Jump to content

Armor of Ukraine


Recommended Posts

 

 

Anything got some potential - we have already seen WWII anti-tank rifles used. But for country seriously pretending few years ago to be world leader in tank building evolving in direction of VBIEDs is telling. They are converting effective, expensive and complicated Strela-10s into improvisations of very questionable use.

 

 

 

Effective against whom? Are you supplying Donbass with aircraft?

 

They are pretending to be fighting against Rus Army and expecting air attacks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 2 weeks later...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

yep, russians, US, polland, azerbaijani and about doezen nations are fools, and you a superstar )))

Those rockets have too low velocity when they leave launcher to be accurate at any kind of long range. That crap was also made here during '90s wars, effect were... poor. If you want harasment fire @ 2-3km - yeah, they are "useful" but so is mortar plt, and it is way more flexible than any of those.

To make it at least somewhat more useful it would need longer launch rails, but ideally whole new rocket engine would be required to provide good initial velocity, which is required to have decent accuracy.

Ok, contact Boeing on this -

Elizabeth Merida

Strategic Missile &Defense Systems

703-872-4245

elizabeth.a.merida@boeing.com

http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/defense-space/space/avenger/docs/Avenger_overview.pdf

There are laser guided 70 mm rockets, that should reduce dispersion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Background for ground-fired 57 mm rockets in Afghanistan was that tanks escorting Soviet columns had not enough main gun elevation to fire up roadside slopes where Mujahiddeen ambushed these columns from, and Shilkas were not numerous enough so a makeshift solution had to be thought up.

 

Seeing that otherwise these Mujahiddeen were pretty much concealed but not covered in the sense of protection, even the high dispersion of aircraft rocket pods made sense - no one cared how much of these rockets (obsolete for use from aircraft) you fire just as long as you hit someone with one or two out of a salvo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Background for ground-fired 57 mm rockets in Afghanistan was that tanks escorting Soviet columns had not enough main gun elevation to fire up roadside slopes where Mujahiddeen ambushed these columns from, and Shilkas were not numerous enough so a makeshift solution had to be thought up.

 

Seeing that otherwise these Mujahiddeen were pretty much concealed but not covered in the sense of protection, even the high dispersion of aircraft rocket pods made sense - no one cared how much of these rockets (obsolete for use from aircraft) you fire just as long as you hit someone with one or two out of a salvo.

It made the mujahideen keep their heads down or maybe motivated quick relocation. Good enough to make the convoy going again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It made the mujahideen keep their heads down or maybe motivated quick relocation. Good enough to make the convoy going again.

 

 

Sounds fair enough. Was a similar idea also tried, but using the heavier 80mm rocket pods rather than just the 57mm ones? Combine those with the turret-mounted AGS-17's and you've got quite a bit of suppression firepower on call. Makes me wonder why they haven't already got the Balkan in service already...

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It made the mujahideen keep their heads down or maybe motivated quick relocation. Good enough to make the convoy going again.

 

 

Sounds fair enough. Was a similar idea also tried, but using the heavier 80mm rocket pods rather than just the 57mm ones? Combine those with the turret-mounted AGS-17's and you've got quite a bit of suppression firepower on call. Makes me wonder why they haven't already got the Balkan in service already...

 

Re 80mm makeshift MRLS: Never heard of anything like that ever being in (inofficial) Soviet service. Since that stuff was makeshift and inofficial, it is hard to tell today as to why. Thinkable reasons are following (warning, wild "educated" guessing ahead):

1. To get it out of the way, it is not the weight. Loaded with 20 80 mm rockets, B-8-20 rocket block weighs up to 400 kilograms; loaded with 32 57 mm rockets, UB-32-57 block weighs up to 240 kilograms, so the difference is indeed substantial. However, seeing that Soviets in Afghanistan rigged up to three UB-32-57 blocks to tank turrets (instead of, say, one B-8-20 block), higher weight seems not to have been a problem, at least, not in all instances.

