AT-16 Scallion ?

[apple_core50]

Hi I'm new and i hope i could get some expert opinions about this- Russia has a AT missile called "9K121 Vikhr" (AT-16 Scallion) My friend and i was talking about what sorts of munitions was better (AT and tank armor is not my realm admitidbly..)

He said it could penetrate over 1,000 MM of ERA armor over 39 inches at 10KM.. And even the most heavily Armoured tanks like the Abrams and Leopard 2 and Challenger 2 only have about a foot of ERA armor..

Dose this means if a missile hits a NATO tank it doesn't stand a chance?

Also.. the AT-11 can also penetrate 900mm of ERA armor at 6,000 meters..is this true and could a Western tank survive?

 

[Feanor]

ERA isn't measured in feet. In fact armor in general isn't measured in feet. It's measured in mmRHA and even that is usually an approximation (many other factors like munition type, angle of attack, etc.). No it will not penetrate heavily armored western tanks front armor at 10km range. At closer ranges and against side and rear armor, or in particular top armor (as it's an aircraft missile primarily), it's more likely to be effective.

 

[B.Smitty]

Hi I'm new and i hope i could get some expert opinions about this- Russia has a AT missile called "9K121 Vikhr" (AT-16 Scallion) My friend and i was talking about what sorts of munitions was better (AT and tank armor is not my realm admitidbly..)

He said it could penetrate over 1,000 MM of ERA armor over 39 inches at 10KM.. And even the most heavily Armoured tanks like the Abrams and Leopard 2 and Challenger 2 only have about a foot of ERA armor..

Dose this means if a missile hits a NATO tank it doesn't stand a chance?

Also.. the AT-11 can also penetrate 900mm of ERA armor at 6,000 meters..is this true and could a Western tank survive?

Often, penetration is quoted in terms of mm of RHAe (Rolled Homogeneous Armor equivalent). But there are a lot of variables associated with this and tank protection is not uniform even across the frontal arc.

Some people break down protection levels further by the type of munition penetrating (i.e. KE based munitions will penetrate a certain armor configuration differently from HEAT).

Here are two good links (IMHO).

The first is an article called Armor Basics by Paul Lakowski (a long-time Tanknet poster and armor expert) it can be found here http://forum.sudden-strike.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=6811 .

The second is a collection of tank protection levels and munition penetration values, that, while certainly not definitive, at least will give you an idea of tank gun penetration capabilities. I believe the protection levels on this site are similar to those in Paul's document. Paul just goes to greater detail for different aspects of certain tanks.

http://collinsj.tripod.com/protect.htm

 

[KLMN]

No it will not penetrate heavily armored western tanks front armor at 10km range. At closer ranges...

What does range have to do with penetration ability of the missile?

and against side and rear armor, or in particular top armor (as it's an aircraft missile primarily), it's more likely to be effective.

And your opinion is based on... ?

 

[Feanor]

Range has a lot to do with accuracy, and force of impact. More importantly at closer range it's far easier to hit less protected areas of the tank.

My opinion is based on the fact that most tanks have weaker top armor, and on the fact that it's an aircraft launched AT missile. Being a very modern design, one of the latest, it's reasonable to expect that it will be able to penetrate most tanks armor from a clear top shot.

 

[eckherl]

Range has a lot to do with accuracy, and force of impact. More importantly at closer range it's far easier to hit less protected areas of the tank.

My opinion is based on the fact that most tanks have weaker top armor, and on the fact that it's an aircraft launched AT missile. Being a very modern design, one of the latest, it's reasonable to expect that it will be able to penetrate most tanks armor from a clear top shot.

Isn`t the projectile that is in question in fact a shaped charged type of projectile, force of impact is not the deciding factor in performance for this type of projectile.

 

[KLMN]

My opinion is based on the fact that most tanks have weaker top armor, and on the fact that it's an aircraft launched AT missile. Being a very modern design, one of the latest, it's reasonable to expect that it will be able to penetrate most tanks armor from a clear top shot.

Actually my question was why cant it penetrate frontal armor? (I should have made it more clear.) Can you compare it with something or you know some kind of test results?

 

[Feanor]

Isn`t the projectile that is in question in fact a shaped charged type of projectile, force of impact is not the deciding factor in performance for this type of projectile.

Thanks for the correction. That still does leave accuracy though.

Actually my question was why cant it penetrate frontal armor? (I should have made it more clear.) Can you compare it with something or you know some kind of test results?

Well I do know that the front armor of most western tanks has not been penetrated (systematically) by any projectile. I also know that the AT-16 is aircraft carried, meaning it's designed with top-attack in mind. It's likely that it's not meant to penetrate front armor in the first place. Between that, and the fact that the missile is almost 20 years old, leads me to reasonably infer that it's not likely to penetrate front armor. No I don't have access to test results (unfortunately) but I do know that our (Russian) weapon designers have a tendency to claim that whatever they design is the best and can penetrate any armor etc. so I have learned to take these claims with a grain of salt.

 

[eckherl]

Thanks for the correction. That still does leave accuracy though.



Well I do know that the front armor of most western tanks has not been penetrated (systematically) by any projectile. I also know that the AT-16 is aircraft carried, meaning it's designed with top-attack in mind. It's likely that it's not meant to penetrate front armor in the first place. Between that, and the fact that the missile is almost 20 years old, leads me to reasonably infer that it's not likely to penetrate front armor. No I don't have access to test results (unfortunately) but I do know that our (Russian) weapon designers have a tendency to claim that whatever they design is the best and can penetrate any armor etc. so I have learned to take these claims with a grain of salt.

Russia actually placed it on a MTLB platform for testing purposes but decided to squash the idea, most likely due to poor penetration performance while engaging MBT`s from the 60 degree frontal. Have to agree that the HEAT projectile version was most likely designed for top and flank attacks on primary and secondary armored vehicles.