by Guest » Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:00 am
JWintjes wrote:
Could be difficult as the RPG-7 was only introduced in the early 1960s...
Nitpicking again. It was delivered in 1961, but is nearly indistinguishable from earlier RPG-2.
JWintjes wrote:
I'm not nitpicking. I'm correcting the wrong statements you make.
Nitpicking is the ostentatious correction of trivial errors that has no bearing on the main point.
JWintjes wrote:
40mm of vertical homogeneous armor is still in all likelihood weaker than Tiger II 80mm inclined face hardened armor against kenetic projectiles.
Ok, so we are narrowing it down to KE now?
You keep changing the rules, my friend...
A change of rules in your favor. So long as the protection is steel, different quality of the material has almost no effect on resistance to HEAT penetration. Thus Tiger's 80mm would certainly offer better resistance, such as it were, to any HEAT rounds than Leopard II's supposed 40mm or 60mm. Different quality of steel does, however, have impact on resistance to kenetic penetration. Thus it is less clear whether Tiger's 80mm would in fact afford more protection than Leopard's 40mm or 60mm. In you eagerness to pick every nit, you overlooked a shift of rules to your advantage.
Certainly rear quarter protection of modern tanks have not seen daramtic improvement since WWII comparable to the level of improvements seen over the frontal arc.
This is mainly a question of where the main threat comes from , or is it?
Jorit[/quote]
Since no modern tank, except possibly LeClerk or Merkava III, has anything but simple rolled steel plate protection on their rear, they are as vulnerable to HEAT round from that quarter as any WWII tank, more so than those that possessed skirt armor such as late model PzKfW IV. The material that density of steel has not changed since Tiger II and modern tank's 60-70 ton weight range strongly suggest that whatever rolled steel plates they have in their rear quarters can't be too thick. Certainly not dramatically thicker than any found on the likes of the Tiger. So the conclusion must be anyone can take out any modern tank from the rear with an RPG, and any tank this side of a PzkfW III can also take out any modern MBT with a good kenetic shot to the rear of the turret from inside several hundred yards.
Modern tanks are indeed very tough against specific types of projectile delivered from the frontal quarter. Perhaps greater maneuverability, enhanced situation awareness resulting from improved training, better sensor and higher tactical cordination would reduce the possibility of it being attack from the rear. But if the attack from the rear does come, modern tanks are very vulnerable.
[quote="JWintjes"]
Could be difficult as the RPG-7 was only introduced in the early 1960s... :wink: :big_grin:
[/quote]
Nitpicking again. It was delivered in 1961, but is nearly indistinguishable from earlier RPG-2.
[quote="JWintjes"]
I'm not nitpicking. I'm correcting the wrong statements you make. [/quote]
Nitpicking is the ostentatious correction of trivial errors that has no bearing on the main point.
[quote="JWintjes"]
[quote]40mm of vertical homogeneous armor is still in all likelihood weaker than Tiger II 80mm inclined face hardened armor against kenetic projectiles.[/quote]
Ok, so we are narrowing it down to KE now?
You keep changing the rules, my friend... :wink:
[/quote]
A change of rules in your favor. So long as the protection is steel, different quality of the material has almost no effect on resistance to HEAT penetration. Thus Tiger's 80mm would certainly offer better resistance, such as it were, to any HEAT rounds than Leopard II's supposed 40mm or 60mm. Different quality of steel does, however, have impact on resistance to kenetic penetration. Thus it is less clear whether Tiger's 80mm would in fact afford more protection than Leopard's 40mm or 60mm. In you eagerness to pick every nit, you overlooked a shift of rules to your advantage.
[quote]Certainly rear quarter protection of modern tanks have not seen daramtic improvement since WWII comparable to the level of improvements seen over the frontal arc.[/quote]
This is mainly a question of where the main threat comes from , or is it?
Jorit[/quote]
Since no modern tank, except possibly LeClerk or Merkava III, has anything but simple rolled steel plate protection on their rear, they are as vulnerable to HEAT round from that quarter as any WWII tank, more so than those that possessed skirt armor such as late model PzKfW IV. The material that density of steel has not changed since Tiger II and modern tank's 60-70 ton weight range strongly suggest that whatever rolled steel plates they have in their rear quarters can't be too thick. Certainly not dramatically thicker than any found on the likes of the Tiger. So the conclusion must be anyone can take out any modern tank from the rear with an RPG, and any tank this side of a PzkfW III can also take out any modern MBT with a good kenetic shot to the rear of the turret from inside several hundred yards.
Modern tanks are indeed very tough against specific types of projectile delivered from the frontal quarter. Perhaps greater maneuverability, enhanced situation awareness resulting from improved training, better sensor and higher tactical cordination would reduce the possibility of it being attack from the rear. But if the attack from the rear does come, modern tanks are very vulnerable.