A question on tank rounds

[SUBMAN1]

A puzzling question for me is, why did the Russian make a gun launched anti-tank missile? To me that is just dumb when you have access to a 125 mm gun! Is this to make up for a lack of power in it's SABOT? Or a lack of good future target positioning electronics for their main gun? I could see something in the anti-air catagory for this, but anti-tank?

-S

[August]

A puzzling question for me is, why did the Russian make a gun launched anti-tank missile? To me that is just dumb when you have access to a 125 mm gun! Is this to make up for a lack of power in it's SABOT? Or a lack of good future target positioning electronics for their main gun? I could see something in the anti-air catagory for this, but anti-tank?

-S

We had the same thing in our inventory at one time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM-51_Shillelagh

[AntEater]

1. The US had a muzzle-launched ATGM as well, in the 1960s
2. Range. A Sabot round loses energy pretty quick due to air resistance. A shaped charge is equally effective at all ranges. And the most accurate way to deliver such a charge is a missile. I suppose the idea is to engage NATO tanks at ranges where their Sabot rounds are not effective against the tank's armour.

[Letum]

I'm just guessing, but perhaps it could be fired with out a direct line of fire/visual contact.

A shaped charge has more penetration against old armor types too.

[SUBMAN1]

We had the same thing in our inventory at one time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM-51_ShillelaghThat's old stuff though. No longer needed when you have a tank sight that can put a round down range a couple miles out to hit a target at an exact point in space and time.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

I'm just guessing, but perhaps it could be fired with out a direct line of fire/visual contact.

A shaped charge has more penetration against old armor types too.There is an idea, but if you have boots on the ground to see it, that carry AT missiles anyway, and if its from the air, they also carry AT missiles (Every squad packs one in Iraq - though they always use them on buildings lately). Tanks are for direct combat.

Top attack is nice, but not much stops a SABOT.

This is why I am puzzled why it exists?

-S

[August]

We had the same thing in our inventory at one time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM-51_ShillelaghThat's old stuff though. No longer needed when you have a tank sight that can put a round down range a couple miles out to hit a target at an exact point in space and time.

-S

Who knows? Maybe the Russians perfected the technology.

[Letum]

I'm just guessing, but perhaps it could be fired with out a direct line of fire/visual contact.

A shaped charge has more penetration against old armor types too.There is an idea, but if you have boots on the ground to see it, that carry AT missiles anyway, and if its from the air, they also carry AT missiles (Every squad packs one in Iraq - though they always use them on buildings lately). Tanks are for direct combat.

Top attack is nice, but not much stops a SABOT.

This is why I am puzzled why it exists?

-S


Oh, I dunno, I would expect non-penetrating sabot rounds are more common
than non-penetrating shaped charge rounds against conventional armor. Right?

[SUBMAN1]

Oh, I dunno, I would expect non-penetrating sabot rounds are more common
than non-penetrating shaped charge rounds against conventional armor. Right?I'd venture to say you've got it backwards. The very reason HEAT rounds are no longer used for tank to tank fighting, at least from a US perspective.

-S

[UnderseaLcpl]

Oh, I dunno, I would expect non-penetrating sabot rounds are more common
than non-penetrating shaped charge rounds against conventional armor. Right?I'd venture to say you've got it backwards. The very reason HEAT rounds are no longer used for tank to tank fighting, at least from a US perspective.

-S

As evidenced by the performance of U.S. and British tanks during GW1, American tanks were able to knock out Iraqi T-72's that were hiding behind sand berms, while British tanks were able to knock them out from even longer ranges using HEAT, provided they were in the open.

Yes, HEAT is more effective at lower impact velocities (ie, super long range), but APFSDS takes the cake when an enemy is in cover or is shooting back, whicj is most of the time when one fights a developed nation.

I'd go with APFSDS rounds.

