So I agree that the M1A2 Abrams is pprobably one of the best

>>28910697
Meh, when someone makes a tube launched ATGM that's the equal in performance of a regular ATGM like a TOW2 or even a Kornet, it'll be something worth striving for. Until then, APFSDS that have great penetration throughout their engagement range are a better option simply because of the logistics involved. It also doesn't help that all ATGMs are HEAT based and any tank past the mid 80's has absurd amounts of HEAT protection.

In other words, it'll happen when it happens. Though I think it's safe to say that at this point the entire NLOS ATGM concept is rapidly eclipsing the usefulness of tube launched ATGMs.

soviet tanks were only developed with bore-launched missiles to make up for their inherent inferiority in a 1v1 fight with NATO heavy-hitters (inb4 vatniks). This is the exact reason that the Sheridan had a missile, to make it more of a threat to much heavier tanks.

clearly, because NATO MBTs still lack bore-launched ATGMs, NATO armor strategists still feel their tanks are inherently superior to the ex-soviets'

however, with new threats like the Armata coming on the stage, and considering the fact that Israel now has bore-launched missiles, it's becoming somewhat a better question.

now I don't profess to know much about current-gen armor, but my question was always "How come no NATO tanks have external TOW launchers like the Bradley?" because that would be a much easier change to implement.

File: 1454048276934.jpg (55KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 625x626px

>>28910697

File: OFL 105 kiss cool.jpg (478KB, 659x874px) Image search: [Google]

478KB, 659x874px

>>28910697

Any modern MBT can fire GLATGM, it's just that they aren't considered as necessary by many armies.

>>28910697
Because that's not in our playbook. The shitshow that was the Shileleigh convinced us to go all in on APFSDS, and it's worked pretty fucking well.

File: image.jpg (1008KB, 2400x1597px) Image search: [Google]

1008KB, 2400x1597px

>>28910697
>why it can't fire ATGMs from its tube yet?

If a customer wants there is an upgrade packge for the Leopard 2 to fire LAHAT.

File: 1373970736001.jpg (68KB, 558x344px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 558x344px

>>28910778
>NATO armor strategists

LOL, you mean like old European women? Pic related.

I'm sure they know what's best based on combat experience.

Bore launched missiles are completely shit, and serve no purpose at all other than "we're too poor/third world to just build a new tank with a better gun"

What we need is large, long range ATGM's in a VLS arrangement

>>28910791
different anon, but why is the tip filled with BBs?

>>28910778
>new threats
>like the armata

File: Obus_de_105_pour_AMX30.jpg (2MB, 2476x1541px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2476x1541px

>>28910843

The ballistic cap of the French OFL 105 F1 is filled with steel balls for maximum behind-the-armor effects, even against light armoured vehicles.

>>28910778
>and considering the fact that Israel now has bore-launched missiles
The LAHAT never entered widespread service.

>>28910697
Because it's a useless feature.

File: éclatement du blindage résiduel par le barreau.png (340KB, 736x516px) Image search: [Google]

340KB, 736x516px

>>28911091

and more expensive than an APFSDS

>>28910778
>my question was always "How come no NATO tanks have external TOW launchers like the Bradley?" because that would be a much easier change to implement.
IIRC Russia liked to put external Sagger rails on their T-55s and T-62s back then, sort of related

>>28910827
Getting blown up by kebabs and your shit getting wrecked in a very embarrassing way isn't exactly what I'd call combat experience.

>>28910900
>The ballistic cap of the French OFL 105 F1 is filled with steel balls for maximum behind-the-armor effects, even against light armoured vehicles.
I wonder if it's designed that way because it's not intended to take on heavily armored tanks anyway. It seems like the balls are just going to get smashed out of the way by the penetrator rod upon a hit, unless the target is so lightly armored that a long-rod penetrator was unneeded anyway. Plus France was using exclusively Obus G against anything tough.

