Jump to content


Photo

A couple of updates on RPG-29s versus Abrams:


  • Please log in to reply
64 replies to this topic

#21 Ssnake

Ssnake

    Virtual Shiva Beast

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hannover, Germany
  • Interests:Contemporary armor - tactics and technology

Posted 02 November 2010 - 1135 AM

...I heard about RPG-29 hit through gun mantled or at i.e. such angle through front armor ..., it is true or some misunderstanding?

Posted Image

At least it doesn't strike me as inconceivable. It requires a specific aspect and a specific hit location, but when the conditions are like this then every tank by necessity has this as a weak spot.

Edited by Ssnake, 02 November 2010 - 1137 AM.

  • 0

#22 istvan47

istvan47

    Member of myself

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,978 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Umbria
  • Interests:to make troubles to the Mankind

Posted 08 November 2011 - 1822 PM

was it known why M1 Abrams had so great resistence vs RPG-29s? Side protection is so great to protect vs such weapons?
  • 0

#23 Guest_JamesG123_*

Guest_JamesG123_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 November 2011 - 1917 PM

At least it doesn't strike me as inconceivable. It requires a specific aspect and a specific hit location, but when the conditions are like this then every tank by necessity has this as a weak spot.



Yep, that is probably where the front armor array is weakest and it bypasses the mantle's overlap/splash trap. So its conceivable that high speed fragments and bits of the jet would wreck the gun and gun mount and get inside the fighting compartment.
  • 0

#24 Ssnake

Ssnake

    Virtual Shiva Beast

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hannover, Germany
  • Interests:Contemporary armor - tactics and technology

Posted 08 November 2011 - 1940 PM

was it known why M1 Abrams had so great resistence vs RPG-29s? Side protection is so great to protect vs such weapons?

Well, I don't remember the exact source but if my memory serves me well the US Army calculated for Vietnam with the need to have the Vietcong fire a total of 49 RPG-2 in order to achieve a 95% kill likelihood for a lowly M113. Now, this included the high dud rate; as far as actual detonations were concerned, they still expected about seven hits were needed to destroy an M113 with a 95% likelihood. That suggests a 65% likelihood to kill the M113 with a single RPG-2 detonation.

In other words, a one in three chance that the vehicle survives a direct hit.

HEAT jets offer very deep penetrations, but in order to achieve a reliably devastating behind-armor effect one would want an overmatch of about 200mm RHAe residual power by the warhead. And even then you can still be lucky. The combination of side skirts, air gap, hull armor, and probably also a spall liner can greatly reduce the lethality of a successful perforation of the armor. It's not just about keeping everything bad outside, it's also about how the vehicle is designed to mitigate damage where it can't prevent a perforation.
  • 0

#25 Guest_JamesG123_*

Guest_JamesG123_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 November 2011 - 1946 PM

In other words, a one in three chance that the vehicle survives a direct hit.


Not much consolation to the GIs caught in one. There is a world of difference between "vehicle survival" and mission capable.
  • 0

#26 Ssnake

Ssnake

    Virtual Shiva Beast

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hannover, Germany
  • Interests:Contemporary armor - tactics and technology

Posted 08 November 2011 - 1954 PM

Not much consolation to the GIs caught in one. There is a world of difference between "vehicle survival" and mission capable.

Sure, I won't debate that. Ultimately the question is however how an M1 crew could have survived an RPG-29 attack, and the answer is that they were partially lucky and that luck was helped with a reasonable array of protective elements, if you want me to spell it out directly.
  • 0

#27 Damian

Damian

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,077 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Poland
  • Interests:MBT's, rock music, electric Bass Guitar's :-)

Posted 09 November 2011 - 0754 AM

was it known why M1 Abrams had so great resistence vs RPG-29s? Side protection is so great to protect vs such weapons?


Besides what Ssnake said, it is also vehicle design. M1 was designed with maximal crew survivability in mind, this is why whole ammunition stored in vehicle is isolated in magazines with blow off panels, this greatly increse crew and vehicle survivability... still there is place for upgrades there.

Also western MBT's more internal space, this also can increase survivability by decreasing probability that shaped charge jet will hit crew or something important.

