Jump to content


Photo

Anti-Armor

penetrators

  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 Puckett

Puckett

    Crunchie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 34 posts

Posted 29 March 2020 - 1335 PM

hi tankers, i have a question.....do we still use explosively formed penetrators to take out armor ????  if i want to know anything i always come to you guys. thank you puckett.


  • 0

#2 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,857 posts

Posted 29 March 2020 - 1418 PM

The TOW 2B's warhead uses them. As well as the CBU-97 SFW's BLU-108 submunitions.


  • 0

#3 Mighty_Zuk

Mighty_Zuk

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 689 posts

Posted 29 March 2020 - 1518 PM

By "we" you mean British army, western armies, any relevant army, or any type of armed force?

If it's the latter, then on top of the examples given by Dawes, EFP is quite a commonly used mechanism in IEDs made by even the less established terrorist organizations and guerilla fighters.
  • 0

#4 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,337 posts

Posted 29 March 2020 - 1727 PM

Before they became "the thing" in Iraq, they were used on Kosovo, improvised with most common liner being traditional copper dishes. Knowledge probably came via Iranian connection.


  • 0

#5 DB

DB

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,714 posts

Posted 17 April 2020 - 1018 AM

ASW torpedoes probably use EFPs, and several types of AT mines also seem to, as well.
  • 0

#6 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,337 posts

Posted 17 April 2020 - 1344 PM

ASW torpedoes probably use EFPs...

US Mk.46 IIRC used classical shaped charge, but IIRC Italian one whose name escapes me ATM had EFP. Some Soviet one used hemispherical shaped charge (feature also shared with a lot of the Soviet anti-ship missiles, SS-N-2 and 19 for sure).

torpedo_eurotorp_cutaway_diagram_turbine


Edited by bojan, 17 April 2020 - 1346 PM.

  • 0

#7 Rick

Rick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,941 posts

Posted 17 April 2020 - 1520 PM

For those of you who know such things, wasn't there a kinetic energy anti-tank weapon that was basically a sabot with a rocket motor in the back?

Thanks.


  • 0

#8 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,337 posts

Posted 17 April 2020 - 1548 PM

Yes, LOSAT and CKEM. Both went nowhere.


  • 0

#9 Mighty_Zuk

Mighty_Zuk

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 689 posts

Posted 17 April 2020 - 1634 PM

Yes, LOSAT and CKEM. Both went nowhere.

Yeah but they went there pretty damn fast.


  • 0

#10 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,337 posts

Posted 17 April 2020 - 1807 PM

1350-1450m/s terminal, but they took a long to accelerate to an effective velocity, IIRC about 1km+.


Edited by bojan, 17 April 2020 - 1808 PM.

  • 0

#11 Rick

Rick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,941 posts

Posted 17 April 2020 - 1822 PM

1350-1450m/s terminal, but they took a long to accelerate to an effective velocity, IIRC about 1km+.

Hhmmm. Wonder if rocket motor technology has improved in this department? Appears to me -- if said rocket motor is available -- that this would be a good anti-tank weapon. Don't know about backblast though.


  • 0

#12 Sami Jumppanen

Sami Jumppanen

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,332 posts

Posted 26 April 2020 - 0440 AM

Launch signature may be too much for land use. Or missile's physical size.

 

Edit: Why the quotes don't work?


Edited by Sami Jumppanen, 26 April 2020 - 0440 AM.

  • 0

#13 CaptLuke

CaptLuke

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,192 posts

Posted 26 April 2020 - 1221 PM

Launch signature may be too much for land use. Or missile's physical size.

 

Edit: Why the quotes don't work?

 

 

Seems like most articles/discussion-threads are mystified about why the whole LOSAT/CKEM/HVM line was cancelled.  Most speculation is around signature (as you mention) but there's also some speculation that all the available money went to JAGM as a higher priority.


Edited by CaptLuke, 26 April 2020 - 2131 PM.

  • 0

#14 DB

DB

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,714 posts

Posted 04 May 2020 - 1235 PM

The only real benefit I can see for LOSAT is that it would have reduced time to target, otherwise, modern tandem HEAT or top attack just seems better (given that it was a modified HMMWV mount, IIRC, rather than something that had a gun)


  • 0