Kenan Posted February 26, 2009 Posted February 26, 2009 Speaking of BS damage model, I don't think tank should be able to continue moving when hit to the flank by a Vikhr or any other ATG missile. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Commanding Officer of: 2nd Company 1st financial guard battalion "Mrcine" See our squads here and our . Croatian radio chat for DCS World
max3228 Posted February 26, 2009 Posted February 26, 2009 (edited) Javelin missile test I know it's a little off topic but has anyone seen this missile test before ..... as a tank killer its just awesome!!! http://www.truveo.com/Javeling-Antitank-missile-test/id/1197298380 max edit: I should have said it's versus a T72 tank. Edited February 26, 2009 by max3228
topol-m Posted February 26, 2009 Posted February 26, 2009 I know it's a little off topic but has anyone seen this missile test before ..... as a tank killer its just awesome!!! http://www.truveo.com/Javeling-Antitank-missile-test/id/1197298380 max edit: I should have said it's versus a T72 tank. Very nice. That was a big boom. I dont know what are its penetration capabilities, compared to other RPGs or vikhr but the nice thing is its coming from above so it is hitting less armor. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
ED Team Groove Posted February 26, 2009 ED Team Posted February 26, 2009 I know it's a little off topic but has anyone seen this missile test before ..... as a tank killer its just awesome!!! http://www.truveo.com/Javeling-Antitank-missile-test/id/1197298380 max edit: I should have said it's versus a T72 tank. A T-72 packed full with TNT :) This video is as old as the interwebs, but cool anyway! Our Forum Rules: http://forums.eagle.ru/rules.php#en
ZaltysZ Posted February 26, 2009 Posted February 26, 2009 Isn't that T-72Б (Б - бумажный - paper)? :D Wir sehen uns in Walhalla.
Kenan Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 A T-72 packed full with TNT :) You know for a fact it was 'doctored'? Seems to me even for a Javelin, the tank was blown to pieces too easy but it could just as well be the missile itself simply pwning iron.. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Commanding Officer of: 2nd Company 1st financial guard battalion "Mrcine" See our squads here and our . Croatian radio chat for DCS World
BRraptor Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 HEAT (shaped charge) weapons Coefficient of destruction = Warhead diameter and explosive power (not dependent on velocity) Protection = reactive armor, slat armor, logs, tracks, tires, anything that could disrupt the projectile from touching the armor Kinetic weapons Coefficient of destruction = Mass * Velocity * Density Protection = sheer armor / angled armor
ZaltysZ Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 (edited) You know for a fact it was 'doctored'? Seems to me even for a Javelin, the tank was blown to pieces too easy but it could just as well be the missile itself simply pwning iron.. It think whole tank was dummy. Look here: , there you can see more believable explosions and damage. Edited February 27, 2009 by ZaltysZ Wir sehen uns in Walhalla.
CE_Mikemonster Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 Any top-attack weapon would destroy a tank, considering that the turret is almost always totally flat[ish] on top (to maintain a low-profile/silhouette). Considering the ideal angle for penetration is flat-on, a missile coming from directly above would I presume penetrate to it's maximum capabilities, which is more than enough for the thickness of the turret roof. Too many cowboys. Not enough indians. GO APE SH*T
GGTharos Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 The bigger problem is that you have only a small fraction of the armor up-top, not the angle of impact. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Dark-Light Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 If you watch the lower right side of the video you can see the turret (or main part of it anyway) landing back on the ground and creating a trench due to its immense weight. Pretty cool. :P
CE_Mikemonster Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 The bigger problem is that you have only a small fraction of the armor up-top, not the angle of impact. Yeah that is the most important. I also mean though that even if you did try to protect it with more armour that you'd have to compensate a helluva lot for the obvious flaw that is the sheer unavoidable flatness of the turret roof (I don't see how you could slope it like the front of the hull for instance). Too many cowboys. Not enough indians. GO APE SH*T
GGTharos Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 Thus you have to start implementing active protection - ie. start shooting down the incoming or the best thing: cover :D [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
CE_Mikemonster Posted February 28, 2009 Posted February 28, 2009 Back to an earlier subject, when you see this vid you'll realise why the Israelis were diappointed at Mavericks destructive capability.. (Cheers for link nscode) Too many cowboys. Not enough indians. GO APE SH*T
GGTharos Posted February 28, 2009 Posted February 28, 2009 I don't see why ... care to explain? There's only one laser guided maverick variant I'm aware of, there are some man-in-loop datalinked variants as well, but it's my impression that what they have there is a hellfire or similar missile. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