So do I have this right? -
>heavy armor targets: OCC 105 F1
>medium armor targets and thick concrete: OFL 105 F1 acts as a long-rod penetrator and the balls are wasted weight
>light armor targets and most structures: OFL 105 F1 fully penetrates, balls and all

Or am I way off

>>28910778
>now I don't profess to know much about current-gen armor, but my question was always "How come no NATO tanks have external TOW launchers like the Bradley?" because that would be a much easier change to implement.
Because the guns were more than capable of killing Soviet tanks, and are generally superior to the task than ATGMs.

>>28910697
GLATGMs are slower and less effective than KEPs, especially the latest models of M829.

File: Perforation flèches françaises.jpg (85KB, 698x960px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 698x960px

>>28911213
>So do I have this right? -
>>heavy armor targets: OCC 105 F1

The OFL 105 F1 was the premium choice versus heavy armored target (better first-round hit probability due to higher muzzle velocity).

>>light armor targets and most structures: OFL 105 F1 fully penetrates, balls and all

You"re all right.

File: xm943.jpg (27KB, 550x296px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 550x296px

>>28910697
Because there are no tanks that an M829A3 (soon to be A4) is not sufficient for.

If not for the fall of the Soviet Union and the peace in our times from the 90's, STAFF rounds would have gone into production.

>>28910697
But it can

See LAHAT

File: mrm-ce.jpg (115KB, 1024x721px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1024x721px

>>28911421
Also, guided HEAT rounds and guided rocket boosted kinetic penetrators were in development till Obummer was elected.

>>28911376
Huh. For some reason I thought they were stuck with Obus G alone for a long time when it came to hard targets. So I was wrongly thinking of OFL 105 F1 as a complement to it rather than a replacement as you seem to imply.

But I still wish to know what the fuck those balls are doing in different types of impacts(ie different targets).

>>28911445
MRM-KE seemed like it would be extremely resistant to hard-kill APS


>fast
>small
>trajectory adjustments not only keep the projectile on-target but also change the vector, complicating APS fire control
>final boost is another change of vector for the APS to overcome
>final boost brings speed back up to the same ridiculous levels as an APFSDS dart at the muzzle, good fucking luck intercepting that in the tiny window of time from detection to hit

Because ATGMs are not a selling point and are worse then kinetic rounds. Based abrams is fine without it. Also also bradleys have atgms , what is doctrine for 400 alex.

>>28911421
>>28911445
>>28911616
How quickly do you think these programs could be reactivated if needed?

>>28911772
There's probably similar programs in the works now, since one of the upgrades for M1A2 SEPv3 and M1A3 is making their barrels compatible with smart munitions.

>>28911843
Doesn't Abrams already have an RFID interrogator at the chamber?

File: 120mm-mrm-image01.jpg (106KB, 754x554px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 754x554px

>>28911843
In all likeliness MRM's are still being worked on.

It was "killed" twice before it was known as XM1111.

>>28911276

correct, the steel balls are a contingency. When your tank has Sabot loaded by default but only soft targets are available, the steel balls make sure the Sabot does more than knock a tiny hole in the armor.

You generally can't "unload" modern rounds from a breech once it's been loaded, especially if it's a hot gun. The fastest and safest way is to shoot it at something.

>>28911884
I think so, but SEPv3 is supposed to add in an Ammunition Datalink so it can use airburst rounds, while the M1A3 is supposed to have further refinements to allow it to use precision munitions.

File: US 105mm 120mm tank.jpg (87KB, 1000x450px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1000x450px

>>28911884
The SEPv3 and 2A7 are the first Abram/Leopard2 to have an ammunition data link as standard equipment.

This is not counting test vehicles or retrofits by specific militaries.

>>28911919
Want to guess why I think you are a War Thunder player?

>>28911980
Are you saying he is wrong?

>>28911957
Isn't the SEP V3 getting a multi-purpose HE round to replace everything but the M829?

Can the new HE round airburst?

