[HN Gopher] Primer: Statistical Armour
___________________________________________________________________
Primer: Statistical Armour
Author : germinalphrase
Score : 133 points
Date : 2022-04-15 14:50 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.tanknology.co.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.tanknology.co.uk)
| Decabytes wrote:
| It's clear that the writer is very passionate about this topic. I
| didn't realize that the idea was for the RPG to get stuck in the
| bar. I always though it was so the explosion was outside of the
| vehicle. This article doesn't paint a particularly good picture
| for the armor. Which makes me believe that the person who came up
| with this got a lot of good money, but the value for the soldiers
| isn't there.
| burnished wrote:
| How did you come to that conclusion?
| meatmanek wrote:
| Indeed. The author of the article came to the opposite
| conclusion:
|
| > Is bar armour worth it? It depends, but broadly yes, it is
| cheap, simple, and adds a layer of increased protection
| against a common and widely proliferated threat that would
| otherwise be very likely to do significant damage to a
| vehicle, particularly lighter classes of vehicle like
| protected patrol and utility vehicles (MRAPs in old money)
| that are vastly overmatched by the threat.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| I don't know; I get the sense that it was "Someone shoots an
| RPG-7 at your MRAP; you're definitely screwed. Someone shoots
| an RPG-7 at your MRAP with bar-armor, you're only maybe
| screwed"
|
| Seems like "maybe screwed" is a big improvement over
| "definitely screwed"
| george_ciobanu wrote:
| Super helpful and well documented article, thank you!
| sorokod wrote:
| Given the apparent vulnerability of MBTs (main battle tanks) as
| demonstrated in Ukraine to cheap-ish weapons, is this the end of
| the road for MBTs?
| mcguire wrote:
| Tanks have always been vulnerable to cheaper weapons, whether
| that's an anti-tank gun hidden in rubble or a NLAW. This is why
| tanks require infantry support---to locate and deal with those
| threats while the tanks deal with things the infantry cannot.
|
| Many of the videos from Ukraine have been ambushes (sort of a
| separate matter) or of AFVs operating without close infantry
| support. That's not a good way to do things.
| sorokod wrote:
| Is your assumption that the Russians do not know that "tanks
| require infantry support" or just ignore this fact?
| dogma1138 wrote:
| More likely lack of training, discipline and morale.
|
| The Russian armed forces are still prone to inter branch
| fighting and intra branch infighting between officers.
|
| Basically they still operate like the military of some el
| presidente banana republic.
|
| And currently there is no larger than life actually
| competent field marshal Zhukov like leadership to make all
| of them fall in line.
| ranger207 wrote:
| Well, what would an MBT be replaced with? You'll still need a
| vehicle carrying heavy weapons to take out bunkers, enemy
| vehicles, etc. Maybe you can have an ATGM carrier with a bunch
| of missiles. But missiles are expensive, so maybe if you fit a
| specialized fire control system to a gun you can get the same
| accuracy as a missile but cheaper. That's going to be heavy, so
| you'll probably want tracks to spread the weight[0]. Then
| you'll want to protect your big and heavy vehicle too so it
| can't be killed by say someone with a common RPG-7. And now
| what do you have? A tank.
|
| Certainly things are going to change in the future. Active
| protection systems (APSs) are going to be basically required,
| and I wouldn't be surprised if APSs became the main armor.
| After WWII the effectiveness of HEAT made designers believe
| armor was ineffective, so many post-war designs sacrificed
| armor for speed, such as the Leopard 1, so something similar
| could happen again.
|
| But an important part of the equation is tactics. A very
| similar question to "why do we still need MBTs" is "why do we
| still need infantry" and the answer is the same: they
| synergise[1]. Infantry need tanks to blow up hard points, and
| tanks need infantry to keep an eye on the surroundings,
| suppress and occupy potential firing points, take buildings to
| prevent them from being used to fire ATGMs and to use to look
| out for enemy ATGMs, etc. Infantry itself doesn't do anything
| to reduce the threat of missiles, but infantry-tank
| coordination tactics do.