[SUBMAN1]

As evidenced by the performance of U.S. and British tanks during GW1, American tanks were able to knock out Iraqi T-72's that were hiding behind sand berms, while British tanks were able to knock them out from even longer ranges using HEAT, provided they were in the open.

Yes, HEAT is more effective at lower impact velocities (ie, super long range), but APFSDS takes the cake when an enemy is in cover or is shooting back, whicj is most of the time when one fights a developed nation.

I'd go with APFSDS rounds.Well yeah, these thoughts are true as well since the HEAT rd will be having a higher trajectory, but if I had to choose one or the other, give me a good SABOT any day! Only in the desert does combat frequently happen at those ranges. Though American tanks carry a store of both types. M1A2's carry 42 rds in all.

-S

[Zero Niner]

Main drawback behind the APFSDS is that since it is a kinetic energy weapon, its penetration will drop over distance. OTOH at the velocities that they travel at, trajectory is very much flatter than a HEAT round. It's effectiveness will depend also on the gun firing it.

Main advantage behind the HEAT is that penetration doesn't depend on distance. Also in a pinch they can be used as an anti-material warhead (say taking out a building) which the sabot round isn't good at.

As to why the Russians use tank-fired ATGMs, I have no idea, sorry.

[Platapus]

I would also wager that a HEAT round is cheaper and easier to manufacture than a APFSDS round. Maybe that influences the decisions.

Other influences may include

If APFSDS rounds are fired from rifled barrels, it causes more wear in the barrel. This is due to the need for a "de-rotating" sabot to keep the kinetic core from spinning. A spinning APFSDS round won't travel as far and will have decreased accuracy. This is one of the reasons APFSDS rounds are usually fired from smooth bore barrels. The advantage of HEAT rounds is that it can be carried with other tank rounds that need rifled barrels.

The core of a APFSDS round is expensive and difficult to manufacture. Working with either Depleted Uranium or Tungsten Staballoy is not was easy as manufacturing a HEAT round.

There is an ongoing debate concerning the use of DU rounds.

Although this is probably not a big concern to the big brass, but it must suck being Infantry and having your forces firing APFSDS rounds from behind you. Them sabots have to end up somewhere. The Sabots, upon separating from the core, will continue down range a few hundred meters. Bouncing off the helmets of the Infantry guys in front of you. Ouch.

Lesson 1: Don't be in front of a tank firing APFSDS rounds :know:

Both rounds (APFSDS and HEAT) have their advantages and disadvantages. I don't think one is clearly always better than the other in all situations.

Now if you want to talk about HEP rounds (or HESH to your Brits)... That's innovative technology :up:

[Happy Times]

I think the missiles are to compensate the bad accuracy of the gun and sights on longer ranges.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

A puzzling question for me is, why did the Russian make a gun launched anti-tank missile? To me that is just dumb when you have access to a 125 mm gun! Is this to make up for a lack of power in it's SABOT? Or a lack of good future target positioning electronics for their main gun? I could see something in the anti-air catagory for this, but anti-tank?

-S

Actually, the Soviets, for many years, didn't really worry all that much about their sabot. In the 1960s and 70s, NATO armor is basically steel, and not all that thick (with the exception of Chieftain, and even that's steel), so either HEAT or sabot rounds mostly made of steel (plus a dib of tungsten, as opposed to the tungsten or DU designs today) were most adequate.

Also, in the 1970s, fire control wasn't as advanced as it is today. Besides, even a theoretically perfect FCS starts to have trouble when the flight time of the round exceeds one second, thus the target has an opportunity to deliberately or accidentally alter its vector. Especially if it is a helicopter. Unless, of course, the round is guided, so you can correct your own round's flight.

[antikristuseke]

I'm just guessing, but perhaps it could be fired with out a direct line of fire/visual contact.

A shaped charge has more penetration against old armor types too.There is an idea, but if you have boots on the ground to see it, that carry AT missiles anyway, and if its from the air, they also carry AT missiles (Every squad packs one in Iraq - though they always use them on buildings lately). Tanks are for direct combat.

