Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
 

Erm, sorry to interrupt you, but the "survivability" rating you can tweak in MOBhack isn't directly related to the number of crewmen surviving. That should be something Andy already pointed out in a previous post. As far as I can understand it it mainly about the amount of damage an AFV can take once penetrated (the amount of overkill, so to speak) before blowing of. That's the *** you'll notice when you get a non-killing direct hit; it means that there's been some internal damage (one crew disabled, weapon destroyed, ammo reduced, immobilization...). Therefore reducing it on some units on account of risky internal layout will reduce the unit's ability to take heavy damage. As a side effect, it will indeed reduce the crew's surviving chances, but that's not the most of it.Look, the WH size has an influence on many other parameters, like (least significantly) the impact sound and animation, the craterization of the ground, the actual armor penetration...
For one thing, it deals with all warhead types, HE and HEAT as well. Does the fact that a tank uses DU rounds gives him better HEDP rounds? IIRC it also deals with the reload speed and the actual in game ROF. Rise the WHsize and you'll end up with fewer shots on your dear Abrams...http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/eek.gif
Basically, for guns, the WH size is a translation of the caliber. Has the US army switched to the 140mm gun already? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif
You may try it of course, but I bet that the side effects will be a surprising overkill, at best. Given that a DU round has all these effects you described (and I don't see why a steel- or tungsten-based rod wouldn't behave more or less the same way, not even mentioning HEAT warheads), the best option IMO is to give it a better penetration, since the penetration overkill (i.e. total penetration available minus total armor encountered) will be one of the most preeminent factors in calculating the inner damage.

Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
 

Look, you can have penetration even 2000mm at 10km, but if projectile dont hit anything critical, tank will survive.Im telling that in M60 you have much better chance that penetrating hit will not hit critical parts than in T-72.I never said that T-62 is on pair with M60A3 with survivability. (As Andy said first M60 models had problems with flamable hydraulics,but after 1974 it was solved)

Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
 

Well, that makes for non-pentrating hits, this happens a lot. High-angled shots tend not to penetrate too (whatever your magic silver bullet, if you hit at 83° and have to cross 5 meters of equivalent RHA (that's with 600mm...).

Now about survivability, I think that things like flammable turret hydraulics fluids with internal tanks, or clumsy fuel tanks (think BMP-1 or M-113), maybe even aluminium armour should be integrated into the survivability rating, at lest for the worst cases. If that's posible at all with only 6 levels.
IMHO modern AFVs rise much too quickly to surv=6, which should be kept for targets with really high survivability and plenty of inner spaces like shelter bunkers or blue-water ships.
Just my opinion of course!

Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
 

"Look, you can have penetration even 2000mm at 10km, but if projectile dont hit anything critical, tank will survive."

Then, I am afraid, you have absolutely no idea of what you are speaking about.The projectile hitting something critical is just part of the equation (an important part but a part).Overpressure caused by something entering at massive speed into a sealed steel box is an other.Then there is heat and splinters to consider.

Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
 

Sorry,but you have. If you remember there was an accident in Iraq where Iraqi insurgents fired an RPG that penetrated side hull and goes out at other (one crewmember was wounded) HEAT jet goes at much greater speed than APFSDS (jet, not projectile) so by your means all crew should be dead, but they were not. Similar things happened to M113A3 when APFSDS rounds get through one side to other and out with no effect on M113... Examples are quite numerous.

Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
 

http://www.army-technology.com/contr...ion/apfsds.htm

"The terminal effect of the sub-projectile striking the target sees huge kinetic energy release. In miliseconds the sub-projectile punches through the target armour, instantaneously generating massive heat and pressure. As the long rod penetrator enters the vehicle friction with the armour plate creates burning incandescent spall which sprays the interior. The burning spall has an explosive effect"

That is a pretty good description of the Sabot damage mechanism.You can find more in others sources.

The M113 may have had its hatches open.That would lessen the effects considerably, giving pressure a way to vent out (very thin armor should mean less splinters as well).If not it might have still have survived maybe but I would have not wanted to be inside.RPG-7 vs Abrams is not an overpenetration, the mass of what got inside was probably very small.Try TOW-2 vs T-55 and tell me what happens to the crew inside.

