armour or even ERA. it had to be the early version from the size of the cannon(105mm?) of the tank becuase the newer upgrades are way more tougher and stronger that that plus they come with ERA or composite which would sevearly reduced the damage of the javalin missile.



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by iqonx

Originally posted by urmomma158
chec out what happened to a tank when it got hit by the javelin users.rcn.com... its pretty funny


what version of t-72 was that. it didnt even have any composite armour or even ERA. it had to be the early version from the size of the cannon(105mm?) of the tank becuase the newer upgrades are way more tougher and stronger that that plus they come with ERA or composite which would sevearly reduced the damage of the javalin missile.


i only posted it cuz it wuz a cool video plus the javelin is made to defeat al types of reactive armours including ERa javelin is a tandem charge( 2 charges) a precursur charge damages/detonates the Era armor that clears a way for the main warhead to destroy the tank its is highly effective evn against the latest reactive/ERA armors dont be foolish www.army-technology.com...
www.fas.org...
www.designation-systems.net...



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158

Originally posted by iqonx

Originally posted by urmomma158
chec out what happened to a tank when it got hit by the javelin users.rcn.com... its pretty funny


what version of t-72 was that. it didnt even have any composite armour or even ERA. it had to be the early version from the size of the cannon(105mm?) of the tank becuase the newer upgrades are way more tougher and stronger that that plus they come with ERA or composite which would sevearly reduced the damage of the javalin missile.


i only posted it cuz it wuz a cool video plus the javelin is made to defeat al types of reactive armours including ERa javelin is a tandem charge( 2 charges) a precursur charge damages/detonates the Era armor that clears a way for the main warhead to destroy the tank its is highly effective evn against the latest reactive/ERA armors dont be foolish www.army-technology.com...
www.fas.org...
www.designation-systems.net...


i understand that but it nutralises the first charge which make a hell of a big difference it means the difference between survival and death. the damage would have been considerably less if it had been armed with ERA or layered with composites.



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158

Originally posted by urmomma158

Originally posted by psteel
If the base armor on the tank prior to mounting the ERA is 900-1000mm vs HEAT warheads then it don't matter what the Tandem charge does, its not enough to penetrate. Top attack is a niffty concept as long as it works. Overflying target means additional problems in target discrimination prior to firing that will reduce hit probabilty and also leaves the missile vulnerable to electronic decoying.

While the APFSDS is impressive it overates some of the penetration. At combat range penetration of 800 is the norm and with 200mm reduction that means a base armor of 600mm is all thats needed. Thats 1990 M-1A1HA level. If the Russians have not already exceeded that level of protection, they soon will....and as was pointed out Kontakt 5 is being replaced by Kaktus which is better [not sure how]. Looks like better coverage which is the main stubbling block of most ERA, since they only achieve coverage levels of around 50%.


top attack munition shave been developed hence the the abrams XM 943 ammunition missiles are also getting skiled in this plus a good shot in the wheels will stop it moving. do u have any proof they're overrrated because the US's latest DU penetrator is calssified


the latest ones are countermeasur e resistance and do u understand how tandem warheads work. theres 2 warheads one detonates thea rmor once it has laready been damaged a powerful shot in the ame place and it will easily pnetrate thats waht the precursor and main warhead do if your tank had 1000mm protection it wouldnt atter because once my precursor charge has penetrated some tht will be much easier for the main warhead to go through..



I can barely understand what you are saying??? I already explained that the tandem charge on the Javelin is unable to completely penetrate the Heavy ERA so the main charge has to attempt that. But since the base armor of most modern tanks includes about 1000mm HEAT resistance, this too is more than the Javelin can penetrate.

There is no such thing as a weapon that is 'counter measure resistant'. To every measure their is a countermeasure. Self guiding missiles are usually more vulnerable to deception than the human operator.

BTW that video of the T-72 vs Javelin....its a rigged test. The target had HE placed inside to simulate the ammo detonating. When ammo 'cooks off' it takes seconds [2-8 seconds] ,as the ammo starts to shoots off. Its like a blow torch out of every opening in the tank , until the turret ring fails and the turret pops . HE detonation on the other hand will blow a target to bits instantly [no delay] .



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by iqonx

Originally posted by urmomma158

Originally posted by iqonx

Originally posted by urmomma158
chec out what happened to a tank when it got hit by the javelin users.rcn.com... its pretty funny


what version of t-72 was that. it didnt even have any composite armour or even ERA. it had to be the early version from the size of the cannon(105mm?) of the tank becuase the newer upgrades are way more tougher and stronger that that plus they come with ERA or composite which would sevearly reduced the damage of the javalin missile.


i only posted it cuz it wuz a cool video plus the javelin is made to defeat al types of reactive armours including ERa javelin is a tandem charge( 2 charges) a precursur charge damages/detonates the Era armor that clears a way for the main warhead to destroy the tank its is highly effective evn against the latest reactive/ERA armors dont be foolish www.army-technology.com...
www.fas.org...
www.designation-systems.net...


i understand that but it nutralises the first charge which make a hell of a big difference it means the difference between survival and death. the damage would have been considerably less if it had been armed with ERA or layered with composites.


once the first charge pnetrates it detonates the ERA yes but the second charge is mcuh more powerful especially since the rmor has been sigificantly weakened. Its a top attack munition tanks are very lightly armored at the top people keep ignoring this fact.



