Explosively formed projectiles

[JWintjes]

Ehm, Chuck,

RPG-7 penetrates anything from 300mm RHA onwards. Which means it will kill a Tiger fair and square from the front.

It even has tandem warhead capability.

Jorit

I said light, not weak.



And what does tandem warhead do for you against solid steel armor?

Chuck,

the 300mm RHA figure is for a single-stage HEAT warhead.

Besides, I was thinking of 1st generation 1950 RPG-7 warheads, whose performance probably deteriorate somewhat over the years.

Could be difficult as the RPG-7 was only introduced in the early 1960s...

But, stop nitpicking.

I'm not nitpicking. I'm correcting the wrong statements you make.

The defense of most modern tanks are weak in the rear quarter, and much weaker than is necessary to counter scores of easily available weapons.

Actually I'd agree with that - only that I see the real problem in the side armour.

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...

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

[Guest]

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.

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.

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.

[Werner]

Since this is really far afield, it would seem to me for armor to be effective in today's world it has to be compound, with a reactive layer, a steel layer, a ceramic layer an, air space (or possibly filled with Kevlar) and then a layer of high strength material possibly alloyed with tungsten or something to give it the ability to resist deformation and fracture at extremely high temperatures and pressures. Certainly in this day and age such alloys must exist for industrial or mining purposes. It seems the design of tanks stalled after 1950.

I really wonder how 8 inches of polycarbonate compares with 8 inches of steel.

[JWintjes]

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.

Utter nonsense.

They look vaguely similar, but it really ends there. They behave markedly different. The RPG-2 really is nothing more than a tube able to haul a first-generation HEAT warhead over perhaps 150m. Penetration capability perhaps 150mm.

RPG-7 has a host of different ammunitions available capable of penetrating up to 650-700mm RHA as well as Shmel-type warheads.

Nitpicking is the ostentatious correction of trivial errors that has no bearing on the main point.

The main point here is that you don't really know what you're talking about...

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Jorit

[Guest]

[quote="JWintjes"]
They look vaguely similar, but it really ends there. They behave markedly different. The RPG-2 really is nothing more than a tube able to haul a first-generation HEAT warhead over perhaps 150m.


[quote]

And RPG-7 is not anything more than a simple tube with a small optical sight attached?

IN so far as RPG-7 has more warheads, it is largely an effect of it having remained in service for 45 years. Nothing other than the era when it's in service gave it the collection of warheads it has. Similar warheads could also be developed for RPG-2.

[quote="JWintjes"]
The main point here is that you don't really know what you're talking about... Wink Big Grin

Sorry, couldn't resist. [quote]


Other people may take offense, but I understand and forgive you. In your profession it is usually fatal to admit "I have nothing of value to add"

You encounter that dangerous situation so often that it has become automatic reflex to try to overwhelm with nitpicks whenever it arises.

:Wink

[Guest]

I really wonder how 8 inches of polycarbonate compares with 8 inches of steel.

The details depends on which polycarbonate. But on a gross level, I think you will be hard pressed to find any polycarbonate that is both tougher than steel against kenetic penetration, and better than steel against chemical penetration.

[JWintjes]

Nothing other than the era when it's in service gave it the collection of warheads it has. Similar warheads could also be developed for RPG-2.

But you do realize that this actually did not happen - because the Russians thought that the RPG-2 which entered service in the late 1940s was long in the teeth at the end of the 1950s?

Other people may take offense, but I understand and forgive you. In your profession it is usually fatal to admit "I have nothing of value to add"

I guess we have a lot in common here - in your profession it's usually fatal to admit "there is something I don't know"...

As an aside, we currently have a mini-crisis in one of the companies running nuclear reactors for precisely that reason...

You encounter that dangerous situation so often that it has become automatic reflex to try to overwhelm with nitpicks whenever it arises.

You just admitted that there is reason to nitpick...

Jorit

[chuck]

I guess we have a lot in common here - in your profession it's usually fatal to admit "there is something I don't know"...

Indeed. The high moral standards of our profession does not abide by the sort of affected modesty associated with pretending that there are things which we do not know.

As an aside, we currently have a mini-crisis in one of the companies running nuclear reactors for precisely that reason...

Jorit

One could only hope.

You just admitted that there is reason to nitpick...

Jorit

Indeed, much as there are for theft, murder, rape, incest, etc

[JWintjes]

Indeed. The high moral standards of our profession does not abide by the sort of affected modesty associated with pretending that there are things which we do not know.

Good to know the future of modern technological societies is in the hands of folks like you.

Indeed, much as there are for theft, murder, rape, incest, etc

Undoubtedly speaking from experience?



Sorry, that was mean, but I really couldn't let that opportunity pass...

Jorit

[Ron S]

OK, we got who's got the biggest wee-wee with guns, who's skin is thicker dickering over tank armor and the possible but improbable wonder weapon..........sounded about as useful the Picatinny teflon ping pong ball gun that could defeat 3 feet of RHA.......with an evacuated bore and an evacuated test chamber........yep, you could geta teflon pingpong ball moving fast enough to go right through 3 feet of RHA..........in a lab.

[Werner]

OK, we got who's got the biggest wee-wee with guns, who's skin is thicker dickering over tank armor and the possible but improbable wonder weapon..........sounded about as useful the Picatinny teflon ping pong ball gun that could defeat 3 feet of RHA.......with an evacuated bore and an evacuated test chamber........yep, you could geta teflon pingpong ball moving fast enough to go right through 3 feet of RHA..........in a lab.

At Los Alamos in the late '80s they were using a laser to evacuate the atmospheric "tube" through which the charged particle weapon fired.

[Ron S]

OK, we got who's got the biggest wee-wee with guns, who's skin is thicker dickering over tank armor and the possible but improbable wonder weapon..........sounded about as useful the Picatinny teflon ping pong ball gun that could defeat 3 feet of RHA.......with an evacuated bore and an evacuated test chamber........yep, you could geta teflon pingpong ball moving fast enough to go right through 3 feet of RHA..........in a lab.

At Los Alamos in the late '80s they were using a laser to evacuate the atmospheric "tube" through which the charged particle weapon fired.

No charged particle, literally a teflon ping pong ball fired with conventional propellants.....problem is both the ping pong ball and the charged particle weapon need support equipment the size of small ships each.

[Werner]

At Los Alamos in the late '80s they were using a laser to evacuate the atmospheric "tube" through which the charged particle weapon fired.

No charged particle, literally a teflon ping pong ball fired with conventional propellants.....problem is both the ping pong ball and the charged particle weapon need support equipment the size of small ships each.

In an annex to Norm Polmar's modern naval weapons series there is a picture of an aerial defense laser system that fits precisely into the well which exists when a vertical launch system is removed. A revision to the AEgis system corrects for the line-of-sight effectiveness of the weapon.

These weapons have been demonstrated to shoot down both substantial high velocity weapons of the MLRS and smaller multiple Katysha in salvos.

My understanding is the inhibition for taking this weapon to sea is the cost of conversion of a prototype ship as all the procurement dollars are being siphoned into operations at this time.