project reality header
Go Back   Project Reality Forums > Off-Topic Forums > Off-Topic Discussion > Military Technology
22 Oct 2019, 00:00:00 (PRT)
Register Developer Blogs Project Reality Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Military Technology Discussion on military hardware.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 2018-02-09, 19:13   #11
BubblyNinja

BubblyNinja's Avatar
Default Re: Heavy armor in modern battlefields

Quote:
Originally Posted by PatrickLA_CA View Post
Here's the destroyed T-90
https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...orded-in-Syria
Supposedly an ATGM to the upper turret knocked out their optics and a second one to the side injured the crew.

Interesting, I wonder if they used the Shtora or it failed. I don't think they even thought about using it.
Alot of factors play into that T-90 "kill". Based off of the link you provided the militia running the tank wasn't expecting fire from anything higher than 23mm so maybe turning on the shtora system seemed unnecessary to them. Another factor is incompetence and inability to grasp any idea on how to operate the system. The shtora system also only has operations usage of about 6 hours for some reason so maybe they had it running all day and they managed to get hit and the worst possible time. Also, Malyutkas, which are still very common in the region, run on an MCLOS system(user controlled with a joystick and periscope sights) meaning that the shtora, designed to defeat SACLOS/laser guided ATGMs exclusively, couldn't even notice it.

BubblyNinja is offline Reply With Quote
Old 2018-02-09, 19:51   #12
PatrickLA_CA

PatrickLA_CA's Avatar
Default Re: Heavy armor in modern battlefields

That could be but seeing how plenty of different MBTs get easily mobility killed and their crews suffer fatalities, I can't help but think that platforms such as the Merkava with the engine upfront are most suitable for this kind of conflict. Sure the tank will get hit just the same as a T90 or a Leopard will but the engine will take the hit if the ATGM goes through the armor and the crew will survive. That's in case there is no APS available of course, the Merkava's APS has proven very effective during Operation Protective Edge.

Also, I am of the opinion that vehicles such as the CV90-120 or the Russian 2s25 Sprut-SD can be just as useful in this kind of scenario while being cheaper and offering better crew protection. Also more mobile.

PatrickLA_CA is offline Reply With Quote
Old 2018-02-09, 22:41   #13
[R-DEV]​camo
PR:BF2 Developer
Supporting Member

camo's Avatar
Default Re: Heavy armor in modern battlefields

Quote:
Originally Posted by PatrickLA_CA View Post
I can't help but think that platforms such as the Merkava with the engine upfront are most suitable for this kind of conflict. Sure the tank will get hit just the same as a T90 or a Leopard will but the engine will take the hit if the ATGM goes through the armor and the crew will survive.
The engine doesn't really provide much protection, any sort of hit a Merkava might survive will be attributed to the armour.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PatrickLA_CA View Post
Also, I am of the opinion that vehicles such as the CV90-120 or the Russian 2s25 Sprut-SD can be just as useful in this kind of scenario while being cheaper and offering better crew protection.
Better crew protection than a tank against atgm's?

camo is offline Reply With Quote
Old 2018-02-09, 23:01   #14
PatrickLA_CA

PatrickLA_CA's Avatar
Default Re: Heavy armor in modern battlefields

Quote:
Originally Posted by [R-DEV]camo View Post
The engine doesn't really provide much protection, any sort of hit a Merkava might survive will be attributed to the armour.

Better crew protection than a tank against atgm's?
Yes, ATGM's, unlike sabot rounds, are going to lose their energy after penetrating the armor plate and hitting the engine. Of course, this only applies to a frontal hit. The rest will be no issue.

PatrickLA_CA is offline Reply With Quote
Old 2018-02-10, 04:29   #15
BubblyNinja

BubblyNinja's Avatar
Default Re: Heavy armor in modern battlefields

Quote:
Originally Posted by PatrickLA_CA View Post
Also, I am of the opinion that vehicles such as the CV90-120 or the Russian 2s25 Sprut-SD can be just as useful in this kind of scenario while being cheaper and offering better crew protection. Also more mobile.
The CV-90 is only designed for guaranteed protection against projectiles up to 14.5mmAP all-around and limited protection to 30mm APFSDS, and to a certain degree most IEDs. The CV-90's only protection against ATGMs/Tandem Warheads is optional cage armor that can be attached to the outer hull. It may dish out damage with its 40mm(or120mm) cannon but in terms of crew protection its probably even worse than an obsolete M1A1M, Leopard 4, or even a T-72.

The 2S25 Spurt-SD is a little worse than the CV-90. It has protection against projectiles up to 23mmAPT/HE. The 23mmAP projectile protection rating is unfortunately on guaranteed when being fired upon from 500m or more.

The CV-90 is an Infantry Fighting Vehicle while the 2S25 Spurt-SD is a SPG/Light Tank Destroyer. They are good at the jobs they were built for. But asking them to be fielded in Syria as replacements where ATGMs are obliterating their much larger and more heavily armored tank cousins is a highly fatuous idea.

