Re: Problems with the current Russian OOB (#11).
 

I'm a little dubious about the crater size claim from 116kg of explosives.

𝑟=𝑘𝑀

Where is the radius of the crater r (m), M (kg) is the mass of explosive used (expressed in TNT equivalent), k is coefficient depending on soil surface (k = 0.2 for very hard soil surface and k = 0.7 for very soft soil surface)
[[Jaramaz, S. Physics of explosion. University of Belgrade, Mechanical Engineering Faculty, Belgrade, 1997.]]

But then I'm a nerd :D

Re: Problems with the current Russian OOB (#11).
 

And that Kh-29 one sounds like SCALP, which is going to go back to being an HE blast warhead, not HEAT since it seems to be the same sort of thing that defeats a bunker by injecting a secondary HE warhead through the initial blast. So something designed specifically for bunker busting, and not for plinking individual tanks with (like say Maverick).

SCALP, Tomahawk, Kh-29 etc would be used on high value command and control centres, bridges etcetera since they likely cost as much as an MBT per round.

Re: Problems with the current Russian OOB (#11).
 

We have this noted down to look into for all weapons in that class but we won't be tackling this until the new year so if you remember, rattle this thread again in January as a reminder