The Armored Vehicle Thread

This conversation has me wondering how effective those 125mm tandem HEAT shells from the T-90s would be. Or that triple HEAT shell.

You likely don't want to find out the hard way but against a frontal arcs even the Russians have long rod penetrators. Soft spot hits would be bad.

The Triplex HEAT shell is relatively new and no one knows if it has ever been fired in combat or not. We know the tandem shells have though.

edited 11th Jun '16 7:08:57 AM by TuefelHundenIV

I think its safe to say that as a tank, you just dont want to be taking hits from AT weapons in the first place, there is always a chance of something being lucky.

Pretty much. If that hit happens to be on a thin spot the tank and crew could be in trouble. If you look at one of the variations of the TUSK kits additional armor schemes it adds armor over more of the turret to protect those vulnerable spots. Right up to the "cheeks" of the Abrams.

edited 11th Jun '16 9:15:22 AM by TuefelHundenIV

The important question is, why hasn't anyone developed a quintuplex tandem warhead? Gillette could build it.

Gillette

We're just going to keep adding more blades

edited 11th Jun '16 8:14:52 PM by Imca

They should build a modernized version of the Ontos.

^ Only instead of recoilless rifles, it mounts Hellfire missiles.

Both the M113 and a Lock Mart vehicle can fire Hellfire from a turret mount.

M-113 Hellfire

Lockmarts can mount and fire both the Hellfire and the DAGR guided rocket from the same launcher at the same time.

There is even the Multi-mission launcher platform that can basically turn into a Hellfire guided MLRS style platform.

Another T-90 gets TO Wed in Syria.

Don't really like watching people die.

How bad did it fair this time?

Probably like the others, maybe one or another didn't make it, from the video it didn't toss the turret.

edited 14th Jun '16 6:32:29 PM by AngelusNox

I'm not convinced that was a catastrophic kill. It looked like he blew the sideskirts and tracks to pieces but little evidence of a cato kill. Definite mobility/mission kill though.

It looked like it hit the side along the front third of the tank. Probably at least one casualty likely the driver. That hit looked pretty bad. It would be easier to tell if we had longer visual feed to see how much smoke and/or fire were coming out of the vehicle post hit.

Well... That's me higher up the NSA watchlist. Poor fuckers in that tank are either dead or wishing they were.

After looking a bit closer, that tank was hit in the ass. Rear right quarter, side hit, engine compartment section. (Tank was in reverse at time of impact.) If the T-90 has blowout panels over the engine that tank is in a world of hurt but the crew should be alive. I reiterate a mobility/mission kill.

Now that I look at it again I agree it does look like it is backing up. Though the hit looks like it hit the part of the tank just under the back part of the turret. If that is the impact point depending how low it may have hit part of the auto-loader and ammo stowage system and/or part of the engine. Supposedly the T-90 has blow outs and despite nasty hits at least some of the crew are walking away which is pretty much in line with most modern tank designs.

Either way that tank is likely down and in need of repairs.

edited 14th Jun '16 7:24:06 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Seems like every time I see a video of a tank getting TOW'd in Syria, they're driving in reverse. There's a joke about French tanks in here somewhere I'm sure.

Large Israeli UGV with weapons and a 3 ton payload That is enough payload to mount several varieties of light weight auto-cannon systems like the M230 chain gun which has been adapted for mounting on ground vehicles and static mounts.

The Russian Uran UGV An amusing "Russia Stronk" video with it including driving through burning plywood.

^ Hajis with RPG's will rape the fuck out of those.

They can do that already with other armored vehicles so did you have any actual point to make?

If they're unmanned, I assume we don't really care if they get RPG'd. What are they gonna do, void the warranty?

They would also be smaller and lighter then the larger IFV's with the same equipment doing the fire support part of the mission. Oh no they blasted a drone that is 3 times cheaper then a larger manned vehicle. Whatever shall we do. Well go roll out another dozen of the damn things.

Tuffel: The problem is they make these UGV's out to be these unstoppable death machines and the future of warfare when in reality they won't survive 15 minutes deployed to a theatre of war. They'll be easily whipped by 60 year old rockets and improvised explosives that cost pennies compared to the UGV's dollar.

It's like designing an overly complicated power tool when a simple Mexican speedwrench will do the same job just as well but a thousand times cheaper.

edited 16th Jun '16 5:25:31 PM by MajorTom

Tom: Nothing there says they are invincible and it has never been implied either. I also hate to tell you your exaggeration applies equally to all armored vehicles.