Helluva shot trap on that thing. Driver better wear TWO helmets.....just sayin
Posted on 06/24/2022 3:33:16 AM PDT by FarCenter
The war in Ukraine may have heralded the return of large-scale mechanized wars of attrition. While Russia’s huge tank losses early on during its invasion have prompted premature calls about the tank’s death, the subsequent attrition fighting has shown tanks bearing the brunt of ground combat once again.
That development has re-emphasized the enduring need for a heavily armed and armored combat vehicle capable of breaking through the toughest of defenses.
However, the dynamics of mechanized warfare that have been unfolding in Ukraine may have validated or invalidated design concepts included in the latest main battle tanks (MBT), such as Germany’s KF51 Panther and Russia’s T-14 Armata.
These advanced tank designs showcase several technologies that may define armored warfare for years – but the tanks themselves might be of only limited usefulness in today’s modern conflicts.
The war in Ukraine has shown that large-scale industrialized wars of attrition are here to stay. Hence, the weapons systems needed in this kind of warfare must be cheap, simply engineered and capable of being quickly mass-produced – and must have available abundant supplies of fuel and ammunition.
The high costs of the KF51 Panther and T-14 Armata ($4 million per unit) are a strong disincentive for mass production. Also, deploying these tanks risks their advanced technologies falling into enemy hands, which may be one reason why Russia has not deployed the T-14 Armata to Ukraine.
Hence, these advanced tanks may become too expensive to mass-produce and too valuable to lose in attrition warfare. Such was the fate of the F-22 Raptor fifth-generation fighter, whose production ended in 2009 with only 195 units produced due to high costs ($125 million per jet) and high maintenance requirements.
(Excerpt) Read more at asiatimes.com ...
Main gun bore diameters continue to increase.
“Main gun bore diameters continue to increase.”
The tank gun, originally used for bunkers, is used mostly for killing ‘soft’ buildings and other tanks. Tanks keep getting bigger guns to reach out and kill other tanks. APC’s don’t have the protection for the penetration of most tank guns.
While it’s increasingly apparent that the 130mm gun is next up, the question should rapidly become is “this the best way to kill other tanks?”. Guided top down missile attacks, like the Javelin, seem to be more very effective.
Helluva shot trap on that thing. Driver better wear TWO helmets.....just sayin
Modern APFSDS rounds do not ricochet like old AP used to. A shot trap like that ends up making the APFSDS projectile shatter instead. Same thing with the ‘shot traps’ on the Abrams.
A 130mm cannon can fire a larger missile down the bore. Gun launched missiles are absolutely a common thing now in many militaries.
A light missile-carrying, remotely piloted vehicle that can go off-road on wet and/or swampy terrain and ford rivers would seem to have been useful in Ukraine.
The Russians appear to have been vulnerable because they stayed on roads too much. They also have had trouble crossing rivers with a lot of meanders and marshy ground adjacent.
Hmm - sounds like a first wife to me.
General Mud has been a known thing in that part of the world at least since Napoleon. Some of the apparent difficulties are a real head scratcher.
Russia has not deployed these Tanks
Mebe cause this is a Special Military Operation, and not a War
Mebe cause the approved reality is propaganda and in reality Russia is kicking a$$
;-)
The high costs of the KF51 Panther and T-14 Armata ($4 million per unit) are a strong disincentive for mass production. Also, deploying these tanks risks their advanced technologies falling into enemy hands, which may be one reason why Russia has not deployed the T-14 Armata to Ukraine.
Hence, these advanced tanks may become too expensive to mass-produce and too valuable to lose in attrition warfare. Such was the fate of the F-22 Raptor fifth-generation fighter, whose production ended in 2009 with only 195 units produced due to high costs ($125 million per jet) and high maintenance requirements.
—
The unfettered greed of the Military Industrial Complex has killed the golden goose; creating weapons too expensive to risk using in battle.
Requires some form of gasoline.
Not enough being produced THX to RATS & friends.
I was hoping it would look more like a Pz Mk V.
—”Mebe cause this is a Special Military Operation, and not a War”
NO!
Vaporware, a few prototypes were made, and never entered production.
Comming soon, any day now, the contract is in the mail...
I’ve always wondered why tanks main guns are smooth bore. Unedumacated me thought a rifled barrel would give better accuracy.
Is the cannon fired missile the reason for the smooth bore?
It appears to me that the Russian T-14 has not gotten beyond the prototype stage. The Russians have enough for a Red Square parade, but not enough to commit to combat and has NOT entered series production. The biggest problem is the Russians can’t afford it due to internal corruption and that after the invasion of Crimea in 2014, the West cut off all of the electronics that the vehicle needed to make it work properly, especially the armament.
Why? I'm unaware that that was ever the salient question.
The change from rifled to smoothbore is only within the last couple generations (105 and 120mm) of tank gun in the West (Eastern tanks were first to adopt it but the spread of smoothbore guns was slower there) and is not quite universal yet.
Smoothbores have turned out to be better in general - while some were developed to be able to fire missiles, they also have the advantage of significantly increased range and velocity when firing unpowered projectiles while not significantly reducing accuracy. Fin stabilized rounds like APFSDS do not need rifling (they can actually sometimes perform worse in a rifled gun) and a smoothbore can fire simplified and more effective HEAT rounds (as compared to what is needed to get HEAT to perform well from a rifled barrel).
On the other hand, the British have retained their rifled guns for their Challenger 1 and 2 tanks, even producing a newer version after most everyone else had gone to smoothbores. They love their HESH ammo, which requires spin to distribute the explosive properly across the target prior to detonation, so they’ve retained rifled guns. The Indians likewise kept a rifled gun on their indigenous Arjun tanks.
That said, the British now plan a “Challenger 3” tank program, which among other things replaces the turret and gun of existing Challenger 2s with an all new turret and a smoothbore main gun. It seems that HESH is less effective against the modern generations of both heavy explosive reactive armor and active protection systems and that they’re going to want to be able to more easily/optimally fire missiles and discarding sabot rounds like APFSDS.
Thanks for the reply.
Although I have a little interest I haven’t kept up with the evolving ammo scene.
I knew without having to push the round through a rifled barrel the round kept more of the energy imparted by the propellant. I had no idea it was enough to make a sizeable difference in range.
I just watched a short video of the HEAT, APFSDS and HESH rounds. I can say all three are nasty customers that can ruin a guy’s health in seconds. For some reason the thought of shards of spalled armor bouncing around probably scares me the most. It seems the other two would be a quicker death.:-(
The evolution of armor and ammunition is pretty breathtaking to someone like me who hasn’t kept up.
Again, thanks for the reply.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.