PDA

View Full Version : A little sub...



lurker
18 Jan 06,, 20:55
;)

lurker
26 Jan 06,, 07:53
Lots of little subs preparing to submerge...

Garry
26 Jan 06,, 12:57
Lots of little subs preparing to submerge...

So these did not need a battle for bridge to cross the Eufratus.... They could have crossed it somewhere else..... Though bridge is still good for supplies.

kNikS
26 Jan 06,, 19:32
Где си, је6ему, нашао ове слике??? :confused:

kNikS
26 Jan 06,, 19:41
Thеse are T-72AV with BROD-M, right? And BMP-2, off course.

Dreadnought
26 Jan 06,, 21:11
Cool :cool:

dalem
26 Jan 06,, 21:49
You do know that we can still see that stuff from orbit and fire self-guiding top-penetrator submunitions from artillery 10 miles away when they dry off?

But no, putting a tank underwater is sure cute.

-dale

lurker
27 Jan 06,, 00:12
You do know that we can still see that stuff from orbit

You can't, there is no real-time visual surveillance.



and fire self-guiding top-penetrator submunitions from artillery 10 miles away when they dry off?

Of course you can. Btw, they don't need to dry up. Snorkels can be jettisoned in a minute.

lurker
27 Jan 06,, 00:13
Thеse are T-72AV with BROD-M, right? And BMP-2, off course.
You know better ;) I just got a nice load of huge 2000x1200 pictures, and now posting them :)

TopHatter
27 Jan 06,, 01:07
So these did not need a battle for bridge to cross the Eufratus.... They could have crossed it somewhere else..... Though bridge is still good for supplies.
That's assuming you can get into the water and also find a place to exit the water ;)

And yes, resupply those beasts after they've reached the opposite shore.

Parihaka
27 Jan 06,, 01:21
You do know that we can still see that stuff from orbit and fire self-guiding top-penetrator submunitions from artillery 10 miles away when they dry off?

But no, putting a tank underwater is sure cute.

-dale
Hell, I could swim over to them, spray some hairspray into the snorkels and drop a (waterproof) match in. Think of the money you'd save.

dalem
27 Jan 06,, 01:57
You can't, there is no real-time visual surveillance.

Of course there is. Not always convenient like in the movies though, so UAVs are better for that sort of thing.

-dale

dalem
27 Jan 06,, 01:58
Hell, I could swim over to them, spray some hairspray into the snorkels and drop a (waterproof) match in. Think of the money you'd save.

I hereby appoint parihaka as the new Minister of Novel Boomstick Ideas in the land of daletopia!

-dale

lurker
27 Jan 06,, 02:50
Of course there is. Not always convenient like in the movies though, so UAVs are better for that sort of thing.

-dale
What spacecraft? :rolleyes:

Parihaka
27 Jan 06,, 02:53
I hereby appoint parihaka as the new Minister of Novel Boomstick Ideas in the land of daletopia!

-dale
Wooo hooo, promotion at last! Mwahhaaahhaaaa......

Horrido
27 Jan 06,, 09:15
Hell, I could swim over to them, spray some hairspray into the snorkels and drop a (waterproof) match in. Think of the money you'd save.

Hornets nest...

dalem
27 Jan 06,, 10:33
What spacecraft? :rolleyes:

Well, KH-11 for one, and that's only what I can get from my memory and confirm with Google public info, you stupid a$$wipe.

Do you make an effort at achieving your demonstrated level of ignorance, or does it come naturally?

-dale

lurker
27 Jan 06,, 13:48
Well, KH-11 for one, and that's only what I can get from my memory and confirm with Google public info, you stupid a$$wipe.

Do you make an effort at achieving your demonstrated level of ignorance, or does it come naturally?

-dale
KH-11 - sun-synchronous orbits, passes once a day usually in the morning. No real time. All the orbits are published for everybody to check.

Next :)

p.s. Ignorance huh? There are different levels of it. I am just happens to know a little bit, and ignorant of science fiction. :biggrin:

Dreadnought
27 Jan 06,, 15:05
I think its really cool that you can watertight a tank and fully submerge it.

Not that it is meant to do it ofcoarse but how long can they remain submerged any limit on time?