2. You use what you can get your hands on. S-8 rockets were deemed quite effective and their use with aviators using Soviet/Russian hardware continues to this day; most notably, rockets of this caliber with improved characteristics were or became available during Soviet Afghanistan campaign, among them thermobaric, flechette and improved HE/Frag. So S-8 rockets were something storehouses had to keep minutious account on. S-5 57 mm rockets, on the contrary, were deemed ineffective for use from air due to their little payload and therefore became available to ground forces inofficially.

3. Much higher scattering of aerial dumb rockets when used from ground. Having more (even though less effective) rockets could be, therefore, seen as an advantage by the soldiers and officers rigging up such armament, especially when considering that Mujahideen could not always be seen. Spray more for same weight, keep their heads down more effectively so the convoy can pull itself out of the shit quicker.

 

Now, after SU breaking apart, Abkhazians seem to be the first ones to my knowledgewith their "Грифы"("Vultures") unit (which may be wrong, after all, there've been a number of civil wars in former SU; for instance, especially the Armenians in Nagorny-Karabakh were reportedly fond of all kind of jury-rigged weaponry).

Why the Ukrainians are using S-8 that way now is clear - they're under 100 mm of caliber and therefore exempt from the ceasefire regulations.

 

Re your idea of a proper factory installation of rocket pods on land vehicles: If you solve the problem of high scattering of such rockets when launched from the ground somehow, and devise a means to give them a stronger initial launch impulse so they don't dive into ground nose first upon launch, it might have merits. West of the rusty iron fence, there are laser guidance kits for 70 mm Hydra rockets devised (by Lockheed Martin, I believe?..). Maybe bolting a pod of such rockets to a vehicle armed with just an autocannon or machinegun would make some sense, HE wise.

For Russian dumb rockets of 57, 80 and 130 mm calibers, AMeTech developed laser guidance upgrade kits named Угроза ("Ugroza"="Threat") in 1999, but alas, those remained vaporware for obvious reasons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The weird thing about the inaccuracy mentioned here is that the Mi-24 and Mi-8/-17 helicopters used the 57 mm rocket pods much as well.

I understand some Mi-24 tactics included a forward motion (maybe 200 kph) at the time of firing, but that's still not a high initial velocity.

 

BTW, concerning armor and Ukraine; they developed some ATGM called Corsar a while ago. Was it used in combat?

Link to post
Share on other sites

With even 30-40m/s airspeed those rockets stabilizes much better, since their V0 is quite low (about 30-35m/s for 70mm Mk.4/Mighty Mouse, about 35-40-45m/s for Soviet 57mm.). For a good stabilization you at least about 70-80m/s.

 

Croats did this during 1991-95 war, used leftover 70mm Mk.4 (Mighty Mouse) rockets. Accuracy was poor (as with other such mods), so they actually developed new rocket, 70mm M95 that used different rocket engine burning much shorter, but with same weight of propelant - providing much more peak thrust and hence greater V0. Effect was much reduced dispersion.

However those rockets are not good for use on aircrafts/helos as they require stronger launch tubes.

 

http://www.ddsv.hr/download/Lanser_raketa_70_M93A3_hrvatski.pdf

Edited by bojan
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Would the kinda thin steel walls stand the force of explosion of a HEAT warhead + ERA explosion? IIRC such thin-skinned AFVs need extra reinforcements for ERA.

Besides, the angling of the bricks seems pointless except against about the camera angle, front right, rear left and rear right.

 

I suppose some DIY spall liner would have been more worthwhile.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why the rectangular structure above the turret?

 

Turret rear box lifted up during engine maintenance.

 

X7wx59V3YFg.jpg

 

It seems to also have additional “roof” screen that, when lowered, cover part of engine deck – probably indicating guys preparing to face IR-targeting top-attack missiles (another option – it is extra space for infantry to ride on tank, always staying behind rotating turret).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...