Basic side protection of M1 series is rather comparabale with other wesern MBT's. As far as I know there were some inspecified upgrades for side turret protection in M1A1SA and M1A2SEP besides normal increasing armor protection over turret and hull front.
  • 0

#28 istvan47

istvan47

    Member of myself

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,978 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Umbria
  • Interests:to make troubles to the Mankind

Posted 09 November 2011 - 0802 AM

Well, I don't remember the exact source but if my memory serves me well the US Army calculated for Vietnam with the need to have the Vietcong fire a total of 49 RPG-2 in order to achieve a 95% kill likelihood for a lowly M113. Now, this included the high dud rate; as far as actual detonations were concerned, they still expected about seven hits were needed to destroy an M113 with a 95% likelihood. That suggests a 65% likelihood to kill the M113 with a single RPG-2 detonation.

In other words, a one in three chance that the vehicle survives a direct hit.

HEAT jets offer very deep penetrations, but in order to achieve a reliably devastating behind-armor effect one would want an overmatch of about 200mm RHAe residual power by the warhead. And even then you can still be lucky. The combination of side skirts, air gap, hull armor, and probably also a spall liner can greatly reduce the lethality of a successful perforation of the armor. It's not just about keeping everything bad outside, it's also about how the vehicle is designed to mitigate damage where it can't prevent a perforation.


But... if it was true, then, every HEAT ammo in WWII would had been ineffective, since the best was not much higher than 100 mm.

I'll report the tests vs T-80/90:

http://fofanov.armor...S/19991020.html

RPG-29s seemed effective vs Israeli Merkavas:

http://www.iraq-war.ru/article/97442

Infantry ATGLs (fired at a distance of 40m)
RPG-7 (using advanced 105mm grenade PG-7VR with a tandem warhead, pen. 650mm RHA)
RPG-26 (disposable launcher, pen. >500mm RHA)
RPG-29 (advanced 105mm launcher, pen. 750mm RHA)
ATGMs (fired at a distance of 600m)
Malyutka-2 (pen. >600mm RHA)
Metis (pen. 460mm RHA)
Konkurs (pen. 650mm RHA)
Kornet (pen. >850mm RHA)
APFSDS (fired from T-80U MBT at a distance of 1,500m, the most likely round is 3BM42)
Each weapon was fired 5 times at each target, for a total of 20 shots per weapon. The total number of shots fired during the trials thus exceeded 150.
The trials yielded the following outcome:

ATGLs

T-90: RPG-29 produced a total of 3 penetrations.
No other RPG rounds could penetrate even the stripped target.


T-80U: RPG-29 penetrated 3 times with ERA, all 5 times without ERA.
Of all other grenades, one PG-7VR penetrated the stripped target.
ATGMs
T-90: No ATGMs could penetrate the ERA-equipped target. One Kornet ATGM penetrated the stripped target.
T-80U: 2 Kornet ATGMs penetrated the ERA-equipped target, all 5 penetrated the stripped target.
No other ATGMs could penetrate.
APFSDS
T-90: ERA-equipped target could not be penetrated. Furthermore, after firing the crew entered the vehicle, activated it and was able to execute the firing sequence.
Without ERA, one round penetrated.
T-80U (data available only for stripped target): One round almost penetrated (3mm hole in the inner lining, no visible equipment damage); two penetrated to 1/2 thickness; one missed the target completely; one hit the gun.

Questions:

1-the side skirts of M1 Abrams were made of steel or there is also a composite armour (atleast in the forward sections)?

2-RPG-29 was introduced in service ALREADY in the '80s?? The NATO tanks of the time would be almost harmless, isn't? I mean vanilla Leo-2 and M-1, Chieftain, maybe Challenger. How was widespread the RPG-29 during the Cold War?

3-Merkava was the best side-protected tank in the world?
  • 0

#29 Damian

Damian

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,077 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Poland
  • Interests:MBT's, rock music, electric Bass Guitar's :-)

Posted 09 November 2011 - 0813 AM

1-the side skirts of M1 Abrams were made of steel or there is also a composite armour (atleast in the forward sections)?


Forward heavy ballistic skirts are layered, probably composite.

2-RPG-29 was introduced in service ALREADY in the '80s?? The NATO tanks of the time would be almost harmless, isn't? I mean vanilla Leo-2 and M-1, Chieftain, maybe Challenger. How was widespread the RPG-29 during the Cold War?