Ok gonna ask a dumb question here... Can it defend itself while still submerged?

kNikS
27 Jan 06,, 18:11
You do know that we can still see that stuff from orbit and fire self-guiding top-penetrator submunitions from artillery 10 miles away when they dry off?
Of course but there are so many a lot easier ways to kill a tank. Besides, Russians can do a similar thing with Pchela-1T UAV and Krasnopol laser-guided artillery projectile. ;)


Hell, I could swim over to them, spray some hairspray into the snorkels and drop a (waterproof) match in. Think of the money you'd save.
And this is certainly one of those ways. :biggrin:

dalem
27 Jan 06,, 18:39
KH-11 - sun-synchronous orbits, passes once a day usually in the morning. No real time. All the orbits are published for everybody to check.

Next :)

p.s. Ignorance huh? There are different levels of it. I am just happens to know a little bit, and ignorant of science fiction. :biggrin:

Really, how you continue to post here when you are constantly painting yourself as an ignorant fool amazes me.

A quick Google brings up this. (http://www.spacetoday.org/Satellites/YugoWarSats.html)

-dale

dalem
27 Jan 06,, 18:43
I think its really cool that you can watertight a tank and fully submerge it.

Not that it is meant to do it ofcoarse but how long can they remain submerged any limit on time?

Ok gonna ask a dumb question here... Can it defend itself while still submerged?

It's an idea that has never worked out well. The Germans tried it on some of their tanks 'way back and they were displeased with the results as well. The closest success was the Brit-designed duplex drive that ended up being used on the Sherman, but that only got the tank "swimming", not fully submerged.

-dale

lurker
27 Jan 06,, 18:47
Really, how you continue to post here when you are constantly painting yourself as an ignorant fool amazes me.

A quick Google brings up this. (http://www.spacetoday.org/Satellites/YugoWarSats.html)

-dale
How about you read the link you have posted, and see for your self that it talks only about photography. Once/twice a day max per sattellite.

Why do you think Predator drones were created? There is no constant real-time visual surveiilance from space. Yet.

I am just merely suggesting you to stop watching your StarTrek movies, and try to learn more about real things. Instead of calling other people ingorant, and being lame ignorant person at the same time.

dalem
28 Jan 06,, 05:38
How about you read the link you have posted, and see for your self that it talks only about photography. Once/twice a day max per sattellite.

Why do you think Predator drones were created? There is no constant real-time visual surveiilance from space. Yet.

I am just merely suggesting you to stop watching your StarTrek movies, and try to learn more about real things. Instead of calling other people ingorant, and being lame ignorant person at the same time.

From the page RE the KH-11:


"KH-11 satellites transmit images in real time to ground stations via Milstar communications relay satellites."

What about that take is not real time?

-dale

lurker
28 Jan 06,, 05:55
From the page RE the KH-11:



What about that take is not real time?

-dale
So you got a static picture transmitted instantly from a sattellite once a day. Three times, if you have 3 sats.

How is that "constant"?

So you spotted a group of tanks.

Good luck locating them in 2-3-4 hours.

Parihaka
28 Jan 06,, 22:34
Hornets nest...
I prefer petrol and a wick for the hornets nest ;)

dalem
28 Jan 06,, 23:11
So you got a static picture transmitted instantly from a sattellite once a day. Three times, if you have 3 sats.

How is that "constant"?

So you spotted a group of tanks.

Good luck locating them in 2-3-4 hours.

So you admit that it is real time?

-dale

kNikS
28 Jan 06,, 23:40
I seen the link… it’s full of hot-talk about Yugoslavia campaign… four dozen satellites but only 13 killed tanks…

lurker
28 Jan 06,, 23:51
I seen the linkÖ itís full of hot-talk about Yugoslavia campaignÖ four dozen satellites but only 13 killed tanksÖ
Ехactly my point. :) If you got a static picture, you need a time to analyze it.



So you admit that it is real time?
When I was talking about "real-time visual" I meant "available any time day and night", constant, better dynamic.

Instant photo transmission from a sat once a day, which orbit is known to everyone is just not working. :)

dalem
29 Jan 06,, 08:09
Ехactly my point. :) If you got a static picture, you need a time to analyze it.



