Su-25 as antitank?

[GGTharos]

The biggest problem with this discussion is assumptions on both sides.

 

You're making some assumption that the rocket will land square on the top. I think that's BS, mainly because I've not seen anyone take such a dive. On the other hand, you certainly have a good chance of hitting the very large side/rear vertical surfaces, which are vulnerable, and I wasn't think about that.

 

What you weren't thinking about is that there are plenty of cases where such rockets have been known to land at an angle that caused them to bounce as well.

 

The main point always has been, if you try to strafe tanks with rockets, you're in for a very dangerous (to yourself) crap-shoot.

 

(Incidentally, most 30mm kills today would be due to secondary effects, and you have to get REALLY close for it to work ... and that's simulated in the game. What's not simulated is the tank sitting there looking like nothing happened).

 

@sithspawn.. you see, you said if you landed ALL your rockets on target sure you could do some major damage.. " ..so now we agree that point 1: you will not hit anything cuz inaccuracy.. point 2: EVEN if you hit a tank on TOP of it with 1,2 rockets it will do no damage since you need to land ALL of your rockets to do serious damage" ..

 

the biggest problem with the discussion is not accuracy but the ability of 1 single rocket IF landed on top armor just as any armor attack is usually done would create a kill situation ..while you experts are claiming it would do minor damage while 30mm cannon of A-10 will 10000 % for sure kill the tank.. this is the child like logic we are witnessing here.. its amazing really..

 

i'm waiting for you expert to tell me Kh-29 will not penetrate a truck..

[NineLine]

I never said it wouldnt do any damage if you landed 1 or 2 rockets on top of a tank, what I said is that the chances are lower due to the nature of a unguided rocket. The biggest problem with this discussion is you dont see the biggest problem with this discussion.

 

@sithspawn.. you see, you said if you landed ALL your rockets on target sure you could do some major damage.. " ..so now we agree that point 1: you will not hit anything cuz inaccuracy.. point 2: EVEN if you hit a tank on TOP of it with 1,2 rockets it will do no damage since you need to land ALL of your rockets to do serious damage" ..

 

the biggest problem with the discussion is not accuracy but the ability of 1 single rocket IF landed on top armor just as any armor attack is usually done would create a kill situation ..while you experts are claiming it would do minor damage while 30mm cannon of A-10 will 10000 % for sure kill the tank.. this is the child like logic we are witnessing here.. its amazing really..

 

i'm waiting for you expert to tell me Kh-29 will not penetrate a truck..

[Kaktus29]

@GG, sith.. lol, it seems you can't read, that is the problem here.. i didn't say anything about accuracy.. i am simply stating and wanting from you to SAY out loud.. IF, do you understand in english what IF means?.. IF a rocket anti-armor DOES land on TOP of the tank the tank will be destroyed.. that is all.. but you go on and rant its impossible, there is no way, Su-25 will not hit it on top but probably he will go under the earth and maybe hit his wheels.. and you make up all irrelevant things when the argument is simply IF a rocket anti-armor rocket HITS a tank on top of it will the tank be penetrated and destroyed or not..

 

its like i'm talking to children.. I admit the chances are low, i admit the accuracy is lower than gun or missile etc.. that is not the point.. we are discussing a very important scientific fact.. that is IF a rocket.. do i have to repeat this like 10000 times to get it? What is your problem in admitting scientific facts..

 

its like if you tell me IF you have a knife in your hand and stab a child in the heart he will die, and i go on a rant its impossible since i would never do such a thing.. i know that, i know i wouldn't do that but i have no problem confirming a simple fact that IF i would do something like that yes, the child would not survive..

 

you have such bias you can't admit it for the love of reason )) even in hypothetical scenario, even if i say there is a laboratory and tank is strapped, and rocket is 5 meter away, and lasers are pointing to the tank on top of it, and jesus himself gives special powers to guide the unguided rocket even at 5 meters away and if stars align and sun is in right position.. even then i have a feeling you will say, no way, it can't be done )) lol.. this is beyond laughable boys... beyond laughable..

