my profile | register | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
»  COMBATSIM.COM Forum Archive   » Real Military Discussions   » Air Defense, Weapons, Platforms   » BMP-3 - what is hanging on it?

   
Author Topic: BMP-3 - what is hanging on it?
_ALEX_
unregistered

posted 06-25-2000 05:55 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote

This is modified BMP-3 made for UAE.

Anyone knows, what are these mailboxes hanging around this machine?


IP: Logged
bob671
Member
Member # 5165

posted 06-25-2000 09:05 PM     Profile for bob671   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Reactive armour...?
Posts: 263 | From: Canberra, Australia | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged
Rick.50cal
Member
Member # 172

posted 06-25-2000 09:14 PM     Profile for Rick.50cal     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Sounds like you guys have figured it out already. Having said that, I think the mail box analogy is more correct than you may have thought, as it looks as if they are compartments that can be oppened up, probably to place whatever type of armor inside or leave empty. The first 'modular armor' kit, perhaps.

Alternatively, we may have something like what the Israelis do to m113's, by putting tons of compartments on the exterior of their recovery/repair vehicles, which may have a combination of tools and parts.

Of course, this all ignores the obvious, that the Mail Police are no longer out-gunned !!!!

------------------
Rick.50cal


Posts: 520 | From: Vancouver, BC, Canada | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Pit Silwen
Member
Member # 4795

posted 06-26-2000 01:53 AM     Profile for Pit Silwen   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Yes it is reactive armor. It is added because of BMP3 relative thin armor (for a modern multi-purpose IFV).
I'm at my work now and I don't have any figures with me, but there are some at my home. I remember for sure, that it provides full protection against 14mm HVAP mgs and doesn't get activated by small arms, like older reactive armors do.
I'll check the figures and post again.

Posts: 178 | From: Greece | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged
JamesP
Member
Member # 4131

posted 06-26-2000 07:27 AM     Profile for JamesP   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Rick.50cal:

Of course, this all ignores the obvious, that the Mail Police are no longer out-gunned !!!!


Just as long as the US Postal Service don't get their hands on it

Regards James


Posts: 87 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged
Tornado
Member
Member # 5155

posted 06-26-2000 11:30 AM     Profile for Tornado   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Dear lord,
A disgruntled postal worker with a BMP... now that is a frightning thought.

Posts: 61 | From: New England | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged
Raver
Member
Member # 2100

posted 06-26-2000 11:05 PM     Profile for Raver   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
That has to be the most UGLY AFV that I have seen in a long time!

The Raver has spoken!


Posts: 276 | From: Melb/Aust | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
Pit Silwen
Member
Member # 4795

posted 06-27-2000 01:41 AM     Profile for Pit Silwen   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I don't know if it's ugly, but it surely tough!
Listen up:
49% of the frontal surface and 85% of the side is covered by ERA armor, which provides 90% better prot against HEAT missiles. The fuel tank also has been moved more to the center and the inside of the vehicle.
The changes increased the length from 6,7m to 7,1m and the width from 3,3m to 4,1m. Also the weight went from 19,4 tons to 23,4 tons.

Posts: 178 | From: Greece | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged
Tornado
Member
Member # 5155

posted 06-27-2000 10:19 AM     Profile for Tornado   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Yeah, but what does that additional weight do to the speed of the beast?
IFVs (at least from what I've read/wargamed) don't have nearly enough armor to stand up to a tank, so, in fighter-jock terms, speed is life.
By the way, what's the 'main gun' on the BMP-2 or -3... any idea how it'd stand up to the Bushmaster (I think) on the bradley?