When I was talking about "real-time visual" I meant "available any time day and night", constant, better dynamic.

Instant photo transmission from a sat once a day, which orbit is known to everyone is just not working. :)

If that's what you meant, then that's what you should have typed.

-dale

lurker
29 Jan 06,, 08:16
If that's what you meant, then that's what you should have typed.

-dale
You said that you are going to spot and track a group of tanks from a sat.
I said you can't. And you can't.

Thats understandable?

dalem
29 Jan 06,, 10:14
You said that you are going to spot and track a group of tanks from a sat.
I said you can't. And you can't.

Thats understandable?

I said we could spot them from orbit and kill them with arty from 10 miles away. Which we could.

You stated that there are no realtime intel feeds from current satellites. Which there are.

Then you probably shook your rattle and killed a chicken to divine your next weird "fact".

-dale

lurker
29 Jan 06,, 10:27
I said we could spot them from orbit and kill them with arty from 10 miles away. Which we could.

You stated that there are no realtime intel feeds from current satellites. Which there are.

You haven't did that before, as kNikS stated. So you couldn't.

Yes, you said something weird about a super-puper "top-penetrator" :) Whats the model? Have not heard about such a thing. From what StarTrek episode?



Then you probably shook your rattle and killed a chicken to divine your next weird "fact".
-dale
Yeah, post some more hot shot "facts" about killing tanks en masse spotted from a sat. :biggrin: Teleporting bombs right inside of them? :biggrin:

Kid<2>Nite
29 Jan 06,, 15:03
Lots of little subs preparing to submerge...



Hard to tell from the picture....but it looks like they are limited to 20 feet before they start sucking in water instead of air :eek:

lurker
29 Jan 06,, 15:06
Hard to tell from the picture....but it looks like they are limited to 20 feet before they start sucking in water instead of air :eek:
Yes, of course. Limited depth, need to go on a straight line and so on.

kNikS
29 Jan 06,, 19:01
…NRO also has three digital-imaging satellites known as KH-11. They delivered very high resolution pictures in visible light and infrared. They couldn't see through foliage, but they could see at night in good weather…

Obviously, they didn’t see too much. All in all, very modest chances to detect a vehicle, nvm weapon guidance and other stuff.

Gun Grape
29 Jan 06,, 20:14
Yes, of course. Limited depth, need to go on a straight line and so on.


And you need to keep a slow speed, and distance between vehicles and keep them from going off in a strange direction (since they are driving blind).

The reason the US uses AVLBs and other bridging equipment.

dalem
29 Jan 06,, 22:47
You haven't did that before, as kNikS stated. So you couldn't.

Yes, you said something weird about a super-puper "top-penetrator" :) Whats the model? Have not heard about such a thing. From what StarTrek episode?

Read a book, child. Failing that, do a google search on "copperhead" artillery rounds. That's what we had back in the early 80s, And I know what we have now is equal or better.



Yeah, post some more hot shot "facts" about killing tanks en masse spotted from a sat. :biggrin: Teleporting bombs right inside of them? :biggrin:

You really are gut-wrenchingly ignorant, aren't you? It's not just some kind of web act. How sad.

-dale

lurker
29 Jan 06,, 22:51
Read a book, child. Failing that, do a google search on "copperhead" artillery rounds. That's what we had back in the early 80s, And I know what we have now is equal or better.

"Copperhead"? M712? Laser-guided?

Who'is going to illuminate the targets from 10 km, snob? :biggrin: You with your naked a**?




You really are gut-wrenchingly ignorant, aren't you? It's not just some kind of web act. How sad.
-dale
I just hate stupid lame snobs, thats it :biggrin:

dalem
29 Jan 06,, 22:59
"Copperhead"? M712? Laser-guided?

Who'is going to illuminate the targets from 10 km, snob? :biggrin: You with your naked a**?



I just hate stupid lame snobs, thats it :biggrin:

So you couldn't even find SADARM.

-dale

lurker
29 Jan 06,, 23:05
So you couldn't even find SADARM.