Depends where it would hit, I susspect that front turret armor and in case of M1 series also front hull armor should preatty well protect from RPG-29.

3-Merkava was the best side-protected tank in the world?


Depends about what version do You ask... and in only basic protection, Russian, Ukrainian and western tanks with addon armors (TUSK, StreetFighter, PSO, AZUR etc.) or integral side protection (T-84M, T-90MS) are better protected over sides.

RPG-29s seemed effective vs Israeli Merkavas:


Depends on version and where tanks were hit.
  • 0

#30 istvan47

istvan47

    Member of myself

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,978 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Umbria
  • Interests:to make troubles to the Mankind

Posted 09 November 2011 - 1036 AM

But the RPG-29 was still a lot better than the RPG-7. How many were available and widespread in '80s? The lower hull front of Challenger seems even today, quite vulnerable, too.
  • 0

#31 Damian

Damian

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,077 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Poland
  • Interests:MBT's, rock music, electric Bass Guitar's :-)

Posted 09 November 2011 - 1047 AM

But the RPG-29 was still a lot better than the RPG-7.


And nobody thinks different.

The lower hull front of Challenger seems even today, quite vulnerable, too.


Design, British designers and higher rank officers were thinking that the best way to fight is to fight from behind prepared and covered positions (similiar philosophy had Germans) this is why Challenger 1 and Challenger 2 hull have Burlington or Dorchester composite armor on hull glacis plate, not lower front hull plate, it was logical decision to design it that way for such fighting tactics, it was not nececary good overall decision with such hull design where lower front hull is much more exposed especially on the move or in urban terrain, this is why also, after last incident with Challenger 2 and RPG-29, ROMOR-A ERA protecting lower front hull was replaced with bolt on Dorchester armor module.
  • 0

#32 Ssnake

Ssnake

    Virtual Shiva Beast

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hannover, Germany
  • Interests:Contemporary armor - tactics and technology

Posted 09 November 2011 - 1528 PM

But... if it was true, then, every HEAT ammo in WWII would had been ineffective, since the best was not much higher than 100 mm.

I didn't write anything like that. Please read again what I wrote:

...in order to achieve a reliably devastating behind-armor effect one would want an overmatch of about 200mm RHAe residual power by the warhead.
...

In other words, the "pK" value approximates 1 with an overmatch above 200mm; you can still have a pK above .5 with less, and even a pK of .25 would still be "effective" simnply because while it might not entirely destroy the vehicle, it probably would create enough damage to achieve a mission kill, or at least a temporary suspension of combat action. Sometimes that's all that is needed. Besides, a pK .25 of a Panzerfaust or PIAT is still infinitely better than a pK 0 if all that you had before was an obsolete anti tank gun that couldn't cope with the presented armor at any range and any angle.
  • 0

#33 Guest_Jason L_*

Guest_Jason L_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 November 2011 - 1534 PM

People seem to really have trouble with the fact that "killing" things with explosive driven weapons is highly stochastic. Unless you drop a giant bomb with a direct hit with enough explosives to turn a tank into a metal taco, there is a certain probability it, and it's crew will survive and perhaps even drive away or keep on fighting.

When you really get down to it, most weaponised shaped charges are very small devices and while they have awesome penetration, they don't have a massive volume of destructive effect. For all their cramped-ness and relatively compact volume, tanks are still bloody big things and so tank destruction is going to be essentially entirely determined by path of penetration, even if there is a guaranteed overmatch of penetrator to armour. Long rods are a totally different kettle of kedgeree of course.

Edited by Jason L, 09 November 2011 - 1542 PM.

  • 0

#34 Harkonnen

Harkonnen

    Andrei

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,391 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet Arakkis, Dune
  • Interests:Tanks, Art, history

Posted 09 November 2011 - 1541 PM

But... if it was true, then, every HEAT ammo in WWII would had been ineffective, since the best was not much higher than 100 mm.

I'll report the tests vs T-80/90


Very old fake report.
  • 0

#35 Olof Larsson

Olof Larsson

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,271 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 09 November 2011 - 1548 PM

Well, I don't remember the exact source but if my memory serves me well the US Army calculated for Vietnam with the need to have the Vietcong fire a total of 49 RPG-2 in order to achieve a 95% kill likelihood for a lowly M113. Now, this included the high dud rate; as far as actual detonations were concerned, they still expected about seven hits were needed to destroy an M113 with a 95% likelihood. That suggests a 65% likelihood to kill the M113 with a single RPG-2 detonation.