 

this argument should be over long time ago by saying Rocket that LANDS on a tank means tank dead, chances of rocket land on tank = 0.05% or whatever.. but you keep claiming there is no chance to hit a tank with a rocket salvo and EVEN IF hit no chance to disable or do serious damage to tank since it will be only 1 missile.. it seems you need 1000 rockets fired from point blank range directly 90 degrees on top of the turret and EVEN then who knows right? ))

 

L.O.L...

[NineLine]

Again, I never said the rocket wouldnt do some damage... so again... you are the one misreading. I dont deal in absolutes (anyone gonna pick up on that?) and a top shot with a rocket isnt going to get a tank kill 100% of the time.

 

In WWII a pilot could bring down an enemy with one round fired from his guns if he placed that round right between the eyes of the enemy pilot. So firing more than 2 rounds would be a waste right? And the development of A2A missiles is a waste when one bullet will do the job.... no of course not. The point is the rocket is probably at the bottom of the list of things you want to bring to a tank busting mission...

 

@GG, sith.. lol, it seems you can't read, that is the problem here.. i didn't say anything about accuracy.. i am simply stating and wanting from you to SAY out loud.. IF, do you understand in english what IF means?.. IF a rocket anti-armor DOES land on TOP of the tank the tank will be destroyed.. that is all.. but you go on and rant its impossible, there is no way, Su-25 will not hit it on top but probably he will go under the earth and maybe hit his wheels.. and you make up all irrelevant things when the argument is simply IF a rocket anti-armor rocket HITS a tank on top of it will the tank be penetrated and destroyed or not..

 

its like i'm talking to children.. I admit the chances are low, i admit the accuracy is lower than gun or missile etc.. that is not the point.. we are discussing a very important scientific fact.. that is IF a rocket.. do i have to repeat this like 10000 times to get it? What is your problem in admitting scientific facts..

 

its like if you tell me IF you have a knife in your hand and stab a child in the heart he will die, and i go on a rant its impossible since i would never do such a thing.. i know that, i know i wouldn't do that but i have no problem confirming a simple fact that IF i would do something like that yes, the child would not survive..

 

you have such bias you can't admit it for the love of reason )) even in hypothetical scenario, even if i say there is a laboratory and tank is strapped, and rocket is 5 meter away, and lasers are pointing to the tank on top of it, and jesus himself gives special powers to guide the unguided rocket even at 5 meters away and if stars align and sun is in right position.. even then i have a feeling you will say, no way, it can't be done )) lol.. this is beyond laughable boys... beyond laughable..

 

this argument should be over long time ago by saying Rocket that LANDS on a tank means tank dead, chances of rocket land on tank = 0.05% or whatever.. but you keep claiming there is no chance to hit a tank with a rocket salvo and EVEN IF hit no chance to disable or do serious damage to tank since it will be only 1 missile.. it seems you need 1000 rockets fired from point blank range directly 90 degrees on top of the turret and EVEN then who knows right? ))

 

L.O.L...

[GGTharos]

@GG, sith.. lol, it seems you can't read, that is the problem here.. i didn't say anything about accuracy.. i am simply stating and wanting from you to SAY out loud.. IF, do you understand in english what IF means?.. IF a rocket anti-armor DOES land on TOP of the tank the tank will be destroyed.. that is all.. but you go on and rant its impossible, there is no way, Su-25 will not hit it on top but probably he will go under the earth and maybe hit his wheels.. and you make up all irrelevant things when the argument is simply IF a rocket anti-armor rocket HITS a tank on top of it will the tank be penetrated and destroyed or not..

 

We've seen rocket hits on parts other than the top that didn't destroy the tank, even though they penetrated. We've seen hits that obliterated tanks, too.

 

You can look around for the info yourself, and when you find which tanks aren't being blown to bits by rockets and which ones are, are you the one who's going to start whining?

 

Here, let me give you a hint: There's a very good report about M1s being hit by all sorts of things. Some were disabled or destroyed (destroyed usually by the EAPU catching fire), others were penetrated and remained combat-effective.