Read, before you post stupid things. SADARm is against lightly armored targets only. EFP means just a shot of melted copper.

Gun Grape
29 Jan 06,, 23:58
Read, before you post stupid things. SADARm is against lightly armored targets only. EFP means just a shot of melted copper.


You really need to take another look at that. SADARM is not a soft skin vehicle killer.

Hence the name Sense And Destroy ARMor. It will punch through any armored vehicle around today. To include all tanks.

Gun Grape
30 Jan 06,, 00:02
"Copperhead"? M712? Laser-guided?

Who'is going to illuminate the targets from 10 km, snob? :biggrin: You with your naked a**?



I just hate stupid lame snobs, thats it :biggrin:

Hating yourself then?

Who will illuminate? How about that AFAC. Any F-15/16/18/117 AH-1/64 or a whole host of RPVs that can be outfitted with a laser designator

lurker
30 Jan 06,, 00:24
You really need to take another look at that. SADARM is a soft skin vehicle killer.

Hence the name Search And Destroy ARMor. It will punch through any armored vehicle around today. To include all tanks.
Didn't find anywhere data about the penetration ability of SADARM.

But Russian army uses similar (but much bigger in size) anti-helicopter mines with EFP, and effective range against a "soft" target is 200m. I doubt that SADARM can do anything about a heavy armoured target.

lurker
30 Jan 06,, 00:27
Hating yourself then?
Who will illuminate? How about that AFAC. Any F-15/16/18/117 AH-1/64 or a whole host of RPVs that can be outfitted with a laser designator
I know, but this is entirely different picture. :) I just like to play with stupid :)

His original post was:


You do know that we can still see that stuff from orbit and fire self-guiding top-penetrator submunitions from artillery 10 miles away when they dry off?

Nice and clean, no aviation involved.


p.s. You guys never fought in AA saturated environment. When you face 10000 shoulder mounted Igla's down to every squad, and tons of other equipment entirely designed to eliminate your aviation - the picture will be not so pretty.

Gun Grape
30 Jan 06,, 01:23
Didn't find anywhere data about the penetration ability of SADARM.

But Russian army uses similar (but much bigger in size) anti-helicopter mines with EFP, and effective range against a "soft" target is 200m. I doubt that SADARM can do anything about a heavy armoured target.

No and you won't on an unclassified level. Same as the M-712 which is a 30 yr old program.

Both will penetrate ANY armored vehicle.

dalem
30 Jan 06,, 01:26
I know, but this is entirely different picture. :) I just like to play with stupid :)

His original post was:

Nice and clean, no aviation involved.


p.s. You guys never fought in AA saturated environment. When you face 10000 shoulder mounted Igla's down to every squad, and tons of other equipment entirely designed to eliminate your aviation - the picture will be not so pretty.

SADARM doesn't need on-site spotters and can waste anything currently on tracks.

-dale

Gun Grape
30 Jan 06,, 01:31
p.s. You guys never fought in AA saturated environment. When you face 10000 shoulder mounted Igla's down to every squad, and tons of other equipment entirely designed to eliminate your aviation - the picture will be not so pretty.


yea, then we will just use stuff like TacTom, JDAM, JSOW, ATACMs :biggrin:

If a 19 year old boy can penetrate the great soviet airspace and land a Cessna 172 in Red Square at the height of the cold war, I don't think we will have problems against a Soviet built defense system. ;)

lurker
30 Jan 06,, 02:44
No and you won't on an unclassified level. Same as the M-712 which is a 30 yr old program.

Both will penetrate ANY armored vehicle.
Well at least all of the internet sources cauciously say "against lightly armored".

Maybe it's not so, maybe it is. I reccomend not to mention it then.

p.s. Will it kill M1?

lurker
30 Jan 06,, 02:48
yea, then we will just use stuff like TacTom, JDAM, JSOW, ATACMs :biggrin:

If a 19 year old boy can penetrate the great soviet airspace and land a Cessna 172 in Red Square at the height of the cold war, I don't think we will have problems against a Soviet built defense system. ;)
Yes, and we can blind and shot down your sats, and treat your howtizers with a nice sandwich of Smerch and Khrizantema. :)

The boy wasn't flying an F-16 with a full load, officers had a hard time to give orders to shot him down. I completely understand them.

dalem
30 Jan 06,, 05:33
Well at least all of the internet sources cauciously say "against lightly armored".

