So mayn things, I hope I get all of them...
No, tank on tank comparisons are usefull when talking about target auqisition capabailities, off road speed, armor protection, etc.
But not when talking about operational issues and when we talk about using this ammo can we for sure not insist on an MBT vs MBT battlespace.
You made your arguments about hitting enemy formations in 8km distance. This is artillery fire. You call for enemy counterfire when shooting this far like every other of your own artillery strikes. And you are for sure not able to the nice shoot and scoot tactics with this tank like with a SPH.
And you really believe that you get your fire solution against enemy tanks at big ranges which are in camouflaged defense positions while you are running wild with 60 km/h on a deep strike?
You should remind another rule. What you can't see you can't hit. Just ask some of the people here with some experience in armored warfare how often you get to see an enemy AFV in normal terrain at really big ranges or even at ranges which would be at the limit of KEs.
No, we should discuss how doable all of your ideas really are in a real environment...
You are aware of the fact that KEs fired from rifled guns are specially made because they don't rotate, are you?
There is a reason why you don't want your KE to rotate. Penetration is much better without being less accurate.
Just look at some CAT results or ask some tankmen who worked together with the Army of the Rhine like I did.
--------
In the end I have the same feeling like eckherl. You don't even try to follow our arguments.
- You are giving away your position with such indirect fire missions. And you are not as good at avoiding enemy counterfire like a modern SPH.
- You normally are lucky if you get to see an enemy tank within 2000m-1000m when advancing in normal vegetation and terrain. Were do you get your accurate informations about enemy positions from?
- This is not like SMArt ammo or bomblet/canister fired by arty high above enemy formations.
- You think you can coordinate every single round with a forward observer of any kind (recon infantry, UAVs, etc.)? Have you even an idea how hard it is to coordinate even the normal fire of your platoon during an engagement?
- If I got killed by "enemy" Leos often enough within some hundred meters because I just didn't see while we advanced than I don't get how you are going to kill the same enemy tanks at extreme ranges.
My sentences about patience exist because you insist us on not having a loose idea of how tanks work again and again. And this is just plain wrong.
Oooh I normally hate the "been there done that" argument...
--------------------
Waylander - u clearly don't know a single thing about warfare do you? Why r ppl like u even on this forum when u've obviously not been there and never done it?
You're speaking about "my ideas" & how doable? Wat nonsense r u talking about? These is the future of warfare that is a long time coming and it is being implemented 1st by this S. Korean tank. If ignorant ppl like u r unable to understand the new capabilities behind this new implementation, I'm explaining it to you.
"You made your arguments about hitting enemy formations in 8km distance. This is artillery fire."
- This only shows ur utter lack of rudimentary knowledge I should not be bothering to reply. But ur not up to the terminology, which I need to clarify. This is not artillery fire, its about the S. Korean tank proposing a solution of simply indirect fire (meaning without line of sight) but with precision guidance in the terminal phase to ensure a hit.
Traditional artillery fire is indirect fire and unguided munitions based on land coordinates.
BIG DIFFERENCE!
Wat the hell, juz see below...
"- You are giving away your position with such indirect fire missions. And you are not as good at avoiding enemy counterfire like a modern SPH."
---> What fire does not have the potential to give away one's position, given today's counter artillery radar systems? That's not even the point! IF you can launch a shell from the same tank gun but at a higher trajectory (45 degrees will do thank you), u reach the theoretical max distance of the gun given any specific powder charge/barrel/munition variable mix. U let the terminal guidance on the munitions guide it in, whereas the enemy MBT does not have terminal guidance on their shells and thus cannot do the same to you. Which part do you not understand about the increased survivability offered to you?
---> If you were in this S.Korean MBT, ur survivability is WAY WAY BETTER than any modern SPH, cos u r much more heavily armoured and way faster. What the hell r u talking about?
If u r an artillery man and an MBT is within 8 km of your position and has precision guided tank munitions and can direct UAVs and forward observers around you - u'd be damn worried.
This thread's about the significance of termination precision guidance on a tank's projectiles, geddit? While we all have to wait till an actual war to know the actual results, the sad truth is that most of the ppl here, like you, on this thread do not even understand what this
new paradigm is!
This technology has already been in use, just not available on a tank gun as a delivery platform until now. The whole implication is that forward observers, UAVs, attack copters, recon planes, in fact, anything else, including a sniper and his spotter etc. can all illuminate targets STEALTHILY - the tank gunner DOES NOT need to & SHOULD NOT WANT to see the target! The beauty of this paradigm is that the nearest available ordnance platform, in this case, the MBT, which in a real war scenario is very likely to be in the most advanced position, can be directed to lob the anti-tank round from as far as 8km away.
The MBT is perfect as a weapon delivery platform that can advance deep into enemy territory, survive and yet direct the tank munitions to hit whatever is designated by the electronic eyes on the battlefield !
Its not possible to coordinate the rounds u say? Obviously there's a difference between folks stuck on the old paradigm and the ones who really understand where our warfare is heading. Obviously its not going to be done with walkie talkies and hand signals!!! Obviously battlefield tech and info systems are way beyond u isn't it?
Already the Leopards (& many modern MBTs) are interlinked via battlefield info systems that can share target infos. So too artillery. US Marine, naval and airforce vehicles ARE ALREADY meshed with WIFI/WIMAX and satellite uplinks supplemented by UAV recon information. Ordance are ALREADY guided by GPS and inertia guidance systems in the first phase of launch and guided by active/passive standalone guidance systems like infrared/laser-homing/TV in the terminal phase. Which decade r u stuck in?
Its obvious why u got killed by enemy Leos within several hundred metres! The whole
new paradigm here is not to even get so close to enemy tanks in the 1st place!
This whole thread is supposed to be about what is new in the S. Korean tank - engage them from as far away as possible, a distance possible only by making the anti-tank rounds terminally guided! But as an MBT, the whole concept of this tank, is that it can engage targets in the traditional slug fight if it has to, like any other MBT. Apparently I'm the only one who sees and understand this??? Then this isn't a very good pool of forumers and not a very good forum.
Its amazing that so many ppl here are masquerading as analysts. I've called your bluffs u fraudsters.
Mod edit: Warning issued. Letli, you have repeated been denigrating other posters by claiming "they know nothing about warefare..." and other, similar comments. Go back and edit those comments out, as they violate forum rule #7, you have 72 hours to do so. Also (and again, according to forum rules #18) use proper punction and completely spell words out, unless using military acronyms, etc as it makes it easier to read and understand. Lastly, other posters who are defence professionals and therefore have gone through a vetting process, have raised points which you seem to dismiss. Kindly provide some information on your background and/or expertise which would indicate why you have been so dismissive of other posters. At present, you have made negative comments regarding other posters, the Moderator team, and the forum as a whole, this sort of behavior is commonly with a troll. Again, you have 72 hours to provide the requested information, failure to do so will result in banning.
-Preceptor
nfloorl: After many years as a Master Gunner in the U.S Army I find this quite amusing, and yes I have a full understanding on how a FCS gets a ballistic solution for each type of round fired.