|
| [0] For example, the Stryker MGS is a wheeled vehicle carrying
| a gun. It's widely regarded to suck badly, but in principle
| there's no reason you couldn't have a good wheeled gun carrier.
|
| [1] Also you need infantry to go places tanks can't go and root
| out defenders, plus actually do the work of holding enemy
| territory like talking to local leaders, clearing the radio
| station of hostile DJs, etc
| YeGoblynQueenne wrote:
| >> Well, what would an MBT be replaced with?
|
| Powered armour?
| sorokod wrote:
| > Well, what would an MBT be replaced with?
|
| Don't know, but that is a different question.
|
| BTW some/many of the MBT in this war are already equipped
| with active protection systems e.g Shtora (
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shtora-1 ).
|
| See the T-80 and T-90 sections here:
| https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-
| docum...
| greedo wrote:
| Shtora is really not an APS. It's more of a countermeasure
| system designed to fool the laser guidance used by missiles
| etc. Think of it like ECM for a tank.
|
| APS is more along the lines of Trophy (Israeli and
| eventually US), or Drozd/Arena (RU) where radar senses
| projectiles, and fires counter projectiles at the incoming
| round/missile.
|
| Drozd was never really implemented; partially due to cost,
| but also because it tended to kill any infantry
| accompanying the tanks. Arena appears to be much of the
| same tech, focused on RPG type weapons as well as ATGMs. I
| think the reason we don't see much of it on the Russian
| tanks is again, cost. The export version was pitched to
| South Korea at $300k per unit. And compared to the cost of
| a T-72B3, that's a significant amount to add. Or it could
| be the typical Russian military corruption we've been
| seeing in Ukraine.
| sorokod wrote:
| I think you are confusing APS systems in general (of
| which Shtora is one) and the subset of APS systems that
| are hard-kill such as Trophy.
|
| Of course regardless of efficiency, an APS system has to
| be installed in the first place and it is possible that
| that is not the common case in Ukraine.
| rectang wrote:
| > _Well, what would an MBT be replaced with?_
|
| For taking out hard targets: precision artillery firing
| guided munitions from further behind the front lines, with
| minimal armor but protected by APS, and highly mobile to
| shoot and scoot?
| dogma1138 wrote:
| No.
|
| Both the US and Germany bought Trophy, the Dutch bought Iron
| Fist (another Israeli APS), a few other NATO members are
| evaluating Trophy and also working on their own APS.
|
| So MBTs are going no where, APS would become more common and
| more important and the doctrine of now not having your tanks
| alone without infantry and ISR proving support would be even
| more solidified.
| sorokod wrote:
| I suppose that by APS you mean hard-kill systems such as Iron
| Fist and Trophy. As far as I know they are not effective
| against "top attacks".
| dogma1138 wrote:
| Both are advertised as being effective against high
| elevation threats, both Trophy and Iron Fist have been
| tested against missiles launched from helicopters when
| during their acceptance testing by the Israelis.
|
| Trophy has a +- 38 degrees of elevation firing, Iron Fist
| can do -40-+60.
|
| At least against something like an NLAW that flys above the
| tank both would have a firing solution.
|
| The US when evaluating the system for both the Bradley and
| the Abrams tested it against the Javelin and other modern
| anti tank threats.
|
| As far as non-western weapon go Trophy has intercepted
| fairly modern ATGMs like the Russian Kornet-E and it's
| licensed Iranian clones which also employ a top-attack
| attack profile.
| ceeplusplus wrote:
| I'm guessing we're going to see more active protection [1] that
| tries to detonate incoming projectiles at a distance to nullify
| the effectiveness of shaped charges.
|
| [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKeuVHKc92U
| picture wrote:
| Good lord.. While I know about existence of APS especially on
| Merkava tanks, this video really shows how modern warfare can
| brush right up against science fiction.
|
| We're able to detect an incoming round and automatically kill
| it with a directed explosion, all faster than you can blink.