Maybe it's not so, maybe it is. I reccomend not to mention it then.

p.s. Will it kill M1?

Sure it will. Top armor on an M1 is just as thin as any other MBT.

-dale

lurker
30 Jan 06,, 05:46
yea, then we will just use stuff like TacTom, JDAM, JSOW, ATACMs :biggrin:

Btw, there is an info about a new ultra-short-range passive (or low-visibility) system to cover high priority objects against precision weapons. I.e. guided bombs and cruise missiles.

dalem
30 Jan 06,, 05:54
Btw, there is an info about a new ultra-short-range passive (or low-visibility) system to cover high priority objects against precision weapons. I.e. guided bombs and cruise missiles.

So you pay attention to "info" about new systems but are ignorant of already-deployed systems?

-dale

lurker
30 Jan 06,, 06:12
So you pay attention to "info" about new systems but are ignorant of already-deployed systems?

My fields of interest are PVO and navy, everything else is just from time-to-time.

I can say something about classified systems also
but, as it was already too many times on this board, this info nobody can prove until it is released. So there is no point, really.

dalem
30 Jan 06,, 06:20
My fields of interest are PVO and navy, everything else is just from time-to-time.

I can say something about classified systems also
but, as it was already too many times on this board, this info nobody can prove until it is released. So there is no point, really.

Is it of any import to you that near everything you've typed on this subject has been wrong?

-dale

lurker
30 Jan 06,, 06:37
Is it of any import to you that near everything you've typed on this subject has been wrong?

-dale
Me? Where? How many tanks have you spotted from the sat and air and destroyed in Yugoslavia?

How many years have you hunted Scuds? With what success?

And after that spotless record, You have the guts to say in my face that this thing works, and I am wrong? Prove that this is not your next snobbish blah.

kNikS
30 Jan 06,, 13:23
OK, I have to say few things. First, dale’s link about Yugoslavia campaign. I already quoted that four dozen satellites helped to find and destroy only 13/14 tanks. OK, I’ll give you few more considering that repairing them would be waste of money. And I’m talking about NATO aviation with 105% control of airspace. Including all sorts of laser and GPS and etc guided weapons which GunGrape mentioned. So that concept didn’t work well even in circumstances when there is virtually no air defence, nvm situation with densely deployed modern AA defence. As an illustrative example I could tell you that they couldn’t find wheeled self propelled AA battery and bunch of trucks and pinzgauers in a park 3 minutes away from my block, forget about finding tanks in hilly area covered with forest. I guess that's the meaning of "they couldn't see through foliage, but they could see at night in good weather". Satellite wars my a$$.

Second, I also said that Russains can do similar thing with Krasnopol laser guided artillery projectiles fired from 2S19 or its towed counterpart. And they use bridging equipment, deep fording is only alternative way.

Third, fact is that Copperhead needs designation since it’s laser guided. And if we take into account desigantion by aircrafts considering previosly mentioned 13/14 tanks I would be very pesimistic. And I say 'bravo' for SADARM guidance but I haven’t seen yet that it could pierce a hole in a top of a tank. I’ve seen only pictures with destroyed light vehicles, for example BMP-1 with max 33mm and 2S1 with max 20mm (frontal turret) armor.

dalem
30 Jan 06,, 20:06
Okay children, listen up.

Someone posted a pic of some snorkeling tanks. I made an offhand comment about how it was cute (I've always been dismissive of submerging and snorkeling AFVs but you wouldn't have any reason to know that) but that in comparison we could see them from orbit and we can kill them with artillery submunitions from 10 miles away.

Now, the reality is that we CAN see such things from orbit, although we rarely do, and that we CAN destroy them with SADARM (for instance) although it's hardly ever been necessary. I don't even know if SADARM has been used operationally although I know it's tested successfully.

Now lurker's claims were repeatedly shown to be false, and I used the link provided merely to illustrate that the KH-11 does indeed have real time surveillance ability, not because I thought the air campaign in Yugoslavia was 100% successful, but simply because it was a quick (and I thought decisive) counter to lurker's claims.

