Return of Tank Destroyers

[Waylander]

Maybe not ARENA.

But at least Rafael says that Trophy is able to cover every direction.
This might just be a sales promotion but it looks like they think trophy is going to be able to counter top attack missiles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62jzAupr044&eurl=

The german AWiSS system which just recently has been tested at the range of the Federal Office´s of Defense Technology and Pro-curement technical agency 91 in Meppen (germany) also offers a 360° comprehensive protection.

And I doubt that the planned US system is not going to cover the top of their vehicles.

And I also really doubt that the russians have nothing in the pipe which is also able to do so.

 

[extern]

If you look at Iraq and at how the US worried about the use of Javelins and TOWs for attacking some lonely sniper or for blowing a hole into a wall. It is a real overkill to use expensive missiles for a task which would be done better by a dumb HE round.
It is also cheaper to use those smaller and lighter wheeled vehicles for this supporting role than real MBTs.
Many european countries as well as russia struggle to fund their armed forces and so using more of these vehicles instead of real MBTs is a normal way to keep costs low while being able to fullfill most of the required missions.

I think, the amricans were still the first who tried so called 'striker brigade concept' instead of 'heavy' division with MBTs:
''The brigade has 308 Stryker armored vehicles, 12 towed M198 155mm howitzers, 66 mortars (120mm, 81mm and 60mm), 10 TOW-2 ATGM launchers, 121 "Javelin" ATGM launchers, and three "Shadow 200" UAVs. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IAV/is_6_93/ai_n16085762
- but as you can see, they dont use any specialised anti-tank killer in it. IMHO suchlight armored anti-tank vehicle may be logical only for airborn or overcoast quick reaction ops, when the descentability and floatability of all the stuff are obligate and the highly offensive posture makes using shoulder ATGMs impossible.

 

[Grand Danois]

Maybe not ARENA.

But at least Rafael says that Trophy is able to cover every direction.
This might just be a sales promotion but it looks like they think trophy is going to be able to counter top attack missiles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62jzAupr044&eurl=

The german AWiSS system which just recently has been tested at the range of the Federal Office´s of Defense Technology and Pro-curement technical agency 91 in Meppen (germany) also offers a 360° comprehensive protection.

And I doubt that the planned US system is not going to cover the top of their vehicles.

And I also really doubt that the russians have nothing in the pipe which is also able to do so.

As I suggested, it's only a matter of tweaking the ADS to deal with it.

 

[extern]

As I suggested, it's only a matter of tweaking the ADS to deal with it.

Sometimes no... As in case of top-attack armor-piercing kinetic elements - it is something threat that is not seen solvable by ADS in visible future http://www.splav.org/en/arms/smerch/m55k1.asp .- It is a piece of metal, that fired from descended element:

 

[Grand Danois]

Sometimes no... As in case of top-attack armor-piercing kinetic elements - it is something threat that is not seen solvable by ADS in visible future http://www.splav.org/en/arms/smerch/m55k1.asp .- It is a piece of metal, that fired from descended element:

Oh yes! That is an entirely different set of problems.

 

[Waylander]

I thought we talked about ATGMs and not about intelligent AT rounds used by tube and rocket artillery.

 

[extern]

I thought we talked about ATGMs and not about intelligent AT rounds used by tube and rocket artillery.

'Yes' and 'no', bcz there are sharing technologies in them. Certanly, if a principle was already seccessfully implemented with the tube rocket on the distance 90 km, it is very expected to be implemented (when needed) with ATGM on its distance like 5-8 km. Coming soon, be sure!

 

[Waylander]

Ah, ok. I agree.

 

[atilla]

tabu___????

ı thınk most people takes tank as tabu they cant be destroed or smashed and so on ex...how about 6*6 fast craft makes quıck turns low profıle speeds up fst ??? equıped whıth 120 mm and whıth some antı thank mısıles and also whıth ınfantry ?? thıs group wıll hunt any thank ın my opınıon

 

[Waylander]

What?

 

[LancerMc]

Why future Striker Brigades won't have a dedicated MBT's or some type of tank destroyer? I would think the reason for this that the Strikers will be escorted by Apaches and other CAS aircraft that can attack tanks from a considerable distance. The U.S. is going with the idea when they have their next land battle they will have Air Superiority. I think that strategy is flawed and put to many units at risk from an attack of MBT's.

On the idea of Trophy, I think it should be integrated in U.S. tanks, but the only bad thing for other nations developing a similar system there is at least one weapon that ADS system can do nothing for protecting a MBT. The GAU-8 from an A-10A/C will still destroy any MBT in the world.