| What, are we going to see munitions that has submunitions of
| its own to counter the countermeasure next? (That might be a
| reasonable development actually)
|
| Either way I'm fortunate that these things aren't used around
| me, and I'm not in any danger. I would love to one day see
| those C-beams glitter, as a spectator in safety
| cwmma wrote:
| Not really, everybody has known that tanks on their own,
| unsupported by infantry are incredibly vulnerable to anti-tank
| missiles since, at least the Yom Kippur War (50 years ago)
| probably longer. The Russians for various reasons didn't and
| the results were predictable. So no MBTs aren't obsolete they
| just are very easy to break if you use them wrong.
|
| Also there are newer active protection systems that can defeat
| missiles like the ones being used, the Russian tanks in the
| invasion either don't have them or don't have the ones that can
| detect threats from above.
| sorokod wrote:
| Actually Yom Kippur war went well for Israel's armour in the
| north (Golan Heights), the largest tank battle ever if memory
| serves.
|
| Can you reference the relevant active protection systems?
| cwmma wrote:
| Re: Yom Kippor in the south is where Egyptian anti tank
| misses did shocking damage to Israeli tanks which caused a
| lot of people to predict the imminent death of the MBT 50
| years ago.
|
| The Russian active protection system is called Arena [1]
|
| 1. http://www.military-today.com/tanks/arena.htm
| sorokod wrote:
| Looks like a very selective view of the Yom Kippur war
| given what has happened on the Syrian front and the
| subsequent development of Israel's own MBT. Can you
| please share some references to "caused lot of people to
| predict the imminent death of the MBT 50 years ago" ?
| cwmma wrote:
| https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/2sparks98.pdf
|
| https://www.benning.army.mil/armor/earmor/content/issues/
| 201...
|
| https://www.baen.com/tanksfuture
| sorokod wrote:
| Thanks!
| jdkee wrote:
| The largest tank battle would be the Battle of Kursk.
|
| See https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-Kursk
| nosianu wrote:
| I thanked my good star that when I was drafted into the German
| army (1991, freshly reunified) I got to be a Leopard 1A5
| electronicd and weapons systems mechanic (EloWaMech), instead of
| having to fight in one.
|
| Closer on topic, that tank had an additional no-holes layer of
| armor in front of the actual armored turret mostly on the two
| sides, and in the back with much more distance. Here is a model
| that nevertheless shows it pretty well:
|
| https://www.super-hobby.at/zdjecia/0/7/3/35478_rev03320-4.jp...
|
| If "detonate at a distance" does not work I wonder what the
| function of _that_ kind of add-on armor was, on the sides
| specifically?
|
| It should have worked fine against RPG from the back because as
| you can see it extended quite a bit there, creating external
| storage space and probably providing ample room that an RPG
| detonating there would not have done anything to the main unit.
| But on the sides it was just a few centimeters of space between
| the additional armor layer and the main armor.
|
| I do remember it was really good steel. We had to replace one of
| those armor plates, and the new ones had the holes slightly
| different than the tank we were working on. Getting a new hole
| drilled into the armor plate proved to be impossible with the
| drilling tools we had.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| >If "detonate at a distance" does not work I wonder what the
| function of that kind of add-on armor was, on the sides
| specifically?
|
| It depends on the shell/threat you expect to come at you. I
| don't know if "capped" armor piercing shells were still a
| concept when those tanks were built. In that case, an initial,
| small amount of spaced armor is designed to "decap" the shell,
| because the shell under the cap has significantly less armor
| penetrating capability.
| LambdaTrain wrote:
| Multiplying the saved cost by probability of a defeat (which is
| ineffective mentioned by writer) does not seem bad considering
| the grid is low-cost design.
|
| But placing timer/accelerator in RPG as a backup plan for fusing
| in case the warhead is shortcircuited also seems low-cost. I must
| be missing something here.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Good luck retrofitting your extra fusing system into thousands
| and thousands of RPG-7s.
| h2odragon wrote:
| Says a lot that the folks employed to be inside the tanks are
| reaching out for enhanced armor however they can.
| [deleted]
| picture wrote:
| I'm quite interested about military technology like this, are
| there any good books or resources HN would recommend to learn
| more about anything from engineering to tactics?
