Best Tank

[Gerle]

HEAT is less effective when rotating, I heard a rumour about someone designing a counter-rotating HEAT round to be fired through a rifled barrel. I believe that is what Alain-James is referring to, Easy-Kill, the loss in effect of a HEAT round if rotating at the moment of impact, which would translate to less penetrating power, right?

 

[Easy-Kill]

HEAT is less effective when rotating, I heard a rumour about someone designing a counter-rotating HEAT round to be fired through a rifled barrel. I believe that is what Alain-James is referring to, Easy-Kill, the loss in effect of a HEAT round if rotating at the moment of impact, which would translate to less penetrating power, right?

Not as I am aware, it's a shaped charge that should explode forward, with the resulting explosion happening faster than the impact (as such the impact velocity must be less to allow the armour penetration). As it explodes, it superheats the metal 'nose' and armour causing it to melt, when the explosion reaches it's peak, it causes the remaining metal to explode inwards killing the crew. HESH uses the same theory but a different application for a slightly different purpose.

KE penetrators (giggles) loose a small amount of penetration (giggles) because of the spin, but not a significant amount. It's is the lower initial velocity at shorter ranges which cause it to loose penetration power (giggles).

 

[unmerged(18602)]

I believe that is what Alain-James is referring to, Easy-Kill, the loss in effect of a HEAT round if rotating at the moment of impact, which would translate to less penetrating power, right?

Yes sorry - thank you Gerle - just realized I forgot half a sentence. My English is getting awful those days

But well the nature of the HEAT implies a loss of efficiency if fired through a rifled gun

Not as I am aware, it's a shaped charge that should explode forward, with the resulting explosion happening faster than the impact (as such the impact velocity must be less to allow the armour penetration). As it explodes, it superheats the metal 'nose' and armour causing it to melt, when the explosion reaches it's peak, it causes the remaining metal to explode inwards killing the crew.

I may say a blunder, after all Im just a geek who played tank sims a lot, and so I may be a thousand times wrong, but well from what I remember, the nature of the HEAT rounds implies
1) that kinetic power is not a factor with a shaped charge (I mean that firing a faster HEAT round will not make more damage than a slower one, as you said)
2) that when fired from a rifled tube with no counter-rotative system, spinning and the resulting centrifuge force may hamper significally the efficiency and the homogeneity of the HEAT energy jet.

In my opinion that's why...

I can't see why you couldn't fire HEAT from a rifled gun, HESH is just a totally different design to heat, designed to be something else, after all if you smash the tank with a KE weapon, its going to work just as less as it will after being hit with HEAT.

well that's why UK sticked with grandma's HESH, because they apparently couldn't manage to conceive a good-rated/viable HEAT shell for their rifled toy, which is totally understandable given the cons when using such a projectile from a rifled weapon (apparently, a good working HESH still looks more efficient to them than a rifled and somewhat second-class HEAT projectile).

And the inherent accuracy with non rifled guns is that the round bounces up and down the barrel in a smoothbore, this is totally random and therefor cannot be compensated for, other than launching it faster to dissipate the effect. Fins only stabilize the round once it's left the barrel, while it's in the barrel, it bounces all over the place, this is the problem with muskets etc.

Uh... Yes sure, but apparently the computer is still able to put the round at the right place from a moving firing platform to another 7m-wide moving target more than 1 click away... Don't ask me about details, I don't design ballistic computers, but even if your shell "bounces all over the place", this seems to be a secondary issue when under firing under a certain distance (Cdat may confirm or deny)...
But still HEAT rounds, for what I know, are known for being much less accurate than Sabot rounds - ballistics and aerodynamism of the two projectiles (firing a APFSDS and firing a HEAT, looks like firing an arrow and throwing a rock to me) imply a loss of accuracy with the HEAT that doesn't exist with the Sabot...

HESH uses the same theory but a different application for a slightly different purpose.

From what I know, the HESH's performance is also much (at least a little) more dependant to its impact speed than HEAT's is... right?

AJ

 

[Exel]

I may say a blunder, after all Im just a geek who played tank sims a lot, and so I may be a thousand times wrong, but well from what I remember, the nature of the HEAT rounds implies
1) that kinetic power is not a factor with a shaped charge (I mean that firing a faster HEAT round will not make more damage than a slower one, as you said)
2) that when fired from a rifled tube with no counter-rotative system, spinning and the resulting centrifuge force may hamper significally the efficiency and the homogeneity of the HEAT energy jet.