Posts: 61 | From: New England | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged
TWalt
Member
Member # 4647

posted 06-27-2000 11:26 AM     Profile for TWalt   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Tornado,
The BMP-2 carries a 30mm 2A42 long barrel cannon quite similar to the 25mm Bushmaster. It has excellent elevation -5 to 70+ degrees, and has similar rate of fire. Muzzle velocity of 1000 m/s. It carries 500 rounds.
The BMP-3 adds a 100mm 2A70 w/22 HE rounds which allows it to fire the AT-10 ATGM (usually 8 carried). The 30mm 2A72 gun is mounted co-axially to the 100mm. It's slightly revised but very similar. The guns complement each other well but having to cannons is a bit silly. Strange how the Russians didn't adopt an armored box launcher like the TOW-2 on the Bradley. There are also ATGM only variants firing the AT-14 and AT-15 ATGMs.

Posts: 171 | From: | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged
Jussi Saari
Member
Member # 4799

posted 06-27-2000 01:32 PM     Profile for Jussi Saari   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Well, the 100mm is really more a mortar/missile launcher than a gun and can be quite useful for some purposes for which 25-30mm, coax or ATMGs don't fit. The logic behind barrell-launched ATGM was apparently that they've faced the reality that a weapon for fighting modern MBTs in a lightly armored IFV isn't very good idea since it might actually cause the crew to try and do such a thing, rather than hide, and for old MBTs / other IFVs the barrell-launched Bastion is in some ways superior solution to the TOW box: it's quickly loaded to the barrel, all 8 rounds are ready-to-use rather than just the two in TOW box, having it in firing position (=in the barrell) doesn't limit the vehicle in any way, it's a very fast laser-guided anti-vehicle round that doubles as a fine anti-helicopter missile (TOW is really quite slow for that), and it will gut any T-55, M60, or ATGM platform just as well as a TOW.


Jussi


Posts: 249 | From: Lappeenranta, Finland | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged
Rick.50cal
Member
Member # 172

posted 06-27-2000 07:53 PM     Profile for Rick.50cal     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
There is another important point that often gets lost or ignored when talking about INFANTRY fighting vehicles: wall breaching. That big 100mm HE round will do wonders on thick east Euro buildings, where a puny 25mm will do minimal damage, even in burstfire.

Consider Chechnya: if you want to enter a building, do you go in the front door, that has been booby trapped, and in ambush position, or do you make your own door by blowing a hole in the wall? This has been problem for infantry ever since they removed the large caliber guns from service.

In WW2, we had assault guns, Shermans and such. In the cold war, we had recoiless guns mounted on jeeps, trucks, and small carts, but now, we have.... M1A2 ? M2 ? I dont think so....

Shoulder fired rounds need new warheads to do this job effectively, yet the armored vehicle should also be able to do this, since dismounted infantry running to a building should not have to run with a bazooka\Calr Gustav or any other single shot vehicle.

Oh, and before anyone sugests that an M203 or OCIW would do, just stop. The penetration of these weapons on aircraft aluminum would make you shake your head (see the Learjet that the SEALs destroyed at Patilla? those holes are not too big, just enough for a softball).

------------------
Rick.50cal


Posts: 520 | From: Vancouver, BC, Canada | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Hoverstorm
Member
Member # 1191

posted 06-27-2000 09:13 PM     Profile for Hoverstorm     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Rick.50cal:
Alternatively, we may have something like what the Israelis do to m113's, by putting tons of compartments on the exterior of their recovery/repair vehicles, which may have a combination of tools and parts.

Something like this?


Posts: 185 | From: Trondheim, Norway | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
_ALEX_
unregistered

posted 06-28-2000 07:18 AM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Earlier BMPs had one ATGM rail-mounted on the gun - basically, just like Bradley.
IP: Logged
TWalt
Member
Member # 4647

posted 06-28-2000 12:33 PM     Profile for TWalt   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Alex,
The BMP-1 single rail-mounted ATGM is a joke. You get one shot of a crappy AT-3 off the rail mounted on the barrel on early models or the follow-on AT-4/AT-5 tube mounted over turret. Neither can be reloaded internally so you effectively have one shot in combat. The BMP-3 resolved this issue around 1990 with the 100mm cannon so missiles could be fired internally through that tube. As far as blowing holes in walls, our infantry are equipped with sufficient portable weapons for this so why try to get an M2 or any other lightly armored vehicle into a vulnerable city block just to put a hole in a wall?? Kinda silly. Hell, I'd rather pop off a SMAW or SMAW-D than wait for any armor to respond. I would imagine most of the BMP/APC losses for the Russians were top shots from overlooking buildings. Looking over the Russian army current weapon inventory they lack a similar weapon (most all their rocket launchers are anti-armor and they've retired most of their extensive self-propelled gun arsenal). I think they learned some valuable city fighting lessons.