Likewise, I invited him to look up things like Copperhead, and now folks are taking that as a claim that Copperhead, a system 25 years old, is the end of the story. But bring up SADARM, and it must work less well than Copperhead.

Huh?

Word of advice - read what I type. If you have questions about what I think, ASK ME, and I will answer, but don't pretend you know ahead of time (unless it's about snorkeling tanks, of course. :) ).

-dale

lurker
30 Jan 06,, 20:26
1st) Probably we have different understanding of real-time. It means "instant", right?
I was meaning more "As soon as it moves - you detect it, and report", there IS sat systems like that in US arsenal, but they are not visual.
If you got to wait for a sat for couple of hours for instantly transmitted images - thats some other "real-time"... With the availability like this, I highly doubt that those sats ever used for close range battlefield recon. Thats why I saw your message as a non sense.

2nd) You understand the difference between "Copperhead" and SADARM warheads? Right?
Then I don't see why you are asking questions about penetrating performace differences of those.

dalem
30 Jan 06,, 20:28
1st) Probably we have different understanding of real-time. It means "instant", right?
I was meaning more "As soon as it moves - you detect it, and report", there IS sat systems like that in US arsenal, but they are not visual.
If you got to wait for a sat for couple of hours for instantly transmitted images - thats some other "real-time"... With the availability like this, I highly doubt that those sats ever used for close range battlefield recon. Thats why I saw your message as a non sense.

2nd) You understand the difference between "Copperhead" and SADARM warheads? Right?
Then I don't see why you are asking questions about penetrating performace differences of those.

1) You should have put it that way the first time instead of the babble that you did post.

2) I understand the differences between Copperhead and SADARM and why and when each was brought into the discussion and for what, quite well. But you do not.

-dale

lurker
30 Jan 06,, 20:35
2) I understand the differences between Copperhead and SADARM and why and when each was brought into the discussion and for what, quite well. But you do not.

Well... Explain it to me then :) Why do you think that SADARM should perform better, penetration-wise. :)

kNikS
30 Jan 06,, 20:48
My point was that real time surveillance from orbit with its capacity of few photos per day isn’t nearly enough to locate a tank and especially not enough to find it and destroy it after some time which is needed for response.

Also my point was that laser guided munitions delivered from air and even worse designated from air aren’t nearly most successful weapon for that task, and from example of my country neither GPS guided weapons are. And all that knowing very limited capabilities of PVO VJ.

Since you mentioned Copperhead I mentioned Krasnopol and they both need laser designation.

Also, I would avoid speculations about SADARM since most of relevant data are classified. But from what is available now we couldn’t’ conclude that they are capable of piercing turret top of a tank. Especially since all available pictures are demonstrating destruction of vehicles with top armor of about 10mm, and top of T-72 covered with ERA has, say, 40cm.

Finally, first thing that I said is that there are many easier ways to kill a tank.

dalem
30 Jan 06,, 21:01
Well... Explain it to me then :) Why do you think that SADARM should perform better, penetration-wise. :)

Quite simply, because it is 25 years more advanced, technology-wise.

-dale

lurker
30 Jan 06,, 21:10
Quite simply, because it is 25 years more advanced, technology-wise.


Thank you. Thats the lame kind of answer I expected.

dalem
30 Jan 06,, 21:25
Thank you. Thats the lame kind of answer I expected.

And what about it, exactly, do you think is lame?

Is it because I failed to address the constant armor vs. penetrator race, therefore effectively nullifying its impact in my argument? Or because you know for a fact that the SADARM penetrator is weaker or equivalent to the Copperhead penetrator (which you may indeed know)?

Where, exactly, does my statment above fail?

-dale

lurker
31 Jan 06,, 01:14
Is it because I failed to address the constant armor vs. penetrator race, therefore effectively nullifying its impact in my argument? Or because you know for a fact that the SADARM penetrator is weaker or equivalent to the Copperhead penetrator (which you may indeed know)?

Where, exactly, does my statment above fail?


The second. SADARM just have other numerous advantages.

dalem
31 Jan 06,, 04:39
The second. SADARM just have other numerous advantages.