That would be correct. I'm not 100% sure about the physics behind HEAT's reduced efficiency when spinning, but I think it had something to do with the formation of the penetrator being disrupted by the spin. Off the top of my head I remember something like 10-30% decrease in the penetration if the spin effect is not countered somehow.

But still HEAT rounds, for what I know, are known for being much less accurate than Sabot rounds - ballistics and aerodynamism of the two projectiles (firing a APFSDS and firing a HEAT, looks like firing an arrow and throwing a rock to me) imply a loss of accuracy with the HEAT that doesn't exist with the Sabot...

HEAT is slower, larger and aerodynamically less effective. It makes it more susceptible to environmental factors like wind. But still under "optimal" conditions HEAT should be just or almost as accurate as APFSDS.

 

[unmerged(18602)]

Yes, sorry Exel, you are undoubtedly right

this "much less" was a "much" too many o

 

[Easy-Kill]

That would be correct. I'm not 100% sure about the physics behind HEAT's reduced efficiency when spinning, but I think it had something to do with the formation of the penetrator being disrupted by the spin. Off the top of my head I remember something like 10-30% decrease in the penetration if the spin effect is not countered somehow.

Hmm, interesting, Having thought about the physics, if you have a rotating fluid (copper plasma), without a binding force (as in a solid) the rotating jet would increase in surface area size thus reducing the penetration.

HEAT is slower, larger and aerodynamically less effective. It makes it more susceptible to environmental factors like wind. But still under "optimal" conditions HEAT should be just or almost as accurate as APFSDS.

[/QUOTE]

I read about a 'missile' like round fired from a tank tube, interesting development from the future.

 

[Mr.Penguin]

Hmm, interesting, Having thought about the physics, if you have a rotating fluid (copper plasma), without a binding force (as in a solid) the rotating jet would increase in surface area size thus reducing the penetration.

True, this has been known since WW2. Modern HEAT rounds, fired from a rifled gun gets around this problem by having an outer "slip-ring" absob most of the spin from the rifling, a so called "retarded spin", this is also used in APDSFS rounds fired from rifled guns like the 105mm L7 gun...



Mr.Penguin

 

[Gerle]

It's is funny to me how I, the pogue air traffic controller that I am, knew this but one of our resident armor experts did not. :rofl: I wonder if my previous incarnation as a combat engineer has anything to do with this?

"it's a shaped charge that should explode forward, with the resulting explosion happening faster than the impact (as such the impact velocity must be less to allow the armour penetration). As it explodes, it superheats the metal 'nose' and armour causing it to melt, when the explosion reaches it's peak, it causes the remaining metal to explode inwards killing the crew. HESH uses the same theory but a different application for a slightly different purpose."

Yeah, I know.

 

[unmerged(18602)]

I read about a 'missile' like round fired from a tank tube, interesting development from the future.

?
Excuse-me, I may have misunderstood, but Soviets do that for decades, just look at the AT-8...
Or maybe you mean a NATO nation may try out such a weapon...?

From what I know, it may be a pain unless they made huge progress in shaped charges during the last years... The last we heard about shaped charges development for NATO 120 were shells such as STAFF or MPAT, but well I am not sure why they would choose the "russian way", knowing that the Soviet chose this option because of the limitations of their own weapons and sensors at long range, and of course the superior NATO late-generation composite armor, as it seemed to them that a tube-launched HEAT head would be terribly more useful than a 125mm AP round when fired at 3 clicks, not to mention accuracy...

But actually I don't see why would force NATO to adopt such measures. Maybe they're not satisfied with the STAFF idea, find it too limited for instance? They're trying out a new option?

 

[Easy-Kill]

?
Excuse-me, I may have misunderstood, but Soviets do that for decades, just look at the AT-8...
Or maybe you mean a NATO nation may try out such a weapon...?

From what I know, it may be a pain unless they made huge progress in shaped charges during the last years... The last we heard about shaped charges development for NATO 120 were shells such as STAFF or MPAT, but well I am not sure why they would choose the "russian way", knowing that the Soviet chose this option because of the limitations of their own weapons and sensors at long range, and of course the superior NATO late-generation composite armor, as it seemed to them that a tube-launched HEAT head would be terribly more useful than a 125mm AP round when fired at 3 clicks, not to mention accuracy...