Top attack is nice, but not much stops a SABOT.

This is why I am puzzled why it exists?

-S

Russias current generation of reactive armour stops a sabot round. Allso if the muzzle launched ATGM's carry a tandem charge it is an effective counter against enemy reavtive armour.

[SUBMAN1]

Russias current generation of reactive armour stops a sabot round. Allso if the muzzle launched ATGM's carry a tandem charge it is an effective counter against enemy reavtive armour.Highly doubtfull. Reactive armor is not supposed to have any 'effect' at all on a DU SABOT. Reactive only works against HEAT and AT missiles well. It is an anti-blast blast material. A SABOT is aerodynamic and a blast goes towards the path of least resistance, which is not towards the incoming aerodynamic SABOT.

-S

[Letum]

Russias current generation of reactive armour stops a sabot round. Allso if the muzzle launched ATGM's carry a tandem charge it is an effective counter against enemy reavtive armour.Highly doubtfull. Reactive armor is not supposed to have any 'effect' at all on a DU SABOT. Reactive only works against HEAT and AT missiles well. It is an anti-blast blast material. A SABOT is aerodynamic and a blast goes towards the path of least resistance, which is not towards the incoming aerodynamic SABOT.

-S

Yup, that was my impression. It disrupts shaped charges only.

[Konovalov]

Russias current generation of reactive armour stops a sabot round. Allso if the muzzle launched ATGM's carry a tandem charge it is an effective counter against enemy reavtive armour.Highly doubtfull. Reactive armor is not supposed to have any 'effect' at all on a DU SABOT. Reactive only works against HEAT and AT missiles well. It is an anti-blast blast material. A SABOT is aerodynamic and a blast goes towards the path of least resistance, which is not towards the incoming aerodynamic SABOT.

-S

Yup, that was my impression. It disrupts shaped charges only.
Double ditto. I don't keep up on current systems these days but I remember when the whole reactive armour thing came out many years ago now that it was designed to defeat atgm's which are heat rounds (shaped charge wareheads). As such reactive armour is of no or little benefit against sabot rounds. Am I right or wrong? :-?

[Platapus]

The effects of Explosive Reactive Armour against kinetic weapons (APFSDS) is problematic at best.

From Wikipedia

"To be effective against kinetic energy projectiles, ERA must use much thicker and heavier plates and a correspondingly thicker explosive layer. Such "heavy ERA," such as the Soviet-developed Kontakt-5, can break apart a penetrating rod that is longer than the ERA is deep, again significantly reducing penetration capability."

In the weapon tests I supported, I would say that ERA would reduce the armour penetrating effects of a kinetic but not enough to have any practical effect. We were testing ERA quiet extensively in the 80's and while it was good against Monroe Effect weapons, we did not see any practical value against kinetic weapons. Any anti-kinetic protection would, in my opinion, be more a factor of the angle of the ERA structure than the explosive blast.

[Letum]

Why don't more tanks have a cage around them?
I would imagine that a cage to prematurely detonate SC munitions would be very effective.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Why don't more tanks have a cage around them?
I would imagine that a cage to prematurely detonate SC munitions would be very effective.

You mean like spaced armour?

There are 3 reasons this armor is no longer common on MBT's;

1) Chobbam armour is very effective against shaped-charge munitions.

2) The general principle of tank design since WW2 has been to make the tank as low and compact as possible, reducing target silohuette.

3) Countries that do not practise the above principles are either a) Poor, or B) Not modern nations.

In lighter vehicles, like the Striker IFV or the MTVR (MAS-armor variant) spaced armor remains prevalent since these vehicles cannot support the weight of ferrous ceramic-composite armour.


Your suggestion is wise, and has been done before, and forgotten, and re-discovered, and forgotten again, and re-learned once more. It's a shame you're not a procurement officer for the DoD.

