Vikhr

I am a little confused.

In game the Vikhr is named as AT-16 or 9A4172.

Some resources say that is the latest development with 15 km range (others say 10 km) and HEAT warhead with tandem charge.

But in game we have only 8 km range and must fire two rockets against Leos or Abrams. :cry:

from what ive read, the current in-service version indeed has a 8km range.

Try killing a Leclerc with a Vikhr.

I think you can get further than 8km a bit in manual mode can't you? Maybe I am wrong but I thought you could...

The 10 km range is when fired from an aircraft, where the missile will get a bit more speed and altitude from the aircraft. From helicopters it's about 8 km.

I've never seen anyone claim it has 15 km range. Do you have a reference?

I have seen it on a german website, perhaps not well informed.

But whats about the tandem HEAT? Do we have this? Should we have this in sim? And what ist the effect on a modern panzer with reactive armour?

I have seen it on a german website, perhaps not well informed.

But whats about the tandem HEAT? Do we have this? Should we have this in sim? And what ist the effect on a modern panzer with reactive armour?

I'm sure that depends greatly on the tank, and where the missile happens to impact. At the moment, I don't think the game treats reactive armor any different than any other sort of armor; more likely there's just a single numerical value representing armor strength for each face on each tank. So since we have this fairly simple damage model for ground units (for now), simulating the tandem warhead isn't an issue.

Try killing a Leclerc with a Vikhr.

And what is that suppose to mean? As it is able to penetrate 900mm of steel Vikhr can kill any tank (including those with explosive reactive armor). So the Leclerc is no exception especially as it is not the best armored tank.

And what is that suppose to mean? As it is able to penetrate 900mm of steel Vikhr can kill any tank (including those with explosive reactive armor). So the Leclerc is no exception especially as it is not the best armored tank.

IIRC the Abrams has over 1m RHA equivalent against chemical energy penetrators, at least along the turret front. So if the 900mm figure is true, then the Vikhr would certainly not guarantee a kill.

Further this is the maximum achievable penetration by this warhead under the best conditions ... which is not easily achievable on the battlefield, especially since the weapon has a spiraling flight path ;)

Further this is the maximum achievable penetration by this warhead under the best conditions ... which is not easily achievable on the battlefield, especially since the weapon has a spiraling flight path ;)

It may not kill it when it hits the areas with the thickest armor, but thats the case when a second missile may be used, we got plenty (12).

IIRC the Abrams has over 1m RHA equivalent against chemical energy penetrators, at least along the turret front. So if the 900mm figure is true, then the Vikhr would certainly not guarantee a kill.

Well you can`t just hope that the missile hits exactly there, and you can`t make it 1m from every aspect or we`ll be talking several hundred tons of weight. Its true its not a garanteed kill, but a very possible nonetheless.

The front of the M-1 is 700mm + RHA, 900mm + on the turret (some sources claim 1100mm), and the parts that might not be are either unlikely to be hit, or will be hit at a glancing angle. You don't shoot tanks in the face if you can help it.

It's not like the missile won't cause damage, but you leave the tank alive, and he might tell his friends where to find you. Possibly friends with a connection to something nasty like a stinger or slamraam.

And lets get this straight about the 'second missile': An M1A1 took 4 KE penetrators in the face and although two of the crew died, it could have fired back. (It got turned around and mis-identified, it took friendly fire from other m1's)

I thought I read somewhere that they don't even make shkval or vikhr systems anymore? Use them sparingly they they won't build more :P

I wonder what will be employed on the Ka-50's that they have left?

Can ED simulate lack of replacement parts, ammo shortages and duct tape holding the chopper together as the campaign goes on hehe.

If an Abrams (to continue the example) was hit by a Vikhir how much energy is transferred to the tank?

I always thought that taking a direct hit from a 120mm shell or an ASM would concuss the crew as well as deafening them, i'm just intrigued to know what'd happen.

The front of the M-1 is 700mm + RHA, 900mm + on the turret (some sources claim 1100mm), and the parts that might not be are either unlikely to be hit, or will be hit at a glancing angle. You don't shoot tanks in the face if you can help it.

 

It's not like the missile won't cause damage, but you leave the tank alive, and he might tell his friends where to find you. Possibly friends with a connection to something nasty like a stinger or slamraam.

 

And lets get this straight about the 'second missile': An M1A1 took 4 KE penetrators in the face and although two of the crew died, it could have fired back. (It got turned around and mis-identified, it took friendly fire from other m1's)

Well AFAIK a lot of israely Merkavas were lost due to RPG fire (RPG-7, and especially the most advanced RPG-29 Vampyr) and these are one of the best tanks in the world. If a RPG projectile can do this imagine what a much larger missile with much more explosive can do with the tank. In survivability trials in 99s the RPG-29 easily penetrated T-80 and T-90 frontal armor and i doubt the M1 is better protected along its side than a T-80 or T-90 is accross the front.

Well, to be honest, you can disable any tank with a regular hand grenade, it's just laughably unlikely to happen. BUT get enough infantry vs tank engagements and some day someone will manage, just out of sheer luck. With the Merkava, it is usually deployed in a COINS role, often in built-up areas, so there will be a huge amount of fire on them from relatively small systems. Sometimes they'll get through.

It's a bit like the damage values of some firearms in many shooters - some are veritable peashooters, but headshots are still headshots.

(Thus not said that RPG fire is anything to laugh about no matter which tank you are in, just that one should always include the circumstances different weapon systems are deployed in when comparing them.)

Guys..any tank in this world hit by a single Vikhr missile to one of the sides, will be a DISABLED, sitting duck tank, tracks destroyed, crew running away in panic. Who said that Vikhr has to destroy it in million pieces? Aim the sides or the rear or the top of the turret..all of those areas will guarantee a disabled tank, to say the least.

http://videos.howstuffworks.com/military-channel/7050-top-ten-tanks-the-m1-abrams-video.htm

Crap, crap commentary, but some interesting insights into tanks on there. I found it whilst I was looking for info on the Merkava (the vid on there shows the older versions)

It mentions at one point (in it's own vid) the Challenger II getting hit by '14' RPG's and a Milan missile, and sustaining only sensor damage. I think it's important to note that the RPG type, and warhead, are more important than the number of impacts.

The new Merkava looks mean too, with modular armour for the top of the turret. A very interesting tank, designed with crew survivability (to fight another day) and an escape hatch in mind.

Like Kenan says though, doubt any tank would fight after a Vikhir to the flank, top or rear.

http://videos.howstuffworks.com/military-channel/7050-top-ten-tanks-the-m1-abrams-video.htm

 

Funny that I dont see the Leopard 2A6 and the T-90 in the videos list. Where they should be in top 5.

Hehehe, well the Challenger II isn't high on the 'fear factor' because 'only' 300 odd have been produced.

The weight of the warheads are interesting:

Vikhr 8 kg tandem HEAT (?)

Hellfire2 9 kg tandem HEAT

Trigat-LR 9 kg tandem HEAT

HOT3 6,6 kg tandem HEAT

Maverick 136 kg tandem HEAT with fuze delay :shocking:

So its obvious that the developers think this weights are enough to kill or badly damage a modern tank.

:surprise:

Obvious Intent to Vapourize as opposed to Disable.........Roll on A-10 Hawg :D

That's Brimstone, allegedly. Looks fairly big too, but actually based on Hellfire.

Maverick could not be designed to kill tanks primarily.

Yes, perhaps to vaporize to keep a clean environment. :D