>>28910778
>soviet tanks were only developed with bore-launched missiles to make up for their inherent inferiority in a 1v1 fight with NATO heavy-hitters (inb4 vatniks).
False. Who told you this? The Soviets made up for the perceived inferiority of their tanks by having more of them overall and more importantly more at the point of contact. When I have 5 times as much tank formations against 1 of yours I could just advance them all in a row, have 1-2 that actually clash with your forces engage and have the rest flank and encircle your tanks.
>This is the exact reason that the Sheridan had a missile, to make it more of a threat to much heavier tanks.
The Sheridan was a failure in that it took the wrong approach to the problem. It had a round made up already and everything else came to being around it- expensive and needless to say with the state of electronics back then made it crap.
>now I don't profess to know much about current-gen armor, but my question was always "How come no NATO tanks have external TOW launchers like the Bradley?" because that would be a much easier change to implement.
Thats just like asking how come no have a howitzer as a coax? Not worth it for the very minor increase in practical not on paper performance as tactical usage of a tank precludes its use as a howitzer in my example and an ATGM launcher in your suggestion. That is not to say ATGMs for tanks are not just worth it- its just that if you really want them(there are lots of viable targets afterall like IFVs sporting ATGMs and attack helos that make a guided round with extended range worthwhile) make them as seamless to integrate as possible; keep it simple and use the already existing launcher and ammo handling equipment as well as adding a channel to the gunner's sight a la Soviets.

>>28911421
>Because there are no tanks that an M829A3 (soon to be A4) is not sufficient for.
Pretty goddamn sure there are- the T-14 is sure to be proof across the ridiculously thick frontal hull armor alone without even help from its hard kill interceptors and judging by past incidences, the M1A2 Sep V3 as well.
>>28911616
>MRM-KE seemed like it would be extremely resistant to hard-kill APS
not really. hardkill APS have pretty fast reaction times too, and they would only get better.
>>28911616
>trajectory adjustments not only keep the projectile on-target but also change the vector, complicating APS fire control
you can't really introduce some amount of maneuvers aside from trajectory correcting ones in the terminal phase- thats an easy way to have the whole thing wobble in flight and strike at the wrong angle, and with APFSDS it has to be normal as possible or else performance drops accordingly.

>>28912127
It'd be incredibly redundant if it didn't especially with an integrated ammunition data-link

>>28912166
It really is a shame so much of the Sheridan was hampered by issues. Light tank hitting above its weight class with missiles gets me all hot and bothered

>>28911992
APFSDS do more to the insides of a vehicle than 'knock tiny holes in the armor".

>>28912330
T-14's will be incredibly easy to mission kill compared to other MBTs, that turret will not stand up to any anti tank weaponry.

Honestly the T-15 is the only new vehicle of that family with significance.

>>28912589
>APFSDS do more to the insides of a vehicle than 'knock tiny holes in the armor".
provided they went through a substantial amount of armor first, otherwise all you'd get is a 2-3 inch hole in, and hole out.
>>28912657
>T-14's will be incredibly easy to mission kill compared to other MBTs, that turret will not stand up to any anti tank weaponry.
I swear this horse has been beaten to death so many times its been turned into fucking neutrinos. No its not- for the simple reason that to mission (firepower is more apt) kill the thing you have to hit the gun mantle itself with a sabot round or atgm since its armored proof against anything lower and or wreck the two combined sights of the gunner and commander. Nobody complains that all those small targets when hit cause a mission kill in other tanks with manned turrets so why should the case with the T-14s be any different?
>Honestly the T-15 is the only new vehicle of that family with significance.
Then you aren't that good in the whole evaluation thing as you thing you are.
Every vehicle is important- the T-14 alone is important since it marries superb protection for the crew and systems, excellent firepower and target acquisition, comfy working environment, and next-gen netcentric warfare capabilities; if it was Western it would be called a game-changer or even a RMA. The T-15 is significant too mostly since its the only IFV apart from the Namer that can go up front and deliver the troops and stay there providing supporting fire in the thick of the battle- nothing else can do that or they'll get creamed by weapons meant to bust tanks. Overall the new vehicles themselves aren't that significant in contrast to the fact that they utilize a common chassis with all its attendant support systems, across all the combat vehicles in the brigade/division, significantly reducing the logistics tail when all you have to worry are about are basically the trucks and the armatas.

