Tank Thread

[Vekkinho]

Good sig!

 

How accurate is that?! Is Kuwait army operating M-84?

 

Croatia had a '90s upgrade elaborate to basic M-84 produced in Djuro in Slavonski Brod during Yugoslavia days, it was called "Degman" but can't say for sure how many vehicles were produced. Of course, bad economic state prevented large scale production of Degman. AFAIK main upgrade focus was on westernizing the basic M-84.

[Vekkinho]

Well if Vikhr can't handle it because of M1 radioactive armour that detonates the missile prior to impact I see no problems for 30 mili to do the job.

 

IIRC, there was a Blue on Blue incident with a Apache firing a Hellfire and destroying blue M1! There's a video on Youtube on that subject.

[Flanker15]

Radioactive armor?! What you talking about?!

Only the front turret armor on the M1A2 is strong enough to stop a Vikhr and that's only just, does DCS model the difference between the front turret and hull?

However the kinetic energy may just be enough to let it penetrate the front turret.

Edited July 6, 2008 by Flanker15

[Flanker15]

Supposed to be depleted uranium in their armor and the amount of radioactive decay emissions needed to stop a missile would be phenomenal (like it would kill everything standing 100ms from the tank instantly).

[Vekkinho]

It doesn't stop the missile but detonates it before it hits the hull reducing possibility of hull penetration!

 

Anti tank missiles are usually a multi-warhead, anti-armor missiles which include a missile that has a booster section, a sustainer section, guidance and control means, shaped charge and primary and secondary warhead sections at nose portions of the missile, with primary warhead being designed for defeating basic armor of an enemy target and secondary warheads being designed for dispersal into a cluster prior to the missile arriving at the target and arranged for defeating advanced armor explosive positioned around the basic armor.

 

That's why you have a completely destroyed tanks without any external damage but a small hole where the missle penetrated the hull or armour.

 

Read here on shaped charges:

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

 

But if a missile detonates even an inch or two before it hits the hull shaped charge is meaningless. That's how M1 works!

Edited July 6, 2008 by Vekkinho

[arneh]

Yeah radioactive, many Abrams crews lost their hair, got cancer or gone blind few months after Operation Dester Storm! Reason to that is being exposed for too long while sitting inside the tank!

 

I think you're confusing it with reactive armor, which works by detonating small charges just before being hit, creating a counter blast. And as far as I know the Abrams doesn't use reactive armor for its front armor, it uses Chobham armor which is a ceramic composite.

 

As for the radiation injuries you allude to, the suggestion is that is caused by depleted uranium(DU) used in the shells, which is then released into the air when they hit something hard. So it's dangerous to be hit by a DU shell, but obviously if you are hit by it you have more to worry about than radiation poisoning :) However, the radiation may remain long afterwards, so it could be dangerous to breath close to something hit by a DU shell, and it's suggested that may be one of the causes of "Gulf War Syndrome". But it's not "radioactive armor" which is the cause.

Edited July 6, 2008 by arneh

[nscode]

Good sig!

 

How accurate is that?! Is Kuwait army operating M-84?

 

They used to... they are now seeking an upgrade, but they're reluctant to decide who will carry it out (serbian, croatian, both or some third firms). Their version already has US WCS.

[GGTharos]

The quote is inaccurate. The Abrams has real combat results that speak for it. ;)

I'd sooner think the real reason has to do with the price tag difference and the infrastructure already in-place. Plus, spare parts potentially easy to get from neighbours.

 

As for the radioactive armor - WTF? It is depleted uranium, but the radioactivity from it is minimal, and its alpha particles which can be stopped by a sheet of aluminum foil. And that thing is sandwitched between armor layers.

 

The real problem is that it is a very toxic heavy metal, and radioactivity is a rather moot worry when you inhale DU dust and poison yourself. It acts, IIRC, very close to how Arsenic acts.

 

So the problem is when a tank is hit; there's DU dust all over the tank, and you need to protect yourself with a gas mask or similar to prevent breathing it in.

 

As for DCS, I don't think you'll be penetrating front hull armor with 30mm.

Edited July 6, 2008 by GGTharos

[Dudikoff]

But if a missile detonates even an inch or two before it hits the hull shaped charge is meaningless. That's how M1 works!

 

The M1 doesn't make a missile detonate earlier. It doesn't have any reactive armour (ERA). Even if it had, the point of ERA is not to detonate the missile earlier (that in itself would not be enough for stronger warheads), but to disrupt the formed shaped charge jet.

 

The later versions (M1A1 HA was the first, I think) have depleted uranium plates (radioactive, not reactive) mounted in the front turret armour but I think their main purpose was to increase the resistance to kinetic penetration ammunition.

 

Plus, the shaped charge jet is not meaningless if it doesn't make a direct contact. It just loses some of it's power. How would you say the top-attack missiles work? In this video, the missile detonates some 2 meters above the target.

 

[nscode]

The quote is inaccurate. The Abrams has real combat results that speak for it. ;)

I'd sooner think the real reason has to do with the price tag difference and the infrastructure already in-place. Plus, spare parts potentially easy to get from neighbours.