Interesting. From where do you get your info on SADARM and Copperhead?

-dale

kNikS
31 Jan 06,, 16:57
Dale, mate, calm down. If you wanted to tell us that there is a mechanism which could kill those tanks you should specify it or in my opinion you should find a simpler one.

I already explained you that KH-11, with its capability of real time surveillance from orbit, as you defined it, really isn’t the thing you should mention in context of detecting, tracking or destroying tanks. In addition to that I explained that either designating or attacking tanks from air with laser or GPS guided weapons which GG mentioned, isn’t the best idea even in conditions where air defence has very limited capabilities.

Also, you hurried to mention Copperhead even if it doesn’t fit second part of your statement, self-guided top-penetrator. I have no doubts that Copperhead, although lacks sophisticated guidance of SADARM, could pass through T-72 turret because of its HEAT 22.5kg warhead. On the other side, I haven’t too many reasons to believe or to conclude that SADARM's EFP is capable of doing the same thing. If you know something that isn’t available in public (that I don’t know), please tell me.

dalem
31 Jan 06,, 19:44
Dale, mate, calm down. If you wanted to tell us that there is a mechanism which could kill those tanks you should specify it or in my opinion you should find a simpler one.

I already explained you that KH-11, with its capability of real time surveillance from orbit, as you defined it, really isnít the thing you should mention in context of detecting, tracking or destroying tanks. In addition to that I explained that either designating or attacking tanks from air with laser or GPS guided weapons which GG mentioned, isnít the best idea even in conditions where air defence has very limited capabilities.

Also, you hurried to mention Copperhead even if it doesnít fit second part of your statement, self-guided top-penetrator. I have no doubts that Copperhead, although lacks sophisticated guidance of SADARM, could pass through T-72 turret because of its HEAT 22.5kg warhead. On the other side, I havenít too many reasons to believe or to conclude that SADARM's EFP is capable of doing the same thing. If you know something that isnít available in public (that I donít know), please tell me.

I've dealt with this lurker creature before and he's a pain in the a$$. Also, I am sick and tired of people "debating" or discussing topics and making facts out of opinions and questions - it pollutes the process and educates no one.

I mentioned Copperhead in the context of the beginnings of a search idea for lurker, and also pointed out that it was old technology. I agree that it was a mistake for me to assume that he would take any steps beyond looking up Copperhead, and unfair for me to also assume that he would hit some kind of general artillery submunition page.

As far as penetration, I don't know any more than public data - I am sadly one of those people who "knows a guy who worked on the program" blah blah blah (lots of munitions contractors here in the Minneapolis area) and all I know is that it's Very Capable. I take Jane's and FAS figures and the like as rough ideas more than anything else, but I'm also not stupid. Over the decades I've read source after source piss on and dismiss the capabilities of LGBs, F-15E, Tomahawk, Apache, M1, M2, M-16, Paladin, MRLS, F-18, J-DAM, J-SOW, and all the rest.

Each of those systems has performed well-to-wonderfully when actually put to the test, and I have no reason to believe that SADARM is going to be the stand-out dog of the bunch. If it's designed to kill tanks from the air, I figure they got the warhead working correctly.

-dale

lurker
31 Jan 06,, 20:37
've dealt with this lurker creature before and he's a pain in the a$$. Also, I am sick and tired of people "debating" or discussing topics and making facts out of opinions and questions - it pollutes the process and educates no one.
ROFL, nobody invited you to post flame baits into this thread in a first place. But indeed you came, and started a charged flame as you always do.

Answers "Just because we are", "just because it's 30 years newer" and so on - thats what pollutes the board and educates noone.

I should probably have answered "only if you want your a** to burn in a thermonuclear fire" in a first place, but that just would reduce me to your level.

Dreadnought
31 Jan 06,, 20:47
Dam you guys are tough....lmao

Your almost as bad as.....