But actually I don't see why would force NATO to adopt such measures. Maybe they're not satisfied with the STAFF idea, find it too limited for instance? They're trying out a new option?

Last I heard the UKMOD was working on intelligent explosives. Not so much of a shaped charge, but a series of explosions that would explode at certain timings such that it would be in reaction as to how the shell hits.

As for the missile like shell ... yes the soviets have made a shell like missile, basically a shell with a rocket on the end, but im talking about a shell that has it's own built in guidance system, and I know there have been trials using artillery shells of this kind.

The problem is getting themto travel at the hypersonic speeds required to produce the required penetration on those tight soviet style tanks.

Then there is always the rail gun, last i heard the UK was very close to having one that could realistically fit on a ship ... I wonder what the ethics of such a thing are.

 

[Exel]

So, future developments?

Rail guns are undoubtedly a tech of the future, but like Easy-Kill said they are currently barely compact enough to fit on warships. Some sort of a naval bombardment solution will probably be their first active role as well. Wont be seeing them in tanks for decades though.

There are two solutions being developed. Electro-magnetic (EM) "rail guns" and electro-thermal-chemical (ETC) guns. The former relies on pure electric operation of magnetic acceleration of the projectile while the latter is a "hybrid" of current combustion rounds that are further accelerated electronically. I really don't have any in-depth knowledge of these systems, but both at least in theory allow much higher muzzle velocities and thus higher kinetic energy for projectiles than the current chemical energy guns. The problem with both is that they are insanely energy thirsty, and currently suitable power supplies for tanks don't exist (or do only on paper). ETC is supposed to be an easier solution in this regard since it is still aided by chemical combustion, but it too has its problems; I'm sure everyone can imagine the difficulty in combining electrical components and a chemical explosion into a durable and compact package.

These systems are bound to revolutionize tank armaments, but they will take some time to mature. Some estimates have projected first field applications to see daylight in 20-30 years for EM guns, and 10-20 years for ETC guns. However 50 years is often mentioned as a time frame for any significantly wide-spread field use. But obviously we don't know how fast new technologies will speed up this process or if the development will stall considerably.

A good read for basic information about the subject can be found for example here .

In more near-future developments we will see development of improved ammunition and gun systems. KE is the order of the day as the primary tank killer, but new intelligent CE weapons (like STAFF) are being developed. The West is unlikely to go with actual missiles for their tanks though. There's been some speculation on the US Army considering something like L55 as an upgrade for the Abrams. If improvements of current systems aren't enough to counter future armored threats, the West has the capability ready to adopt 140mm guns. Russia and China are also testing with higher caliber guns. Asia is a fan for gun-launched ATGMs too and there are various projects going on there.

 

[unmerged(18602)]

As for the missile like shell ... yes the soviets have made a shell like missile, basically a shell with a rocket on the end,

Euh... AT-8, AT-10, AT-11 or AT-12 to name them are laser-guided, which makes them missiles just like any other of their kinds. They are "shells with a rocket at the end and a laser-beam passive receipter" just as much as TOW "is a shell with a rocket at the end and a very long wire" from what I know, right?

but im talking about a shell that has it's own built in guidance system, and I know there have been trials using artillery shells of this kind.

You're talking about ACTIVE, possibly fire & forget guidance munitions so, right?
I suppose you're mentionning something else than Copperhead (laser) or Excalibur (GPS) ammunitions kinds?

 

[Easy-Kill]

Euh... AT-8, AT-10, AT-11 or AT-12 to name them are laser-guided, which makes them missiles just like any other of their kinds. They are "shells with a rocket at the end and a laser-beam passive receipter" just as much as TOW "is a shell with a rocket at the end and a very long wire" from what I know, right?


You're talking about ACTIVE, possibly fire & forget guidance munitions so, right?
I suppose you're mentionning something else than Copperhead (laser) or Excalibur (GPS) ammunitions kinds?

Problem with shells with a rocket on the end, is that they are big.

Active fire and forget weapons. With the QinetiQ Q20 indoor GPS receiver and MEMS IMU that makes a very compact, very accurate positioning system, incorperate this into a shell which steers itself and who cares if it's rifled or not.

Laser is pointless because it requires someone being very close and as the US found in Iraq, giving soldiers technical equipment like this gets them killed a lot. US SF were constantly reading their own position instead of the lasered position for aistrikes ... BOOM.