Posts: 171 | From: | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged
_ALEX_
unregistered

posted 06-28-2000 03:11 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
afaik (?), Bradley TOW-2 cannot be reloaded from inside either. That's what I meant by comparing them. Naturally, AT-3 and TOW-2 are not quite comparable per se. But hey, BMP-1 is how many years ago?
IP: Logged
ShadowFox2000
Member
Member # 3583

posted 06-28-2000 11:55 PM     Profile for ShadowFox2000   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
So how does reactive armor work?
Posts: 87 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged
Akulashaker
Member
Member # 148

posted 06-29-2000 02:25 AM     Profile for Akulashaker   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
It is important to note hat the AT-3 was produced in two main variants: one had MCLOS guidance, so you had to steer the missile with a small joystick yourself. That was very difficult to use effectively unless you had one hell of a trained operator. The improved SACLOS version was much easier to use, since you only had to keep the target in your optical sight (just like TOW, Milan etc). I think it was that version that was used to great effect by the Egyptian ATGM teams against Israeli tanks in 1973 (and to a lesser extent in 1982).

------------------
___________________________________________
The Europe-88 Project: World War III in Germany
http://skpc11.iai.fzk.de/E88/


Posts: 488 | From: Greece | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Jussi Saari
Member
Member # 4799

posted 06-29-2000 05:59 AM     Profile for Jussi Saari   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Akulashaker:
It is important to note hat the AT-3 was produced in two main variants: one had MCLOS guidance, so you had to steer the missile with a small joystick yourself. That was very difficult to use effectively unless you had one hell of a trained operator. The improved SACLOS version was much easier to use, since you only had to keep the target in your optical sight (just like TOW, Milan etc). I think it was that version that was used to great effect by the Egyptian ATGM teams against Israeli tanks in 1973 (and to a lesser extent in 1982).


In 1982 perhaps, but not in 1973, that was the old manually guided suitcase-Sagger. IIRC the SACLOS variants of the old big-wing ATGMs were just entering service in 70's, and I'm almost certain the Egyptians wouldn't have had any, not in any meaningful quantities at least. Also AFAIK the SACLOS-sagger was mostly for ATGM-carrying BRDMs and helicopters, the man-portable variants remained MACLOS.

(Btw, for a truly user-hostile missile system the AT-3 was nothing... Try Blowpipe instead, same MACLOS guidance but instead of a docile tank you were supposed to hit fast jets with it...)

Jussi


Posts: 249 | From: Lappeenranta, Finland | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged
TWalt
Member
Member # 4647

posted 06-29-2000 06:51 AM     Profile for TWalt   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
ShadowFox,
Reactive armor is really simple. It's designed to defeat HEAT (High-explosive anti-tank) rounds/missiles which utilize a hot, directed blast of molten metal. The reactive box blows a small explosive charge that dissipates this directed blast as it begins to pass through the box. Armor piercing rounds are not affected.

Alex,
The M2 has a special hatch behind the TOW-2 launcher that provides armor protection while reloading the missiles. BMP-1 requires full exposure to reload the rail or tube and the BMP-2's hatch has to be fully opened and doesn't provide protection although the turrent hides the reloader from the immediate front of the vehicle.


