KA-50 survives a direct hit from Leopard 120mm AP?

[Isegrim]

BTW a L44´s Sabot tracer at 1670m/s will pump a hole into the Air behind it.

This can get a Helicopter into a Vortexstate when the tracer pass above the Rotor.

[xaoslaad]

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1988745&postcount=9208

 

No tail, missing wing, nose off the front, no hydraulics, an engine out... was able to maintain control and though I was bleeding altitude slowly I was able to put the thing on the ground behind friendly lines safely.

Edited May 5, 2014 by xaoslaad

[NineLine]

Recently we had an issue where tanks could be killed by the skids on the Huey, we reported and had it fixed, if you guys can supply a track with these issues I will try and report them as well, where you think critical damage was done and the heli should have been brought down.

 

@Boris, I will try and view your track later.

[arkroyale048]

The day after the patch came out one of my squadmates managed to kill a Leopard tank using the Huey's sling load on a head on collision.

 

For reference; me in the Ka-50 shot the Leopard head on with a vickhr. It took two shots.

[NineLine]

The day after the patch came out one of my squadmates managed to kill a Leopard tank using the Huey's sling load on a head on collision.

 

For reference; me in the Ka-50 shot the Leopard head on with a vickhr. It took two shots.

 

The sling load may be a similar issue to the skids, perhaps they made the slings too strong.

[ShuRugal]

Recently we had an issue where tanks could be killed by the skids on the Huey, we reported and had it fixed, if you guys can supply a track with these issues I will try and report them as well, where you think critical damage was done and the heli should have been brought down.

 

@Boris, I will try and view your track later.

 

I don't have a track, but i can confirm requiring 3-4 vikhrs to get an engine fire on an MI-24. I think this must be a recent thing, because I distinctly remember being able to send them down in segments with just 2 in 1.2.6 and earlier.

[Griffin]

Although the problem with damage modeling is evident, a Stinger/Igla is not guaranteed to bring a helicopter down. There is a video of a Syrian Mi-8 getting hit but flying away just fine. On the other hand, Ukrainian Hinds have been shot down with a single hit.

The kinetic energy from a tank round should be enough to destroy a helicopter even without an explosion.

I'm not an expert though.

[karambiatos]

I don't have a track, but i can confirm requiring 3-4 vikhrs to get an engine fire on an MI-24. I think this must be a recent thing, because I distinctly remember being able to send them down in segments with just 2 in 1.2.6 and earlier.

 

it still takes 1 or 2 but only if the vikhr hits the engine if it hits the cabin or the cockpits, absolutely nothing happens.

 

and the pilots in all aircraft seem to be as armored as tank

[xaoslaad]

Easiest way to demonstrate how ridiculous the Hinds are is to load up the Su-25 instant action mission and shove 2 R-60's into the face of one of the Hinds. It will continue to fly like nothing happened. If you really need a track I can create one but it's not hard to duplicate.

 

This is the shark to comanche conversion program. Flew back to base like that no problem last night.

 

[xaoslaad]

3 missiles to take down one hind, plus a bit of gun, still lands it and walks away. track attached.

HindDamage.trk

[EtherealN]

BTW a L44´s Sabot tracer at 1670m/s will pump a hole into the Air behind it.

This can get a Helicopter into a Vortexstate when the tracer pass above the Rotor.

 

Source?

 

This looks like you don't quite understand the dynamics of RVRS. Further, you need the qualifiers of the state at which this would be true: for this to become physically feasible, the helo needs to be close to entering RVRS to begin with.

 

And of course, DCS does not model atmospheric interaction between bodues - that would require turning the atmosphere in the game into a liquid. Good luck running that on anything outside of NASA or MIT.

 

The kinetic energy from a tank round should be enough to destroy a helicopter even without an explosion.

I'm not an expert though.

 

Depends entirely on what exactly it hits. A sabot round is a subcalibre munition that is built to penetrate. If it hits unarmored parts of the helicopter it will pass straight through it without imparting much at all of it's KE onto the helicopter. For the energy of the round to do damage, you need to STOP the round (compare with so-called "dum-dum" or "copkiller" pistol rounds with normal FMJ's). In the specific case of the Ka-50, it also has a much smaller area that is vulnerable since it's all just the pit and engine/gearbox assembly, as opposed to conventional helicopters that have sensitive unarmored drivetrains aft for the anti-torque rotor assembly. Correspondingly, a Ka-50 hit aft with a Sabot or similar will just see the Sabot flying straight through, making a neat little hole, but relatively little energy transfered from the round to the helicopter.

[Isegrim]

Source?