By the way, I am still waiting for a source on

"99 percent of killed Iraqi tankers were those who served in T-72"

Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
 

It wasnt small. RPG hit side hull at place where was only a few cm protection.It got though whole hull side and exit at other side... It has definitly enough power. If this happen to T-72 whole tank will blow out.

Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
 

Hi, here is an article that may be of some interest to this discussion. I am not too sure where it stands on Soviet Survival though. It covers US concerns on armor survival in the future The cover of the article is attached above.




Iraq conflict raises doubts on FCS survivability

JOSHUA KUCERA JDW Staff Reporter
Washington, DC
Additional reporting by Ian Kemp JDW News Editor
London

The constant stream of casualties from close-range fire in Iraq has again raised questions that the US Army's future family of combat vehicles, which will rely on superior intelligence rather than thick armour, could be vulnerable.

The Future Combat Systems (FCS), a group of 18 networked land and air platforms, will be ill-equipped to handle threats like improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), some critics say.

The army's official line is that the network will give FCS-equipped units such a good understanding of the enemy's positions that they will be able to evade threats rather than needing thick armour to withstand hits. However, critics argue that danger can never completely be avoided and that soldiers could be unprotected in such lightly armoured vehicles. This view has gained currency after higher-than-expected casualties from IEDs and RPG attacks in Iraq.

"The network is not going to keep you alive," said one army official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "The network is probably irrelevant once you make close contact with the enemy, and we're going to continue to make close contact because even [Iraqis], who are pretty unimpressive, have turned out to be sufficiently smart to rapidly reposition, adapt, evolve, and change in order to inflict damage on us."

One source with a major European armoured fighting vehicle manufacturer expressed scepticism to JDW about the reliance on information superiority to ensure the survivability of the FCS.

He noted that situational awareness is easier to achieve on the conventional battlefield with an enemy equipped with tanks and other vehicles but much more difficult during peace support operations or counter-insurgency operations when the enemy uses stealth tactics to blend into the civilian population. This is particularly true of military operations in urban terrain.

"It's a concern," acknowledged Maj John Chicoli, FCS assistant programme manager for system integration. "It's a change in culture, for the soldiers out there in the field, so we've got to demonstrate this and give them confidence that it will increase survivability."

Maj Chicoli said, the network, with information gathered from small unmanned aerial and ground vehicles and sensors that act as scouts, will minimise risk. "Our measure of success is never having a shot fired at us."

Within the army, Congress and the two prime contractors for FCS, Boeing and Science Applications International Corp, this optimism is waning, army officials and analysts say. "I think large numbers of Democrats and Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee are acutely sensitive to all of this, understand it very clearly and are trying to figure out what to do," the army official said, adding "if the people from Boeing who work on this talk to you honestly they tried to tell the people in the army from the very beginning that this will not work."

Boeing spokeswoman Maria McCullough responded that FCS vehicles would be "far less vulnerable to IEDs than any other armoured vehicle in their class" due to advanced technologies for armour protection and other active and passive countermeasures, the details of which they could not discuss.

Last year the army had to rush the production of slat armour kits for its Stryker 8 x 8 medium armoured vehicles in Iraq because of a greater-than-expected threat from RPGs (JDW 10 September 2003). Earlier this year the army issued guidelines for units improvising their own armour protection for unprotected variants of the High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle.

The debate echoes similar concerns raised about the survivability of the M2/M3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle in the mid-1980s.

In contrast the German Army believes that armour protection will be vital for future survivability across the range of military operations. The new Puma infantry fighting vehicle, scheduled to enter service in 2006, will have three different levels of armour protection that will increase the Puma's weight from 31.45 to 43 tonnes (JDW 3 September 2003).

With years of experience countering IEDs and RPGs the Israel Defence Force deploys a range of heavy armoured personnel carriers developed from main battle tank chassis.

Boeing officials said they are confident that, by the time the FCS is actually fielded, the technology would be good enough to protect the lightly armoured vehicles. "We're still in the infancy of this thing and there a lot of ways to look at it, like new materials engineering ... so I don't think we know right now," said Jeffery Worley, FCS programme director - business management.

A Congressional committee this month recommended cutting $250 million from the $3.2 billion FCS budget for 2005, calling it "excess to requirements".

Boeing and army officials said they were confident that most of that money would ultimately be restored, warning that if the full cut went through it would mean significant delays on engineering work for command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems and manned ground vehicles.

