tanks vs rpg\'s
 

I'm just wondering.. I've experienced alot of penetrations from rpg-7(or similar) against even the best of tanks, and to the frontal armour. Many M1-tanks lost due those rpg-7(which maximum penetration is 380mm). Is this because of some strange randomizer in the game, as it counts how many points it can penetrate? To my knowledge, it is almost 100,00% impossible to penetrate M1's frontal armour with those old rpg's..

Just now we're playing China vs. Taiwan battle in 2010 with my friend and I just lost taiwanese M1A1ROC to RPG-69(chinese RPG-7) hitting it in front, from maybe 300 meter away(yes I know it means nothing with HEAT, but it was not an ASSAULT).

Can someone explain this?

Re: tanks vs rpg\'s
 

Look at penetration values and then look at where exactly RPG hit when it penetrate. Im 100% sure that they dont penetrate frontal armor of M1. Maybe it was some sort of lucky shot that was fired at tank and it hit the top armor... but if you have armor 70 HEAT and RPG has pen 38, RPG will never penetrate!

Re: tanks vs rpg\'s
 

Occasionally you get a message saying something like "shot hits targets weak point for +whatever penetration". I've seen the +whatever range from 1 or 2 up to the 50s.

Re: tanks vs rpg\'s
 

i never saw this with RPGs, only with tank rounds fired from close range.but if you look at it, it is realistic. Some hits could hit turret ring and penetrate. (this should represent +50 hit) but it will not help you much with 33 pen against 90 HEAT armor...

Re: tanks vs rpg\'s
 

That's right, penetration bonus can account for the numerous weak points crowding any AFV.

And yes, sometimes you see a round getting a huge bonus but still not penetrating... that can be quite infuriating.

RanXerox, JaM is right, you should look closely at the hit reports given when your tank is hit, that will tell you which part exactly as been hit and what the penetration and armor ratings used were (depends on the hit angle).

Re: tanks vs rpg\'s
 

Are you sure this hits were on the front armour?
Because a lucky rear or side shot (maybe when you're manouvering to get out of an ambush) can happen...

Re: tanks vs rpg\'s
 

My mistake. It was PF97 and it hit to the side of M1A1ROC. Sorry. But now I wonder how weapon like PF97 which is not even at-weapon, blow up mbt? I think it's AP value is 9.. To my knowledge, PF97 is a thermalpressurebomb more than anything else..

And why PF97 has way more better ap-value than PF98, that uses bigger explosion(bigger heat-value) and they both are not at-weapons? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/mad.gif

Re: tanks vs rpg\'s
 

Huh, the Chinese OOB gives HEAT penetration of 27 for the PF-97 aka RPO-A RFT and 80 for the PF-98 heavy RCL... or did you mean that the PF-97 (flame weapon) was overly effective against tanks?

Apparently there was a bug related to the long-range napalm weapon and calculating penetration and accuracy or something. IIRC that is being fixed in the upcoming patch but I cannot find the post where Don or Andy said something precise about that right at the moment.

Re: tanks vs rpg\'s
 

Yeah, just wondering how PF-97 can destroy M1A1, even with hit to the sidearmor? Is it truly that powerful blast it generates that it can destroy anything on its way?

And also, how PF-97's PEN-value is 9 and much more powerful PF98's PEN-value is only 3? Even that PF98's HEAT-value is 80 and PF97's HEAT-value is 27?

Re: tanks vs rpg\'s
 

Wait a tick here, the "HE pen" value refers to the ability of the basic HE-frag-MP-Pers-etc. round to bust armour. Most possibly an FAE can have some more penetration (due to high pressure and high temperature) over a basic frag warhead (same technology as your standard issue hand grenade).
Now I'm not up to the fine mechanical details on how these warheads work, you'll have to find a specialist for that.

Re: tanks vs rpg\'s
 

Look at the warhead values. See also my post on pen 999

Re: tanks vs rpg\'s
 

Surely this thread should now be RPGs vs Tanks?

FAE/Thermobaric/Novel Explosive (NE) warheads work by a combination of high blast overpressure & residual vacuum effects, with secondary incendiary effect. Results are virtually the same as a Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapour Explosion (BLEVE). [This may just be semantics in action]

The dual effects of a rapidly expanding oxidising fuel front overpressure, with consumed atmospheric oxygen producing a residual vacuum produces major damage to personnel and non-hardened structures.