I get that to be a 65% likelihood to survive a single hit,
42% for 2 hits, 27% for 3 hits,
18% for 4 hits, 12% for 5 hits,
7,5% for 6 hits and 5% for 7 hits.

Or looking at it from the other side:

35% likelihood for a kill with a single hit,
58% for 2 hits, 73% for 3 hits,
82% for 4 hits, 88% for 5 hits,
92,5% for 6 hits and 95% for 7 hits.

Obviously excluding the posibillety of accumulating effect of multiple hits
and that several hits might do essentially the same damage in the same place.
  • 0

#36 istvan47

istvan47

    Member of myself

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,978 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Umbria
  • Interests:to make troubles to the Mankind

Posted 09 November 2011 - 1718 PM

Very old fake report.


Really?
  • 0

#37 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,787 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 09 November 2011 - 1930 PM

Really?

Yes.

Edited by bojan, 09 November 2011 - 1948 PM.

  • 0

#38 istvan47

istvan47

    Member of myself

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,978 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Umbria
  • Interests:to make troubles to the Mankind

Posted 10 November 2011 - 0704 AM

Is it known what was behind this fake? It seemed quite complex to be a complete invenction. Vasily posted it in its site once ago.

Are available other tests BTW?
  • 0

#39 Damian

Damian

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,077 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Poland
  • Interests:MBT's, rock music, electric Bass Guitar's :-)

Posted 10 November 2011 - 0821 AM

This report was probably made as some sort commercial for both RPG-29 and T-90. I also do not belive that basic T-90 (Object 188) was better than T-80U (Object 219AS), T-90 was just T-72B on steroids and it's armor should also be same or similiar to late production T-72B's, also 4S22 Kontakt-5 coverage in T-80U is better and a composite armor seemed to be more advanced than that in T-72B and T-90. T-90A (Object 188A1) is definetly better armored than T-90 and probably use also more advanced composite armor than T-80U.
  • 0

#40 istvan47

istvan47

    Member of myself

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,978 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Umbria
  • Interests:to make troubles to the Mankind

Posted 10 November 2011 - 0854 AM

This report was probably made as some sort commercial for both RPG-29 and T-90. I also do not belive that basic T-90 (Object 188) was better than T-80U (Object 219AS), T-90 was just T-72B on steroids and it's armor should also be same or similiar to late production T-72B's, also 4S22 Kontakt-5 coverage in T-80U is better and a composite armor seemed to be more advanced than that in T-72B and T-90. T-90A (Object 188A1) is definetly better armored than T-90 and probably use also more advanced composite armor than T-80U.


BAH... i find this report a bit TOO MUCH DETAILED to be a totally fake.. BTW, i wouldn't discard a T-72B 'on steroids' either (already the T-72 basic was a tough beast, T-72M more, T-72B more so, T-90..).


T-72 "Ural" Turret: 280-410 m, glacis 405 mm;
T-72 "export" (9)/T-72M (10) Turret: 280-410; Glacis: 450

T-72M1 (11) Turret: 490 mm, Glacis: 490
T-72A "Dolly Parton" M1981/3 Turret: 490 Glacis: 490
T-72B & S w/K-1 ERA Turret: 580-850 Glacis: 670-910

T-80U Turret: 960-1450 Glacis: 1080

T-72B Model 1988 / early T-90 Turret: 580-1050-1340
Glacis: 990-1070
Lower front hull: 380
(from the site Tank protection levels).

Until there will be a proof that this was only a fake, i'll see it as a lot informative.

As example, the description of any tank ammo and the results (one almost pierced, one missed, one hit the gun).. it seems to me too detailed description and too 'realistic' (hitting the gun, as example) to be a total fake.

I stay for more detailed debugging about this trial. This is not like the MiG-23 Syrians shooting down an E-2, several F-15s and several F-16s (even if we don't know how it gone in 1982, after all there is always the 'fog of war').

Edited by istvan47, 10 November 2011 - 0904 AM.

  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users