>>28912330
>you can't really introduce some amount of maneuvers aside from trajectory correcting ones in the terminal phase
Oh, I wasn't suggesting it do terminal evasive maneuvers - that's a project for the future. I was merely saying that the corrective maneuvers themselves amount to accidental evasive maneuvers.

>>28913115
>Oh, I wasn't suggesting it do terminal evasive maneuvers - that's a project for the future. I was merely saying that the corrective maneuvers themselves amount to accidental evasive maneuvers.
they are not- the APS knows you will converge on the tank anyways and along a pretty much fixed straight trajectory from when the rocket kicks in(made necessary by what Ive just explained in the last post) so unless that round has some alien inertia drives any "accidental evasive maneuvers" won't matter.

>>28910767
Isn't the LAHAT basically that ?

>>28913170
>Isn't the LAHAT basically that ?
LAHAT is 120mm, smaller in contrast to the TOW and Kornet which are in the 152mm calibre, so obviously much weaker in armor penetration.

>>28912952
>since its armored proof against anything lower

You see the horse beaten because it is a simple observable fact, hitting the turret anywhere with anything from an ancient RPG and up is going to firepower kill the tank.

There is no way that the turret has significant armor a) visually, as we have seen close ups of the turret and b) by weight, as there is no way it weighs as little as it does despite being as large as it does if the turret is actually armored.

>>28912952
To be honest, I have to side with him. Even if the sabot misses the vital components in the T-14's turret, there's still a chance of damaging something else, which would render it inoperable anyways. With how thin the armor is, HEAT or maybe even delay fused High-Ex may do the job. This is all assuming its APS is no longer in play however.

Should it still be, an autocannon might be able to simply cheese the turret anyways. Hell, if I absolutely knew I was going up against the T-14's, I might just grab some AFVs that have one of the larger autocannons and let them take care of it. The APS would likely run out fast against the larger autocannon shells, and the turret would be shredded soon after. I give them credit for saving the crew, but after that, it's defenseless and must either flee or bail.

This is my own opinion, but I'd rather have armor and not let the damage occur to begin with, instead of min-maxing like this.

>>28913264
LAHAT is actually 105mm, it was created for older Israeli tanks to still have teeth.

>>28913155
gotcha. point conceded

File: WqJpQ.jpg (353KB, 4115x2186px) Image search: [Google]

353KB, 4115x2186px

>>28913332
>There is no way that the turret has significant armor a) visually, as we have seen close ups of the turret and b) by weight, as there is no way it weighs as little as it does despite being as large as it does if the turret is actually armored.

a) funny you mentioned ancient RPGs- the shell would actually set them off with generous amount of spacing from the main turret armor, diminishing their effectiveness greatly. Also, for benefit of people reading this is how the turret supposedly looks like under the shell- as an easy reference the hardkill interceptors have a calibre of around 160mm; feel free to superimpose the one nearest to the gun to get a feel of the thickness of the side armor.
b) weight of sub 50 tons is obvious bullshit- don't lap up everything you see. only way it could be true is with everything extra stripped away, even the combat load and personnel.
>>28913335
>Should it still be, an autocannon might be able to simply cheese the turret anyways. Hell, if I absolutely knew I was going up against the T-14's, I might just grab some AFVs that have one of the larger autocannons and let them take care of it. The APS would likely run out fast against the larger autocannon shells, and the turret would be shredded soon after. I give them credit for saving the crew, but after that, it's defenseless and must either flee or bail.
and you are forgetting the fact that the T-14 can actually shoot back aren't you? and when it does the IFV would get fucking blown to bits.