"If the change is in the $100 million range, it will affect the schedule but I don't see it having a tremendous impact," Worley said. "If it gets much more than $100 million then we're talking about some serious schedule movement." http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
 

"RPG hit side hull at place where was only a few cm protection.

Side hull is a rolled steel plate presumably in the 8cm range.BUT in addition to that there is the side skirt.The round exploded against that.That means a non trivial standoff between where the warhead explodes and the side hull plate.That would help to dissipate the jet, ensuring that the side hull plate would not be hit at full force.

"It got though whole hull side and exit at other side... It has definitly enough power"

It made a small dent on the opposite side, but it did not penetrate that plate.It was a small, albeit surprisingly well focused for an RPG, HEAT jet.It could not cause the overpressure event you would get from a M829A1 crossing a tank side by side or from a TOW-2.The warhead was simply not that powerful in first place and it had to throught the side hull and the airgap before getting inside.
Yes an HEAT jet moves very fast but you have to consider the amount of stuff which is moving.At that point there was probably not enough of it to do more than damaging some systems in its direct path.

Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
 

"the network will give FCS-equipped units such a good understanding of the enemy's positions that they will be able to evade threats rather than needing thick armour to withstand hits."

"I cannot imagine any condition which would cause a ship to founder. I cannot conceive of any vital disaster happening to this vessel. Modern shipbuilding has gone beyond that."
Captain Edward John Smith


Nuff said.

Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
 

If this happen to T-72, Tank will blow out

Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
 

"If this happen to T-72, Tank will blow out"

Likely, depending on what it is actually hit.Then again remember that on an M60 a large portion of the rounds are lined against the side walls and it is my understanding that such arrangement of the ammunition is quite common among the tanks of that generation.
Since it is not a massive penetration event the crew may have some chances of bailing out before the tank becomes a rather unpleasant place to be.

Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
 

Surely recent events in Basra have shown that even Molotov cocktails can cause a crew to bail out of an AFV, despite dire peril outside.

As Mobhack said several http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif pages ago, a tank is likely to get a second or third hit to ensure a kill. I know I do this in WinSPMBT if I have the shots, ammo etc. An immobilised tank could still shoot at YOU, a 'killed' one can't.

Thus all of this argument becomes redundant as the crew are going to abandon into a hostile battlefield anyway.

That M1A1 crew in Iraq were very lucky, see:

http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/articles/solved.asp

Weeble

Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
 

Weeble,

Even with the Pen that tank stll drove away. I am impressed with that RPG though!

Neet site!

Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
 

"Even with the Pen that tank stll drove away."

From the accounts of the accidents it seems that tank was evacuated and recovered later (and it was looted in the meantime).It did not drive away from the scene, although maybe it could have done it and it was decided not to do so for safety reasons.
Without special ballistic skirt the side hull, with the exception of the area around the driver which is protected by fuel cells, is not better protected than on the majority of the tanks.A plate of RHA in the 8cm range + side skirts is a pretty common arrangement.From the calculations I have seen and the opinions of some tankers I have read it might not be enough to stop a plain vanilla RPG-7 if it hits head on.Neverthless that sort of calculations require detailed informations on the specific warhead configuration and some additional knowledge I do not possess.

Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
 

Look at this discussion on Tanknet: http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showtopic=12348

Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
 

it seems some ppl. here really don´t like iraqie tank crews and want them all to die

Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
 

Not all, just most! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
 

This is what happened to a test target, fully combat loaded T-72 vs a Javelin ATGM. See attachments.

A link to this site can be found on my post about the Javelin ATGM.

P.S. The engine was found 65 meters from the vehicle. Would this count as "splash" against infantry? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
 

The T-72 fired on by the ajvelin was rigged with explosives for the advertisement. Nice propaganda though.

Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
 

bison24,

Got proof?

Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
 

I'm with Bison on this, the explosion seems a tad too vigorous.

Take for example a T-72 hit by a Fin round during the 91 gulf war. Most lost their turrets to the internal explosion. But the hull didn't tear it's self apart like that.

Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
 

Listy,

The T-72 in the test was FULLY loaded with ammo and fuel. This no doubt had an effect on the test and the total destruction of the vehicle. It would serve no purpose to load the tank up with explosives just for shlts and giggles.

Go to my Javelin post and click on the strategy page web site. The article explains a little about how the tests were done. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
 

No reason?

How about impressing US politicians who know squat about armaments with a flashy display to ensure project survival?

