Iranian 12.7 mm anti Material Sniper Goes under Production

[gf0012-aust]

Do you guys see all the high tech things that are on the outside of a modern tank? Anywhere you spot glass is likely to be destroyed by a .50 cal sniper from 300-800 meters away.

They're periscope blocks, so all you do is remove a block layer - you don't breech the compartment.

if the block is on a turret, then good luck to any sniper that can hit a tank at 20-60kmh (convoy speed) who's using proper traversing procedures. thats one reason why turrets traverse rapidly when underway.

Plenty of opportunities where you can find one of these babies rolling along at 5-10mph on a road, making it an easy shot. Or you can even create one (the ole, have one of your guys pull up a car in front of the tank and yell at it to watch their driving, etc.).

huh? there is a predefined limit for vehicles approaching a military convoy - if you're identified as a threat within range then the engine block will be shot at, then the driver will be shot at. at "nn" metres anything that can go bang will shoot at whatever is still heading towards the convoy.

I mean, sure. They got bulletproof shields on those things, but only when they're not in use. Drive with that slab of steel covering your optical gun sights and you might as well shoot them yourself.

tanks have bulletproof shields? maybe ww1 rolls royce armoured cars, but no modern tanks. secondary shields are also designed to co-operate with existing vision requirements

And last but not least (this should have been obvious), one of the crew could be poking their heads out of the top. My trigger finger's itchin.

and thats why RCWS are more and more frequent. eg, Dutch and Australian gun platforms in Iraq and Afghanistan are usually RCWS

And this don't even apply to tanks either. Say you got a jet fighter sitting on a runway, ready for takeoff. Send one bullet through the nose cone, bam. No more radar. A 5 dollar bullet destroying over 2 million dollars worth of equipment? Not to mention disabling a plane that costs 7 times as much.

Over Iraq and Afghanistan? Where in the threat matrix for both countries is an antiair, GBAD required.

any tank can be killed if conditions are right - but you're really clutching at straws when you have to roll out the obvious - and then a capability which is outside the luxury of the red team anyway.

Basically, the real goal of these kinds of snipers is to cause chaos and mayhem. Much more than can be provided by one guy.

shooting at a tank with an AM weapon is a fast way for that team to get killed. Tanks don't travel alone. If any one of the other vehicles in that convoy is using BDS, then that sniper team is in for a horrible time.

we ran trials on a BDS for the australian army. we were able to identify and isolate 6 x concurrent shooters in a rose pattern around the nominal target within .5ms of the shots being triggered. if that BDS had been slaved to an auto response system, every one of that sniper set would have been replied to within a similar reaction time. in rough terms (and without publicly declaring results), that means that they can't roll away faster than the escape zone of the preferred area weapon. (proximity burst, mortar, heavy cal etc....)

the good news is that we can now effectively slave the same BDS to a UAV to give a supplementary holographic view of the area.

you'll always have snipers, but their job is getting harder. all of the items you outlined are so simplified that they generally apply to less technically endowed militaries.

For a working example of BDS, refer to the French in Bosnia. They used a a similar system to what Australia and the US use. result. No more sniper.

 

[eckherl]

Not only... If you hit here, the MG will be disabled because fume going into the apartment:

Hitting the bore evacuator on the maingun will not neccesary give you huge amounts of fumes in a tank turret, the majority of fumes will pass thru the 3 outlet holes in the Maingun where the evacuator sits and will either go thru the penetration opening in the evacuator or it will still be carried out the front of the gun tube. The Bore evacuator on a M256 is made out of fiberglass and weighs maybe 5 - 7 pounds, when a round is fired you get maybe 60 psi worth of pressure circulating thru it. If the outlet holes are blocked this could cause some fumes to backtrack in.

If it gets too smoking in your turret, which is most likely caused by excessive oil lube or grease from cleaning the breach assembly or gune tube you can always turn on the overpressure system.

 

[Waylander]

@Manfred
That in the past tank crews had to let the engine run while being on overwatch is exactly the reason why APUs have been integrate during upgrades.
Because in the past you either let your engine run (Bad for your fuel logistics and for your heat/sound signature) or you use your batteries (Which are under the armor) which are too low after some time to restart the engine.
With the integration of the APUs you don't need to do this you just get your energy from the APU while your engine is off without exhausting your batteries.