Posts: 171 | From: | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged
jeroen
unregistered

posted 06-29-2000 07:01 AM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
The BMP-1 can also reload the AT-3 under armor.
Right behind the maingun there is a small hatch, this hatch is opened and launchrail (mounted on another rail) is retracted halfway into the turret. Then the gunner/loader puts the missile on the rail and connects the controls, then he slides the railback outside and unfolds the wings/controlsurfaces with a stick and closes the hatch

IP: Logged
TWalt
Member
Member # 4647

posted 06-29-2000 11:24 AM     Profile for TWalt   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Nope,
The special hatch on the turret for AT-3 reloads opens to the front on the BMP-1 and isn't designed to provide any protection, just limits the size of the target!! The gunner must expose himselft through this small hatch to retract the rail, reload the missile, reposition the rail, then utilize the "stick" to deploy the missile wings. Hardly protective!!
On the BMP-2, the gunner has a small hatch that opens to the front to reload the AT-4/AT-5 tube but this is vulnerable to fire from everywhere but the immediate front of the vehicle. Shots from angles off the front of the BMP-2 would be deadly to the gunner as he reloads.
On the M2, the TOW-2 launcher lowers and an infantryman is provided a special hatch designed to defeat small arms fire to reload.
The BMP-3 finally cured them of this problem some 30 years later!!!

Posts: 171 | From: | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged
Akulashaker
Member
Member # 148

posted 06-30-2000 02:40 AM     Profile for Akulashaker   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
The Kontakt-5 reactive armor also affects sabot rounds, IIRC. I think it has been successfully tested against M-829E2 APFSDS rounds.

------------------
___________________________________________
The Europe-88 Project: World War III in Germany
http://skpc11.iai.fzk.de/E88/


Posts: 488 | From: Greece | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
jeroen
unregistered

posted 06-30-2000 07:44 AM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I wasn't referring to the round gunners-accesshatch but to the rectangular hatch right behind the gun, which opens to the rear.
At http://www.geocities.com:0080/Pentagon/5423/bmp-1.html you can see it.

PS. how do you put pictures in a message?


IP: Logged
TWalt
Member
Member # 4647

posted 06-30-2000 07:52 AM     Profile for TWalt   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Akulashaker,
True, this applique though is unique to the Russian MBT's, particularly the T-90/T990S, T-80UK/UM/UD and T-72BM. It is rather expensive and not being utilized on BMP's. They are using much more simplistic reactive boxes that do not affect armor piercing rounds. Also, the Russians have only stated it degrades these rounds but doesn't defeat them. Technically, anything between the hull and the round could be considered as degrading as the round has to expend energy to get through it! I'm sure though they've probably got a reinforced panel on the back end of the box, most likely a composite or energy absorbing compound.

Posts: 171 | From: | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged
TWalt
Member
Member # 4647

posted 06-30-2000 09:28 AM     Profile for TWalt   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Jeroen,
Look at your own photos carefully!! THe rectangular hatch opens to the front (perfectly shown in the last/bottom photo!!). This allows the gunner access to the mount when it retracts into the hatch! As I stated, it is a smaller target than the external hatch of the BMP-2 but hardly protective!

[This message has been edited by TWalt (edited 06-30-2000).]


Posts: 171 | From: | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged
Jussi Saari
Member
Member # 4799

posted 06-30-2000 09:40 AM     Profile for Jussi Saari   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by TWalt:
Akulashaker,
True, this applique though is unique to the Russian MBT's, particularly the T-90/T990S, T-80UK/UM/UD and T-72BM. It is rather expensive and not being utilized on BMP's. They are using much more simplistic reactive boxes that do not affect armor piercing rounds. Also, the Russians have only stated it degrades these rounds but doesn't defeat them. Technically, anything between the hull and the round could be considered as degrading as the round has to expend energy to get through it! I'm sure though they've probably got a reinforced panel on the back end of the box, most likely a composite or energy absorbing compound.