Do you have any proof about how that test was set up, and that it wasn't tampered with?

I've seen test videos covering "sim-loaded" T-72M hit by rbs56, and the effect is nowhere similar. Loaded T-72 hit under actual combat doesn't disintegrate like that.

The Jav video is the anomaly, and then it becomes your responsibility to support your claim that there was no doctoring of this test.

Sorry, a line of text from "cut and paste" Strategypage doesn't cut it...

I've read that exact same post, with slightly different wording, made by a half-dozen other know-nothings on at least three different boards already... and let me tell you you're not bringing anything new to the table at all.

A propellant conflagration is not that violent, look at photos of KK T-72 by HEAT or APFSDS from actual wars, the hull stays at least relatively intact even if they pop their turrets.

Get a clue dude. Its no crime being no expert, but pretending to know wtf you're talking about when you're not won't win you any respect.

Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
 

I read somewhere that they didnt use T-72 loaded with ammo, but they loaded it with explosives whole tank, so it made such a boom...

Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
 

I tend to agree.The level of destruction is suspicious.
I have seen plenty of pictures of T-72s, M84s etc destroyed by high end western weapons.I doubt that they were all down to the last round of ammunition and liter of fuel when they were hit.They had maybe lost the turret, they were burned down but disintegrated like that? No way.

Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
 

For me the pictures also looked like a "too big bang"... Our Army Technical Magasine presented several pictures of T-55's and -72's destroyed in Iraq by various weapons (many of them were in an article about Hellfires), but even had the turret been torn apart and blown off, the hull was keeping its shape.

Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
 

You must recall that there are inconsistencies with this video. The boom heard is instant, not delayed, which would happen at such a far range. Watch the video frame by frame and there is a suspicious detonation prior to the missile hitting the mighty T-72.

Also, attached is a photo of the mighty Maverick, with its powerful warhead killing a M113. Note the size of the explosion. There is a considerable difference. And I do not think that diesel fuel blows up like that, unless it was contained and pressurized. I mean a whole lot of pressurized diesel, too. Furthermore, why would they load a tank with munitions and blow it up? The resulting secondary explosions, unexploded munitions, would create a very hazardous test sight.

Sorry, but this video is a bit too questionable. And you should watch your language, for one who swears is one who does not know the devil is in the details, my Javelin friend.

Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
 

Sewter,

So far your response has made the most sence. What I'm talking about is you mention of the use of live munitions on the target vehicle.
You have a valid point! Maybe they did use high explosives to simulate the ammo load of the T-72 target vehicle. This would only make sence for safety reasons as you mentioned. Did this make the vehicle explode more violently then it should have? I would have to say that it could.

But mention was made that the little blue flame between the bogies on the target vehicle were caused by an already planted explosive device. Thats just not true. That little flash was caused by the first charge of the duel warhead pennetrating the bottom hull of the vehicle.

See pic attached. This is of a Predator Light ATGM (US) hitting a target M48/M60 (Not sure which). Notice flash under vehicle.

P.S. I did not swear, it was only a minor expletive!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/eek.gif

Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
 

We are speaking about a warhead rated at 600mm against an armor thickness which should not be more than 40mm.That the jet would go throught the bottom should be expected.
The first charge however is typically only a small precursor charge meant to detonate ERA bricks, it should not have the energy to do that.Unless the Javelin has a different internal arrangement,that should be the result of the main charge.

Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
 

Marcello,

Thank you for mentioning the pen value of this weapon. In the game it's 450mm. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/shock.gif

Re: Soviet tank crew survival.
 

Keep in mind however that it is a top attack weapon.
In the real world the final dive might not typically be vertical or nearly vertical but it might happen at angles of 30° or 40° or whatever from the vertical, which means greater LOS thickness.If the game engine, when dealing with top attack weapons, simply matches the warhead penetration capabilities against the top armor without factoring this factor then the missile would be more powerful than it should actually be.A solution would be reducing the warhead penetration to match a typical angle of attack.
I have run a few calculations and I found out that a 45 penetration could indeed be the outcome of a 60 warhead hitting at an approximatively 40° angle from the vertical.Take the results with caution however, the game may work in a different way or others sources gave different values for the warhead.However a 450mm warhead would be pathetic for the conventional attack profile,if you had to use it that way, so a 600mm warhead would make more sense in the real world.