 

Now look at youtube where Russian-made tanks are being hit by RPGs and are completely destroyed, mainly because the ammo carousel is ignited (As far as I can tell).

 

Perhaps it depends on the tank construction and specifically its crew survivability design?

 

its like i'm talking to children.. I admit the chances are low, i admit the accuracy is lower than gun or missile etc.. that is not the point.. we are discussing a very important scientific fact.. that is IF a rocket.. do i have to repeat this like 10000 times to get it? What is your problem in admitting scientific facts..

 

What scientific facts? Did you shoot a rocket at the top of a tank? Maybe you're the one being a child now?

[outlawal2]

OK now for the really important question here...

 

WHO EFFING CARES?

 

A hypothetical situation that has no chance of ever happening in real life is a worthless conversation to have in the first place..

 

FACT: Unguided Rockets suck as anti tank weapons.. PERIOD

This is why no force in the world advocates their use for this purpose unless absolutely necessary.. (IE FRIGGIN DESPERATE)

 

Use the proper tool for the right job...

[NineLine]

Exactly...

 

OK now for the really important question here...

 

WHO EFFING CARES?

 

A hypothetical situation that has no chance of ever happening in real life is a worthless conversation to have in the first place..

 

FACT: Unguided Rockets suck as anti tank weapons.. PERIOD

This is why no force in the world advocates their use for this purpose unless absolutely necessary.. (IE FRIGGIN DESPERATE)

 

Use the proper tool for the right job...

[MBot]

The point is the rocket is probably at the bottom of the list of things you want to bring to a tank busting mission...

 

While I agree in principle on what you say on weapon effects, I am missing the aspects of how weapons are applied on the battlefield. If you are operating in a high threat low level single pass environment (as were the Soviet Su-25 based in East Germany), there are survivability reasons to load rockets even when striking tanks. Employing dumb bombs and CBUs is dangerous against a well defended enemy (what is the envelope for eploying RBK-series bombs?). Rockets provide a degree of stand-off, so it makes sense sometimes to carry them even against tanks. The Soviets loved their rockets and did't have a lack of tank targets (4000 MBTs by the West Germans alone).

 

What I was missing in the acccurancy discussion is that Soviet doctrine didn't forsee air power to be used against single point targets in the FEBA. This was artillery and helicopter country. Soviet air power, including Su-25 attack aviation, was to be applied in the enemies depth against C3 targets and reserves/reinforcements (which inlcudes tanks moving in road columne). Scoring hits with large rockets salvos against road columns shouldn't be that much of a problem...

Edited January 8, 2014 by MBot

[GGTharos]

MBot, shallow angle attack with rockets is an even bigger crap-shoot. I don't think they'd do that. Someone mentioned hitting the supply chain, and I think that's a far better target for such a sortie. Tanks run out of fuel quickly.

 

Edit: And you mentioned it again.

[NineLine]

That I dont know about, I dont know what the Soviet doctrine for the use of rockets on certain missions. I can only speak as far as the OP's topic, and I dont think advising them to load up rockets when there is better equipment for the task available, that said, if they have rockets and thats all they have, and a mission critical target is left, I suppose firing the rockets would make sense, but again, only in a situation where its your last choice, least in my opinion.

 

 

While I agree in principle on what you say on weapon effects, I am missing the aspects of how weapons are applied on the battlefield. If you are operating in a high threat low level single pass environment (as were the Soviet Su-25 based in East Germany), there are survivability reasons to load rockets even when striking tanks. Employing dumb bombs and CBUs is dangerous against a well defended enemy (what is the envelope for eploying RBK-series bombs?). Rockets provide a degree of stand-off, so it makes sense sometimes to carry them even against tanks. The Soviets loved their rockets and did't have a lack of tank targets (4000 MBTs by the West Germans alone).

 

What I was missing in the acccurancy discussion is that Soviet doctrine didn't forsee air power to be used against single point targets in the FEBA. This was artillery and helicopter country. Soviet air power, including Su-25 attack aviation, was to be applied in the enemies depth against C3 targets and reserves/reinforcements (which inlcudes tanks moving in road columne). Scoring hits with large rockets salvos against road columns shouldn't be that much of a problem...

