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]

Originally Posted by 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

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

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

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by August

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

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

That'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

[August]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

That'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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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

[Letum]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

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]

Originally Posted by Letum

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]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

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.

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

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]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

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]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

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.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

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

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by 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

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.