03-16-2023, 07:51 PM | #81 | |
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Charlotte, North Caroline, United States of America, Earth?
|
Re: TL9 Heavy Tank
Quote:
For example, there are cut-away diagrams of the T72 that are widely available these days, and these will show us that the auto loader is located under the turret ring, which requires the jet to traverse approximately a meter of space that is cram packed with equipment and crew. Nick Moran has a video on the autoloader vs manual loader debate, and he explicitly states that the top of the carousel for the t72 has some amount of armor, which may not protect it from a powerful, deeply penetrating hit, but would likely provide some decent protection from incendiary effects. This then leads to the issue that the 40mm HEDP is rated to penetrate 2 inches of RHA(e) or about 50mm. HEAT effects can have penetration around 150% of their diameter, up to about 700% at the most before the jet begins to disassociate under strain. This is largely based on the geometry of the round, and depends greatly on stand-off: modern HEAT rounds often have very pointed nose caps that increase the stand-off distance to around the optimal and maximum distance of around 6-7x the diameter. A 40mm M433 HEDP round does not really have that sort of stand-off, limiting it's penetration. So the size of the jet *is* extremely important when talking about the penetration of a shaped charge. You can find this information on FAS or Wikipedia, if you were so inclined or interested. This is also based on a 0 degree angle of incidence, which is something really weird to deal with as you're having to figure out the ballistic arc of the round and the slope of the armor being struck, though it's been noted that HEDP fired at M113 would penetrate better at long ranges as the higher angle of the fire would result in hit closer to 0 degree than a shorter, flatter trajectory would have to go through more armor due to slope. Incidentally, the top armor in the turret ring area is only 20mm thick, but is probably the hardest to hit, as the frikken turret sits on top of it. A 40mm grenade isn't really going to be penetrating that, though it is remotely feasible that a lucky round could impact right in the sweet spot to penetrate that thin armor and ignite rounds in the carousel. However it should be noted that the t72 has had a nearly 50 year service history, involvement in over 40 conflicts, and I am sure thousands have been been destroyed in combat. And I am aware of 2 accounts of a 40mm HEDP being used to catastrophically destroy them, both of which apparently targeted abandoned vehicles with open hatches. So, it appears to be a really, really unlikely event, rather than an almost assured result. Notably, while the side armor is fairly low, actual t72s from the battle of Grozny in the 1st Chechan war survived multiple RPG impacts to the sides, without reactive armor. Several tanks that were destroyed remained operation for over a quarter of an hour, allowing their crews to both fight back and to eventually escape and survive. I would suggest that, considering the notable and impressive armor of the t72, that the "jack in the box" secret weakness is quite possibly over played, and indicative of tanks caught in positions where they were subjected to low shots to their hull sides from lethal anti-tank rounds. This suggests bad tactics, rather than a notable vulnerability. Similarly, while the M1 Abrams has a reputation for toughness, improper tactics in Yemen by the Saudis resulted in massive losses compared to in US service, suggesting that the M1 when properly employed in combined arms operations(especially against poorly trained, equipped and motivated sub peer forces) is not as vulnerable as when employed poorly. As others have noted: the "jack in the box" vulnerability seems to be showing up more often in russian tanks tanks, rather than Ukrainian tanks of the same or similar make. Are Ukrainians employing better tactics, are they using different operational methods that enhance survivability? Quite possibly. But it's also quite possible that there is selective reporting, and Ukrainian tank losses(and losses in general) are downplayed for political reasons. This may also be related to the imminent collapse of the Russian war effort that has been a few days or weeks at most away for over a year. This isn't really that surprising, as there's plenty of times that one side will report really good kill rates, and later on it will turn out that as few has half of those kills can be independently confirmed after the conflict.
__________________
Hydration is key |
|
03-16-2023, 08:16 PM | #82 | |
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Re: TL9 Heavy Tank
Quote:
Shifting over to aircraft for a different example, designers of 1960s jet aircraft would have scoffed at the possibility of losing such aircraft to rifle fire and yet in Vietnam with what became known as the "golden BB" principle exactly that happened. Hands could be waived over how this wasn't going to be a "real" threat in the future but it's probably good that other persons arranged to change over to a less flammable hydraulic fluid (among other measures of course). Ignore vulnerabilities that are only "technically" possible in "expert" judgment and you'll find some of those technical possibilities becoming actual.