[outlawal2]

That I dont know about, I dont know what the Soviet doctrine for the use of rockets on certain missions. I can only speak as far as the OP's topic, and I dont think advising them to load up rockets when there is better equipment for the task available, that said, if they have rockets and thats all they have, and a mission critical target is left, I suppose firing the rockets would make sense, but again, only in a situation where its your last choice, least in my opinion.

 

 

Yep.. Hell I would throw beer bottles and rocks if that is all I had, but I wouldn't recommend it as a standard loadout... :doh:

 

Once again this is a bit of a ridiculous conversation at this point...

Yes you can kill tanks with rockets... Maybe.. If the planets are aligned just so.. And the wind is right.. And you have a lucky 4 leaf clover.. :cry:

[GGTharos]

I will put in a ticket to make this item immediately available as standard payload :D

 

And you have a lucky 4 leaf clover.. :cry:

[outlawal2]

I will put in a ticket to make this item immediately available as standard payload :D

 

 

Don't forget the rocks and beer bottles!

 

(How do you modify the racks for that anyway? Well, the Beer Bottles can be thrown from the cockpit so no issue there, but the rocks I think should be mounted..) :thumbup:

[maturin]

@GG, sith.. lol, it seems you can't read, that is the problem here.. i didn't say anything about accuracy.. i am simply stating and wanting from you to SAY out loud.. IF, do you understand in english what IF means?.. IF a rocket anti-armor DOES land on TOP of the tank the tank will be destroyed.. that is all.. but you go on and rant its impossible, there is no way, Su-25 will not hit it on top but probably he will go under the earth and maybe hit his wheels.. and you make up all irrelevant things when the argument is simply IF a rocket anti-armor rocket HITS a tank on top of it will the tank be penetrated and destroyed or not..

 

its like i'm talking to children.. I admit the chances are low, i admit the accuracy is lower than gun or missile etc.. that is not the point.. we are discussing a very important scientific fact.. that is IF a rocket.. do i have to repeat this like 10000 times to get it? What is your problem in admitting scientific facts..

 

Since this has gotten heated, I will point out something very important.

 

You're the one who came late to the argument with the worthlessly obvious observation (disputed by no one) that a perfect S-8KOM hit to the top armor could destroy a modern MBT. That's nice, but it's not what we were talking about.

 

It started with me challenging Pepin's assertion that two S-8 hits should destroy an Abrams, regardless of shot placement, angle of impact, etc.

 

But in regards to your topic, there is never a guaranteed kill with AT weapons. Something can always go wrong with the very delicate formation of the shaped charge jet, and a tank is a big target with a lot of dead space where penetrations do little harm. Abrams have taken RPG hits to the commander's hatch from third-story windows and escaped with no damage. On paper, based on what we know, this is as close to a 100% definite kill as you can get. On paper, an Abrams also has no business surviving a Maverick hit, which it has. There are no absolutes.

[Haukka81]

Wow, say anything bad about Russian stuff and you summon the horde. Not bad.

 

There's no anti-pact conspiracy here, the simple fact is a rocket is a pretty poor choice of anti-tank weapon.

 

 

You can sumon horde of blue side too ;)

 

 

(Off-topic)

[url=

][/url]

[esb77]

I wonder how much of pepin1234's argument is based on that video he posted.

 

If it's mostly from the video, well, some problems with the argument.

 

1. The majority of the vehicles in that video are not modern MBTs. Most are either 1960s era tanks or IFVs. I saw a lot of what were probably Bradleys before they got hit and at least one or two that I think were Strykers. For the Russian weapons test videos it looked like all pre-T72 model Russian tanks.