[Platapus]

Bar armour is effective against Shaped Charges as long as the spacing of the bars is appropriate for the munition hitting it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_armor

[SUBMAN1]

...Any anti-kinetic protection would, in my opinion, be more a factor of the angle of the ERA structure than the explosive blast.Yep - hence the sloping angled armor on an M1A2.

Good summary man! :up:

-S

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Highly doubtfull. Reactive armor is not supposed to have any 'effect' at all on a DU SABOT. Reactive only works against HEAT and AT missiles well. It is an anti-blast blast material. A SABOT is aerodynamic and a blast goes towards the path of least resistance, which is not towards the incoming aerodynamic SABOT.-S

That's why NATO's jaw dropped a little when Russia managed to make the ERA defend against both. The ERA has a front and the back plate, and basically the front and the back end are designed so when the SABOT explodes the ERA, the front and back move different and break the tip off the penetrator, making it much less efficient.

For more details:
http://russianarmor.info/Tanks/EQP/era.html

[SUBMAN1]

That's why NATO's jaw dropped a little when Russia managed to make the ERA defend against both. The ERA has a front and the back plate, and basically the front and the back end are designed so when the SABOT explodes the ERA, the front and back move different and break the tip off the penetrator, making it much less efficient.

For more details:
http://russianarmor.info/Tanks/EQP/era.htmlWe shall see. Less effective being the key word.

I'd like to see something actually break a Depleted Uranium rd. That might be a neat trick. Maybe normal Russian SABOT's are effected, but I doubt a DU rd is.

-S

[Platapus]

We shall see. Less effective being the key word.



That would be like wearing personal armour that reduces the effects of a .44 Mag slug down to only the level of a .38.

Sure it makes the .44 less effective, but is it practically less effective? You can die just as fast from a .38 than from a .44

I wager it is the same with APFSDS rounds

ERA may reduce the effects of a APFSDS from being its normal ability to blow tanks in to itty bitty pieces to a reduced effect of blowing a tank into not so itty bitty pieces.

A reduction in effect, but no practical difference in the result. Blowed apart tank.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

]We shall see. Less effective being the key word.

I'd like to see something actually break a Depleted Uranium rd. That might be a neat trick. Maybe normal Russian SABOT's are effected, but I doubt a DU rd is.-S

It is just a matter of applying forces on something that is already taking great stress.

As for less effective, even against HEAT, the word is less effective. You always need a armor at the end to stop the diffused blow.

By the way, Platapus, APFSDS do not actually blow things up. An old AP round has a dinge or explosive, but APFSDS is a metal rod. At most it is pyrophoric. Any explosion is a secondary round.

[Platapus]

By the way, Platapus, APFSDS do not actually blow things up. An old AP round has a dinge or explosive, but APFSDS is a metal rod. At most it is pyrophoric. Any explosion is a secondary round.

Have you seen what a APFSDS round does to a tank? :up:

It is all about the transfer of energy. :yep:

[bookworm_020]

There is an ongoing debate concerning the use of DU rounds.

Although this is probably not a big concern to the big brass, but it must suck being Infantry and having your forces firing APFSDS rounds from behind you. Them sabots have to end up somewhere. The Sabots, upon separating from the core, will continue down range a few hundred meters. Bouncing off the helmets of the Infantry guys in front of you. Ouch.

Lesson 1: Don't be in front of a tank firing APFSDS rounds :know:


Also Du rounds "shead" Du particals as they head down range, so you have the joy of your own infantry being exposed to DU particals as well as contaminating the surrounding area.

The Auatralian Government banned the use of DU rounds and armor with DU as a element of it's makeup.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Also Du rounds "shead" Du particals as they head down range, so you have the joy of your own infantry being exposed to DU particals as well as contaminating the surrounding area.

The Auatralian Government banned the use of DU rounds and armor with DU as a element of it's makeup.


