BUTT face to the pride of malaysia PT-91M?
-
I read they tested a lot of tanks, even the Korean K-1 tank, but the Twardy was ultimately picked because it fitted their bill the best.
Who knows? But hey, besides us they currently do have the best MBT in the region. -
Maybe they were the only ones willing to accept palm oil for barter.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:I read they tested a lot of tanks, even the Korean K-1 tank, but the Twardy was ultimately picked because it fitted their bill the best.
Who knows? But hey, besides us they currently do have the best MBT in the region.
It should be noted that the Poles themselves don't have much faith in the tank. I believe tehy are taking delivery of surplus Leopard 2A4s like us. -
That is true... ironically we are getting the tanks that the poles decided to replace the Twardy with.
-
If there's anything like a raw deal, this would be it. Seriously, even a T-90 which is cheaper than a T-80 would have been a bigger seismic shift than a ... T-72 which hardly has any of the real Soviet tech in it.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:That is true... ironically we are getting the tanks that the poles decided to replace the Twardy with. -
As I said:Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Of course that's assuming the PT-91 has not had its passive armour package improved by the Polish. In which case it might give more protection then the 10 camels-a-tank Iraqi monkey model T-72.
On the other hand, we roughly know that our MATADOR should penetrate at least 450mm RHA (assuming it follows the rule that modern HEAT warheads penetrate 5 or more times their diameter).
At the end of the day I still would not try to deal with the Twardie from the frontal arc with the MATADOR, prehaps from the side there's a better chance of penetration.
But of course, we would not know until we've tried shooting on of them.Some may argue that PT-91M is more modernised than the Polish PT-91 but protection wise, it could not be dramatically higher becos of the limitation of high ground pressure(0.94 kgf/cm sq), & after all the weight increase from 45.9 tons (PT-91) to 46.5 ton(PT-91M) only a mere 0.6 tons.
Such small weight increase does not show it has much more armour,next is the test result Pzf 3 against ERAWA 2 has proven that it is not some magic armour, in fact it is still ERA not ceramic armour, the baseline armour improvement with ceramic is more hearsay than a fact, even it is, it does not mean great improvement with such low weight increase .
Will post abt the Matador and the rest of SAF equipment that could possibly kill a PT-91M later. -
u sure about the rpg destroying an m1abrams???? hitting the side probably will destroy its track but i tink its jus disabled and able to repair by jus changing the tracks.
anyways played a game called DFX i kno its jus a game but its really good as u kno how hard it is to shoot at a tank under fire from the .50cal n probability of getting hit by the cannon -
I heard that is becos the Pole accept palm oil has part of the payment!!!!Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:I read they tested a lot of tanks, even the Korean K-1 tank, but the Twardy was ultimately picked because it fitted their bill the best.
Who knows? But hey, besides us they currently do have the best MBT in the region.
In fact, rumours has it was that the T-80s was preferred, but the Ukrainian did not want palm oil!!!
Lastly, MY has seldom demonstrated that they will be buying stuff of the most cost effective due to limited budget and plus the factor of cronyism at play in MY weapon purchases. -
RPGs these days are pretty sophisticated with tandem warheads etc. They are actually more sophisticated than matador in some respects. There is a thermobaric warhead but I doubt the Iraqi insurgents have them.Originally posted by M551Sheridian:u sure about the rpg destroying an m1abrams???? hitting the side probably will destroy its track but i tink its jus disabled and able to repair by jus changing the tracks.
anyways played a game called DFX i kno its jus a game but its really good as u kno how hard it is to shoot at a tank under fire from the .50cal n probability of getting hit by the cannon -
I'm guessing that some datuk for a plantation owner has a part to play in this.Originally posted by gary1910:I heard that is becos the Pole accept palm oil has part of the payment!!!!
In fact, rumours has it was that the T-80s was preferred, but the Ukrainian did not want palm oil!!!
