Tanks

[Bob_Marley]

Thanks I have just found it.
According to one trial (which we can believe or not) was Kornet ATGM (850mm of RHA) not able to penetrate T-90 front armor but it is not a tandem warhead. So LAHAT should be able to penetrate T-90 hull if its not stopped by Arena in the flight.

I still believe in domination of russian technology

The LAHAT uses a top attack profile. I also seriously doubt that claim.

how effective is the fire control system at hitting a moving target at 3,000-3,800m though?

I'm afraid you'd have to ask the IDF that.

About 2A46M, watch T-72:
Range, maximum: 4000 APFSDS
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/st100-7/chapter03/C3III.htm

Yes, quite. And what is the effective range? 2000m. Maximum range refers how far the round will travel before it stops. You'd be lucky to hit the broad side of a barn, let alone a tank.

And 8.000m its only the biggest distance not same as effective one.

That is as maybe. But its a damn site better than the 5000m maximum of the Russian equivelant. Don't you agree?

Also T-90 good protected against such weapons, unlike western tanks.

Time for some edumacation

[Aljen]

AFAIK Arena is working against top attack missiles too.
If I remember well 9K119 optimal range is 4000m (80%-90% hit probability) and maximal range is 5000m (70%-80%).

I believe that with active defense (Arena and its western counterpart - do not know how advanced it is and if they are already using it) is ATGMs mostly useles as they would be destroyed before they could do any harm (in optimal circumstances) and mobility, computer power and power of the gun/projectile would decide the battle.

And according to different war doctrines of old Eastern and western blocks are tanks different - and they were build for different purpose.
I believe that anything on the ground opposing Russians in war would not be destroyed by T-90. It would be Smerched
But thats really very offtopic.
---
If it would be possible to implement not-cloned-like vehicles to PR, then it would be great (but I believe that betatesting would be really hard then)

[Metis-M]

I'm afraid you'd have to ask the IDF that.

IDF dont use it.

Yes, quite. And what is the effective range? 2000m. Maximum range refers how far the round will travel before it stops. You'd be lucky to hit the broad side of a barn, let alone a tank.

Same effective range have western tanks, because modern tanks cant destroy each other at much more distances by hitting the front.
So the fight distance for the maingun by two enemy tank forces will begin at this range.

That is as maybe. But its a damn site better than the 5000m maximum of the Russian equivelant. Don't you agree?

Problem for that is, guided heat round dont care about distance to destroy/damage, but the line of view.
8km is mostly not realistic distance when you think about the direct view distance.
5km or as krizanthema has 6 km is very much but 8km, where to find such a battlefield?
But theoretical it is good have all possibilities, so u right.

The discussion is not realistic, IDF dont use them, it same when someone would tell about BlackEagle or T-95, that also not in use.

Time for some edumacation

Yes they work on active one, but T-90 already has it.
Russian tanks have also passive protection systems.

I think sometimes about a book i read written by tom clancy , when i see western companies work on something russian tanks already have.

[Bob_Marley]

IDF dont use it.

Yeah, they do. We were talking about the main gun firing conventional ammunition, not the LAHAT

Same effective range have western tanks, because modern tanks cant destroy each other at much more distances by hitting the front.
So the fight distance for the maingun by two enemy tank forces will begin at this range.

The L30A1 (current main gun on the Challenger 2 tank) combined with the latest CHARM DUAPFSDS round has a claimed lethally effective range in excess of 3000m. Page 62. PDF document.

However, as a general rule, your assessment is probubly accurate for most situations.

Problem for that is, guided heat round dont care about distance to destroy/damage, but the line of view.
8km is mostly not realistic distance when you think about the direct view distance.
5km or as krizanthema has 6 km is very much but 8km, where to find such a battlefield?
But theoretical it is good have all possibilities, so u right.

LAHAT missiles can be guided to their targets by spotters sperate to the firing tank, which can be achived with only the commander's sight being visible to the enemy on the designating tank. Pretty swish. But in a 1 on 1 engaugement 5,000m is probubly the maximum range that could be achived in most situations.

As such I think we can agree that:

Both missile systems are equally effective (or there abouts) in direct tank-to-tank warfare, but the LAHAT has a range advantage through target desingation that allows it more flexibility.

Yes they work on active one, but T-90 already has it.
Russian tanks have also passive protection systems.

I think sometimes about a book i read written by tom clancy , when i see western companies work on something russian tanks already have.

Thing is, the West has worked much harder on passive defensive systems than Russia, most noteably with Chobham and Dorchester armor, which are superior to anything currently deployed by Russian armed forces. however, they're playing catchup on active systems, and conversely, Russia possesses a head start in active systems but has inferior passsive systems.

[Liquid_Cow]

During the 1st Gulf War there were several verified 4000m one-shot kills by M-1's against T-72's. The fire control system on most western tanks is good enough to get about a 50% hit ratio while moving over rough terrain out to maximum effective range.

Almost all modern ATGM's will destroy any tank, as, for the most part, they use top attack.

Here's the problem with the Russian tank launched ATGM's...
The weapon is a beam riding laser guided missle. To guide the missle the gunner must put the sights on the target, activate the laser, and hold it on target for the entire time of flight. At 4000m you're talking almost 12 seconds of flight. All the while, in the target tank, the laser detection alarm would be screaming in everyone's headsets. If there was any terrain, if the target poped smoke, if the shooter was hit, or if the gunner was unable to track the target for any reason (trees, terrain) the missle would miss. It takes twice as long to load the missle as a shell (two parts), they are expensive (so there's less of them put into the regular load out), and the gun cannot shoot while the missle is in flight (earlier wire guided missles could not even open the breach while missle in flight to start the reloading).

By comparison, it takes about 3 seconds for a Sabot to cover the same ground, the shooter only needs to see the target for 2-3 seconds, and there would only be a single beep of the laser detector to warn the target. An auto-loading tank would be able to fire 3 sabots back at the missle firing tank in that time.

77SiCaRiO77, the info I got on the Russian gun says its max range for Sabot's is 2000m on the "Sprout" gun (which is the wheeled version of the 2A45 used in the T-72 and T-80). LINK The 2A46 is a longer barrel version of the same weapon, uses the same ammo, Metis-M has that link.

Metis-M, thank you for that link, I've been looking for a good table to compair the 2A46 on, the 4000M is the maximum range, not max effective, which is listed as 2000m. Another website I found listed it at 2130m. Max effective is a function of KE left in the projectile and accuracy of the gun.

Oh, BTW, while we are talking silly range weapon system, in works for the L-44/55 is the XM1111 MRM-KE, a guided, rocket assisted KE penetrator with a 12,000m range.

I do have a question, if anyone can say for sure, but from the research I've done, it looks like the Russians have trended away from the DU Sabots back to Tungsen. Anyone verify this one way or the other?

[Hitperson]

ACRONYM OVERLOAD!!

back to the discussion on crews i DL'd DCR today and i love ho you have the driver as the commander and how the gunner commands show up in the view finder.

any way this could be replicated??