 

[psyclops]

The Stryker Brigades aren't intended to do heavy battle with enemy tank brigades--that's what armored brigades are for. That said, with all the TOW and Javelin launchers sprinkled around the Stryker brigade, there's plenty of MBT-killing power there for a pinch, should the enemy tanks not cooperate and attack before the friendly heavy brigades arrive. The 105mm-armed version of Stryker has an APFSDS round, too, if things get that desperate. And as has been mentioned, there should be air and artillery support, too.

The point about the airborne cannon (e.g. GAU-8) is a good one, but Raytheon and Rafael are already talking about intercepting KE projectiles from tanks. If they can do that, I imagine they'll be able to figure out how to get the smaller rounds from an aircraft cannon as well. We'll see, I guess.

As to the original question, I think tank destroyers are as relevant these days as they ever were--which is to say, not much outside a pretty narrow range of scenarios. They're still outmatched by most MBTs, in that their guns (even the 120mm ones) don't outrange the guns of likely opponents by much if any, so they have to depend entirely on not being seen before they knock the enemy out. Good for ambushes, but less so for maneuver. A better option IMHO is an assault gun for infantry support, designed for taking out bunkers and fortifications but able to throw an anti-tank round if absolutely necessary before buggering off to hide. The apparent resurgence of tank destroyers these days is a false economy if an army actually is going to use them in that role. Same as always, except now they cost more.

 

[LancerMc]

I understand the concept that Trophy and similar systems can destroy a kinetic projectile fired at the vehicle, but I doubt any system that is development can stop the firepower of GAU-8.

Kinetic rounds works like a arrow, but GAU-8 works like a shotgun. It showers the tank with armor piercing and high explosive rounds, causing massive damage. Trophy works by firing harden steel rods at high speed to destroy a missile or KE round, but those systems currently in development or in use in no way can stop a shower of 50-100 DU & HE 30mm rounds. If some how it could stop a GAU-8 attack it would probably use all its steel rods in one attack by an A-10, and a second strafe would destroy the target. I bet the radar can detect all the cannon rounds, but the counter measure launcher probably could not react quick enough to stop even most of the rounds.

 

[Soner1980]

First, the GAU-8 from the A-10 Thunderbolt is NOT a shotgun type weapon but just a 7 barrel autocannon firing thousands of rounds per minute. Ofcourse the Trophy would not stop the most of the rounds because it is too much. The Trophy is designed against the Palestians who have just a RPG type weapons or other kind of it. Also against a sabot round it is good. But this will not be understand that a MBT should weigh 20 tons in the future or armored car that can match against a 70 tons M1A2.

Because when the Trophy is knocked of, you can better find a safe place and watch your APC style MBT is perforated nfloorl:

 

[Waylander]

What about the upgraded top armor of the Strv122? This might work good against airborn automatic weapons.

 

[LancerMc]

I wasn't aware the Leo 2 had upgrade top armor. That would be a good question since the GAU-8 is used by the US, and as ally the chance of the air cannon attacking a Leo is quite low.

Essentially how the cannon works is it fires what the Air Force calls a "Party Mix" in a ratio of 2 to 3 DU armor piercing rounds and then a HE round to blow a big hole for the DU rounds to follow. From the few A-10 pilots I have met over the years, they say there's nothing that can stop a good attack by the GAU-8. Though this was a few years ago, so if the Leo II has been upgraded it just mite. I bet that would be an interesting test!

 

[extern]

I wasn't aware the Leo 2 had upgrade top armor. That would be a good question since the GAU-8 is used by the US, and as ally the chance of the air cannon attacking a Leo is quite low.

Don't be so sure, the Iranian Su-25 attack planes have 30 mm autocannon as well. It is why I said in another thread about to equip the tanks with 30mm for airdefence too. At least it may to equate the chances.

 

[Soner1980]

The original Su-25 Froogfoot is known to have a Gsh-23 23mm autocannon same installed on the MiG-23 Flogger. But the Iranians have them upgraded to the Frogfoot II standard. The 30mm is more powerfull than the 23mm but it is rumored that the 23mm is more effective in longer ranges.

I don't know it is the same 30mm gun in the BMP-2 and BMP-3. If yes, the 30mm gun is able to penetrate the top armor of most MBT's. The estimated penetration is ~60mm RHA. The GAU-8 is at least 80mm and with DU rounds it can reach to ~ 120-160mm. So, the Leo-2A6 must have thick armor plate on the roof to protect against it.

 

[Waylander]

I really have no idea what level of protection the improved top armor of the Strv122/Leo IIA6EX has.
Maybe some Swedes here?

 

[Soner1980]

When the Spanish were in negotiations, the Spanish side critized the KMW firm that the top armor is still vulnerable to weapons in hands of rebels. After hardly negotiations, the German KMW firm accepted to reinforce the top with extra armor to increase protection. Hearing this on the TV I think is not a much extra. And the TOW-2B (top attack version) should also penetrate it. How far would you go with the reinforcement of the armor?

But how much it is, I think it will be a kept secret.