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 01:18 PM
link   
when trferring to 1000m protection of a tank that doesnt mean verywhere with any tank they're lightly armored at the top and under. Lets not forget M1A and challenger were disbaled when they took a shot to wheelS(not destoryed just not able to move). i agree that at some parts the javelin would be ineffective but its a top attack munition where the tank is lightly armored.members.tripod.com... (armor protection levels)



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Ironic I am here because I hate people talking BS about warfare (some philistine talking about the greatness of combat knife warfare). But anyway tanks are still pretty usefull, and used.

I mean consider the war in iraq, assloads of chopers and humves were lost (and the flaming coffins dispached the riders as well), but how many US tanks with uranium enriched (so I think, uncertain) armor have been lost? One or two, the story behind one that was lost that it was on a bridge or something, and it fell into a river upside down having the people in it traped.

Note that it can be considered tough when a primary source of losses are due to geologic/natural problems (mear 'mortals' can't even touch them). In order to distroy one, insurgants would need to blow up a sky scraper and have it fall on it, have enough explosives to send it in the air, or mabey blow up a mountain in hopes of burying it. The feared RPG can olny make scratches on it, even its rear armor.

The olny hand portable thing that insurgants which might be able to perice such armor would be a rail gun, which isn't in cerculation yet.



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 06:24 PM
link   


This article is Army Times, page 16, 02/16/06

U.S. Army armor, vehicle, and helicopter losses in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001

this does NOT include the USMC, USAF and US Navy losses.

The Army has lost 85 helicopters broken down as;
-27 Apache's
-21 Black Hawks
-14 Chinooks
-23 Kiowa's
Armor and wheeled vehicles are as follows;
-20 M1 Tanks
-50 Bradley's
-20 Strykers
-20 M113's
-250 Humvees
-500 Medium/Heavy Trucks, FOX recon, mine clearers, and trailers
Additional numbers in the article are;
- 230 M1 were rebuilt in 2005, the number will top 700 in 2006.
- 318 Bradleys rebuilt in 2005, the number will top 600 in 2006.
- 219 M113's in 2005, the number will top 614 in 2006.
- 5,000 Humvees in 2005, the number will top 9,000 in 2006.
- 44 aircraft in 2005, the number will be close to 85 in 2006.
The Army has ordered 16 new Apaches, and 5 new Black Hawks. But cannot replace the 27 Kiowas because production lines are no longer open.
Quote- "There are thousands of small arms, radios, and generators that require major repair and overhaul. The repair backlog includes almost every major equipment item, from 50 caliber machine guns to hundreds of thousands of pads for tank tracks".
There are currently 30,000 Humvees in theater, once the war is over, 6,000 will be "washed out" upon return to the states, the rest will be repaired and overhauled.
Every M1 thats being repaired or overhauled comes out as a M1A2 (SEP) at a cost of 7 million each. The upgrades will reduce the M1 versions from 5 to 2, (M1A1 AIM and the M1A2 SEP). Bradleys will also be reduced to just 2 versions.
Army workshops have cranked up capacity from 11 million man hours in 2002, to 20 million hours in 2005. AMC sends half its repair work to private-sector firms to help with the load




posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by psteel



This article is Army Times, page 16, 02/16/06

U.S. Army armor, vehicle, and helicopter losses in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001

this does NOT include the USMC, USAF and US Navy losses.

The Army has lost 85 helicopters broken down as;
-27 Apache's
-21 Black Hawks
-14 Chinooks
-23 Kiowa's
Armor and wheeled vehicles are as follows;
-20 M1 Tanks
-50 Bradley's
-20 Strykers
-20 M113's
-250 Humvees
-500 Medium/Heavy Trucks, FOX recon, mine clearers, and trailers
Additional numbers in the article are;
- 230 M1 were rebuilt in 2005, the number will top 700 in 2006.
- 318 Bradleys rebuilt in 2005, the number will top 600 in 2006.
- 219 M113's in 2005, the number will top 614 in 2006.
- 5,000 Humvees in 2005, the number will top 9,000 in 2006.
- 44 aircraft in 2005, the number will be close to 85 in 2006.
The Army has ordered 16 new Apaches, and 5 new Black Hawks. But cannot replace the 27 Kiowas because production lines are no longer open.
Quote- "There are thousands of small arms, radios, and generators that require major repair and overhaul. The repair backlog includes almost every major equipment item, from 50 caliber machine guns to hundreds of thousands of pads for tank tracks".
There are currently 30,000 Humvees in theater, once the war is over, 6,000 will be "washed out" upon return to the states, the rest will be repaired and overhauled.
Every M1 thats being repaired or overhauled comes out as a M1A2 (SEP) at a cost of 7 million each. The upgrades will reduce the M1 versions from 5 to 2, (M1A1 AIM and the M1A2 SEP). Bradleys will also be reduced to just 2 versions.
Army workshops have cranked up capacity from 11 million man hours in 2002, to 20 million hours in 2005. AMC sends half its repair work to private-sector firms to help with the load



ok so got anything esle to say aboutmhow tanks are invulnerable.didntthink so. I agree with u tanks are tough to take out but theres weaposn out there like the javelin which destroy tanks one hit KO because they're top attack weapons thatswhere a tank is lightly armored. besides the preadator and javelin weapons are designed for next generation armor threats no sane devloper would make the javelin hit the turretbecause if it hit there it wouldnt penetrate allthe way.