Actually the Kontakt-5 isn't particularly complex or expensive, it's just as simple a construction as the first-generation ERA was. Difference is that the front plate that's sent flying by the brick's detonation is considerably thicker, which gives much improved effectiveness against KE rounds. The drawback of course is that it's therefore considerably heavier as well, and the flimsy BMPs could probably 1) not sustain the weight of several tons hanging on their flimsy light alloy "armour" plate, 2) relative weight increase would be far more than on a MBT and thus mobility would be seriously affected, and 3) on the weakest armored vehicles even the ERA explosion itself might be enough to breach the armor...

Just how much K-5 degrades the APFSDS round depends heavily on the angle at which it's hit, but from what I've read, typically you could expect 200mm or so reduced penetration from APFSDS. (Russians claim a little more than that, 280mm IIRC.)

Earlier Russian ERA (those small boxes on T-64/72/80B) btw has some effect on KE ammo, too, because it's plate is also somewhat thicker than on western ERA. Still it's much less than K-5, and effectiveness against APFSDS is only 40-50mm or so if my memory serves.


Jussi


Posts: 249 | From: Lappeenranta, Finland | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged
Bogey
Member
Member # 998

posted 06-30-2000 01:10 PM     Profile for Bogey   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
What does IIRC stand for???
seen it lotsa times, but never really thought of it...

------------------
Up there, where the air is rare...


Posts: 339 | From: West coast of Sweden | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
Zed
Member
Member # 64

posted 06-30-2000 02:44 PM     Profile for Zed     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
If I Recall Correctly....AFAIK...?

[This message has been edited by Zed (edited 06-30-2000).]


Posts: 866 | From: Midlands, UK | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
MACTEP
Member
Member # 832

posted 07-10-2000 01:44 AM     Profile for MACTEP   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
BMP-1 TOW missile can be loaded from inside - I was a BMP gunner. We did loading exercises in army - bmp1 got hatch right above canon, and joystik below the chair.
Posts: 181 | From: East Side | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
TWalt
Member
Member # 4647

posted 07-10-2000 06:34 AM     Profile for TWalt   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
We aren't questioning the fact that the missile can be loaded, just that the hatch has to be opened to pull in the mount and then opened again to put it back with the missile on it! During this process, the gunner is very susceptible to enemy fire.
Posts: 171 | From: | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged
Rick.50cal
Member
Member # 172

posted 07-11-2000 12:36 AM     Profile for Rick.50cal     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
TWALT: which infantry has good wall breaching standard equipment? Just how many SMAW's do you really have? Remember, the 66mm LAW does not do the job, neither the 84mm. Does the US Army have the SMAW? USMC? What about other armies? These questions ignore the basic problems of depending on shoulder launched wall breaching weapons: the targeting is much less steady, far fewer reloads can be carried by the shooter and #2 than can be ready in an IFV, the firer is exposed to MG fire, reloading will take the same or longer than in IFV. The effective range of a shoulder weapon is typicaly only 300 meters, where an IFV system could do at least 1200 meters, allowing a standoff distance for the IFV. The SMAW guy then cannot be effective as a regular rifleman/assaulter, since the heavy load means he will carry minimal rifle ammo, grenades and be slower moving, a staple of street fighting.

The Russian army does have many weapons for fortifications, revolving around tube launched FAE weapons, but I don't remember any specifically for wall breeching. Now, you mention putting light armor in a city block.... you are right, they are more vulnerable there, but so are infantry without backup. City fighting of any kind is risky to everyone, including pilots, as any manner of AAA cannon or SAM can be hidden from view until the moment of launch, and then conceled and moved before anyone can respond. The Soviets learned this in Afganistan, the Israelis in Lebanon.

You may think blowing a hole in a wall is silly, but I take it quite seriously. I'm not the only one, according to at least three articles written about the US forces in Somalia (and Kafji) : they say that against stone, concrete and the buildings normaly found in Africa, Europe and Mid East, the following weapons are of little use: .50cal, 7.62mm, 25mm and most others in US inventory. On the other hand, the few that did find favor were: the 40mm AGL (Somalia), shaped charges from Milan (Kafji), and tank HESH/HE rounds. Also considered effective is the ZSU 23-4 (in Chechnya), as an anti ambush weapon, as it can be laid on target very fast, provide very intense fire, and have very good elevation and depression angles compared to regular tanks. I have heard it said that the Russians never retire military equipment, they put it into war storage. I even heard a rumor that some T34's were kept in running order as late as the 70's, but that may just be a rumor.