I shouldn't really say much more, but the future is closer than you think. If EM guns really do require 50 years to make it to a tank, unguided munitions will be a thing of the past.

 

[Exel]

unguided munitions will be a thing of the past.

Unguided is a good thing. It can't be jammed. It's as fire-and-forget as it gets. The flight time of an APFSDS round is so negligible that no guidance is needed.

Missiles and other guided munitions have the problem, among other things, that they need to rely on CE shaped charge for penetration. Composite armor has long since rendered HEAT-style rounds as a 2nd class weapon against heavy armor. Most ATGMs for instance have little hope in penetrating tanks from the frontal arc. The way some weapons (Javelin, STAFF) have tried to get around this fact is by guidance to the weak roof of the tank. However as we see in Merkava Mk.4 and the Swedish and Spanish Leopard 2 variants, MBT top armor has been increased to counter these threats as well. Russians excel in ERA applications.

Being slower than KE penetrators they also face the obstacle from active protection systems like Trophy. ATGMs and RPGs may face the threat of becoming obsolete if the active protection systems become wide spread and work as advertised.

 

[cdat]

Anyone know what this is?

 

[Easy-Kill]

Unguided is a good thing. It can't be jammed. It's as fire-and-forget as it gets. The flight time of an APFSDS round is so negligible that no guidance is needed.

Missiles and other guided munitions have the problem, among other things, that they need to rely on CE shaped charge for penetration. Composite armor has long since rendered HEAT-style rounds as a 2nd class weapon against heavy armor. Most ATGMs for instance have little hope in penetrating tanks from the frontal arc. The way some weapons (Javelin, STAFF) have tried to get around this fact is by guidance to the weak roof of the tank. However as we see in Merkava Mk.4 and the Swedish and Spanish Leopard 2 variants, MBT top armor has been increased to counter these threats as well. Russians excel in ERA applications.

Being slower than KE penetrators they also face the obstacle from active protection systems like Trophy. ATGMs and RPGs may face the threat of becoming obsolete if the active protection systems become wide spread and work as advertised.

Of course guided munitions can be jammed, but new developments in radio navigation technology are making that harder. Don't forget that with the modern networked battlefield, with radio navigation being used as an encryption tool, NAVWAR is becomming a very intereting topic.

You can also make guidance systems that are very hard to jam for example an intelligent minefield: A series of vibration sensors planted on a road by SF (similar to what SF were doing around the Iraqi MSR in both gulf wars). These motion sensors communicate (this is the only weak link) with artillery, tomahawk, MLRS etc a few miles away which then shoots, something like a rotator in a shell can effect it's trajectory, the motions sensors com with the arty, the arty coms with the shell. Instead of having to saturate an area with artillery strike, you now have 1 shell.

@CDAT ... im guessing thats something late ww1/post war because of the enclosed tracks. It looks russian/soviet because of the tracks but im not sure.


We have all seen the 'guess the city' prehaps someone should make a 'guess the tank' thread

 

[unmerged(51738)]

Anyone know what this is?

Surely not the best tank today.
You're going back to the roots?

 

[cdat]

Surely not the best tank today.
You're going back to the roots?

No, someone threw this at me to figure out and I don't have a clue. I've never seen it anywhere.

 

[Gerle]

Two offset turrets, rubber roadwheels AND tracks, seems russian... But I believe similar stuff happened in Sweden as well as some English contraptions were built much like it.

 

[Easy-Kill]

Two offset turrets, rubber roadwheels AND tracks, seems russian... But I believe similar stuff happened in Sweden as well as some English contraptions were built much like it.

I don't think it's British. Britain stuck very closely to the Rhomboid design, with external tracks until it adopted a Renault FT17 style tank with the Vickers Mark E 6 tonner.

I certainly don't think it's either British or French.

Take a closer look at the tracks too, they are blatent mud crunchers, very wide with big grooves to allow it to squelch nicely into the mud. It certainly doesn't look Early british or French as they were quite a way ahead of tank research at the end of ww2.

SU didn't have much tank research until after the T26 because of political problems.

USA didn't have much research and what it had was deived from Britain and France.

Germany weren't allows to develop tanks.

I would go with Poland, Scandinavia, Possibly SU. I think if someone can identify the tread then you can identify the country. Identify the country and you can identify the tank.