 

The quote is accurate, and they have and use both. It clearly says "a test", not during combat. Btw, majority of crews in both tanks were illiterate. :D

 

 

As for the radioactive armor - WTF? It is depleted uranium' date=' but the radioactivity from it is minimal, and its alpha particles which can be stopped by a sheet of aluminum foil. And that thing is sandwitched between armor layers.[/quote']

 

Indeed it is alpha radiation that can even be stopped by thick paper, and reaches only 30 cm in air. But when it gets inside of you, 30 cm is plenty, and there aren't any aluminum foils around. :noexpression:

[GGTharos]

The quote is accurate, and they have and use both. It clearly says "a test", not during combat. Btw, majority of crews in both tanks were illiterate. :D

 

The M-84 IS allegedly simpler to operate, so that may have made a difference. BTW, I haven't seen this test written up anywhere. It sounds to me like it was a failing of the crews in this case, not the tank itself.

 

Indeed it is alpha radiation that can even be stopped by thick paper, and reaches only 30 cm in air. But when it gets inside of you, 30 cm is plenty, and there aren't any aluminum foils around. :noexpression:

 

Yes - but again - the few particles aren't a radioactivity issue for you. The heavy metal poisoning will screw you up worse and faster.

[nscode]

That is correct. But if an anvil falls on your head, it doesn't matter if it's the iron or the gravity that killed you.

[GGTharos]

Actually it is the fracturing of your skull caused by force of the inelastic collision of the anvil with your skull, when the anvil is accelerated toward your skull for a sufficient time under the influence of gravity :D

 

 

Ahem. :D Point is, there's less to worry about the radioactivity of DU than the toxicity of Uranium itself.

[nscode]

It's actually brain trauma... broken bones alone aren't lethal ;)

 

My point is: DU is BAD for you. And if it's easier to scare people (and hopefully politicians) with something they are easily scared by, than with something that they have no clue about.. being inaccurate is OK

 

 

Back on topic: how detailed is damage modeling for ground thingies? Can we damage their sensors, weapons, immobilize them?

Edited July 6, 2008 by nscode

[Shaman]

Actually it is the fracturing of your skull caused by force of the inelastic collision of the anvil with your skull, when the anvil is accelerated toward your skull for a sufficient time under the influence of gravity :D

 

...and radiation is generated during the process :smartass: lol

[Shaman]

Back on topic: how detailed is damage modeling for ground thingies? Can we damage their sensors, weapons, immobilize them?

 

Yes, can we snipe tank's periscope with a single shot ;) ? Lucky one maybe, but can we?

 

 

I have other questions:

 

How well are the bullets and ricochets synchronized over internet?

 

Does DCS include bomb holes visiblity fix?

 

Is there a lifespan and LOD included for all bomb and bullet holes that are drawn in the gameworld to optimize overall game performance?

Edited July 6, 2008 by Shaman

[Yellonet]

Does anyone know how thick the armor of the turret roof on the M1 is? thin enough for the 2A42s AP rounds? Probably not... unless you make a dive attack with 90 degree angle perhaps :D

[Esac_mirmidon]

Again repeating the same, the Ka-50 primary enviroment is low insurgency conflicts with pinpoint strikes in rough terrain and at distance, using agility, speed and manoubrability.

 

The antitank role is more best suited to Mil-Mi 28 with Shturm or Ataka missiles.

 

Also could be very interesting some info of real capabilities of russian antitank missiles airborned in helicopters against M1 Abrams, T-90 or Leopards.

[nscode]

But the Vikhr (which was the subject of the thread) IS an antitank missile ;)

[fireship4]

Wikipedia is not 100% conclusive but seems to suggest Uranium and DU are not so dangerous radioactively - according to it no human cancer has been observed to be caused by uranium. In the DU article it mentions alpha radiation is not a problem as it has short range but then goes on to say that DU only emits low intensity gamma radiation... why mention alpha then?

 

I would point out a couple of things - I was taught that alpha radiation was the most dangerous radiation. It has a short range because it is so heavily ionising - ie it has interacted so much in a short range that not many particles are left.

 

I guess i was sceptical on info about uranium when so many companies have a vested interest in it not being too dangerous. Maybe I'm too paranoid and there is too little alpha emitted to do lethal harm.

 

Secondly Uranium is pyrophoric which means when it is made into dust it spontaneously combusts - im sure this makes it a more effective weapon, and possibly why the earlier poster thought it might interfere with a warhead in ways other than as a shield. I dont know.

 

## On closer inspection it seems that yes DU does emit alpha and wiki was just referring to the u-235 in DU when talking about the gamma rays emitted.##

Edited July 7, 2008 by fireship4

[Groove]

Alpha radiation is "harmless" when outside your body. DU aerosol in your lungs is a no go.

 

If a M1A2 gets a fron turret hit on a Chobham plate, they have to call a special unit which will inspect the tank in full NBC protection suits.

[fireship4]

hmm so the NBC protection on the tanks is a feature to protect them from their armour :)

[Groove]

hmm so the NBC protection on the tanks is a feature to protect them from their armour :)

 

sort of ;)

[Weta43]

Re-itterating what Groove said:

If you inhale enough DU to be chemically toxic, then maybe you have to worry about the toxicity, but if you ingest any DU or DU oxide dust, you have to worry about the radiation.

 

That Russian guy killed with polonium ( a toxic, chemically reactive metal ) died very quickly from the alpha radiation, which as someone pointed out above may be stopped by a sheet of paper, but is strongly ionising and exceedingly dangerous once ingested, but not from heavy metal poisoning because the dose was well below the threshold for toxicity....

[mikoyan]

there are reports of soldiers suffering several; illness after manipulating tank armor like the one used by the M-1. Some soldiers even sleep in the same place where the armor was stored.