Lastly, MY has seldom demonstrated that they will be buying stuff of the most cost effective due to limited budget and plus the factor of cronyism at play in MY weapon purchases. -
Knocked out, not destroyed. It is hard to totally destroy an M1 unless you use a huge IED or really heavy ATGM or something in the lines of it.Originally posted by M551Sheridian:u sure about the rpg destroying an m1abrams???? hitting the side probably will destroy its track but i tink its jus disabled and able to repair by jus changing the tracks.
What's so strange abour RPGs being able to disable an M1? RPGs have knocked out Abrams before, just that it's hard to make that lucky shot without getting killed in the process. Also there are plenty of areas to put an RPG to in an M1 tank, but of course the smart tanker will keep his strongest side facing you have having his buddies to protect his weaker areas. Tatics matter as much as armour protection.
In the First Gulf War an M1A1 took a belly shot from an RPG while climbing a sand berm, and was disabled, so the iron ogres are not invincible, just extremely hard to kill.
The big 5, aka. the Abrams, Leopard 2, Challanger, Merkava and LeClerc are still the five MBTs you do not want to fight in war, but that does not mean they are unkillable.
In any case, the Abrams that got knocked out by an RPG that I mentioned can be found here, it was interesting because at first they could not figure out what was the projectile that disabled the tank, but later they realized it was just a very lucky shot from an RPG 7.
http://www.discourse.net/archives/2003/11/what_puts_holes_in_abrams_m1a1_tanks.html
Anyway the hull armour of MBTs tend to be a lot weaker then their turret armour, especially the flanks. The turret side of the M1 is supposedly able to resist it's own DU APFSDS rounds (which they realized when they tried to destroy a bogged down M1A1 tank)!
But not the hull, where a hit will produce a through and through penetration... and this is probably true for other MBTs as well.
From the front the M1 is quite nearly invulnerable to just about anything, save a LOSAT or some really huge AT weapon prehaps?
In any case, if there's any tank you want to go into battle with right now, you can be sure it must be one of the top 5... anything else might be suicide. -
coax? dont every section got one SS? just asking... since there matador operator wont be fighting alone mah...
tank dont fight alone either pal.
regarding of the twardy the malaysian variant have added passive armor at the turret, especially at the front. The jokingly called malaysian PT91M ... Dolly Parton. Do i have to explain why? LOL
That thing on top of the tank are not snorkel or ATGM, a snorkel will look like this.
-
I speculate it is a searchlight of sorts... maybe an IR lamp?
-
thats true... so... lets call in the apache!Originally posted by tankfanatic:tank dont fight alone either pal.
-
thats true... so... lets call in the apache!
thats the point. If you saw this tank call the apache. But theres nothing wrong in taking pot shot at the tank, but doing that also reveal your position -
speculate it is a searchlight of sorts... maybe an IR lamp?
it might be a serch light but not IR lamp. The gunner and commander sight were already night vision and thermal imaging capable. -
Hmm... I wonder if we would ever procure a fighter like the SU-25 or A-10 for close air support. Apaches don't work too well in jungle areas.Originally posted by tankfanatic:thats the point. If you saw this tank call the apache. But theres nothing wrong in taking pot shot at the tank, but doing that also reveal your position -
CAS is effective if you have air superiority and enemy has decimated AA capability.
AFAIK, AA capability in the region while low-level in altidude reach, are numerous and quite modern.
Artillery is still the cheapest and most effective in jungle. -
The different of a mere 0.6 tons tell us the uparmouring of the MY's PT-91 vs Polish PT-91 is negligible.
In fact the difference of ERAWA 1 and 2 are in term of additional explosive in ERAWA 2 which may actually explain the different of mere 0.6 tons in weight between the 2 tanks!!!
I.e. No other armour like ceramic or whatsoever is added to PT-91M, afterall a mere 0.6 tons means nothing anyway, that is why I said that they are based on hearsay.
Anyway ERA is meant to reduce the penetration power of CE rds up to certain percentage and are known to have limited effectiveness against KE rds, so it is still up to baseline armour to prevent full penetration.
With the introduction of ERA , new generation AT weapons mostly come with tandem warhead , to many it is quite effective against ERA, as shown in the test of tandem warhead unguided medium AT weapon of Pzf 3T and 3T600 against ERAWA 2.
Let's look at the kind of anti-armour weapons we have in SAF :
1) Matador LAW which officially has a stated penetration of 450mm RHA which is 5x the cone diameter. The value is certainly at the low side as most modern AT weapon now has Cone penetration ratio of abt 6~7x, for example from the same company, Pzf 3T is abt 6.36x, so I am not surprise that Mindef put up deflated value of the Matador.
So against PT-91M, the Matador against the frontal armour will probably not penetrate, but it is possible to achieve a mobility kill against the sides and the back when it hit the track, road wheels or the powerplant. Btw, only half the track is with ERA shielding.
As for the front , I will not say it is totally useless, for example a sect suddenly encounter a PT-91, first fire 2 Matadors against it hoping for a Optical kill , if not and if they hit ERA blocks , the resultant explosion of the ERA blocks will momentarily disorientate the tank crew for a few seconds due to the shockwave from the explosions, next the sect should throw a few smoke grenades during this time and try make a quick getaway and hide.
2) 84mm Carl Gustaf FFV-751 Tandem warhead HEAT rds has a pentration of 500mm RHA behind ERA, eventhogh it is much better than Matador, but will it penetrate the fromtal armour of PT-91M?
Maybe. the prob is low I believe as many countries are replacing it with a more modern medium unguided rocket like Pzf 3 etc.
I think SAF should do the same.
3) 106mm RR which was still been used by PDF units in the 90s, not sure they are still in svc, anyway , it could be modified to fire top attack LAHAT ATGM which will certainly kill a PT-91M.( but I think it is not necessary since we hv Spike ATGM)
Top attack ATGM will be targeting against the thinnest armour of the tank, the turret roof. Even with ERA, the baseline armour is too thin to prevent penatration and btw the fact that PT-91M has half of turret covered with ERA make it even easier.
Here some photo of PT-91 turret roof:
http://img530.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pict0027zw6.jpg
http://img530.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pict0039bd7.jpg
http://img530.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pict0035mn4.jpg
4) Spike ATGM, same as LAHAT also a top attack ATGM , should not have any problem against PT-91M, in fact with TV optical link, it could precisely target where he want it to hit.
Here a vid on Spike ATGM, turn off the volume as the accompany song is full of profanity, but it does show the precision of the Spike 's TV optical link.
http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_url=/watch%3Feurl%3D%26v%3D0ZK5cs89xUE
5) Hellfire, needless to say another top attack ATGM , I dun think any tank in the world could claim that they are immune to it.
6) Someone suggested to me that our 120mm P138 ICM mortar rds and 155mm cargo rds with their anti-armour bomblets of having a penetration of more than 75mm RHA could penetrate the turret roof of PT-91 that are not covered with ERA ( check the photos above).
So when we see enemy armoured column, a battery of our Bn lvl 120mm or Div lvl 155mm, could decimate part of it and force them to retreat even before they reach the frontline!!
http://www.stengg.com/upload/8205DXAUOGIKO5QWIFD.pdf
http://www.stengg.com/upload/819iE0RQZJP675Q4S3P.pdf
With our Apaches and future Leo 2 , SAF is able to handle any armoured force in SEA. -
The different of a mere 0.6 tons tell us the uparmouring of the MY's PT-91 vs Polish PT-91 is negligible.
In fact the difference of ERAWA 1 and 2 are in term of additional explosive in ERAWA 2 which may actually explain the different of mere 0.6 tons in weight between the 2 tanks!!!
I.e. No other armour like ceramic or whatsoever is added to PT-91M, afterall a mere 0.6 tons means nothing anyway, that is why I said that they are based on hearsay.
Anyway ERA is meant to reduce the penetration power of CE rds up to certain percentage and are known to have limited effectiveness against KE rds, so it is still up to baseline armour to prevent full penetration.
With the introduction of ERA , new generation AT weapons mostly come with tandem warhead , to many it is quite effective against ERA, as shown in the test of tandem warhead unguided medium AT weapon of Pzf 3T and 3T600 against ERAWA 2.
Let's look at the kind of anti-armour weapons we have in SAF :
1) Matador LAW which officially has a stated penetration of 450mm RHA which is 5x the cone diameter. The value is certainly at the low side as most modern AT weapon now has Cone penetration ratio of abt 6~7x, for example from the same company, Pzf 3T is abt 6.36x, so I am not surprise that Mindef put up deflated value of the Matador.
So against PT-91M, the Matador against the frontal armour will probably not penetrate, but it is possible to achieve a mobility kill against the sides and the back when it hit the track, road wheels or the powerplant. Btw, only half the track is with ERA shielding.
As for the front , I will not say it is totally useless, for example a sect suddenly encounter a PT-91, first fire 2 Matadors against it hoping for a Optical kill , if not and if they hit ERA blocks , the resultant explosion of the ERA blocks will momentarily disorientate the tank crew for a few seconds due to the shockwave from the explosions, next the sect should throw a few smoke grenades during this time and try make a quick getaway and hide.
2) 84mm Carl Gustaf FFV-751 Tandem warhead HEAT rds has a pentration of 500mm RHA behind ERA, eventhogh it is much better than Matador, but will it penetrate the fromtal armour of PT-91M?
Maybe. the prob is low I believe as many countries are replacing it with a more modern medium unguided rocket like Pzf 3 etc.
I think SAF should do the same.
3) 106mm RR which was still been used by PDF units in the 90s, not sure they are still in svc, anyway , it could be modified to fire top attack LAHAT ATGM which will certainly kill a PT-91M.( but I think it is not necessary since we hv Spike ATGM)
Top attack ATGM will be targeting against the thinnest armour of the tank, the turret roof. Even with ERA, the baseline armour is too thin to prevent penatration and btw the fact that PT-91M has half of turret covered with ERA make it even easier.
Here some photo of PT-91 turret roof:
http://img530.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pict0027zw6.jpg
http://img530.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pict0039bd7.jpg
http://img530.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pict0035mn4.jpg
4) Spike ATGM, same as LAHAT also a top attack ATGM , should not have any problem against PT-91M, in fact with TV optical link, it could precisely target where he want it to hit.
Here a vid on Spike ATGM, turn off the volume as the accompany song is full of profanity, but it does show the precision of the Spike 's TV optical link.
http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_url=/watch%3Feurl%3D%26v%3D0ZK5cs89xUE
5) Hellfire, needless to say another top attack ATGM , I dun think any tank in the world could claim that they are immune to it.
6) Someone suggested to me that our 120mm P138 ICM mortar rds and 155mm cargo rds with their anti-armour bomblets of having a penetration of more than 75mm RHA could penetrate the turret roof of PT-91 that are not covered with ERA ( check the photos above).
So when we see enemy armoured column, a battery of our Bn lvl 120mm or Div lvl 155mm, could decimate part of it and force them to retreat even before they reach the frontline!!
http://www.stengg.com/upload/8205DXAUOGIKO5QWIFD.pdf
http://www.stengg.com/upload/819iE0RQZJP675Q4S3P.pdf
With our Apaches and future Leo 2 , SAF is able to handle any armoured force in SEA. -
Nice work Gary!
Last i heard, they are going to phase out CG84 training. Or it's already phased out.
I -think- SAF intents to field a new reusable larger calibre AT weapon.
Law was 57mm - matador is 90 mm
CG is 84 mm - replacement....100+mm? Or is this replaced by Spike? I remember spike is a higher orbat weapon.
Actually after reading up ...i think their Adnan and kifvs will also pose a threat.
Their scorpions have a 90mm gun afterall.
So all in all we are still considered evenly matched. -
-
In fact the difference of ERAWA 1 and 2 are in term of additional explosive in ERAWA 2 which may actually explain the different of mere 0.6 tons in weight between the 2 tanks!!!
actually twardy is 43.5 ton and the Malaysian variants is 46.5 ton a 3 ton differents.I.e. No other armour like ceramic or whatsoever is added to PT-91M, afterall a mere 0.6 tons means nothing anyway, that is why I said that they are based on hearsay.
composite armour; front and side armor laminated; front, side and top armor behind Erawa-2 ERA, steel side anti-cumulative screensAnyway ERA is meant to reduce the penetration power of CE rds up to certain percentage and are known to have limited effectiveness against KE rds, so it is still up to baseline armour to prevent full penetration.
agreedWith the introduction of ERA , new generation AT weapons mostly come with tandem warhead , to many it is quite effective against ERA, as shown in the test of tandem warhead unguided medium AT weapon of Pzf 3T and 3T600 against ERAWA 2.
erawa 2 were designed to defeat tandem warhead.So against PT-91M, the Matador against the frontal armour will probably not penetrate, but it is possible to achieve a mobility kill against the sides and the back when it hit the track, road wheels or the powerplant. Btw, only half the track is with ERA shielding.
agreedAs for the front , I will not say it is totally useless, for example a sect suddenly encounter a PT-91, first fire 2 Matadors against it hoping for a Optical kill , if not and if they hit ERA blocks , the resultant explosion of the ERA blocks will momentarily disorientate the tank crew for a few seconds due to the shockwave from the explosions, next the sect should throw a few smoke grenades during this time and try make a quick getaway and hide.
A pt91? one tank? tank work in team. If the tank were hit ADNAN swerved and open fire at the direction of the Matador shot. I dont think anyone is brave enough to fire second shot with 25mm HE exploding around them. Anyone have seen bullet wound from a 25mm HE rounds? The body were blacken and there were small neadle like wound all over the body.2) 84mm Carl Gustaf FFV-751 Tandem warhead HEAT rds has a pentration of 500mm RHA behind ERA, eventhogh it is much better than Matador, but will it penetrate the fromtal armour of PT-91M?
cant say. probably not the front.Maybe. the prob is low I believe as many countries are replacing it with a more modern medium unguided rocket like Pzf 3 etc.
agreed3) 106mm RR which was still been used by PDF units in the 90s, not sure they are still in svc, anyway , it could be modified to fire top attack LAHAT ATGM which will certainly kill a PT-91M.( but I think it is not necessary since we hv Spike ATGM)
top attack missile have some problems when fired underneath the pokok getah or low secondary jungle vegitation.5) Hellfire, needless to say another top attack ATGM , I dun think any tank in the world could claim that they are immune to it.
agree6) Someone suggested to me that our 120mm P138 ICM mortar rds and 155mm cargo rds with their anti-armour bomblets of having a penetration of more than 75mm RHA could penetrate the turret roof of PT-91 that are not covered with ERA ( check the photos above).
its illegal.So when we see enemy armoured column, a battery of our Bn lvl 120mm or Div lvl 155mm, could decimate part of it and force them to retreat even before they reach the frontline!!
agree, some but not all. Its not easy to kill tank with tube arty you know. MLRS probably can.With our Apaches and future Leo 2 , SAF is able to handle any armoured force in SEA.
agreed -
I wouldn't recommend engaging PT-91Ms with the MATADOR unless it is under very favourable circumstances.
Shooting at the tank might be easy, but getting away and living to tell the tale is another story entirely. Ask any iraqi insurgent whose lifespan is measured in seconds after they got up to plink an Abrams with an RPG. -
actually twardy is 43.5 ton and the Malaysian variants is 46.5 ton a 3 ton differents
Where you get that info from?
My Jane Regconition Guide 2002 said 45.3 tons, Janes A&A 97 said 46 tons and Wiki said 45.9 tons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PT-91composite armour; front and side armor laminated; front, side and top armor behind Erawa-2 ERA, steel side anti-cumulative screens
So far I have not heard any Pole say anything abt PT-91M having any ceramic plating, only from Malaysian, you know why?
Becos any Poles that have info from their country knows that Poland do have some ceramics armour which is called CAWA, CAWA-2 etc not ERAWA.
This CAWA-2 ceramics armour was supposed to replace ERAWA on their PT-91 but due to budget constraints , it was not implemented.
Anyway, since you have not proven there is high weight increase for PT-91M, any plating if any has negligible effect, as I said more hearsay than fact!!!erawa 2 were designed to defeat tandem warhead.
Ya right!!!
Polish own tests with Pzf 3T and 3T600 which are both tandem warhead have proven without doubt that PT-91M with ERAWA 2 could be at right angle of impact be penetrated by them as I posted earliar !!!!
Go refer back to my earliar posting.A pt91? one tank? tank work in team. If the tank were hit ADNAN swerved and open fire at the direction of the Matador shot. I dont think anyone is brave enough to fire second shot with 25mm HE exploding around them. Anyone have seen bullet wound from a 25mm HE rounds? The body were blacken and there were small neadle like wound all over the body
At normal circumtances, LAW gunner should not even try to engage PT-91M at the front, but senario I have given was for evasive measure when they are being hunted down by them.
Try to hit the first one and take evasive action as I suggested.top attack missile have some problems when fired underneath the pokok getah or low secondary jungle vegitation.
It depend on the technology of the ATGM.
For example, Spike could still be operate w/o optical link but by thermal imaging( i.e. no wire needd in this case), a true 3rd generation F&F ATGM, unlike that of 2nd gen SACLOS like BHAKTAR SHIKAN , METIS -M etc.
In fact, top attack ATGM is even better than 2nd gen direct fire ATGM, reason is becos one could guide the missile way above the canopy where the 2nd gen direct fire ATGM could not do , thus better in reducing the possibility of entanglement of the wire by the vegetation.
LAHAT and Hellfire II are both laser guided, (for Hellfire II there us also a version which is MW guided), so no problem at all.its illegal.
Who say so???
ST Engg is advertising them in their website, so it is certainly not illegal.
There is talk in Europe to ban the use of cluster munitions or bomblets but so far nothing is concrete.
In fact the likely outcome I think will be banning cluster munitions w/o self-neutralising or self-destruct capability, which STK's cluster munitions ceratinly have such capability, so it will most likely not be illegal in the future even there is ban on it.agree, some but not all. Its not easy to kill tank with tube arty you know. MLRS probably can.
First you said it is illegal, now you are imply the use MLRS which rely on cluster munitions!!!
2ndly, tube arty has a CEP of range of 0.2~0.3% is much more accurate than unguided MLRS like Astro 2 which has at least 1% of CEP( I heard someone said that Astro 2 has CEP of 3%, not sure though, but it is well known fact that unguided rocket has at least 1%)
So in fact, the tube arty has higher prob. of hitting the target than unguided MLRS, and becos of the poor accuracy of unguided rocket, most are of range below 40km.
In fact, unguided rocket is considered obsolete now has new system will be using trajectory correction(0.3~0.5) or GPS(within 10m) guided rockets especially for range above 40km.
Here one Israeli trajectory correction rocket vs unguided rocket.
-
Where you get that info from?
my bad i quote a typo mistake.
My Jane Regconition Guide 2002 said 45.3 tons, Janes A&A 97 said 46 tons and Wiki said 45.9 tons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PT-91So far I have not heard any Pole say anything abt PT-91M having any ceramic plating, only from Malaysian, you know why?
Becos any Poles that have info from their country knows that Poland do have some ceramics armour which is called CAWA, CAWA-2 etc not ERAWA.
This CAWA-2 ceramics armour was supposed to replace ERAWA on their PT-91 but due to budget constraints , it was not implemented.
Anyway, since you have not proven there is high weight increase for PT-91M, any plating if any has negligible effect, as I said more hearsay than fact!!!The main battle tank's defense from high-explosion projectiles and missiles is increased by the new Erawa dynamic armor developed by the Poland Military-Technical Institute. This defense consists of 394 tiles with explosives, detonating in case of a direct hit. The tiles cover 9 m2 on the tank. 108 tiles are placed on the turret, 118 on the hull and 84 on each side's anti-cumulative screens. The PT-91 "Twardy" uses steel anti-cumulative screens instead of the rubber used on the T-72. Erawa's main difference from the Soviet analogs is that Erawa's containers fit almost without gaps while on the Soviet modernised T-72 gaps reach 10 - 15 mm noticeably decreasing defense effectivity. There are two Erawa modifications: Erawa-1 and Erawa-2 differing in weight of the explosives.composite armour; front and side armor laminated; front, side and top armor behind Erawa-2 ERA, steel side anti-cumulative screens
http://www.answers.com/topic/pt-91Experiments showed that the Erawa dynamic defense decreases the high-explosion stream proofing depth by 50 - 70% and undercaliber projectiles - by 30 - 40%. Furthermore explosive containers don't detonate when hit by bullets (up to 30mm), projectile or mine fragmentations, or when covered in burning napalm or petrol
means it probably could handle the cluster munition.Ya right!!!