 

2. The few M1A2s that were in the video and damaged to the point of inoperability were not damaged primarily by AT weapons. I recognized the pictures. Those were tanks that hit IEDs containing 100 - 500 kg of high explosives, the giant craters under the tanks and damage primarily to the undercarriage is sort of a giveaway there. I believe that in most of the cases the crew survived the IEDs, though I'd bet some of them are now suffering from effects of traumatic brain injuries. The photos showing small holes in the side skirt? Well a small hole in the side skirt is a small hole in the side skirt, and not at all the same thing as a kill, or even a mobility kill.

 

3. Wartime criteria change depending on the intensity of the war. In Iraq damaged tanks were scrapped even for fairly minor damage if it would have been expensive to repair. Contrast with say WWII, where for some battles you would have used anything that was still capable of firing at least one weapon. So a lot of the tank 'kills' would have in fact been more like 'normal wear and tear' in a high intensity conflict.

 

4. The small AT weapons that do work well against modern western MBTs are typically 105 - 130 mm diameter, and use tandem shaped charge warheads. It also normally takes multiple shots to cripple a tank, and even more to penetrate the crew compartment. The last time the IDF visited southern Lebanon Hezbollah used something like 1000 AT munitions to get 15 Israeli fatalities. When converting to S-8s keep in mind that due to its generalist warhead and smaller diameter the S-8 has 0.25 to 0.5 of the penetrating power of a man portable ATGM.

 

That isn't to say that weapons with damage potential on the order of an 80mm rocket can't render a tank inoperative. Hits from the side, rear, or on top of the turret could work. But uncritical acceptance of that video might give you a wildly exaggerated idea of how effective small rockets and missiles are against modern tanks.

 

Haukka81's video is another good example. Sure the recent versions of Su-27s can beat the JSF and F-22 in VR maneuvering battles, but first you have to assume that they survived wading through a sea of AMRAAMs to get there, and that the gen 5 fighters didn't just supercruise out of range if all the AMRAAMs somehow missed.

 

The thing about propaganda films and defense contractor advertising material is that it NEVER INCLUDES THE FINE PRINT. In this sort of thing details matter and you have to be smart enough to identify the deliberately deceptive stuff before you start thinking about how models of weapons systems should work.

Edited January 8, 2014 by esb77

[maturin]

4. The small AT weapons that do work well against modern western MBTs are typically 105 - 130 mm diameter, and use tandem shaped charge warheads. It also normally takes multiple shots to cripple a tank, and even more to penetrate the crew compartment.

Only due to probability. If a weapon can penetrate the armor, it penetrates the armor. Or it doesn't. There's no cumulative effect. The only thing that matters, all things being equal, is shot placement. But shot placement is difficult to do with AT weapons.

 

An 80-90mm shaped charge (ie, PG-7VL, SMAW, AT-4) is perfectly capable of getting a catastrophic kill through the side armor of any tank that stores ammo in the crew compartment. And if you hit in the right spot, it will do it reliably, and on the first hit. And a hit to the rear turret of an Abrams could easily kill the crew.

Edited January 8, 2014 by maturin

[GGTharos]

I believe the M1 was designed with its ammo compartment having safety blow-out doors to prevent exactly that from happening. I realize not all safety measures are 100%, like airbags and safety belts in a car won't save your bacon in a 200kph collision, but it was always my impression that the rounds stored in the turret in the M1 were stored in such a way that a rear hit would disable the tank (no ammo, perhaps among other things) but protect the crew.

[maturin]

Yeah, I distinguished between 'tank with ammo in crew compartment' and 'Abrams' there.

 

Removing the risk of ammo brew-up still leaves a whole lot of nasty fire, overpressure and spall-related things that can happen, resulting in a catastrophic kill, though.

[esb77]

Only due to probability. If a weapon can penetrate the armor, it penetrates the armor. Or it doesn't. There's no cumulative effect. The only thing that matters, all things being equal, is shot placement. But shot placement is difficult to do with AT weapons.

 

An 80-90mm shaped charge (ie, PG-7VL, SMAW, AT-4) is perfectly capable of getting a catastrophic kill through the side armor of any tank that stores ammo in the crew compartment. And if you hit in the right spot, it will do it reliably, and on the first hit. And a hit to the rear turret of an Abrams could easily kill the crew.