Now, you may not want to wait for armor to respond, but your wait for AT helos, airstrikes, arty will take far longer, and probably with far less effectiveness in a street scenario. Infantry vehicles will be much more organic to the movement, and be imediately available, protect and protected by dismounted infantry.

------------------
Rick.50cal


Posts: 520 | From: Vancouver, BC, Canada | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
TWalt
Member
Member # 4647

posted 07-11-2000 08:09 AM     Profile for TWalt   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Rick,
Both the USMC and the USA are equipped with the SMAW. The USMC FIELDED this nasty little weapon in 1984! During the Gulf War, over 150 launchers and 5000 missiles were provided to the Army. It is very capable of making nice holes in concrete, earth and even armor. The launcher weighs about 16 pounds and it fires either the HEAA or HEDP round each another 14 lbs. Not real light but still doesn't exactly bring a grunt to their knees. He won't be rendered useless and can immediately utilize his primary weapon before/after firing. It is carried just like the Dragon (nearly identical weight). The SMAW-D is the same warhead with a light disposable launcher. Well over 6,000 in stock.
Yes the LAW is pretty weak against concrete but not the AT4/AT4CS. These 84mm recoiless rifles can definately smack holes through buildings with the HEDP rounds. They are secondary weapons as well which do not inhibit the warfighting capability of the gunner. These are the preferred weapons of the Rangers and SEALS.
As far as calling up armor, armor is definately key to supporting any assualt, even urban. That wasn't my point. My point is that the US forces do carry some significant personal weapons to "punch holes in buildings". As I stated, I would much rather take a shot with either the AT4/SMAW/SMAW-D than risk exposing a BMP or tank just to put a hole in a wall. In fact I'd even rig a C-4 shaped charge. There is very little use for the long range of armor cannons in an urban environment. If you're objective is to breach a building, the 2-300 meter range of these portable weapons is plenty so I don't see your reasoning for the need for increased range. You can't utilize it in a tight urban environment.

Posts: 171 | From: | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged
Rick.50cal
Member
Member # 172

posted 07-12-2000 01:59 AM     Profile for Rick.50cal     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Sorry, I should have clarified: I should make a distinction between -not penetrating a wall -penetrating and killing inside a concrete wall -breaching a hole for a squad member to enter a building without using a door or window (something that almost no weapons are actually capable of doing, compared to AT or anti-pers weapons).

While I have no doubt that an AT-4 will kill a sniper hiding in a room, in order to let a team enter a fortified building, you are going to have to make your own door. I beleive this is the reason behind the 100mm cannon on the BMP-3's caliber, along with the guided missile packaging requirements.

Oh, I should have included a couple of other weapons in my previous list: the Hellfire and Tow have been used to breach walls very effectively, but they are pretty expensive for that job, arent they?

------------------
Rick.50cal


Posts: 520 | From: Vancouver, BC, Canada | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
_ALEX_
unregistered

posted 07-12-2000 05:43 AM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
About old tanks in russian army. Some IS-3s were serving as fortified weapons bunkers along chinese border until early 90-s.
IP: Logged
TWalt
Member
Member # 4647

posted 07-12-2000 07:29 AM     Profile for TWalt   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Rick,
The SMAW/SMAW-D HEDP round is designed to open man-sized holes in buildings. The AT-4 also has a similar round though it is less effective at this task. I'd say 2-3 shots from the AT-4 would open a sufficient man-sized hole in a building. Then again, the Spec Ops boys would not utilize it for this. C-4 makes a much larger hole than any armor cannon.

Posts: 171 | From: | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged
Jussi Saari
Member
Member # 4799

posted 07-13-2000 06:13 AM     Profile for Jussi Saari   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by _ALEX_:
About old tanks in russian army. Some IS-3s were serving as fortified weapons bunkers along chinese border until early 90-s.