CE_Mikemonster Posted February 28, 2009 Posted February 28, 2009 You're right, I very much doubt that's a Maverick, all I mean is that there is such thing as 'overkill' lol. Heavens knows what the blast of a Mav would do in the street - i'm sure that even 'just' the explosion of the missiles in the vid smashed a few windows and hurt some ears. Too many cowboys. Not enough indians. GO APE SH*T
GGTharos Posted February 28, 2009 Posted February 28, 2009 A 130kg warhead is pretty close to the explosives packed into a 500lbs bomb. It would be a pretty big boom. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Tucano_uy Posted July 30, 2009 Posted July 30, 2009 (edited) Speaking of BS damage model, I don't think tank should be able to continue moving when hit to the flank by a Vikhr or any other ATG missile. It took me 3 direct hits with Vikhrs to shot down a Chinook. I don't have the knowledge to say this was unrealistic, but it seems unlikely. If maybe not completely destroy the aircraft in flight, structural damage and crew incapacitation from the first hit would be enough to prevent it continue flying as nothing had happened. Edited July 30, 2009 by Tucano_uy
STP Dragon Posted July 30, 2009 Posted July 30, 2009 To come back to the topic and the question in the first posting: The firelogic of the Ka-50 seems to be limited to 7km. In this range the Vikhr have a very high chance to hit the target. If you chage to the manual mode you can use the whole range of the Vikhr. I hit a target easily at 10-11 Km. After that the Vikhr will lose to mutch speed and high. Homepage: Spare-Time-Pilots DCS:BlackShark v1.0.2: BLINDSPOTs EditorMod DRAGONs ArmA2-Sounds DRAGONs BS1 TRAININGPACK DRAGONs MISSIONPACK [bS & FC2] DCS:World: TM WARTHOG PROFIL FOR BS2 DRAGONs BS2_TRAININGPACK DRAGONs TRAININGPACK DRAGONs MISSIONPACK
Warbird_242 Posted July 30, 2009 Posted July 30, 2009 I think it's fairly realistic that it take 2+ hits to destroy an Abrams. A fairly old missile against an MBT that's being constantly updated? And does DCS model explosive reactive armour? Because that would be a pretty potent defense against a ATGM
Boberro Posted July 30, 2009 Posted July 30, 2009 Fortunetely to eliminate tank from battlefield you don't have to destroy it. Disabling is enough ;] Reminder: Fighter pilots make movies. Bomber pilots make... HISTORY! :D | Also to be remembered: FRENCH TANKS HAVE ONE GEAR FORWARD AND FIVE BACKWARD :D ಠ_ಠ ツ
starbird Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 It took me 3 direct hits with Vikhrs to shot down a Chinook. I don't have the knowledge to say this was unrealistic, but it seems unlikely. If maybe not completely destroy the aircraft in flight, structural damage and crew incapacitation from the first hit would be enough to prevent it continue flying as nothing had happened. Have you turned on AA mode? Its possible that the missile is going thru, or even around the heli without detonating. AA mode sets the fuese to ignite just before impact. Trying to kill a tank with AA mode engaged is useless, as the missiles detonate before they reach the tank. It looks like a hit, but its not.
Tucano_uy Posted August 1, 2009 Posted August 1, 2009 (edited) Yes, AA was engaged, and it looked like there were direct hits. First 2 in the middle of the fuselage and for the third I slewed the shkval to the root of the back rotor hoping to hit a more critical point (later I read in this forum that since the damage model is not so detailed, hit placement would be rather irrelevant). Unfortunately I have no track to share and analise but I have seen the same behaviour with other choppers as well, even lighter helos. Still in topic (I think), I tried to bring down an A-10 with the missiles. I set a training mission with one A-10 flying a rectangular pattern at 500 km/h and 1000 metres altitude and I placed my Ka-50 about 5 km from the pattern. After soooo much work I managed to lock the A-10 and shot my 12 missiles at it, with different aspect ratios, at varying distances and the result was always the same. Missiles leave the chopper tracking the target but after 300 or 400 metres, they just go ballistic, missing the target by far. AA mode was selected, AA/HO selected in some cases when relevant (however I think it only afects the fuse timing). It looks like that the missile was unable to follow the laser beam. Note that the shkval never lost track of the target aircraft. What's your experience engaging fixed wing aircraft and bringing them down with vikhrs? Edited August 1, 2009 by Tucano_uy
RvETito Posted August 1, 2009 Posted August 1, 2009 The 15km vs 8km range is correct- one is for the Su-25T, the other is for the Ka-50. I think I don't have to explain where the difference is coming from though the missile is all the same. "See, to me that's a stupid instrument. It tells what your angle of attack is. If you don't know you shouldn't be flying." - Chuck Yeager, from the back seat of F-15D at age 89. =RvE=
arneh Posted August 1, 2009 Posted August 1, 2009 The 15km vs 8km range is correct- one is for the Su-25T, the other is for the Ka-50. I think I don't have to explain where the difference is coming from though the missile is all the same. I've never seen any source which says 15 km for the standard Vikhr. The ones I've seen which mention a difference says 10 km for aircraft launched, and 8 km from helicopters. And there are newer missiles, like the Vikhr-M and Hermes which have longer range, but that would be comparing different missiles, not just launching platform. So do you have a link to a source which says aircraft launched Vikhrs have 15 km range?
Recommended Posts