M21Sniper vs ShipWreck
Dreadnought vs Shipwreck
Defcon6 vs B. Smitty
Defcon6 vs Gun Grape

I feel like im a top dollar lawyer quoting major law cases as reference...LMAO :eek: :biggrin:

Should we now add you two? :biggrin:

lurker
31 Jan 06,, 20:56
Should we now add you two? :biggrin:
You can add Defcon6 vs me also :biggrin:

Dreadnought
31 Jan 06,, 21:00
LMAO I believe perhaps we should start our own archieve for reference. :biggrin:

dalem
31 Jan 06,, 21:02
ROFL, nobody invited you to post flame baits into this thread in a first place. But indeed you came, and started a charged flame as you always do.

So simple facts are "flame bait" to you?

-dale

lurker
31 Jan 06,, 21:22
So simple facts are "flame bait" to you?

-dale
To me the fact is that you don't understand the difference between EFP and HEAT WH.

As well as between the penetrating performance of 22.5kg HEAT charge acting from a point blank range, vs tiny EFP charges acting from a distance (that you got 2 in every shell, plus their parachites and lots of other equipment loaded together in the same shell).

But all this stuff a person with the unbiased common sense should have figured by himself.

And too many of those small things where you show no knowledge and no common sense but an attitude based on nobody knows what.

dalem
31 Jan 06,, 21:36
To me the fact is that you don't understand the difference between EFP and HEAT WH.

As well as between the penetrating performance of 22.5kg HEAT charge acting from a point blank range, vs tiny EFP charges acting from a distance (that you got 2 in every shell, plus their parachites and lots of other equipment loaded together in the same shell).

But all this stuff a person with the unbiased common sense should have figured by himself.

And too many of those small things where you show no knowledge and no common sense but an attitude based on nobody knows what.

And how do you know that I don't understand any of these differences of which you speak?

-dale

lurker
31 Jan 06,, 21:39
And how do you know that I don't understand any of these differences of which you speak?

-dale
Because above you posted that SADARM should have better performance than Copperhead, just "because it's 30 years newer".

Which is
1) Not true
2) Not a real answer
3) Does not educate anybody

dalem
01 Feb 06,, 02:39
Because above you posted that SADARM should have better performance than Copperhead, just "because it's 30 years newer".

Which is
1) Not true
2) Not a real answer
3) Does not educate anybody

Of course it's true - weapons systems rarely devolve.

Of course it's a real answer, although not a very factually-based one yet. I'll have to see what public data is available on both systems, and what parts of it I understand.

I agree it is not as educational as an answer with numbers.

-dale

lurker
01 Feb 06,, 02:52
Of course it's true - weapons systems rarely devolve.
Of course it's a real answer, although not a very factually-based one yet. I'll have to see what public data is available on both systems, and what parts of it I understand.
I agree it is not as educational as an answer with numbers.
-dale
Big improvement that SADARM can disable 2 targets instead of one, self-guiding (no need to illuminate), not affected by screens, and can be used for targets which does not require "Copperhead" brutal power.

Here all the advantages end.

kNikS
01 Feb 06,, 16:15
Of course it's true - weapons systems rarely devolve.

Of course it's a real answer, although not a very factually-based one yet. I'll have to see what public data is available on both systems, and what parts of it I understand.

I agree it is not as educational as an answer with numbers.

-dale
I’m not talking about devolving I’m talking about different types/purposes of ammo. For example latest 7.62 AP and old 12.7 any type, if we simplify it. I just wanted to see info (unknown to me) that leads you to conclusion that SADARM has better penetration capability than Copperhead. Factual-based, of course.

dalem
01 Feb 06,, 21:00
Iím not talking about devolving Iím talking about different types/purposes of ammo. For example latest 7.62 AP and old 12.7 any type, if we simplify it. I just wanted to see info (unknown to me) that leads you to conclusion that SADARM has better penetration capability than Copperhead. Factual-based, of course.

Yup. I'll see what I can dig up before work.

-dale

dalem
02 Feb 06,, 21:13
I can only find a couple of vague public references to SADARM being capable of engaging MBT-class targets effectively - the majority of detailed information available clearly states its intended role is counterbattery (self-propelled artillery and other relatively lightly-armored targets). So it seems its warhead must have less penetrative ability than the Copperhead round. I can't find any figures though. I would suspect that an engine deck is an engine deck regardless, but that's merely speculation on my part.

-dale