The problem of the M1A1s with APUs is that it is located at the back of the turret in a not very bulletproof box. When the APU is hit fuel sometimes run into the engine compartement through the engine deck. This is not good...

I am not sure if from M1A2 or from M1A2SEP the APU is also under armor eliminating this threat for the tank.

 

[Manfred]

Good to know... and I would hate to think that we were giving too much away here! :lam

 

[Waylander]

Giving away what?
I learned that the APUs on older Abrams are not bulletproof by official reports from Iraq.

 

[eckherl]

Giving away what?
I learned that the APUs on older Abrams are not bulletproof by official reports from Iraq.

You are correct, this is what happens when you take a offensive vehicle from the cold war era and try to turn it into a urbanized warfare vehicle. M1A2 is also equiped with a better system.

 

[Waylander]

Thanks for the information. I was not sure wether they changed to a protected APU on M1A2 or on M1A2SEP.

I have not that big problem with using tanks in urban terrain. They can be usefull and proofed that during thunder runs or during operations like Fallujha.

I have a problem with the fact that inly now special MOUT kits begin to drop into the inventars of western armies with MOUT upgrades being available for Abrams and Challi 2 only years after the beginning of the Iraq war. As if it was not sure that the main battlegrounds of Iraq would be the cities.

But it is nice to see that other companies/countries not involved in Iraq also offer MOUT upgrades now and learned the lessons teached to us in Iraq (Leclerc and Leo II upgrades).

 

[eckherl]

The modifications will be a big help at what they are throwing our way at the present time, I just hope that the likes of Syria or Iran doesn`t decide to give them more advanced anti tank sysstems. The IDF found out the hard way that they could not fully protect their Merkava`s from these systems.

 

[Ares]

on the contrary to what Ive read from the Israeli military statements. They said that their Merkava Mk.4 was not the least bit scratched by Kornets. I dont believe this statement by them though any thoughts ?

 

[eckherl]

on the contrary to what Ive read from the Israeli military statements. They said that their Merkava Mk.4 was not the least bit scratched by Kornets. I dont believe this statement by them though any thoughts ?

I wouldn`t believe that statement, I have seen and have pictures of damage caused by them.

 

[Ares]

You wouldnt by any chance have any pictures of the seized Kornets because I could only find the AT-4 , TOW and other seized weapons not the Kornets.

 

[Sgt.Banes]

I'm concerned about our troops, a high powered .50 caliber sniper rifle is a major threat to troops already in Iraq. And with the current rate of insurgency from both Sunnis and Shia groups. This development may cause a problem for Coalition forces.

 

[Ares]

The sniper rifle itself per piece is a very expensive rifle and it costs upwards of 15,000 American dollars and ammunition is at least like 700 $ so it will be expensive for the Perisans to produce so they'll most likely churn out SVD dragunov knockoffs.

 

[Waylander]

Milan was also very common. In the end it is totally unimportant which ATGM they used.
The small tank pack tactic of the IDF without proper infantery and artillery support gave them enough chances to hit the rear and sides of Merkavas. And when you hit there it is totally unimportant if you have an older Sagger or a modern Kornet.

 

[Ares]

I totally agree and the ATGM doesnt have to be restricted to just anti-tank use it can be used against buildings etc... like Hizbullah used Kornet ATGM's to collapse apartment buildings and kill Israeli soldiers inside very effective but a waste of Kornets in my opinion.

 

[Waylander]

Not if you use the thermobaric warheads.
Those are a very nice toy especially for situations like you descriped.

There I see a lack in the US inventar. You have either the Javelin or the AT-4.

The Javelin is total overkill for bunker buster roles as it is much too expensive and there are also reports of it having problems in urban areas due to them not being SACLOS.
And than you have the AT-4 which has a very light warhead with only 1.6kg.
So something like the russian thermobaric ATGM warheads or/and a bunker buster like the Bunkerfaust (A special version of the Panzerfaust 3).

But this is more something for the improvements thread.