Page 1 2
Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Member |
The idea is to put kinks into the sabot, compromise its integrity, thus when the sabot hits the main armor, it'd break down and significantly reduce penetration. Same principle with Russian reactive armor such as Kontakt-5 and other versions, as well as German and Israeli passive armor seen on front of T-90, Leopard 2A5/6, Merkava 4. Such armor cuts kinks into the sabot (as well as feeding more armor for sabot to penetrate before main armor), potentially causing break up upon hitting main armor. However latest M829A3/4 sabot have sheaths to protect the penetrator and resist damage to penetrator to prevent break up on main armor. Though I don't know how these new sabot would perform after getting lit by Trophy or Arena. Trophy was deployed in response to the Summer 2006 Lebanon war. Israeli Merkava 4 was getting lit by Russian Kornet (and others) ATGMs in the hull and rear, causing many crew losses by igniting unvented (but protected) main gun ammo stowage. | |||
|
| Big Stack |
I can't say I think all of them really can. Some are still around because we haven't had do deal head to head in a direct fight with a major power, and other are just bureaucratic inertial. The M16 platform should have gone away decades ago. It has had problems from the start that have never gone away. The B-52 is now a non-penetration bomb truck. As such it's fine, but with it's ancient engines it's hugely inefficient. And it's ancient airframe needs a lot of maintenance. They should just make a bomber version of the 747F and replace the B-52 I know everyone loves the A-10, but if it ever attempted to do what it was designed for, attacking large formations of Soviet (now Russian) armor in Central Europe, is would get wiped from the sky, unless we had total air superiority. Now it just another non-penetration bomb truck, but with a big gun. Something half the size weight and cost could do most of the jobs it's been actually doing for the last twenty years.
| |||
|
| Member |
Doesn't the SABOT fall off the round shortly after it leaves the barrel? It's called Armor Piercing Discarding Sabot (APDS) last I checked. | |||
|
| Member |
You're right.. it should read penetrator rod instead. | |||
|
| Member |
No worries. I had to go look up kinetic rounds vs ERA. | |||
|
| Three Generations of Service  |
B52 - Fly the plane your grandfather flew. Not the same model...the same plane! Be careful when following the masses. Sometimes the M is silent. | |||
|
Member |
So how does this sound invisible shield prevent the buckshot it sprays or the anti-anti-tank missile from harming another Abrams or the embedded infantry nearby? Most tanks operate in four or five tank platoons. ------- Trying to simplify my life... | |||
|
Chip away the stone |
Actual photo:  | |||
|
Optimistic Cynic |
It occurs to me that with an effective active defense, tanks of the future need not be so heavily armored. This would allow greater speed and agility. The need for a heavy platform for a big gun would be overcome by using rockets. And, of course, a robot driver, weapons officer, etc. Might as well put wings on it, and let the USAF operate it... Future war will be very different than we can imagine. | |||
|
| 10mm is The Boom of Doom  |
Cool shit. God Bless and Protect the Once and Future President, Donald John Trump. | |||
|
| stupid beyond all belief  |
Seems unlikely we will be in an armored war with russia. Seems like S really hit the fan if so. Cool tech What man is a man that does not make the world better. -Balian of Ibelin Only boring people get bored. - Ruth Burke | |||
|
| Gracie Allen is my personal savior! |
I could see a little pushing and shoving or "accidental contact" in Syria. I could certainly see there being an armored war between us or one of our allies and one or more of Russia's allies - according to the article cited above the Israelis developed it to counter Russian-supplied missiles. That and the Russians still seem to be the most capable potential opponent out there, so why not use them as a standard by which to guide development? | |||
|
| Member |
that was a big selling point for the systems early on. But, I haven't seen one deployed on a lighter weight vehicle. I'd love to see a functional version for the Stryker, Bradley and LAV-25. | |||
|
fugitive from reality |
Reactive systems pose a danger to other ground troops, and to any crew members who are exposed in open hatches. It's a trade off and training reflects this. _____________________________ 'I'm pretty fly for a white guy'. | |||
|
Glorious SPAM! |
Even though the current 2018 Abrams looks like kin to the 1978 Abrams, make no mistake, the insides are VERY different. And much improved. As far as active protection, yup, looking good. I have not heard much about a larger cannon. The Germans increased lethality by extending the caliber (length) while the US improved the ammunition. And as far as being able to defeat either reactive or active armor...well, we have been working on that for a while. The new round is SWEET  And tank names....one of my favorites.  The above was years ago but recently I have seen "Trump Card" and a few other good ones. I'll grab some pics. Just because...I was looking for my tank name pics and came across this. About 100 klicks north of LNK. COP Shirghazi. No tank names, but it was a good time  | |||
|
| Member |
For your reading pleasure on the new cannon: Article on 130MM I agree the Abrams is a good tank that has served us well, but with all the upgrades we are constantly bolting on and inserting, the tank has really gone up in weight and it's difficult to move them through Europe due to rail issues (GEN Hodges made several comments on this to the press). It wouldn't kill us to start on a new design incorporating some of the new technologies like CREW, APS, coms, automatic loaders, CROW, drones etc. I'm not advocating the crew in hull design but, it might be worth relooking. | |||
|
| Glorious SPAM! |
Yup trust me the USMC is looking at weight more so than the Army. Every oz is weighted for float. 70 tons is about our limit. We need to be able to land on an LCAC. They are already talking about stopping float tanks. Flying into AFG the Chair Force said our limit was 130K for a C17. We met it and shuttled a few companies back and fourth. Before the Air Fore flew us the USMC chartered Russian Antonoves. Amazing. A stripped down USMC FEP tank is just under the USAF limit. Army tanks are heavier, and we have more crap for the fording requirement. As far as the 130mm, I know we tested it and a 140 about a decade ago. About 10 years ago I saw the 130 at ATC. There is really just no upside. We lose capacity in the ready racks and terminal performance isn't any better. Our new M829XX round more than makes up for any perceived advantage in caliber. It is bad ass. One of the reasons the Germans upped the diameter is because they did not upgrade the propellants or projectiles. Not saying it isn't good, but we haven't been sleeping either. Frontal armor on the worlds MBT's has remained pretty similar. The big thing is range and accuracy. Our PH (probability of hit) has always been outstanding to lets say 4K meters, but we have been pushing that further and further. Much further. I haven't personally seen it but I have been briefed on the new V3 SEP. It its beautiful. Light it is not but tank warefare never is. I agree we need something intermediate, but the main battle tank is here to stay. I personally never met a grunt that said "no" to a section of tanks accompanying them on patrol. | |||
|
| Member |
So if I'm reading you right the new US kinetic energy rounds will not see an improvement going through a 130mm tube and we'd sacrifice magazine capacity. Excellent point, I'll amend my talking point. There might be a .45 vs 9mm joke in there too. I'm in no way saying to get ride of the MBT, just that we can build a more efficient one. The Sheridan and the XM8 mobile gun system briefed well, but I don't believe they would survive long in peer or near peer conflict. I've personal said several times that I would give up body parts to get a Armored BDE or Division stationed back here in Europe. | |||
|
| Too old to run, too mean to quit! |
That is the way it was when I was in 3AD, back in the 50s and 60s. Elk There has never been an occasion where a people gave up their weapons in the interest of peace that didn't end in their massacre. (Louis L'Amour) "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. " -Thomas Jefferson "America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great." Alexis de Tocqueville FBHO!!! The Idaho Elk Hunter | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
© SIGforum 2024