Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Armoured vehicles V Anti Armour weapons.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Armoured vehicles V Anti Armour weapons.

    Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
    Hi all
    HPT, the failure of armour designers to learn from history never ceases to amaze me, nor does the fact that, for all the advances in ATGW design, the humble RPG is still a force to be reckoned with. Does anyone practise personal anti-armour warfare in the DF? Outside of using Javelins or MILAN?
    regards
    GttC

    Do we still use Milan? Or is that opsec?

    Oh and will the side armour of a Mowag stop an RPG anyway?
    courage, endurance, mateship and sacrifice

  • #2
    Originally posted by womble View Post
    Oh and will the side armour of a Mowag stop an RPG anyway?
    Probly not
    What are you cackling at, fatty? Too much pie, that's your problem.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by hptmurphy
      Problem straight way...Look at the HEAT trap under the gunmantlet and under where the turret sides slope inward towards the turret mounting
      The roof of the Mowag doesn't slope as much as that of the Centauro, so the HEAT trap mightn't be as pronounced when fitted to the Irish vehicles.

      Originally posted by andy
      30 mm cannon should really be fitted as standard with a 50 cal on top as well.
      Why?

      Originally posted by Tripper
      So if you have to get out to load is that not defeating its pupose. Is the idea of this weapon to keep the operaters inside and out of harms way??
      The RWS they chose is in service with the Yanks, the Aussies, the Canadians, the Finnish and the Swiss. The Yanks & Australians are using them in Iraq while the Canadians have them in Afghanistan, I wouldn't write their utility off just yet.
      FMolloy
      King Monkey
      Last edited by FMolloy; 7 September 2006, 12:27.
      "The dolphins were monkeys that didn't like the land, walked back to the water, went back from the sand."

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
        Problem straight way...Look at the HEAT trap under the gunmantlet and under where the turret sides slope inward toward the turret mounting..perfect aiming pooint for an RPG....well back to the drawing board and start again....no point in putting a nice 25mm gun in a death trap
        You really think that having the armour go straight down would stop an RPG from penetrating?

        Besides, strongly sloped armour has its benefits.

        Next you'll be telling me that this is a shot trap, and the Germans don't know what they're on about.

        (Yes, I know that this is an Strv-122)

        NTM
        California Tanker
        My tank is bigger...
        Last edited by California Tanker; 10 September 2006, 21:17.
        Driver, tracks, troops.... Drive and adjust!!

        Comment


        • #5
          Milan is in the process of being replaced by javelin.Info in the public domain.
          "Let us be clear about three facts. First, all battles and all wars are won in the end by the infantryman. Secondly, the infantryman always bears the brunt. His casualties are heavier, he suffers greater extremes of discomfort and fatigue than the other arms. Thirdly, the art of the infantryman is less stereotyped and far harder to acquire in modern war than that of any other arm." ------- Field Marshall Wavell, April 1945.

          Comment


          • #6
            Hi all
            When DF personnel get trained to use anti-tank weapons, are they taught anything about tanks and other armoured vehicles, such as location of potential weak points, location of fuel tanks, location of shell stowage, location of hatchs and access points,etc? I always figured that simply learning how to pull a trigger without knowing what to aim for was a shade pointless.
            regards
            GttC

            Comment


            • #7
              difference between an APC and an MBT..armour would be completely different. I know you have far more expierience in this field so I'll bow to your greater knowledge.

              The turret iwas commenting on is designed to fit on an APC and would have none of the ballistic capabilities of those say on an MBT. If a round were to be diverted because of striking armor plate it would be forced into the crew compartmnet..and as we all know heat rounds only need to find the smallest weakness..its not a balst effect..but rather what happens after armour has been penetrated.
              hptmurphy
              Commander in Chief
              Last edited by hptmurphy; 11 September 2006, 22:04.
              Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

              Comment


              • #8
                Those M1 yokes have more armour in their turrets than we have in our engine block..


                Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

                Comment


                • #9
                  It also runs off an engine designed for a helicopter, so you can't really compare the two.....

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The picture was a German (Swedish) Leopard, diesel, not that it matters much. If you must look at an M1, the 'shot trap' under the main gun bounces straight down to armour which is all of about two inches thick. Nothing, by tank standards. Modern AP ammo just doesn't work the same way that WWII ammo did. Particularly RPGs don't like bouncing around: If the impact is shallow enough to 'bounce' the round instead of detonating it, it's also going to deform the round so that it loses its effect. If it's obtuse enough to set off the fuse, then angle is irrelevant except for its increasing effective thickness, as plasma jets aren't going to be deflected.

                    NTM
                    Driver, tracks, troops.... Drive and adjust!!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
                      Hi all
                      When DF personnel get trained to use anti-tank weapons, are they taught anything about tanks and other armoured vehicles, such as location of potential weak points, location of fuel tanks, location of shell stowage, location of hatchs and access points,etc? I always figured that simply learning how to pull a trigger without knowing what to aim for was a shade pointless.
                      regards
                      GttC
                      Cant speak for the rdf ,but in the pdf yes.
                      "Let us be clear about three facts. First, all battles and all wars are won in the end by the infantryman. Secondly, the infantryman always bears the brunt. His casualties are heavier, he suffers greater extremes of discomfort and fatigue than the other arms. Thirdly, the art of the infantryman is less stereotyped and far harder to acquire in modern war than that of any other arm." ------- Field Marshall Wavell, April 1945.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The origianl refernce was made in relation to a relatively lightly armouerd vehicle..not an MBT
                        Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
                          The origianl refernce was made in relation to a relatively lightly armouerd vehicle..not an MBT
                          Yes, but the physics of the angles remain the same. It's only an issue of how much punch is required to break through the armour.

                          NTM
                          Driver, tracks, troops.... Drive and adjust!!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Standard CG84mm heat round and rocket assisted heat round are well capable of penetrating APC armour.and older type MBTS

                            moving up a grade...more modern APC are more vunerable to the likes of hellfire and oter hellicopter mounted missiles.

                            The current generation of shoulder mounted or portable Anti Tank weapons are certainly a considerable fear to MBT crews but greater speed and mobility..reactive armour and design are still on the side of the MBT crew.

                            Good training with such weapons and their proper deployment is something that would keep the avaerage tanker on his toes..but when deployed against APCs..no contest.

                            The fire and run weapons such as the AT4 are really weapons to harrass rather than being able to stop MBTS

                            its always a case of what the percieved threat is een to be..how that is reacted too...in realation to actual threat.

                            Bit like a sniper being able to pin down a company..because of the percieved threat ..and not the actual fire power.
                            Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBvcY...layer_embedded

                              Found this. Looks interesting. Nice concept
                              "The Question is not: how far you will take this? The Question is do you possess the constitution to go as far as is needed?"

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X