Well at least Australian troops won't have to worry about dying from radiation poisoning from their own weapons. Instead they can die from radiation poisoning from their opponent's weapons. Or the weapons themselves, since they have no DU armor.

[bookworm_020]

Well at least Australian troops won't have to worry about dying from radiation poisoning from their own weapons. Instead they can die from radiation poisoning from their opponent's weapons. Or the weapons themselves, since they have no DU armor.

Considering that they just sold the lepod tanks they had after 20+ years of service and they had never see action. it seems unlikely that they will have to face that danger at all....

[Platapus]

Being exposed to Depleted Uranium can cause a multitude of health risks, but radiation is not one of them.

Depleted Uranium is about 0.6 as radioactive as natural Uranium. So hanging around granite buildings will probably be more of a radioactive hazard than being around DU.

The amount of Alpha Radiation emitted from DU is pretty small. Inhaling large amounts of DU dust can have a significant radiological effect on a human.

What is gonna get you is the toxicity of Depleted Uranium. DU affects your immune system, neurological system, causes cancer (especially Leukemia), and it that aint enough, causes birth defects so the joy is shared with your unborn children.

The WHO states that the safe daily exposure to Depleted Uranium (specifically soluble Uranium Salts) is 0.5 µg/kg body weight. That is an itty bitty amount.

So DU is a killer, but it is not the radiation that will kill you, it is the toxicity that will kill you.

Of course when you are dead, this becomes a moot point. :nope:

[orwell]

Being exposed to Depleted Uranium can cause a multitude of health risks, but radiation is not one of them.

Depleted Uranium is about 0.6 as radioactive as natural Uranium. So hanging around granite buildings will probably be more of a radioactive hazard than being around DU.

The amount of Alpha Radiation emitted from DU is pretty small. Inhaling large amounts of DU dust can have a significant radiological effect on a human.

What is gonna get you is the toxicity of Depleted Uranium. DU affects your immune system, neurological system, causes cancer (especially Leukemia), and it that aint enough, causes birth defects so the joy is shared with your unborn children.

Did not know that, interesting stuff. Which kinda goes towards explaining why they aren't even rarer than they are now. Or are they a lot more common than one typically hears?

[Konovalov]

Considering that they just sold the lepod tanks they had after 20+ years of service and they had never see action. it seems unlikely that they will have to face that danger at all....
And thank goodness for that. :yep:

[SUBMAN1]

Considering that they just sold the lepod tanks they had after 20+ years of service and they had never see action. it seems unlikely that they will have to face that danger at all.... That's the problem - politicians are getting into the mindset that they will never be attacked, nor need to guard against invasion. Guess when the best time is to attack a country? Without a simple DU round, you may be up sh*t creek!

-S

[UnderseaLcpl]

Well at least Australian troops won't have to worry about dying from radiation poisoning from their own weapons. Instead they can die from radiation poisoning from their opponent's weapons. Or the weapons themselves, since they have no DU armor.

Why is it that when I make a stupid joke like this, it seems to be taken seriously?

[August]

Well at least Australian troops won't have to worry about dying from radiation poisoning from their own weapons. Instead they can die from radiation poisoning from their opponent's weapons. Or the weapons themselves, since they have no DU armor.
Why is it that when I make a stupid joke like this, it seems to be taken seriously?

I learned a long time ago UL that on this board everything is taken seriously. Smileys can help some but don't work 100% of the time. Some people are just determined to be insulted.

[SUBMAN1]

Big oops! I thought you were serious! Oh! That is not me! Phew! :D http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/images/icons/icon10.gif

-S

[Konovalov]

Use of the ;) ;) ;) emoticon or :-j often helps in conveying a message in jest.

[SUBMAN1]

Use of the ;) ;) ;) emoticon or :-j often helps in conveying a message in jest.I like my green guy with the teeth! :up: I always post that on a joke thread.

-S