So they will need to for sure go the German Route for big bullets when it comes to tank slayers. And you are right, the Brits always seemed to defend their maingun loading times, makes you wonder why they do not do very well at CAT gunnery events.:unknown just kidding. it will be real interesting to see the ammunition set up for the loader and ammo storage arrangement, and I wonder what Oman will do because of this.@Eckherl
One problem for the brits is also that their ammunition supplier closed it's doors.
It will defenitely be interesting to see their loading times. They constantly claimed that they are not slower with their two piece rounds than other crews with one piece rounds.
So now they should be able to load a DM63 every 2 seconds.
I always wondered about the vulnerability of the ERA at that lower hull position.
One often enough rams this part into the earth.
Maybe ERA placed there suffers from malfunctions due to the rough treatment.
who can kill a modern Main Battle Tank (MBT)?
- Thread starter giangnguyen
- Start date
- Status
wittmanace
Active Member
eckherl, is there somewhere you know of that i can find all the past winners of the CAT? ive been looking online and only find reference to the 87 event really...any info on the past events would be much appreciated
I would think that there is a wall of glory posted at Graf gunnery range. That would be neat information to know. Waylander or KATO - do you know how we could get this information. We finally had our first moment of glory in 1987 and you would of thought that the U.S Army had won the Super Bowl.
Personally I don't think that Western tanks use enough ERA. It incredibly light and offers really good protection. In 1991 the U.S. found that their LRP rods could not penetrate the upgraded Kontak-5 ERA which lead to the development of new LRP. Also, supposedly Kontat-5 protected a T-90 tank against all 5 Kornet ATGM's and 3 of 5 RPG-29 rounds. Thus you can see protection makes a huge difference.
Also, for top protection, light ERA or even non-explosive reactive armor can be applied to the turret roof. Combined with an APS this would allow really good protection versus EFP's and bomblets. Really no MBT can protect itself versus Hellfire or other top attack rounds with physical armor, that protection has to come from APS systems.
Also, for top protection, light ERA or even non-explosive reactive armor can be applied to the turret roof. Combined with an APS this would allow really good protection versus EFP's and bomblets. Really no MBT can protect itself versus Hellfire or other top attack rounds with physical armor, that protection has to come from APS systems.
If the sides are equal, then you have to worry about enemy air defenses from the ground and air. The CBU-97 did well in Iraq but the US had air superiority. If both sides have enough technology and money to build CBU-97's, then they should be able to detect and shoot down the planes that carry them. Not only that, the CBU-97 can release 40 "skeets" which independently hit a target, but there's no way for the skeets to communicate with each other. In other words, Several skeets may target the same tank, meaning that you won't get as many kills with one bomb.
lonelytoad
New Member
I dunno what capacity needed for a weapon system to destroy M1A2 because I have no idea that the protection level of its front armor. Here is a few feature about China HJ-9A ATGM and a pic that I collected from public press. Its warhead's Penetration capacity is 1200mm RHAe plus reactive explosive armor. The effective range is more than 5.5 km. I also saw a pic showing that a 2-member crew operate a portable version. The pic below is one of the earlier version, HJ-9Hope someone tell me if it works.
PS. could any one do me a favor to recommend me a website with military dictionary or glossary. An English one is enough. It is a hard work to search every single term for translation all the time. Thanks a lot.
Wow - you sound like you talk with some experience.
nfloorl:Oh no Yasin - I get my experience listening to the likes of people like you.
I always wondered how effective a low level attack by 2 Tornados with MW-1s over an armored column may be.
I remember that the Brits had problems when they used their JP-233 during Desert Storm because they had to fly in a straight line for too long.
And the Sovjets had a lot of AAA and close range SAMs available for their units. I could Imagine that they would also have managed to get a lot of metal into the air in the path of the Tornados.
Ok, if the Tornados are successfull it would probably result in a shredded brigade. This weapon is really fearsome.
@Yasin20
Ok, maybe I paraphrase Eckherls question.
What makes you think that your idea is something else than ritual suicide during 99,9% percent of possible situations.
I remember that the Brits had problems when they used their JP-233 during Desert Storm because they had to fly in a straight line for too long.
And the Sovjets had a lot of AAA and close range SAMs available for their units. I could Imagine that they would also have managed to get a lot of metal into the air in the path of the Tornados.
Ok, if the Tornados are successfull it would probably result in a shredded brigade. This weapon is really fearsome.
@Yasin20
Ok, maybe I paraphrase Eckherls question.
What makes you think that your idea is something else than ritual suicide during 99,9% percent of possible situations.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I always wondered how effective a low level attack by 2 Tornados with MW-1s over an armored column may be.
I remember that the Brits had problems when they used their JP-233 during Desert Storm because they had to fly in a straight line for too long.
And the Sovjets had a lot of AAA and close range SAMs available for their units. I could Imagine that they would also have managed to get a lot of metal into the air in the path of the Tornados.
Ok, if the Tornados are successfull it would probably result in a shredded brigade. This weapon is really fearsome.
@Yasin20
Ok, maybe I paraphrase Eckherls question.
What makes you think that your idea is something else than ritual suicide during 99,9% percent of possible situations.
I think with the European landscape that about the time that the Soviets heard and seen them that it would be to late. The problem that they faced in Iraq was the bareness of the land mass that they had to fly in. With all the ADA that the Soviets had our pilots were worried to a point that all enemy ADA assets that were identified on the battlefield had top priority for being taken out. It is a awsome spectacle to watch a pair of Tornados or other fast movers blowing by overhead at tree top level when you can catch a glimpse.
I'm not sure JP223 actually "fires" the submunitions though. Could be that they're just gravity-dropped out of the opened chutes of the dispenser?
(with the two settable dispension patterns achieved by altering the "opening pattern")
MW-1 uses pyrotechnic charges to actually "launch" the submunitions to the sides, grenade-launcher style.
The sideways launching of course allows the aircraft to fly even lower in an attack run.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icEgB0EIIn0"]YouTube - Tornado GR1/IDS tribute[/ame]
JP223 at 3:40, MW-1 at 3:46. Note that that's in slow motion.
We used the regular Tornado and F-16 overflights over our base for AA MG training with blank ammo
Well, not at treetop level, but at around 200 feet above the base - since we were on a mountain, and they were regularly coming in at about 2000 feet above the plains below.
i dont know what happens if the soldier throws the grenade into the main gun would any thing happen to it will it kill the loader inside or destroy the ammo i dont know i mean
why is it a suicide a tank can not detect a soldier like it would detect other vehicles out there its like as the human been has the same heat signature then a humen bean i mean can a human been run faster then a turrets gun i remember even whaching top gear in one episode where a challenger was trying to gun down a but its gun was just to slow for it man plus a soldier is a smaller target then a tankI always wondered how effective a low level attack by 2 Tornados with MW-1s over an armored column may be.
I remember that the Brits had problems when they used their JP-233 during Desert Storm because they had to fly in a straight line for too long.
And the Sovjets had a lot of AAA and close range SAMs available for their units. I could Imagine that they would also have managed to get a lot of metal into the air in the path of the Tornados.
Ok, if the Tornados are successfull it would probably result in a shredded brigade. This weapon is really fearsome.
@Yasin20
Ok, maybe I paraphrase Eckherls question.
What makes you think that your idea is something else than ritual suicide during 99,9% percent of possible situations.
- Status