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by psteel

Originally posted by urmomma158

Originally posted by urmomma158

Originally posted by psteel
If the base armor on the tank prior to mounting the ERA is 900-1000mm vs HEAT warheads then it don't matter what the Tandem charge does, its not enough to penetrate. Top attack is a niffty concept as long as it works. Overflying target means additional problems in target discrimination prior to firing that will reduce hit probabilty and also leaves the missile vulnerable to electronic decoying.

While the APFSDS is impressive it overates some of the penetration. At combat range penetration of 800 is the norm and with 200mm reduction that means a base armor of 600mm is all thats needed. Thats 1990 M-1A1HA level. If the Russians have not already exceeded that level of protection, they soon will....and as was pointed out Kontakt 5 is being replaced by Kaktus which is better [not sure how]. Looks like better coverage which is the main stubbling block of most ERA, since they only achieve coverage levels of around 50%.


top attack munition shave been developed hence the the abrams XM 943 ammunition missiles are also getting skiled in this plus a good shot in the wheels will stop it moving. do u have any proof they're overrrated because the US's latest DU penetrator is calssified


the latest ones are countermeasur e resistance and do u understand how tandem warheads work. theres 2 warheads one detonates thea rmor once it has laready been damaged a powerful shot in the ame place and it will easily pnetrate thats waht the precursor and main warhead do if your tank had 1000mm protection it wouldnt atter because once my precursor charge has penetrated some tht will be much easier for the main warhead to go through..



I can barely understand what you are saying??? I already explained that the tandem charge on the Javelin is unable to completely penetrate the Heavy ERA so the main charge has to attempt that. But since the base armor of most modern tanks includes about 1000mm HEAT resistance, this too is more than the Javelin can penetrate.

There is no such thing as a weapon that is 'counter measure resistant'. To every measure their is a countermeasure. Self guiding missiles are usually more vulnerable to deception than the human operator.

BTW that video of the T-72 vs Javelin....its a rigged test. The target had HE placed inside to simulate the ammo detonating. When ammo 'cooks off' it takes seconds [2-8 seconds] ,as the ammo starts to shoots off. Its like a blow torch out of every opening in the tank , until the turret ring fails and the turret pops . HE detonation on the other hand will blow a target to bits instantly [no delay] .
a lot of weapons are countermesure resisntant not foolproof though. besides there are weak parts on tank whichmake optimum strike points. Do u ahve any proof DU rounds are overrated didnt think so.


[edit on 18-3-2006 by urmomma158]



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158
a lot of weapons are countermesure resisntant not foolproof though. besides there are weak parts on tank whichmake optimum strike points. Do u ahve any proof DU rounds are overrated didnt think so.


[edit on 18-3-2006 by urmomma158]


I already gave you the information you need to understand. The rest is up to you.



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 10:31 PM
link   
u didn tpost any sources explaining you resons why DU penetrators ar e overrated



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158
u didn tpost any sources explaining you resons why DU penetrators ar e overrated


I don't have to at this point . All you need to know with reference to the site you quoted, is that the original estimates on penetration of the M-829A3 were based on the original JANES information that suggested muzzle velocity over 1800m/s. Since then the actual round has been had that muzzle velocity down rated , due to ware on the barrel. All other things being equal its performance is down. The latest estimate puts the penetration on par with the DM-53 fired through the L55 gun.



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lanton
ch1466's using one of those 'essay'-writing programs...ya know, the ones where you enter the subject or topic you want and it writes a whole 'essay' for you. 99% of the content of his posts is composed of that 'essay' stuff (stuff not pertinent in the least to the subject matter we're discussing),


Pertinent is something it would become if you were less ignorant than you clearly are. Essay programs do not manage this and suggesting as much leaves you looking quite the fool.


and the other 1% (basically a line or two) consists of unsubstantiated claims like the LOSAT being tested, successfully, on an M1A2.


And you really think yourself well enough informed to decide on the truth of the matter?


Maybe one of the mods'll twig onto what he's doing and ban him for spamming the forum.


I suggest you stop posting entirely as your wasting everyone with half a brains time.

Stellar



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
ch1466 made 300+ post.

Knock yourself out I read all his post


Stop bragging, who hasn't?
Took me a few weeks to get to them all but a very rewarding process it's been....

Stellar

[edit on 19-3-2006 by StellarX]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join