__________________
Fred Brackin |
|
03-16-2023, 09:05 PM | #83 | |
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Charlotte, North Caroline, United States of America, Earth?
|
Re: TL9 Heavy Tank
Quote:
Auto-loaders are absolutely the wave of the future, and using an obsolete design from fifty years ago as an basis for arguing against them is absolute madness. Modern auto loaders can and have addressed many of the survivability concerns, and offer substantial benefits over manual loading. The largest advantage is that by getting rid of a crew member, you can make the turret and hence the tank much smaller, which means thicker armor for a given weight. If survivability is what you're looking for, then thicker armor is the way to go. All tanks have the same technical vulnerabilities: in order to manage mass, they have to concentrate as much of their armor to one facing as possible, which makes their sides, rears and tops vulnerable. This has been the state of affairs for over a hundred years, because physics is a harsh mistress, and you can't cheat her. Proper employment of a tank requires protecting it from it's vulnerabilities, usually with supporting forces such as infantry, IFVs, SPAGs, SPAA, and, intelligence. If you screw these up, then you're tanks are likely to have a bad day.
__________________
Hydration is key |
|
03-16-2023, 09:21 PM | #84 | |
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Re: TL9 Heavy Tank
Quote:
On the other hand, it's hard to forecast anything about future tanks if we exclude all data from 50 year-old designs. There are few designs that aren't fifty years old (or modest upgrades of such designs) and most of the ones that aren't that I've seen are bargain products from second tier powers.
__________________
Fred Brackin |
|
03-16-2023, 10:27 PM | #85 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
|
Re: TL9 Heavy Tank
It's impossible to remove all those vulnerabilities and still have a tank of reasonable weight and cost. Tanks have to carry a great deal of highly volatile fuel and ammunition (and even switching to a gauss weapon of some kind just changes 'chemical ammo' to 'highly energetic batteries and capacitors'), and they also need to be compact, so penetrating hits inevitably have good odds of hitting something flammable and/or explosive. Even if they don't, it's hard for them to not hit something mission critical. The cases where they don't are noteworthy - that's why they end up on youtube (alongside the really spectacular explosions).
__________________
Rupert Boleyn "A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history." |
03-16-2023, 10:35 PM | #86 | |
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Charlotte, North Caroline, United States of America, Earth?
|
Re: TL9 Heavy Tank
Quote:
Or the commonly cited idea that steel plates are gonna get you killed as body armor, because of ze spalling. Somehow, taking a bullet fragment to the face that has less KE than a rifle round punching through your chest is "worse". the T-72(and t-80s and t-90s, and most soviet tanks since ww2) all had conscious design decisions that result in the "death trap" conditions: they're as heavily armed and armored as comparable western tanks, but much lighter. When the M1 came out, it was already outclassed by modernized T-72s in Wpac service, which is why there was almost an immediate improvement program to fix those glaring weaknesses, and the M1 and M1iP were still about 20 tons heavier than the t72. The Armata series, if it wasn't vaporware(being a broke "super power" is a bummer) certainly seems to be the direction of the future: Put the crew in a separate fighting compartment from the gun itself, make the turret smaller and even more heavily armored, and compartmentalize the tank. And this all ignores the most poignant fact of any weapons system: it can only be as good as the men and women who operate it, and the doctrine and commanders who order them into combat. A t90 or M1A2 in the hands a badly trained crew, badly maintained, without adequate planning or co-ordination with supporting arms, is a death trap. A t72 with decent upgrades, a good grew and sound leadership and tactics will be a battle winner, within the limits of the platform and it's adversary systems.
__________________
Hydration is key |
|
03-16-2023, 10:56 PM | #87 | |
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Charlotte, North Caroline, United States of America, Earth?
|
Re: TL9 Heavy Tank
Quote:
There's only so much you can bend the rules of physics, and the triangle of mobility, protection and firepower is always a balancing act, hoping you made the right choices.
__________________
Hydration is key |
|
03-17-2023, 01:32 AM | #88 | |
Join Date: Nov 2019
|
Re: TL9 Heavy Tank
Quote:
|
|
03-17-2023, 03:11 AM | #89 | ||
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
|
Re: TL9 Heavy Tank
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Rupert Boleyn "A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history." |
||
03-17-2023, 03:14 AM | #90 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
|
Re: TL9 Heavy Tank
Quote:
The trick is landing that 'just right' hit.
__________________
Rupert Boleyn "A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history." |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|