 

True, I suppose I could have been more clear on that. I was thinking in terms of operational procedure, "never fire just one."

 

Or in the case of S-8s perhaps it should be, "never fire just 100."

 

GGtharos is also correct about the ammo on the M1.

 

What you'd want to hit with an S-8 would be either the turret hatch/top or the engine compartment from above and the rear.

 

Your most likely damage with an S-8 though would be: paint, EHRA panels, antennas, and external sight mechanisms. Oh, and any cargo strapped onto the exterior.

[GGTharos]

Point taken.

 

Yeah, I distinguished between 'tank with ammo in crew compartment' and 'Abrams' there.

 

Removing the risk of ammo brew-up still leaves a whole lot of nasty fire, overpressure and spall-related things that can happen, resulting in a catastrophic kill, though.

[pepin1234]

If the Doctrine of the USAF is non rocket use. This is simple does not matter us. We are in the Su-25A Thread, and we use the russian doctrine.

 

With some rounds of S-8KOM every modern MBT unit will be damage if some of the rockets Impact at the top of the turret, at the right of the body chasis, or at the rear. So even with non damage of the tank Crew, only when the main Systems are non funtional is enough to say this unit is out of combat with a high probability to Abandon the unit to save his lifes.

 

See the Video and you will see vehicles Targets in almost all diving. If is drop the money or something like that is not your Problem Gatharos. We buy the Su-25A because we like it and we Training for get a good Performance. You dont Need suffer about that. It is our Problem...

 

[GGTharos]

If the Doctrine of the USAF is non rocket use. This is simple does not matter us. We are in the Su-25A Thread, and we use the russian doctrine.

 

The US uses rockets. They just don't use them on tanks, unless it's MLRS with sub-munitions :)

 

Also I can't see any vehicles in that video. I'm sure they could be there, but I just can't see them there.

 

See the Video and you will see vehicles Targets in almost all diving. If is drop the money or something like that is not your Problem Gatharos. We buy the Su-25A because we like it and we Training for get a good Performance. You dont Need suffer about that. It is our Problem...

Yes, duh. Did I ever say they wouldn't use them against vehicles? I don't believe you ever attempted to comprehend what I wrote, you're still stuck in your fantasy of attacking MBTs with rockets. I don't have a problem with it if it's what you want to do in the game. Who is this 'WE' you keep referring to? It isn't the Russian air force, it isn't the vast majority of flight simmers ... who is this 'WE', or are you a royal now? :)

And what do you know about Russian doctrine and tactics?

Edited January 8, 2014 by GGTharos

[OutOnTheOP]

@GG, sith.. lol, it seems you can't read, that is the problem here.. i didn't say anything about accuracy.. i am simply stating and wanting from you to SAY out loud.. IF, do you understand in english what IF means?.. IF a rocket anti-armor DOES land on TOP of the tank the tank will be destroyed.. that is all..

 

Kaktus, lol, it seems you're not very bright, that's the problem here. I didn't say anything about the throwing range of Americans with hand grenades, I am simply stating and want you to SAY out loud, IF do you understand in english what IF means, IF an American infantryman DOES throw an AN-M14 thermite grenade and it just HAPPENS to hit the top of the turret directly above the ammunition stowage, and it doesn't bounce or roll off the top of the turret, then it will burn through the armor and ignite the ammunition and the tank will be destroyed. American infantry with hand-thrown thermite grenades are therefore clearly a superior choice for combating enemy tanks.

 

...do you have any idea how asinine that kind of argument is? Or any notion that all you're doing is shifting your goalposts? I mean, once it became indefensible to continue insisting that FFARs are somehow a good choice for AT work, you change the argument to "oh, but they have enough power IF you hit", changing the argument midstream just so you can try to make yourself look less wrong.

 

Absolutely ridiculous.

Edited January 8, 2014 by OutOnTheOP

[maturin]

I'm skeptical that Russian doctrine calls for rocket attacks against tanks. For pepin has never let a fact get in the way of his posts, or based his arguments on actual technical knowledge.