>>28913335
>To be honest, I have to side with him. Even if the sabot misses the vital components in the T-14's turret, there's still a chance of damaging something else, which would render it inoperable anyways. With how thin the armor is, HEAT or maybe even delay fused High-Ex may do the job. This is all assuming its APS is no longer in play however.
The designers aren't morons; though the chief designer of the T-14 looks wet behind the ears, they would've doubled anything vital they could, put redundant systems in place and more importantly make the whole thing modular to allow easy repair and replacements of battle damaged components.
And HEAT and delay fused HE were always dangerous to tanks, especially when fired from tank guns giving them substantial KE as well. The Soviets estimated that even for modern tanks, about 2-3 hits from full-calibre HE/HEAT rounds should inflict any form of mission kill to a tank; and that is including hits to the most armored front part of the turret where the gun is.
Pretty much only way to get around them with minimal damage is APS- avoid getting a direct hit as much as possible.
>>28913335
>This is my own opinion, but I'd rather have armor and not let the damage occur to begin with, instead of min-maxing like this.
Given that nobody knows how tanks with APS would perform against peer opponents I think nobody has a really valid opinion yet. If they do bad, then just uparmor them- the whole thing is touted modular for a good reason. But if they do just fine then great; the weight savings from not having to uparmor the turret should instead allow for things like further uparmoring the hull instead or going for a much powerful(not necessarily bigger gun).

>>28913534
>the shell would actually set them off

The shell is sheet metal, it is unlikely it would stop the RPG from passing through.

>as an easy reference the hardkill interceptors have a calibre of around 160mm; feel free to superimpose the one nearest to the gun to get a feel of the thickness of the side armor.

An easier reference is looking where the roof ERA tiles are, why would you put ERA over space that contained nothing but armor beneath it.

>and you are forgetting the fact that the T-14 can actually shoot back aren't you? and when it does the IFV would get fucking blown to bits.

Not when the gun has been rendered inoperable.

>>28914006
>The shell is sheet metal, it is unlikely it would stop the RPG from passing through.
The piezoelectic fuze of any and all RPG HEAT warheads in existence are meant to detonate on impact. They wouldn't pass through.
>>28914006
>An easier reference is looking where the roof ERA tiles are, why would you put ERA over space that contained nothing but armor beneath it.
because most top attacks dont hit the top of the turret straight vertically, there is a lot of obliquity going on that it makes sense to put ERA even on the edges where the armor is just to catch those that tag that spot.
>Not when the gun has been rendered inoperable.
pretty sure the turret is armored thick enough to stop most autocannon fires in operation and in those projected for the future. The gun barrel in the T-14 is even tougher than others' since it lacks the bore evacuator which is basically a weak zone in the barrel since its not made of homogenous metal. Never forget the fact too that even if the gun is damaged the crew of the T-14 can afford to continue shooting since they are- you know away from the gun in case it goes tits up.

>>28914299
>pretty sure the turret is armored thick enough to stop most autocannon fires in operation and in those projected for the future.
to put more meat in this statement- the bigass 40mm autocannon bushmaster iv can fire APFSDS rounds that can only penetrate about 150mm of steel; compare that with the unskinned turret above and the 160mm hardkill interceptor for reference again.

>>28911430
>LAHAT

this round may as well not exist for how often it's fielded (read: never).

>>28910778


the gun launched missiles were not supposted to take out enemy tanks, they were to take out ATGM carriers

>>28910778
>Israel now has bore-launched missiles,

so they can sell them.

>>28913353
It's for both 105 and 120.

>>28917012
The missile fired from 120mm guns is still 105mm.

Cost and doctrine.
Loading.

Really there's no excuse to not have one for the added capability, but it won't stop nationalistic retards from spouting off why having one would be a bad idea, or how they suck, etc.

>>28917053
Given the ratio of nations who actually use GL-ATGM and those who don't, it is more likely that you are being nationalistic in demanding they be used :^).