| nomilk wrote:
| Military History Visualised is great:
| https://www.youtube.com/c/MilitaryHistory/videos
|
| These two playlists by Ryan McBeth (a SWE, former anti-tank
| infantryman) are very interesting:
|
| Military equipment, tactics and strategy:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2s0Szx-kVs&list=PLt670_P7pO...
|
| 40 short Q&A videos about Ukraine :
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8mJ7hG9xM8&list=PLt670_P7pO...
| openasocket wrote:
| In addition to military history visualized (mentioned by
| another commenter), I recommend:
|
| * The Chieftain: https://www.youtube.com/c/TheChieftainsHatch .
| He has a series on the development of Armored doctrine for
| various nations prior to WW2 which is a very interesting dive
| into what military doctrine is and how it is formed.
|
| * Battle Order https://www.youtube.com/c/BattleOrder covers how
| troops are organized and divided into
| squads/platoons/companies/battalions/etc in various countries
| and at various times.
|
| * If you are interested in World War 2, the World War 2 in real
| time series on YouTube is also fascinating:
| https://www.youtube.com/c/WorldWarTwo .
|
| * For getting the perspective of national security experts
| dealing with current events, I would take a look at
| https://warontherocks.com , which has a mix of articles and
| associated podcasts. The war on the rocks podcast has been
| doing weekly updates on the state of the war in Ukraine with
| Michael Kofman, director for the Russia Studies Program at CNA.
| I've found those very informative.
|
| * Arms Control Wonk (https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/ ) the
| blog and podcast are interesting for looking at the military
| from the point of view of strategic stability.
|
| * https://acoup.blog/ is run by a professor of military
| history. He covers a variety of topics; he does several series
| analyzing the historical realism of video games and movies for
| example. But he also discusses some of the fundamentals of
| military theory, and tends to focus a lot on what the popular
| imagination gets right and wrong about the military and warfare
| throughout the ages.
|
| * There are think tanks like the RAND corporation, CSIS, and
| CNA that publish papers on a variety of topics in military
| theory and policy. With a little effort, a lot of them are
| fairly readable to the layman
|
| * For the deepest dive, the US Army field manuals are publicly
| available if you search around. Skimming through them gave me a
| much better understanding of how an officer goes about planning
| an attack, preparing a defense, setting up an ambush, etc.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| openasocket has made good suggestions in a sibling comment. I
| would add that one thing that can be illuminating is works by
| professionals (whether current or past) recommending new
| directions; reading about arguments for paths not (or not yet)
| taken can provide a broader perspective.
|
| (It's been a while since I've spent time with this; one which I
| remember finding interesting was _Breaking the Phalanx: A New
| Design for Land Power in the 21st Century_. [0])
|
| [0]
| https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1597250.Breaking_the_Pha...
| deepspace wrote:
| If you are interested in the field, almost everything written
| by Richard M. Ogorkiewicz will be a worthwhile read. He was THE
| go-to compiler of military engineering information in the 80s
| and 90s.
|
| While the technologies he describes are a bit dated, his
| presentation is very comprehensive. Only problem is that many
| of his works are out of print.
| nomilk wrote:
| > Hopefully the effect is becoming obvious - by impacting the
| statistical armour and detonating at that point, the armour has
| given the RPG a free c.300+ mm of free standoff extension. The
| armour just amplified the threat capability by a good 20%, making
| life worse for you inside that vehicle.
|
| For an APC with ~5cm of armour, pretty much any garden variety
| shaped charge will penetrate it with ease. If the chance of
| penetration is already 100% it doesn't matter if the charge is
| 20% stronger. But having the cage at least gives a small chance
| of stopping the charge from ever detonating.
|
| Different story with tanks though, where the extra 20% could mean
| the difference between a badly damaged hull and the complete
| destruction of both tank and crew.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| So why are the Russians using the very specific small and flat
| turret-mounted type 'Javelin' cages? The article says they're
| not-designed for that and would be ineffective anyway and of
| course RPG has no top-attack (unless you're firing from a
| building, which as we've seen is tricky to get it to arm in
| time)... so why are they doing it?
