T-95 baby

[bigross86]

Just where is the pointer in the current armor<--->anti-armor see-saw battle?

As soon as the Trophy APS was deployed on the tanks of the 9th/401st (A unit I spent 8 months in before transferring to the 46th/401st), the latest step was reactive armor that destroys the missile before reaching the tank. Before that, the latest step was on the ATGM's side, with tandem warheads (IIRC)

[Tarek Morgen]

Do such big guns not affect the amount of ammo the tank can carry with it?

[tankie]

Do such big guns not affect the amount of ammo the tank can carry with it?

Yes of course Tarek ;), depending on the ammo used , if (as i was used to ) brass cased ammo ,the space for rounds would make the (ugly) tank impracticable as there would not be enough ammo on board to fight with , and sod being the loader , ya'd need arms like popeye , but if bag charge ammo was used then it makes it more practicable .As was used in the Chieftain , and i dont know the ammo in a chally

[NUS]

Yes of course Tarek ;), depending on the ammo used , if (as i was used to ) brass cased ammo ,the space for rounds would make the (ugly) tank impracticable as there would not be enough ammo on board to fight with , and sod being the loader , ya'd need arms like popeye , but if bag charge ammo was used then it makes it more practicable .As was used in the Chieftain , and i dont know the ammo in a chally

Well, we are talking about russian tunk here, so poor sod is replaced with autoloader and unmanned turret hints us - there is no space for him.

[USSWisconsin]

The comparison between battleships and MBT's: In the 1930's the carrier and submarine appeared to be able to supersede the battleship as the ultimate naval weapon (the torpedo boat had started this in the 19th century - but new developments with the battleships managed to push this threat aside for another 50 years), it took another 15 years to complete this process (during WWII), and battleships continued to be of service, on and off, for nearly 40 years. I am not suggesting this transition could happen very soon, if this follows the pattern of the battleship - we will be building tanks for a long time to come and new ways to compensate for AT weapons will be the major factors in extending the usefulness of the MBT. Personally, I like tanks and don't relish the idea of them going away - perhaps they won't.

As far as a 152mm tank: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_292 (1990)
http://www.tankmuseum.ru/p1.html

[ArtyEngineer]

Getting back to the pic of the super ugly tank, I see major technical hurdles in stabilising a 152mm tube as shown. Just looking at it I would predict there is no way its center of gravity is anywhere close to the trunnion axis. WHich means the darn thing is going to have huge "inertia" to be overcome to enable stabilisation as the vehicle hauls ass cross country. The drives required for such a stabilisation are going to be works of art in themselves!!!

Thats an engineers take on the pic.

Regards

Arty

[Nightowl]

As soon as the Trophy APS was deployed on the tanks of the 9th/401st (A unit I spent 8 months in before transferring to the 46th/401st), the latest step was reactive armor that destroys the missile before reaching the tank. Before that, the latest step was on the ATGM's side, with tandem warheads (IIRC)

Speaking of the Trophy APS:

APS Stops An ATGM In Gaza - Strategy Page

[Skywatcher]

The 30/30 was a US run test. According to the article I posted before, the Trophy APS was tested by the Israelis against every single type of ATGM and RPG, which includes Javelin.

I don't think there's anything a tank can really do against a Warthog unless we start equipping MBT's with SAMs. On the other hand, I doubt the IDF will be involved in an Armor Vs Armor battle against the USA any time soon.

There's some SAMs like the LAHAT I believe which in theory can whack attack helicopters.

You probably could mount a autocannon RWS (Chinese seem to experimenting with one on the new ZTZ-99 verions) or a pod for MANPADS.

[USSWisconsin]

There's some SAMs like the LAHAT I believe which in theory can whack attack helicopters.

You probably could mount a autocannon RWS (Chinese seem to experimenting with one on the new ZTZ-99 verions) or a pod for MANPADS.

Wouldn't you run into a trade off between using dedicated AA vehicles and adding too much tall stuff on top of the MBT, making its silhouette too high to do its primary job effectively?

[Stitch]

Why not just take one of the old Stinger box launchers off of the M-6 Linebacker and bolt to the side of an MBT? They're retiring the M-6's anyway, which means we'll have some "extra" box launchers laying around!

[zraver]

Getting back to the pic of the super ugly tank, I see major technical hurdles in stabilising a 152mm tube as shown. Just looking at it I would predict there is no way its center of gravity is anywhere close to the trunnion axis. WHich means the darn thing is going to have huge "inertia" to be overcome to enable stabilisation as the vehicle hauls ass cross country. The drives required for such a stabilisation are going to be works of art in themselves!!!

Thats an engineers take on the pic.