 

This looks like you don't quite understand the dynamics of RVRS. Further, you need the qualifiers of the state at which this would be true: for this to become physically feasible, the helo needs to be close to entering RVRS to begin with.

 

And of course, DCS does not model atmospheric interaction between bodues - that would require turning the atmosphere in the game into a liquid. Good luck running that on anything outside of NASA or MIT.

 

 

There is no source about that but its learned to German Tank crews when they have to attack helicopters IN HOVER at longer distances, not that the Helicopter will crash in every case but it will put work to the Pilot .

 

And it also wasnt a which to implement this into DCS.

 

And there is a little story about this that is hard to explain cause its a personal experience, but it makes me think its possible and plausible.

 

Sorry if i have not been exactly enough in my upper post.

[EtherealN]

I'm not sure I understand here. Of course your engagement envelope is larger against a stationary target. Does not need magic with RVRS for that. Similarly, against a stationary target that is not armored - why aren't you selecting an HE round?

 

"Personal experience" is not really an argument. Military men are no less susceptible to cognitive bias than anyone else. Of course it is "possible" to kick a system over the edge through disturbing said system, but saying something is theoretically possible is not the same as saying it will ever happen in practice. It is theoretically possible for you to run straight through a brick wall. Won't realistically happen, though...

[Isegrim]

I'm not sure I understand here. Of course your engagement envelope is larger against a stationary target. Does not need magic with RVRS for that. Similarly, against a stationary target that is not armored - why aren't you selecting an HE round?

 

"Personal experience" is not really an argument. Military men are no less susceptible to cognitive bias than anyone else. Of course it is "possible" to kick a system over the edge through disturbing said system, but saying something is theoretically possible is not the same as saying it will ever happen in practice. It is theoretically possible for you to run straight through a brick wall. Won't realistically happen, though...

 

Youve get a PN with the Whole Story.

[Maximus_Lazarus]

Source?

 

This looks like you don't quite understand the dynamics of RVRS. Further, you need the qualifiers of the state at which this would be true: for this to become physically feasible, the helo needs to be close to entering RVRS to begin with.

 

And of course, DCS does not model atmospheric interaction between bodues - that would require turning the atmosphere in the game into a liquid. Good luck running that on anything outside of NASA or MIT.

 

 

 

Depends entirely on what exactly it hits. A sabot round is a subcalibre munition that is built to penetrate. If it hits unarmored parts of the helicopter it will pass straight through it without imparting much at all of it's KE onto the helicopter. For the energy of the round to do damage, you need to STOP the round (compare with so-called "dum-dum" or "copkiller" pistol rounds with normal FMJ's). In the specific case of the Ka-50, it also has a much smaller area that is vulnerable since it's all just the pit and engine/gearbox assembly, as opposed to conventional helicopters that have sensitive unarmored drivetrains aft for the anti-torque rotor assembly. Correspondingly, a Ka-50 hit aft with a Sabot or similar will just see the Sabot flying straight through, making a neat little hole, but relatively little energy transfered from the round to the helicopter.

 

That is not entirely true.

 

To think that a sabot round would not completely vaporize a helicopter is a bit naive. I mean you don't actually think that it will just leave a nice clean hole , right ? :lol:

 

If the speed of the round is high enough (and it is lol), every little part that breaks off the helicopter will become a "round" on it's own, eacht shard will shatter more material, and all those shards will create more shards and so on.

 

Basically the inners of the helicopter start acting as if they were a liquid. (i saw this on discovery channel ! )

 

If the speed is high enough, you can take down a jumbo jet with a bb pellet.

Edited May 13, 2014 by Maximus_Lazarus

[NineLine]

There are a lot of factors... it depends on where it hits, direction the helo is travelling if it is moving... etc etc... not sure I am buying the bb pellet.... unless the pellet passed through the pilots head at some critical time in the flight :P

[Maximus_Lazarus]

Think space debris.

 

Anyway, you shouldn't get hit by sabot rounds when in a helicopter , then you're doing something wrong :d This is not BF3 -_-

[NineLine]

Think space debris.

 

 

Again to vague and too many factors... and probably too far off topic now.

[159th_Viper]

Anyway, you shouldn't get hit by sabot rounds when in a helicopter , then you're doing something wrong :d This is not BF3 -_-

 

That's what the Refleks is there for, to hit helo's from tanks, that is.

[ShuRugal]

There is no source about that but its learned to German Tank crews when they have to attack helicopters IN HOVER at longer distances

 

As a soldier, I feel it is my duty to inform you that we like to exaggerate, especially to civilians. The stuff people will believe is hilarious.

 

 

That is not entirely true.