The fuel (liquid or powder) is dispersed like an aerosol by a bursting charge, before an igniter system sets off the cloud after a precise delay to allow full combustion. The Fuel-Air mix has to be at the optimum level to prevent either:

a} A 'dud' with dispersion of unburnt fuel or

b} A localised fireball with minimal blast effects

A correct ignition can produce very little flame, if this video is actally a RPO-A test:

http://www.warfare.ru/?linkid=1847&a...amp;video=true

This was initially the technical blocker with these munitions. Chechen reports of Russian chemical weapons use have been attributed to incomplete combustion of TOS-1 Buratino 220mm rounds.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ssia/tos-1.htm

Fuel cloud flows, and thus blast/vacuum effects are non-linear allowing for bunker and cave attack successes. This is in comparison to HEAT and HE where local objects may cause blast 'shadows'. The fuel will flow around corners & blast walls, down foxholes and OPEN HATCHES and into shattered windows {the actual initial overpressure of the expanding fuel cloud can incapacitate before ignition), VENTS and EXHAUSTS/INTAKES.

The rapid combustion of the flammable 'gas' cloud causes blast type injuries, including internal organ trauma (lungs, liver...)ears, eyes etc. Secondary incendiary effects can also (from a victims point of view) be major.

A thermobaric weapon such as a RPO-A would be very likely to cause severe injuries to an 'unbuttoned' tank crew, with the vehicles optics, engine and any flammable impedimenta (Camo covers, tentage, external POL) all contributing to a high chance of, at least, a disabled vehicle.

The chance of the weapon hitting has been increased by 'Kornet-E' being available with a thermobaric round.

NBC overpressure systems are unlikely to be employed permanently by the crew to defeat FAE blast(though I doubt how effective they'd be for either this or nuclear blast in an unbuttoned vehicle).

A 'buttoned' MBT would probably save the crew, but the vehicle may be immobilised.

Given the problems of proper fuel-cloud formation, and precise ignition timing, I thought that ERA would prevent/defeat FAE ignition success. I was thus amazed to see thermobaric warheads being used as the #2 in tandem effect munitions.

Bazalt (Russia) has developed the RShG-1 and RShG-2 tandem charge RPGs, with a HEAT precursor and (optionally) a thermobaric instead of a HEAT secondary.

http://bazalt.ru/bl-boy-eng.htm

Talley Defense Systems(USA) have developed both the SMAW-NE and the LAW M72-NE. These are 'smart' warheads which sense whether the target is hard or soft to alter FAE initiation timings.

http://www.talleyds.com/products/brochures_videos.htm

The above weapons are primarily designed as 'bunker-busters', with capabilities against light armour.

The idea of a FAE being delivered INTO an AFV is frightening, as the enclosed, confined space would provide optimum kill conditions. Crew survival would be unlikely indeed.

Personally I feel that a 'triple' warhead [1.HEAT or displacer rod 2.HEAT 3.FAE package] would be needed to defeat ERA and deliver a warhead/effect into the AFV. Sadly for tankies I have seen specs on triple warheads, though not with FAE as the tertiary unit.

The 'bonus' of carrying a specialised munitions package THROUGH the armour of an AFV has enthralled designers and ordnance buyers for years.

The original rounds for the German PzB 38 & 39 Anti-tank rifles consisted of 1. Outer jacket, 2. Hardened steel penetrator. 3. Tear Gas Pellet to force crew to evacuate vehicle.

On the few occasions the round actually penetrated the vehicle, the tear-gas pellet was left outside the armour, affecting supporting German troops and preventing them from assaulting the (disabled?) AFV. These rounds were replaced by APCR (Armour Piercing Composite Rigid) type rounds with a tungsten penetrator filling in for #2 and 3 in late 1940.

APHE (Armour Piercing High Explosive rounds trade off penetration for HE effect on the 'protected' side of the armour. The number of unexploded, penetrated, APHE rounds defused after naval battles shows that the reliability of such rounds is lower. The penetration values of such rounds are also less, although I can see why they are becomong the standard load for Autocannon.

I have no doubt that both defence industries and armies world-wide will enjoy the expensive search for the "Magic Bullet".

Andy Weaver

Re: tanks vs rpg\'s
 

There is no vacuum effect. That is an urban legend. The oxigen could be almoste burend out, but the result nowhere closed to vacuum. There is some negative overpressure, enough to shake a human though, but
"The primary injury mechanisms are blast and heat, with secondary effects through flying fragments and toxic detonation gases"
source: Dr Anna E Wildegger-Gaissmaier, PhD
Aspects of thermobaric weaponry:

http://www.defence.gov.au/dpe/dhs/in..._4_1_03-06.pdf

Re: tanks vs rpg\'s
 

Good detail in that link serg3d!

I only used the term 'vacuum' to describe a pressure state temporarily below ambient as I feel that the phrase 'negative overpressure' (which is the technically correct one) is clumsy and can be misleading.

The sense I meant was thus "A space in which the pressure is significantly lower than atmospheric pressure."

I can't imagine my bank manager complaining about "negative overfunding" in my account.

Re: tanks vs rpg\'s
 

That's just I was fed up with stories about eyes popping out and blood vessels bursting because of "vacuuum" in the lower-pressure zone after explosion. That is why I don't like use of this term.

I like it. Next time I'll tell bank maneger : That is not overdraft, just negative overfunding http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif