BUTT face to the pride of malaysia PT-91M?
-
ive heard about losat before..... i thought it was canceled?
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
Surely you jest? I'd like to see the maths for that.
Currently, the most powerful dedicated AP weapon ever created (in my knowledge) is the LOSAT. It strikes with so much kinetic energy that if none of it was dispersed by the armour breaking or melting or into sound or what, an MBT hit by it would be displaced 600 meters!
FWIW, the LOSAT penetrator is supposed to generate the equivalent of 5 times the kinetic energy of the best penetrator fielded, at that time. Given that the KE of an APFSDS dart cannot be more than the energy contained in the firing charge ... and given that an MBT isn't sent flying back 50m when firing one ... How would a LOSAT displace a 50ton target by 600 metres?
Lets see you think up of something for this one
-
Dude ... the bank of smoke grenade launchers on the turrents (PT-91M has 24 of them) ... what do you think they are for and what kind of smoke do you think these throw out? (see snowfox's post)Originally posted by tankfanatic:these smoke screen were deployed when the tank column were jumped by AH. T72 use generate smokes by injecting air in to the engine(plese confirm this) un fortunately modern thermal imagers especially mounted on AH can see tru the smoke. So these new smoke screen were invented to deny that.
In any case ... a cut and paste from the past ...
Generating smoke in this manner is a (relatively) simple matter of injecting diesel fuel into the exhaust manifold in a controlled amount. Off the top of my head, I know that the Chally 2 and M60A3 can do this ... seen it on video. I'm sure the complete list is likely to be much longer than that.
A lot of Russian-made tanks have this ability to create a smokescreen by injecting diesle fuel into some gadgets or something. I've read that in many places but don't know if this is more effective than smoke dischargers.
The difference between smoke from diesel smoke generators and smoke grenade launchers is a matter of time and obscuration qualities.
Smoke grenade launchers fire their grenades off in a pre-determined pattern. The grenades explode a few metres above the tank, much like one of those fireworks air-burst. The resultant dispersed smoke pellets produce a dense screen that totally cover the firing platform in a couple of seconds. Smoke generators OTOH take much longer to produce an effective screen for the emitting tank, mainly because it is producing smoke from a single source instead of from hundreds of dispersed pellets. Think of the smoke grenades you used to chuck around and how long it took to produce effective concealment.
Smoke grenades also typically use a phospor/rubber compound as their active ingredient and this generates a screen that works not only in the visible spectrum but also in the IR spectrum, effectively concealing the platform from thermal sights. Diesel smoke OTOH only works in the visible spectrum. -
ello mister koteh?
Dude ... the bank of smoke grenade launchers on the turrents (PT-91M has 24 of them) ... what do you think they are for and what kind of smoke do you think these throw out? (see snowfox's post)
im talking about T-72 pal not PT91M. Also im not talking about the method of dispersing the smoke it self, but about the two type of smoke screen. Hence i say about the new smoke screen and the diesel generated screen.In any case ... a cut and paste from the past ...
i didnt cut and paste pal, that is my own word and understanding.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A lot of Russian-made tanks have this ability to create a smokescreen by injecting diesle fuel into some gadgets or something. I've read that in many places but don't know if this is more effective than smoke dischargers.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
Originally posted by snowfox_my:
Ah Snowie, Snowie ... so you really are Snowfox from militarynuts.com then?
[b]When was the Claimed Made?
Like you mentioned, Show the evidence Please. Or Like Before Put Up or keep your silence, and Stay on the Topic Thread.
If you want to talk about NATO Deployment, You may consider starting an another Thread on the Issue. You had done it before, recall the Ground Pressure Thingy.
Why Mention Finland, Try searching for Reports from the Fins reagrding their experiences using the T-72 and the Leopard 2A4. Get More independent reports, if possible get 1st hand experience.
[/b]
My bad then ... you've never outright claimed to be a staffie in the SAF ... I'd be more accurate to rephrase my statement to ... "I conjecture that he is some staff weenie in the SAF".
Why would I say so ... well on the evidence of the following statements that you have previously made ...
additions in parenthesis are for context ...Snowfox:
(I) would love to get the system at your quoted prices, (I) was quoted about 50K for a "2nd rated SAM" and everytime have to launch two missiles, to achieve a good probability of kill. Prices of a fairly good SAM, MANPAD simple guidance type, paying several 100K. So please share your agent, from the savings, maybe GST don't have to increase this year.
If you want to see the (above) Pricing, please apply to work for a certain agency, get clearance approved, then maybe if you work long enough. You need not get your data from the internet. If you need to ask which agency......
... does not matter, my Command had asked me to stay for another Tour
and most recently
Go for your military advance courses, and you may understand the game plan.
So please share your 1st hand experience with the T-72 and Leo 2. If not, then just answer the damn question, why mention Finland with regards to the discussion that Poland's Leopards and their necessity for entry into NATO.
Why Mention Finland, Try searching for Reports from the Fins reagrding their experiences using the T-72 and the Leopard 2A4. Get More independent reports, if possible get 1st hand experience.
Ooooooh ... I really don't know ... maybe I'm just reading too much into the above (plus lots of other throwaway comments you've made on militarynuts.com)
In any case, for those of you who don't visit militarynuts.com and want a handle on how snowfox conducts his "arguments" and answers questions without really answering them ... have a look at this thread and make your own judgements ...
MBT thread from militarynuts.com -
Originally posted by tankfanatic:
Have a look at pictures of the T-72 and all it's deriviatives ... please don't tell me that they do not have smoke grenade launchers on them? The PT-91M was just to give a local example of a T-72 (albeit upgraded) and it's smoke grenade launchers.
im talking about T-72 pal not PT91M. Also im not talking about the method of dispersing the smoke it self, but about the two type of smoke screen. Hence i say about the new smoke screen and the diesel generated screen. ello?
Maybe I misunderstood you, your post seemed to imply that T-72s are restricted to generated smoke.
My bad ... I could have made myself more clear, the cut and paste was from my past post on this issue from here ...
i didnt cut and paste pal, that is my own word and understanding.
smoke grenade lauchers on SAF armoured vehicles
We cool?
[edit to fix formatting] -
ATGM - TV (TOW, visual), Thermal (Spike, I/R) , Laser (Maverick), Radar (Longbow + Hellfire?)
It's that it? Or am i wrong here?
And Snowfox, dont run away lar.
What's your unit/Vocation/ defense Company. -
im cool! i cant believe you use kotay as you nick name. LOL. very funny and quite embarassing. Just imagine when someone ask me the source of my info. I say..'from a kotey..' lol just joking
-
No worries ... I've chose that nick so I have to be cool with comments about it.Originally posted by tankfanatic:im cool! i cant believe you use kotay as you nick name. LOL. very funny and quite embarassing. Just imagine when someone ask me the source of my info. I say..'from a kotey..' lol just joking
In anycase, it's not as bad as citing your source as "YourFather" (from militarynuts.com) .... limbeh ka wah kong eh hor! No pray pray! -
lol
-
Dude, that comes from the Lightweight Fighter Mafia webbie!Originally posted by fvwerra:There is an article claiming LOSAT is load of CRAP.
http://www.g2mil.com/Losat.htm
What do you think?
And it seems they were making fun of the system itself, not to concept. Notice they suggested a HYPERSONIC unguided KEM as the alternative.
Hard to believe if you saw the videos of it being tested, it totally seperated the turret of the tank and blew a lot of it into itty, bitty bits.
And yes it was canned, but it's sucessor is in the works.
All that aside, the fundemental principle of rocket KE AT weapons seem to be sound, the concept demostrated to work, can send more energy then possible with normal tube rounds, and one can only guess how it will be applied. -
I think having 2 ways to generate smoke screen is great.
You use smoke grenade when your tank engine is not running or you simple need more smoke. The diesel smoke screen can't be nearly as effective as the smoke grenades.
And when you've run out of smoke grenades, you sill have the diesel smoke.
So I would say they complement each other. -
Then I think you should refer the missile as CKEM instead of LOSAT.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Dude, that comes from the Lightweight Fighter Mafia webbie!
And it seems they were making fun of the system itself, not to concept. Notice they suggested a HYPERSONIC unguided KEM as the alternative.
Hard to believe if you saw the videos of it being tested, it totally seperated the turret of the tank and blew a lot of it into itty, bitty bits.
And yes it was canned, but it's sucessor is in the works.
All that aside, the fundemental principle of rocket KE AT weapons seem to be sound, the concept demostrated to work, can send more energy then possible with normal tube rounds, and one can only guess how it will be applied.
Imagine what a weapon it would be...hitting armor at Mach 6.5 from range as close as 400 m. The shock wave alone is tremendous. -
If you see the test vids, the targets were demolished, not just knocked out. Total overkill.Originally posted by fvwerra:Then I think you should refer the missile as CKEM instead of LOSAT.
Imagine what a weapon it would be...hitting armor at Mach 6.5 from range as close as 400 m. The shock wave alone is tremendous.
I wonder if active defence systems work against it... I mean it probably moves faster then your APS projectiles... a laser system might work, but it might already be in the terminal mode by the time you engage it, and while you can destroy the missile, the sheer KE might carry it on to slam into the target. -
----> It cant be cheap.
-----> Collateral damage will be huge.
------> "real" usage ie only thing that can do that job is probably limited.
Atgms and silver bullets can do most of its job.
----->No way you use that in urban/ confine areas. Logistic problem or either bringing more ammo and having to store them in the tank itself.
It's impractical...was it Teo Chee Hean who said we will use missile-only tanks in the future? It's like saying our personel will only carry minature matadors. or Super LW AGL. Dont need rifle liaoz. -
Erm.. you say ATGMs can do most of the jobs.. yet say missile only tanks are ridiculous...Originally posted by CM06:----> It cant be cheap.
-----> Collateral damage will be huge.
------> "real" usage ie only thing that can do that job is probably limited.
Atgms and silver bullets can do most of its job.
----->No way you use that in urban/ confine areas. Logistic problem or either bringing more ammo and having to store them in the tank itself.
It's impractical...was it Teo Chee Hean who said we will use missile-only tanks in the future? It's like saying our personel will only carry minature matadors. or Super LW AGL. Dont need rifle liaoz.
The only upgrade path available right now is to use a larger calibre gun which will bring a slew of new logistics problems given how large the rounds and propellant are. -
What i mean is:
Infantry(Elevation/Cover/Concealment/Stealth) and AH(Speed, Range) can carry missiles.
Tanks(Holding Force/Armoured/Mobility/Firepower) can carry big gun.
Tanks can carry missiles yes but infantry/AH cannot carry 120mm Gun Barrel.
Keep it that way.
Fingol:
And my Previous "cant be cheap blah post" was referring to the HyperVelo KE round. I dont find it practical. -
Presently? No we can't use it, not to mention there are no real systems being sold out there yet.
But in the future? Certainly. If you look at the way weapons development is going, it will be a matter of time before KEMs become standard in armoured warfare, just as how the ATGM itself was introduced. I don't think it's a matter of if, more of a matter of when.
Technically this technology can defeat all known current armour protection systems (though it's effectiveness against active suits is unknown) and prehaps even future protection systems for some time, unless some revolutionary protection technology comes about.
When this technology matures, I think you can bet the SAF will jump on it... as well as the MAF. This of course will call into question the future of MBTs in the battlefield. I mean a Hummer can carry more LOS firepower then an MBT, as well as a system that can defeat all known armour threats, the advantages of an MBT having armour and firepower have been more of less negated.
Basically the armoured fist cannot punch if a technology is developed that enables a lighter, quicker rival to engage you beyond the range of your own weapon. Just as how machine guns effectively ended the days of the horse calvary and the aircraft carrier that of the battleship as king of the seas.
Eventually you might see a trend towards "tanks" that put less emphasis on passive protection (which can't protect against hyperkinetic munitions anyway), and more on active suites and having armour that is designed to protect against lower-caliber attacks, and firepower to kill just about anything in its LOS and maybe even with indirect fire. To survive the "tank" can no longer rely on taking shots and fielding multi ton armour but instead on being hidden, hitting the enemy where does not expect, as well as other tatics.
To get an idea of what is happening, the Yanks are not developing a next gen MBT to replace to M1A2, but a different concept of "tank" entirely in their FCS systems.
The "tank" is not obsolete, the idea of a mobile, protected space will always be around in various forms but it may not exist in the way we are familiar with. As one armour commander said "it will always be around, but you might not call it as a tank, call it a horse if you want"
Just as how the idea of calvary never died out, but evolved into tanks and armoured warfare. -
Yeah.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:The "tank" is not obsolete, the idea of a mobile, protected space will always be around in various forms but it may not exist in the way we are familiar with. As one armour commander said "it will always be around, but you might not call it as a tank, call it a horse if you want"
Just as how the idea of calvary never died out, but evolved into tanks and armoured warfare.
Just look at all the Star Wars-type sci-fi movies. All the fighters and vehicles have a power generated "shield". So that's maybe where the next gen of armour protection would be.
-
From what is written. Guessing that you may not have served with a Armour Formation.Originally posted by tankfanatic:these smoke screen were deployed when the tank column were jumped by AH. T72 use generate smokes by injecting air in to the engine(plese confirm this) un fortunately modern thermal imagers especially mounted on AH can see tru the smoke. So these new smoke screen were invented to deny that.
Diesel Smoke generation
Diesel Smoke generation is a very common tactic. and Most of SAF Diesel A-Vehicles can do this. Diesel when spary (Not Pour) onto a very hot surface, turns white, In this Tatctic, Diesel is spary as a fine mist into the Exhaust Pipe, The Exhaust help to spread the smoke about.
Trivial
The type of Smoke (Grey/White/Black) that a engine be it Armour of civilian Diesel vehicle give off, indicate what area of the engine is giving problem.
Please don't misunderstand, that others will look down or jeer. AM believer in see things from multiple points of views.
It's those so call "experts" that jeer at people that "Make My Day". 
Been Searching for Public Domain of Multiple Spectra Smoke System. The Galix System agree is very old, but there are more than meet the eye in the French system.
These are some old Stuff (Difference here is some don't know, and some "expert" whom know didn't share, just throw a link, which is very deep)
Leopard Throwing Training Smoke: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUoX-Gqd35o -
Originally posted by kotay:So please share your 1st hand experience with the T-72 and Leo 2. If not, then just answer the damn question, why mention Finland with regards to the discussion that Poland's Leopards and their necessity for entry into NATO.
Ooooooh ... I really don't know ... maybe I'm just reading too much into the above (plus lots of other throwaway comments you've made on militarynuts.com)
In any case, for those of you who don't visit militarynuts.com and want a handle on how snowfox conducts his "arguments" and answers questions without really answering them ... have a look at this thread and make your own judgements ...
MBT thread from militarynuts.com Sorry Off Topic
One Moment you say I am from SAF, the Next, you post one that hint I am from "Agency" Make up your mind. Or Post one that say I am from one or the other. Initally Thought that you were a Singaporean. Well for some of us there is such thing call National Service, some 2 years full time (New system, 24/30 months old system) and have to serve several years (!0 years New, 13 years Old system) after that.
(Thought that you were a Singaporean, as you mentioned that you MR, Military Reserves) Some serve extended Tour (That is why Command Ask them, don't think that those series of interview were ever occur for you), after the the Team has MR.
So Which is Which for Me, Go and Find out yourself, The Agency is alway looking for Good People, Just Apply.Originally posted by kotay: 09 May 2007 · 09:25 AM
He's got the same habit of deliberately misunderstanding posts, throwing out smoke screens when the debate is not going his way and making claims of having access to information but not being able to provide proof. (see his claims about press releases above). Looks who is Twisting what
Back to Topic Proper
Kotay, show us your strenght in Research reagrding this Topic Thread
Why not Enlighten Us, as to the Thinking Behind the Design of T-72(T-91) and Leopard Tank, both were mean to Face off each other During the Cold War. -
Like you said, the Galix is old ... have a look at this link ... Active Protection SystemsOriginally posted by snowfox_my:Been Searching for Public Domain of Multiple Spectra Smoke System. The Galix System agree is very old, but there are more than meet the eye in the French system.
These are some old Stuff (Difference here is some don't know, and some "expert" whom know didn't share, just throw a link, which is very deep)The GALIX System
Granted this was in 1998 and it has changed since then. The Galix is now being paired up with Giat's KBCM to provide automated response slaved to the LWR (amongst other things). See also here
The French Galix countermeasure system mounted on the Leclerc MBT consists of an electrical control unit and launching tubes set into the rear of the turret. Galix is turret mounted and provides 360° protection. It can fire 80mm smoke rounds, anti-personnel rounds, or decoy rounds out to 30-50 meters, in single rounds or in salvoes. The Galix system reaction time is less than one second and is reported to protect Leclerc against any known weapon on the battlefield. The Galix 13 smoke round can produce a smoke screen that includes visual and multi-band screening agents, over an arc of 120° to the front of the vehicle, that can last up to 30 seconds. This screen can blind any optically or IR-controlled weapon system. The IR decoy deviates the trajectory of antitank missiles controlled by an IR seeker. It is operated from the top of the vehicle and is efficient for more than 10 seconds. A major shortfall of the galix system is the lack of an LWR to alert the crew and automatically cue the system.
Everything you always wanted to know about smoke ... or not
The US Army Field Manual FM 3-50 is a good primer on the military use of smoke.
Of Particular interest is
- Appendix G: Obscurants and how they work
- Appendix B: Electro Optical Systems
Have fun reading ... -
Originally posted by snowfox_my:
Well, we can't all be as sought after as you ...
One Moment you say I am from SAF, the Next, you post one that hint I am from "Agency" Make up your mind. Or Post one that say I am from one or the other. Initally Thought that you were a Singaporean. Well for some of us there is such thing call National Service, some 2 years full time (New system, 24/30 months old system) and have to serve several years (!0 years New, 13 years Old system) after that.
(Thought that you were a Singaporean, as you mentioned that you MR, Military Reserves) Some serve extended Tour (That is why Command Ask them, don't think that those series of interview were ever occur for you), after the the Team has MR.
So Which is Which for Me, Go and Find out yourself, The Agency is alway looking for Good People, Just Apply.
I'm sure the quality of your post will speak for themselves.Back to Topic Proper
Mate, you haven't even replied half the questions asked of you and now you try to divert attention by tasking people to do research and write ups? When you were the one that brought up the issue in the first place?
Kotay, show us your strenght in Research reagrding this Topic Thread
Why not Enlighten Us, as to the Thinking Behind the Design of T-72(T-91) and Leopard Tank, both were mean to Face off each other During the Cold War.
Nice try ...
Why don't you do it? -
Eventually you might see a trend towards "tanks" that put less emphasis on passive protection (which can't protect against hyperkinetic munitions anyway), and more on active suites and having armour that is designed to protect against lower-caliber attacks, and firepower to kill just about anything in its LOS and maybe even with indirect fire. To survive the "tank" can no longer rely on taking shots and fielding multi ton armour but instead on being hidden, hitting the enemy where does not expect, as well as other tatics.
the more i read this the more i think MAF did the right thing... -
From what is written. Guessing that you may not have served with a Armour Formation.
im not. But Collin Power did. Unless you are smarter than him...i just wanna inform you that i summarise his word about the smoke generator from iraqi T55. He was impress that the RG in the last minute of the invasion modified all its T55 smoke generator by adding steel pipe at the front. It is assumed that by doing that the smokes will engulf the whole tank when retreating during battle (or when attacking)
unfortunately most of them either die trying or just run.Diesel Smoke generation
hoho i would like to see you spray some diesen on a hot exhaust, that would be fun.
Diesel Smoke generation is a very common tactic. and Most of SAF Diesel A-Vehicles can do this. Diesel when spary (Not Pour) onto a very hot surface, turns white, In this Tatctic, Diesel is spary as a fine mist into the Exhaust Pipe, The Exhaust help to spread the smoke about.Trivial
any 4x4 junkie know this
The type of Smoke (Grey/White/Black) that a engine be it Armour of civilian Diesel vehicle give off, indicate what area of the engine is giving problem.Please don't misunderstand, that others will look down or jeer. AM believer in see things from multiple points of views.
im sorry .. actually i dont understand at all your point.
It's those so call "experts" that jeer at people that "Make My Day".