 

To think that a sabot round would not completely vaporize a helicopter is a bit naive. I mean you don't actually think that it will just leave a nice clean hole , right ? :lol:

 

If the speed of the round is high enough (and it is lol), every little part that breaks off the helicopter will become a "round" on it's own, eacht shard will shatter more material, and all those shards will create more shards and so on.

 

Basically the inners of the helicopter start acting as if they were a liquid. (i saw this on discovery channel ! )

 

If the speed is high enough, you can take down a jumbo jet with a bb pellet.

 

sabot rounds are not magical, and aircraft are not susceptible to remote wounding: If the projectile strikes an empty portion of the helicopter, all it will do is put a hole through it. That's what penetrators do, put holes in things.

 

The kinetic energy of a sabot round is approximately equal to the chemical energy in the powder that propelled it down the barrel, minus losses to friction and atmospheric compression (and a whole slew of other things to do with internal ballistics, but those are the biggest leeches). While that powder charge would wreak havoc on a helicopter if you could find some way to set it off so that the chopper absorbed at least as much as a sabot round could, it would be nowhere near enough to vapourize it.

 

As to the fragmentation effects, there is not anywhere near enough energy transfer from the round to the target for those fragments to damage anything harder than a person. Part of the problem here is that the sabot round has so much kinetic energy that any material it comes into direct contact with absorbs so much energy so fast that it fails and gives way before it can be accelerated to the velocities you describe.

 

When a high-velocity projectile strikes a target, it transfers energy into the point of impact faster than that energy can spread through the target material. This is, believe it or not, exactly the desired effect. a kinetic energy penetrator is not designed to be a magical device that turns the target into a bomb, it is designed to use its ridiculous stored up ke to penetrate the target completely, thus punching nasty holes in sensitive equipment which the target needs to keep working. Yes, if a KEP has to go through a few inches of armor, it is going to spray a few hundred grams of molten steel out the back side, which will work nasty effects on a squishy target like a person, but even a thin sheet of steel is sufficient to stop these particles, because they are A: extremely lightweight and B: liquid.

 

That leads me to another important thing to remember: Momentum. Projectile damage is not all about ke, it is also about momentum, and the law of conservation of the same. It does not matter how much ke your projectile has, it cannot impart more momentum into its target than it itself has stored up (and any momentum which it does impart will be lost from itself). Momentum, being a function of mass and velocity, means that the mass of the projectile is equally important to the momentum as the velocity. This is the tradeoff that a KEP makes: It has exactly the same momentum as any other round fired from the tank, but it cuts down on mass so it can be accelerated to higher speeds. Since ke is a function of the square of velocity, a projectile with half the mass and twice the speed ends up with the same momentum, but twice the kinetic energy.

 

Now, what does this mean in practical terms? it means that, having a lower mass, it will tend to decelate faster for a given applied force, but having a higher ke it will impart more energy (in the form of heat, since we can't create momentum out of nothing) into the target. This causes the target to fail more quickly (preferable before it has significantly slowed the projectile) and allows our KEP to expend the minimal possible energy penetrating armor (so that it may penetrate more of it) before going on to put a nice, neat, nasty little hole in the real target: the machinery inside the tank and the squishy things that push the buttons.

 

TL;DR version, sabot rounds don't vapourize things, you are wrong because physics.

Edited May 13, 2014 by NineLine
Edited for 1.1

[xaoslaad]

Last paragraph is interesting, especially about DU being pyrophoric and fragments igniting after impact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy_penetrator

[Isegrim]

As a soldier, I feel it is my duty to inform you that we like to exaggerate, especially to civilians. The shit people will believe is hilarious.

 

 

 

I have been Tank Commander on Leopard2 A5 for some years and i have my own reasons and thinkings about things for what i have seen in that time.

 

Whith my own eyes.

 

So i which you from soldier to soldier get NEVER in front of any TANK GUN. It has the ability to get you very injured even by a near miss and there will nothing be left than Pants on yourself.:smilewink:

Edited May 13, 2014 by NineLine
Edited for 1.1

[NineLine]

Guys, I will remind you to remember the forums rules, in particular 1.1.

 

Thanks.

[Isegrim]

Guys, I will remind you to remember the forums rules, in particular 1.1.

 

Thanks.

 

Noted.

 

 

Shurugal you should also think of compression.

[ShuRugal]

Noted.

 

 

Shurugal you should also think of compression.

 

in what respect?

 

 

Last paragraph is interesting, especially about DU being pyrophoric and fragments igniting after impact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy_penetrator

 

that is a good point as well: flaming DU is good for nobody's day.