Polish own tests with Pzf 3T and 3T600 which are both tandem warhead have proven without doubt that PT-91M with ERAWA 2 could be at right angle of impact be penetrated by them as I posted earliar !!!!
Go refer back to my earliar posting.“In May of 2000, there were presentations of Dynamit Nobel Panzerfaust 3 anti-tank grenade launchers for Polish Army as a part of marketing campaign. There were firing tests of Panzerfaust 3 armed with 3T and improved 3-T600 tandem HEAT warheads (Dynamit Nobel claims that 3T is capable of piercing 900mm RHA behind ERA and 3-T600 over 1000mm RHA behind ERA at the hitting angle of 90 degrees). On Polish testing ground 3T was fired upon armoured steel plates of 550mm RHA screened with Erawa-2 at the hitting angle of 30 degrees and 3T-600 was fired at the similar target at hitting angle of 15 degrees. In both situations German warheads pierced through Erawa-2 but then were capable of penetrating only about 400mm of RHA. Germans were surprised by the protecting level gave by Erawa-2.”
At normal circumtances, LAW gunner should not even try to engage PT-91M at the front, but senario I have given was for evasive measure when they are being hunted down by them.
nice senario.
Try to hit the first one and take evasive action as I suggested.It depend on the technology of the ATGM.
try to use that knowledge and fire a lahat here...
For example, Spike could still be operate w/o optical link but by thermal imaging( i.e. no wire needd in this case), a true 3rd generation F&F ATGM, unlike that of 2nd gen SACLOS like BHAKTAR SHIKAN , METIS -M etc.
In fact, top attack ATGM is even better than 2nd gen direct fire ATGM, reason is becos one could guide the missile way above the canopy where the 2nd gen direct fire ATGM could not do , thus better in reducing the possibility of entanglement of the wire by the vegetation.
LAHAT and Hellfire II are both laser guided, (for Hellfire II there us also a version which is MW guided), so no problem at all.
bare in mind a top attack atgm must go where first? before hitting the target?
You will eat your word when you saw what cluster munition did to children in lebanon. Israel also said their Cluster munition have -neutralising or self-destruct capability, i wonder why its still explode.
Who say so???
ST Engg is adverising them in their website, so it is certainly not illegal.
There is talk in Europe to ban the use of cluster munitions or bomblets but so far nothing is concrete.
In fact the likely outcome I think will be banning cluster munitions w/o self-neutralising or self-destruct capability, which is STK cluster munitions ceratinly have such capability, so it will not be illegal in the future.
I meant MLRS using guided munition. Its been used extensively during GW1.
First you said it is illegal, now you are imply the use MLRS which rely on cluster munitions!!!2ndly, tube arty has a CEP of range of 0.2~0.3% is much more accurate than unguided MLRS like Astro 2 which has at least 1% of CEP( I heard someone said that Astro 2 has CEP of 3%, not sure though, but it is well known fact that unguided rocket has at least 1%)
yes but astros have effect a bigger areaSo in fact, the tube arty has higher prob. of hitting the target than unguided MLRS, and becos of the poor accuracy of unguided rocket, most are of range below 40km.
you mean the katyusha fired by the hezbollah?In fact, unguided rocket is considered obsolete now has new system will be using trajectory correction(0.3~0.5) or GPS(within 10m) guided rockets especially for range above 40km.
thats what i meant, MLRS with guided munition.