| baud147258 wrote:
| the same author did another article on that subject, btw:
| https://www.tanknology.co.uk/post/russian-turret-cages
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| Those aren't javelin cages, they're called "cope cages"[1],
| because they're just a psychological coping mechanism for the
| troops inside, but offer no protection against modern smart
| munitions like NLAW or Javelin.
|
| They're a relic since Russia's war in Chechnya where those
| cages could protect against ancient RPGs fired from buildings
| in narrow city streets.
|
| [1] https://i.kym-
| cdn.com/photos/images/original/002/324/004/043...
| trhway wrote:
| >They're a relic since Russia's war in Chechnya where those
| cages could protect against ancient RPGs fired from buildings
| in narrow city streets.
|
| Actually even in 1945 facing Panzerfausts in European cities
| Soviet tankists tried to similarly bolt/weld onto the top of
| the turret the spring metal bed frames. It didn't work well
| if any. While at the same time it showed the precise position
| of the tank while in bushes, far in the field/etc. Ukrainians
| have been joking about those "chicken coops" showing the tank
| position as another sign of a Russian fail and lack of
| thinking through in this war.
| dragontamer wrote:
| > They're a relic since Russia's war in Chechnya where those
| cages could protect against RPGs fired from buildings in
| narrow city streets.
|
| USA sent IIRC 3x as many "dumb" RPGs (the AT4) as Javelins,
| assuming that the Ukrainians would be fighting in narrow city
| streets.
|
| Turned out that urban warfare didn't really happen much.
| But... I think everyone's plan was for urban combat, and then
| everybody turned out to be wrong. On the USA side, not a big
| deal, we sent the wrong mix of weapons but we're fixing that
| with lend-lease / additional aid packages.
| [deleted]
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Turned out that urban warfare didn't really happen much
|
| The war isn't really past tense; the swift advance to and
| battle for Kyiv with the intent of forcing capitulation
| didn't happen, but as the shift to seizing territory Russia
| really wants rather than getting handed it by a friendly
| government imposed on Ukraine has happened, urban warfare
| has become a thing in Mariupol, and if Russia continues
| prosecuting the war it'll probably happen more places.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| Dumb RPGs are still very useful. Not every target is an
| armoured tank. An old RPG aimed at a fuel truck is very
| effective.
| dragontamer wrote:
| It's more of a range thing.
|
| Hitting an enemy fuel truck from 5000m away is a lot
| safer than running up and shooting it at 200m.
|
| 200m shots are common in a city, because cover /
| concealment is everywhere. Sure, there are still trees
| and hills to hide in the countryside, but having the
| option for super long range really helps.
| abra0 wrote:
| >Turned out that urban warfare didn't really happen much.
|
| Siege of Mariupol is ongoing since the start of the war. It
| has seen very brutal urban fighting.
| chipsa wrote:
| The slat armor is also only effective against the RPG-7
| type warheads, where the fuse is in the nose and crushing
| the side of the warhead keeps the electric detonation
| signal from getting to the detonator.
|
| Other warheads will detonate when they hit the slat armor.
| With the net result of improved standoff distance. Most
| warheads don't incorporate enough stand off because it's
| hard to do so. The extra standoff actually improves
| penetration.
|
| That said, the AT4 is perfectly usable for side shots, such
| as in an ambush.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Perhaps it is pedantic, but in case someone reads your
| comment and doesn't click on the image, the name "cope cage"
| is a meme based around making fun of them. I think these
| things don't have convenient a real name because they are
| improvised. "Improvised top attack armor" or something like
| that is probably what a journalist would call them. And they
| probably won't get a real name because they apparently they
| basically suck.
| jjoonathan wrote:
| Sounds like a long way of saying they are cope cages :)
| dragontamer wrote:
| You can't stop a Javelin. Its too sophisticated. If a Javelin
| is launched your tank is dead.
|
| > and of course RPG has no top-attack (unless you're firing
| from a building, which as we've seen is tricky to get it to arm
| in time)
|
| These tanks were planning to assault Kyiv. The assumption was
| that cheaper RPGs (such as the AT4) would be used against these
| tanks. The AT4 isn't designed to be used vs main-battle-tanks
| (AT4 has penetration of 450mm), the frontal-armor is too thick
| (500mm to 700mm effective frontal armor, depending on the tank,
| depending on the angle the attack hits from... Largely due to
| geometry, not physical thickness). But the "cope-cage" might be
| strong enough to deflect an attack against the turret
| (especially if the AT4 is "top down", because it was fired from
| an urban building).
|
| There's many, many, many weapons of war. There are many
| different types of "anti-armor" weapons.
|
| The Russians also know that the turret has the critical
| weakpoint of the tank: the autoloader. If the autoloader is
| hit, the entire tank's munitions blow up simultaneously (aka:
| cooks off), and everyone inside the tank dies. Protecting the
| turret with a "cope cage" (even if ineffective vs Javelins) to
| try and mitigate damage from other RPGs (AT4, RPG7, Panzerfaust
| 3) just makes sense.
|
| ----------
|
| Javelins are the most expensive man-portable anti-tank weapon.
| There's relatively few of them (yes, I know USA sent thousands
| of Javelins, but we also sent far more simpler anti-tank
| weapons as well). Javelins are $170,000 per shot, and the AT4
| is $1500.
|
| The other man-portable weapon discussed, NLAWs, are like
| $40,000, much cheaper than a Javelin but still an incredibly
| sophisticated and expensive weapon.
|
| Media ignores the cheap stuff (AT4, RPG7) because they're not
| really interesting. But those are probably the workhorses and
| the more common weapon in the battlefield.
| blamazon wrote:
| Also in use in Ukraine presently are the Stugna-P, a
| domestically produced antitank weapon [1] as well as the
| German Panzerfaust 3 [2]. In the footage available online,
| the infantry are carrying a surprising quantity of all these
| types of weapons - It's a quirky group of antitank weapons
| from a bunch of different countries. There are videos
| circulating in Ukraine on how to use the more foreign
| systems. [3] [4]
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skif_(anti-
| tank_guided_missile...
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerfaust_3
|
| [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQThjNgoQRY
|
| [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUDrLFrfr_s
| dragontamer wrote:
| Stugna-P, Javelin, and NLAW all kinda have the same
| properties. They're large, bulky, and filled with a LOT of
| explosives. They also have a guidance system: laser for
| Stugna-P, some kind of computer for NLAW/Javelin, so these
| weapons can be shot at 1000 meters to 5000 meters and still
| hit their targets consistently.
|
| But since they're larger / heavier / more expensive, they
| are the primary-weapon of the soldier (or squad, in the
| case of Stugna-P). If you're equipped with one of these,
| your job is to kill tanks.
|
| ----------
|
| Panzerfaust, AT4, RPG7 are variants of the same concept.
| They're more of a "sidearm" than anything. You don't really
| want to be facing down a tank with one. They are manually
| aimed and therefore only effective at 100m to 300m
| (depending on how good your aim is).
|
| Because they're smaller warheads (84-caliber for the AT4,
| yes its a pun/joke), they're less effective at penetrating
| armor. So you really want to use them vs lighter vehicles,
| such as IFVs instead of proper tanks. If you need to use it
| against a tank, you should aim for a weak point, like
| shooting from above, or hitting the side/rear armor.
|
| So your snipers / riflemen / machine gunners have a job,
| that's the 50-cal, or machine-gun. But what if they come
| across an enemy vehicle? Well, the AT4 / Panzerfaust are
| light enough to carry _WITH_ your other weapons. Its better
| than nothing, and light enough to be a secondary weapon.
|
| Alternatively, maybe you're in an environment where hitting
| the weak top-armor is possible (ex: Urban / high-rise
| building in Kyiv). Giving many, many cheap AT4 weapons out
| to the crowd of defenders will effectively kill even main-
| battle-tanks, if they are attacked at the proper angles /
| from their weakpoints.
| [deleted]
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > Stugna-P, Javelin, and NLAW all kinda have the same
| properties. They're large, bulky, and filled with a LOT
| of explosives.
|
| This is a very common mis-conception. These weapons _don
| 't_ have a lot of explosive. They instead rely on very
| precise application of a little explosive, through an EFP
| design.