Russia isn't the only place that likes to keep antique weapons in service: here in Finland we retired our last T-26s in early 60's, and last T-34s and StuGs stayed until late 60's/early 70's... 88mm FlaK was used until 70's and in mid-90's they were still teaching Maxim machine-guns and how to use them for indirect fire (yes, you read right, 7.62mm Maxim in indirect fire) in some places. I think the last Mosin-Nagant model 1891 rifles and WWII SMGs were scrapped and sold away when we bought Chinese AKs in 90's to replace them...


Jussi


Posts: 249 | From: Lappeenranta, Finland | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged
2ltviper
Member
Member # 5239

posted 07-14-2000 10:53 PM     Profile for 2ltviper   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Kontakt-5 Reactive armor useful against M829A1? You people have got to be joking! No way in hell, at least not within normal engagement ranges. Trust me. If you start out with junk, you will still end up with junk (although you can replace the junk with something else!). That Kontakt-5 will offer more protection because it is a physical item in front of the armor, but not much more. And 200mm more protection? What kind of source did that come from? Unless you've done live fires and have pesronally seen the effects of rounds against tanks and PC's, you will have little idea. Against shape charges, I have no doubt they will work. But kinetic energy? Yeah, I'll bet those shoeboxes are 200mm in thickness, but that means nothing. Oh, let me guess, Kontackt-5 is a bit like depleted uranium, you know, 2.5 times as dense as steel? Only it's not an OSHA health threat. Man, I wish we'd discovered it years ago!
Posts: 73 | From: Enterprise, AL | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged
Rosco
Member
Member # 1779

posted 07-15-2000 01:27 AM     Profile for Rosco   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Kamerade 2ltviper, read please >


Jane's International Defence Review 7/1997, pg. 15:

"IMPENETRABLE RUSSIAN TANK ARMOUR STANDS UP TO EXAMINATION

"Claims that the armour of Russian tanks is effectively impenetrable, made on the basis of test carried out in Germany (see IDR 7/1996, p.15), have been supported by comments made following tests in the US.

"Speaking at a conference on Future Armoured Warfare in London in May, IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness explained that US tests involved firing trials of Russian-built T-72 tanks fitted with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour (ERA). In contrast to the original, or 'light', type of ERA which is effective only against shaped charge jets, the 'heavy' Kontakt-5 ERA is also effective against the long-rod penetrators of APFSDS tank gun projectiles.

"When fitted to T-72 tanks, the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU penetrators of M829 APFSDS, fired by the 120 mm guns of the US M1 Abrams tanks, which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles.

"Richard M. Ogorkiewicz"

------------------
"And if you don't like it, eat a gun"


Posts: 984 | From: Hazzard County | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
jeroen
Member
Member # 5532

posted 07-16-2000 06:47 PM     Profile for jeroen   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Kontakt-5 is indeed effective against long-rod penetrators.
The upper and lower sides are made of thick steel (15 and 20mm) withexplosive in between, the upper and lower plates are not parallel but slightly angled.
Upon penetration by a projectile the plates don't just blow apart but also start a rotation.
When the ERA explodes when struck by a long-rod penetrator it will first 'decapitate' the rod by cutting of the tip of the rod, this removes mass from the penetrator and make the remaining part blunt. This decapitation also sends a shockwave through the rod which blows fragments off the tail.
The second effect is that the rod changes direction before impacting on the main armor which further decreases effectiveness.
This link has info on Kontakt-5: http://armor.vif2.ru/
Select Kontakt- ERA under equipment, there is a link to a more detailed article at the bottom of the page.

Posts: 25 | From: arnhem | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged

All times are MST (US)  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | COMBATSIM.COM Home

COMBATSIM.COM, INC. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
Ultimate Bulletin Board 6.04b

Sponsor
2014 COMBATSIM.COM - All Rights Reserved