BubblyNinja is offline
Last edited by BubblyNinja; 2018-02-10 at 04:38..
Reply With Quote
Old 2018-02-10, 05:14   #16
Frontliner
Project Reality Beta Tester
Default Re: Heavy armor in modern battlefields

To me it seems like you all forget that you HAVE to use combined arms in order to be successful in modern warfare. If you're only swapping out >insert tank here< for >insert vehicle here< you're always going to end up saying that you can crack these tin cans open easily. And that is very much true. But protection is not the primary reason why these tanks get blown to smithereens, the problem lies is their inherent blindness and being used on their own. Get some infantry or even better, Mech Infantry to shield them, and you're going to see much better results, doesn't matter if it's urban or cross-country warfare.

VTRaptor: but i only stopped for less than 10 secs and that fucking awesome dude put 2 of them
]CIA[ SwampFox: well my definition of glitching is using an enemy kit to kill the enemy
Just_Dave: i have a list about PR players, and they r categorized by their skill
Para: You sir are an arse and not what the game or our community needs.
AlonTavor: Is that a German trying to make me concentrate?
Heavy Death: join PRTA instead - Teamwork is a must there.
Frontliner is offline Reply With Quote
Old 2018-02-10, 06:55   #17
[R-DEV]​camo
PR:BF2 Developer
Supporting Member

camo's Avatar
Default Re: Heavy armor in modern battlefields

Quote:
Originally Posted by PatrickLA_CA View Post
Yes, ATGM's, unlike sabot rounds, are going to lose their energy after penetrating the armor plate and hitting the engine. Of course, this only applies to a frontal hit. The rest will be no issue.
In regards to the cv90/sprut question, was more asking if you were being genuine. Either way my answer is roughly what Bubblyninja has since said. They're in no way comparable to MBT's in terms of survivability.

camo is offline
Last edited by [R-DEV]camo; 2018-02-10 at 08:08..
Reply With Quote
Old 2018-02-10, 10:31   #18
PatrickLA_CA

PatrickLA_CA's Avatar
Default Re: Heavy armor in modern battlefields

Yeah, I guess that makes sense. Frontliner is on point here, so far I've not seen a single video from Syria where Turkish/Syrian forces use their armor in conjunction with infantry, but I can't seem to understand why someone who has passed some kind of training and has been given a rank where they can lead tanks in to battle will get the idea to park tanks in a wide open area, and even then, have no overwatch, air cover etc. I suppose the Syrian troops have been assembled from whatever is left there but I had much higher expectation of the Turks.

PatrickLA_CA is offline Reply With Quote
Old 2018-02-10, 11:17   #19
BubblyNinja

BubblyNinja's Avatar
Default Re: Heavy armor in modern battlefields

Quote:
Originally Posted by PatrickLA_CA View Post
Yeah, I guess that makes sense. Frontliner is on point here, so far I've not seen a single video from Syria where Turkish/Syrian forces use their armor in conjunction with infantry, but I can't seem to understand why someone who has passed some kind of training and has been given a rank where they can lead tanks in to battle will get the idea to park tanks in a wide open area, and even then, have no overwatch, air cover etc. I suppose the Syrian troops have been assembled from whatever is left there but I had much higher expectation of the Turks.
It seems to be that the reason why you never see infantry working with tanks is probably because the infantry knows that the tank is an ATGM magnet and will stay away from it when it's out in the open. Then again it could also be incompetence or poor battle doctrine.

Also ATGMs have some crazy firing distances with the BGM-71 having maximum 4km range and in extreme forms of ATGM the Kornet-EM can fire out to 10km away meaning that through binos or tank sights that dot on the horizon could be a pile of trash or a missile coming your way.. Not to mention that ATGM systems are designed to be highly mobile, being able to be disassembled, moved to a different firing location, and reassembled for continued use. I wouldn't be surprised if some Syrians couldn't get a good angle on a Turkish Leopard and just tossed their ATGM system in a pickup truck and drove to another building or hill 10 minutes away to get their kill shot.

BubblyNinja is offline Reply With Quote
Old 2018-02-10, 11:40   #20
Xander[nl]
Supporting Member

Xander[nl]'s Avatar
Send a message via MSN to Xander[nl]
Default Re: Heavy armor in modern battlefields

Quote:
Originally Posted by BubblyNinja View Post
Also ATGMs have some crazy firing distances with the BGM-71 having maximum 4km range and in extreme forms of ATGM the Kornet-EM can fire out to 10km away meaning that through binos or tank sights that dot on the horizon could be a pile of trash or a missile coming your way..
Which is why, besides poor use (or absence) of combined arms doctrine, I think one other major factor is bad training of crews and commanders. The higher range of ATGM's can be mostly negated by using the terrain to your advantage, like using slopes or buildings for cover. Yet in most videos you see a tank parked right out in the open in the middle of a valley apparently without a single care in the world.

I mean look at the first part of this video. What on earth is a tank doing in the absolute middle of nowhere?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-1CabC8tR4

One other way to decrease the effectiveness of ATGM range is by deploying recon and infantry in a forward position so they can scout the surroundings before the heavy vehicles roll in, but we already established that combined arms is not a thing in Syria.

Xander[nl] is offline
Last edited by Xander[nl]; 2018-02-10 at 11:46..
Reply With Quote
Reply


Tags
armor, battlefields, heavy, modern
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 19:01.