Quote:
Originally Posted by zraver
Those numbers are suspect besides being from a gaming site. 1- in Lebanon not one Kornet affected a penetration of the Merkava IV and it has thinner armor to the front 750-1340. 2- Russian tests reported by Vassily Fovanov on his site show that vs a T-90 showed the Kornet failed to achieve a turret penetration 580-1040. 3- Even when the US attacks an Abrams t destroy it in place they go for side shots and thats with Mavericks and Hellfires to ensure penetration, although I would not trust the Abrams armor vs either of them.
So while that site is a good starting point, its numbers for protection seem low.
|
The numbers for T-90 protection on Fofanov's site are with or without ERA?
Yes, those numbers are from a number of sites that may or may not be correct. Fortunately for us (you in particular, I suspect), the US military chooses not to publish detailed numbers on such things all over the internet for people who don't need to know to see.
Indeed, Hizballah's experience with the Kornet does not prove its capabilities beyond what we already knew. They were well trained, and they made sure to take flank shots to vlunerable areas, such as the engine exhaust area. Hizballah is not necessarilly a good example of what most tankers would face, considering their swarming tactics (7-8 missiles per tank) they would probably run out of ammo pretty quickly without resupply. Most organizations, be they state or guerilla, usually cannot afford such a prolifiration of ATMGs, but Hizballah ground forces focused on that pretty exlusively, which makes sense in light of the armored threat they were facing. Although some groups might pick up their tactics and example, I suspect it won't work as well if applied on less harsh terrain, not to mention against an opponent that correctly applies the past 60 years of lessons in the importance of combined arms.
Sorry, /Hizballah rant off