Chinese Hong Jian/Red Arow ATGM developments (current)

It's funny how this is even a news story but that's what happens when there's been so much hype through the years as repeated in this video and they bothered to make a video to point it out.


It wasn't even a top attack too. This is how China overcomes its reputation which is also why there's heavy criticism against Chinese exports of even small arms. Real life beats what's on paper anytime.

It does look like the Kurds fired an HJ-8 down a road with a terrain similar to those pictures and video of the burned out M1A1.

HJ-8 mounted on a peshmerga Humvee. The missile is possible a HJ-8E.

Some other points that popped in my head. From the video of the Kurds possibly firing on the M1A1 with the HJ-8, it might have been a frontal hit. The video made taunting how the HJ-8 was inferior also pointed out how the HJ-8 couldn't even penetrate an early Type 96. Ergo...

AssassinsMace said:

Some other points that popped in my head. From the video of the Kurds possibly firing on the M1A1 with the HJ-8, it might have been a frontal hit. The video made taunting how the HJ-8 was inferior also pointed out how the HJ-8 couldn't even penetrate an early Type 96. Ergo...

Click to expand...

That video is a pure piece of fanboy propaganda, as is often the case when the maker doesn’t even have the balls to use his/her own voice.

And that footage wasn’t a HJ8 against a 96, but a 98. And we had no idea what version of the HJ8 was used, so it doesn’t really tell us much.

Although until we get a proper look at the wreckage, it might be premature to claim HJ8s can kill Abrams head on. Could have been a lucky hit against the turret ring after all.

Also, does the Iraqi M1A1s have proper chobram armour, or is it a downgraded monkey version?

Because we have seen M1s killed by head on ATGM hits before, but those were claimed to be monkey versions.

plawolf said:

That video is a pure piece of fanboy propaganda, as is often the case when the maker doesn’t even have the balls to use his/her own voice.

And that footage wasn’t a HJ8 against a 96, but a 98. And we had no idea what version of the HJ8 was used, so it doesn’t really tell us much.

Although until we get a proper look at the wreckage, it might be premature to claim HJ8s can kill Abrams head on. Could have been a lucky hit against the turret ring after all.

Also, does the Iraqi M1A1s have proper chobram armour, or is it a downgraded monkey version?

Because we have seen M1s killed by head on ATGM hits before, but those were claimed to be monkey versions.

Click to expand...

Of course it is but when I was trying find more info on this M1A1 attack I came across an article I can see that video nearly verbatim quoted from. In fact there were plenty of articles declaring the HJ-8 was obsolete and all coming around the same time at the beginning of this year. So they all must have gotten their info from an original more higher source. If it were the other way around, they would say there's no such thing as luck. Just as they said the Type 99 had a design flaw where the turret was vulnerable to being blown off the chassis, there's an unadvertised flaw if one obsolete HJ-8 can destroy an M1A1 even out of luck. The enemy will possess the same ATGMs as the US faces. The US will sell a tank that will just protect you enough from China's weakest missile. Meaning every other country will be able to destroy that tank because China has the weakest weapons.

China should about now be rewriting their marketing materials.

I think claims of so-called monkey versions are exaggerated. Most alleged monkey export versions only differ from the domestic product slightly. For tanks, I really doubt these slight differences will involve armour content. It won't be made from solid RH steel because that will weigh >90 tonnes. It could be plates of RHA but that would be close to useless against serious anti-tank weapons. There's no sense in creating an entirely new set of ceramics just for export. It's either the exact same armour or slightly less sophisticated ceramics, laminates, and welding. The resulting difference should be minor if the armour is to work at all. The video doesn't really show Abrams being destroyed so HJ-8 effectiveness on Abrams is inconclusive. However, Abrams tank is so far from invincible, I doubt any serious military power will struggle one bit knocking hundred of Abrams out with ease so destroying them shouldn't really be a source of pride... maybe for jihadists with no training and rpgs.

Armata with new APS is much harder. Tank on tank engagements are pretty rare these days and if you know Abrams is stronger at tank vs tank owing to better firepower and sabot munitions, then only engage using drones, gunships and top attack ATGMs.

There are thousands of these youtube videos created by China haters. They've been wrong many times before and often flat out lie, so why bother with them?

AssassinsMace said:

Of course it is but when I was trying find more info on this M1A1 attack I came across an article I can see that video nearly verbatim quoted from. In fact there were plenty of articles declaring the HJ-8 was obsolete and all coming around the same time at the beginning of this year. So they all must have gotten their info from an original more higher source. If it were the other way around, they would say there's no such thing as luck. Just as they said the Type 99 had a design flaw where the turret was vulnerable to being blown off the chassis, there's an unadvertised flaw if one obsolete HJ-8 can destroy an M1A1 even out of luck. The enemy will possess the same ATGMs as the US faces. The US will sell a tank that will just protect you enough from China's weakest missile. Meaning every other country will be able to destroy that tank because China has the weakest weapons.

China should about now be rewriting their marketing materials.

Click to expand...

No point rewriting marketing material for military hardware. The people who may become serious buyers are smarter than to believe in this sort of crap presented in those videos. Better to not show ability or disability to anyone. Buyers of HJ-8 understand it and everyone else can remain in the dark wrt any Chinese military hardware. Type 99 design flaw is not real. That "shot trap" is nonsense and does not apply to modern tanks like Leopard 2a4 onwards, Arjun MK2, Type 99 and 96x, Type 10. If it did, none of these modern tanks would be using this design. Reason it's not a real problem is because that wedge shape is not filled with solid material. It is just a frame attached to the outside of the actual armour which is just one slant similar to M1 and Challenger 2. The idea is to create a modular piece of preliminary armour to detonate tandem warheads and attach ERA or NERA to the outside of this "thin" frame. This makes it easier to replace while the main armour is very hard to repair and replace. So for all small threats, this is enough without damaging actual armour beneath. The curvature of any solid projectile that enters, is not significant and will not be travelling down through to the crew chamber like WW2 tanks. This happened back then because tanks had solid armour and the normal forces from the armour on the projectile directs the round down if it hits the bottom half of these wedge turrents. Any explosive force between the hull and lower wedge is nowhere near enough to blow the turret off, even if it wasn't fixed to the hull. It could however damage it but those specifics would be classified. Type 99 wedge design was done like the others, to give driver's head some consideration while maximising the space between the frame and main armour. This space could also be packed with stuff depending on demands of battle and enemy firepower. This is easily adjusted accordingly because the entire thing is modular. A very clever way of improving armour while saving weight. Older tanks designed in the 70s (challenger 2 and M1) are more oldschool.

Armarta uses similar idea (Russians were the first to do this). What we see on Armata's surface is just a skin to minimise radar signature and put all those sensors and APS on. The actual turret is much smaller and beneath this outer layer. This is why it's turret looks huge for an unmanned one.

Those M1A1s are most likely the ones used by the US before the pullout. If they were converted down it would most likely be in the component systems and not any armor.