|
| If you see a Javelin or NLAW hit an inert target, it's
| very modest. If you see a big explosion in a demo it's
| because they've filled it with fuel!
| dragontamer wrote:
| The AT4 is 15 lbs weapon.
|
| Javelin is a 50 lbs weapon. Sure, some of that weight is
| computer and night-vision. But most of that weight
| difference is explosives (I assume the 2nd tandem charge
| in particular).
|
| NLAW is 28lbs, somewhere in-between.
|
| ------
|
| Tandem charges (dual-explosives: first explosion disables
| reactive armor, second explosion penetrates the tank)
| basically means carrying 2x warheads with every
| warhead... its weight and heavy.
|
| Each of those Javelin explosions you see is __TWO__
| explosions, timed carefully to defeat Russian reactive
| armor. Its a sophisticated weapon for sure, but you still
| have to physically carry all those extra explosives
| somewhere.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > Javelin is a 50 lbs weapon. Sure, some of that weight
| is computer and night-vision. But most of that weight
| difference is explosives (I assume the 2nd tandem charge
| in particular).
|
| No most of it is the motor. The entire warhead of Javelin
| weight just 8.4 kg. That's the _entire_ warhead - not
| just the explosive. An EFP contains a lot of 'inert'
| metal that gets formed into a projectile.
|
| (Can we not use pounds in a technical military
| discussion, lol.)
| dragontamer wrote:
| > The entire warhead of Javelin weight just 8.4 kg.
| That's the entire warhead - not just the explosive.
|
| And the entire AT4 weapon (including the sling, the
| barrel, warhead... everything) is 6.7kg.
|
| Javelin is a big boy. Reaching the limits of what people
| can carry effectively, especially if you need a 2nd or
| 3rd shot to do your job.
|
| EDIT: I think RPG7 is like 3kg for the rocket AND
| explosives, 8.5kg for the entire weapon.
|
| EDIT2: So yeah, you can carry 3x AT4 for the same weight
| as 1x Javelin.
| agapon wrote:
| > The entire warhead of Javelin weight just 8.4 kg.
| That's the entire warhead - not just the explosive.
|
| "just"
| abra0 wrote:
| Javelin rockets are $80k-$100k a piece, $170k figure is the
| launcher and the rocket together. Unlike NLAW the launcher is
| reusable (and even useful on its own because the targeting
| unit is detachable and has thermal vision)
| PeterisP wrote:
| I think that out of all the weapons only the javelin strikes
| from the top of the tank while flying over it, everything
| else is a direct fire missile that will hit the tank from the
| side.
|
| So a 'cage device' on top of the turret seems to be intended
| solely for Javelins, since every other weapon simply won't
| strike from that direction.
| praptak wrote:
| NLAW also strikes from the top, just not exactly like the
| Javelin.
|
| The latter does that by having a steep trajectory. The NLAW
| just flies horizontally over the tank, then fires down
| vertically. It also has the other mode where it just hits
| directly head on.
| dragontamer wrote:
| > everything else is a direct fire missile that will hit
| the tank from the side
|
| Kyiv has skyscrapers. A dumb RPG (AT4 or RPG7) fired from
| the 5th story of a building will hit from the top down...
| onto the weaker top-armor of a tank.
|
| NLAWs are also top-attack weapons btw.
| [deleted]
| chrisseaton wrote:
| I wonder who started calling them 'Javelin cages'?
| [deleted]
| vpribish wrote:
| in urban environments an RPG could definitely be coming down
| from above.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| As I said - it's tricky to get them to arm in time. We've
| seen that problem in practice in videos from Ukraine.
| Goronmon wrote:
| One easy answer is that something being ineffective doesn't
| mean people won't try it anyways.
| blamazon wrote:
| In the /r/NonCredibleDefense subreddit, it's been called the
| "cope cage" among other similar mocking terms.
|
| https://old.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/t9i7q2/.
| ..
| ckozlowski wrote:
| I'll submit another: TheChieftan on YouTube has referred to
| it as "emotional support armor".
|
| He posted a good video on his views (and cautions!) on some
| of this subject matter to date:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9pVEP0AzZ4
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-04-15 23:00 UTC)