Regards

Arty

Its also going to have very poor situational awareness, limited mobility in an urban environment due to that long tube and extended and time consuming maintence since there is no easy access. Bore sighting and cleaning is not going to be easy.

[Double Edge]

there is a lot of specualtion today that the MBT (Main Battle Tank) has seen its day, and moving back to medium armour will suffice given the advanced nature of ATGW now. Even on the conventional battle fied. ......... Personally I do not buy into that..............

From this wiki link <--(sum total of my knowledge on this subject)

Isn't medium armour more vulnerable to portable ATGW's than MBT's ?
Wouldn't you also need some APS (Active protection system) like Trophy with light to medium armour ?

You know i've often wondered, given the advanced nature of ATGW these days, wouldn't it be suicidal to be in any sort of tank in the first place. The distances aren't all that much on the ground unlike in the air so when its incoming there must be very little time to react.

Those ATGW demos always make the target tank appear so helpless but then they don't move that much, are always alone nor do they strike back

That is a fact, sir. I'm disappointed that this evolving ATGM/tank debate has so far (until you) ignored these weapons within a cluster of other systems on the battlefield-especially when employed properly.

Scouts and other ISR assets identify likely or known ATGM sites. Those are targeted for destruction/suppression/obscuration based upon available munitions, delivery systems and scheme of manuever.

Mechanized infantry and other armor operate from overwatch while discrete elements bound forward. SEAD and other assets reduce or eliminate the AAA/SAM coverage of the defender.

The big green machine rolls inexoribly towards its intended objective as a symphonic victory march plays in the background and the screen credits scroll by.

Simple stuff, really, for the practiced professional.

Does the bolded bit become redundant when there are man portable 'fire & forget' ATGM's ?

Knowing your opponent & proper planning would make things more manageable, as you said that's what the pro's are for :)

[Stitch]

Got this in an e-mail from a friend a few weeks ago; BigRoss, any truth to this?

"What you are about to watch is an actual event. The Israeli Armed Forces filmed this in real time. What you'll see is a fully armored Syrian tank being hit by an Israeli laser-guided, steel-penetrating, phosphorous-filled "hand held" rocket. The rocket is small, very portable and is a tightly controlled weapon. Each one is accounted for when they are checked out and back in. There must be no fewer than 2 soldiers present to verify the use, one must be a senior officer with a minimum of 10 years military service.

This tank was headed for one of Israel 's settlements. There were four more tanks one mile to the rear of this tank. They turned around before getting to this area after learning what had happened to the lead tank.

You can hear the ammunition going off after the initial strike. No Syrian tank crew member survived this event and it did not make the news. It is an everyday event for Israel 's Armed Forces and they do not permit the "embedding" of news reporters with their armed forces like we Americans do. This weapon and its tactical use is for their survival, not for "news" entertainment! Perhaps we should take a page from the Israeli Military Handbook."

http://dai.ly/gZEteo

[bigross86]

Got this in an e-mail from a friend a few days ago; BigRoss, any truth to this?

"What you are about to watch is an actual event. The Israeli Armed Forces filmed this in real time. What you'll see is a fully armored Syrian tank being hit by an Israeli laser-guided, steel-penetrating, phosphorous-filled "hand held" rocket. The rocket is small, very portable and is a tightly controlled weapon. Each one is accounted for when they are checked out and back in. There must be no fewer than 2 soldiers present to verify the use, one must be a senior officer with a minimum of 10 years military service.

This tank was headed for one of Israel 's settlements. There were four more tanks one mile to the rear of this tank. They turned around before getting to this area after learning what had happened to the lead tank.

You can hear the ammunition going off after the initial strike. No Syrian tank crew member survived this event and it did not make the news. It is an everyday event for Israel 's Armed Forces and they do not permit the "embedding" of news reporters with their armed forces like we Americans do. This weapon and its tactical use is for their survival, not for "news" entertainment! Perhaps we should take a page from the Israeli Military Handbook."

http://dai.ly/gZEteo

I was forwarded this by someone else last week. I can guarantee with almost 99% accuracy that while the video might be true, the text is false.

1: The last time IDF forces engaged Syrian forces was in 1982.
2: One tank, with four tanks one mile behind it? No tanker worth spit would travel alone when there are 4 tanks so close by to add support and firepower.
3: If the rocket is so controlled, why is there a video of it being fired?
4: Who took the video of the firing?The IDF rarely, if ever, lets reporters with video cameras to join combat ops.
5: A close look at the tank in the video shows a distinctively flat turret. The Syrian Army has T-54/55's, T-62's, and T-72's, all of which sport a round or domed turret.

The video might be awesome, but there's no way in the world that text is true, especially since tanks attacking settlements is not an "everyday event".

[zraver]

Seems to be a Swiss Centurion taking a hit from the BILL ATGM