Ukrainian War Developments

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Anlsvrthng

Captain
Registered Member
Darkon112 said:
MANPADS are against air targets and currently aren't suited(Not that you can't) to engage ground targets sensor wise (especially older MANPADS ) neither are they suited to engage tanks or anything remotely armored that can withstand 14,5 mm or more since their Directed-energy blast fragmentation warheads are fairly small and well fragmentation warheads....

However, MANPADS and ATGM fusion is on it's way.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Evolution wise it makes sense. A lot of ATGM's can already be used to down slow and low-flying targets like heli's.
And if you're going to be adding optical seeker especially multichannel ones. Which is what said ATGM will likely have and pretty much all of them will have sooner or later. Might as well make those anti-tank guided missiles even more multipurpose then they already frankly are.
Click to expand...
Apart from that the ATGMs are not suit to defeat aircrafts, regardless of control

They designed to create a metal jet to penetrate the armor, and that is less than ideal to defeat an aircaft.

The required explosive and fregments different for tanks and aircrafts.


And anyway, the issue of the Ukrainans is the purposfully made MANPADSs are inefficient against modern helicopters, so what could be expected if you use ATGMs ?
 
W

Weaasel

Senior Member
Registered Member
Darkon112 said:
MANPADS are against air targets and currently aren't suited(Not that you can't) to engage ground targets sensor wise (especially older MANPADS ) neither are they suited to engage tanks or anything remotely armored that can withstand 14,5 mm or more since their Directed-energy blast fragmentation warheads are fairly small and well fragmentation warheads....

However, MANPADS and ATGM fusion is on it's way.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Evolution wise it makes sense. A lot of ATGM's can already be used to down slow and low-flying targets like heli's.
And if you're going to be adding optical seeker especially multichannel ones. Which is what said ATGM will likely have and pretty much all of them will have sooner or later. Might as well make those anti-tank guided missiles even more multipurpose then they already frankly are.
Click to expand...
What I meant was ATGMs. Thanks for the correction... Presently utilized armoured vehicles, be they main battle tanks or infantry fighting vehicles seem to be highly vulnerable to them - certainly the types used by the Ukrainians. To compensate, it looks like armoured vehicles will have to have much thicker armour for significantly slower speeds.
 
D

Darkon112

Junior Member
Registered Member
Anlsvrthng said:
They designed to create a metal jet to penetrate the armor, and that is less than ideal to defeat an aircaft.
Click to expand...

It will still do the job. See what a ATGM does to a heli even if this one was hit on the ground.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Weaasel said:
What I meant was ATGMs. Thanks for the correction... Presently utilized armoured vehicles, be they main battle tanks or infantry fighting vehicles seem to be highly vulnerable to them - certainly the types used by the Ukrainians. To compensate, it looks like armoured vehicles will have to have much thicker armour for significantly slower speeds.
Click to expand...

Better armoring will always be a thing however you cannot make a tank all around thicker armored especially to the same standard everywhere. They'd be way to heavy. The solution is active and passive protection systems.
 
W

Weaasel

Senior Member
Registered Member
Anlsvrthng said:
Apart from that the ATGMs are not suit to defeat aircrafts, regardless of control

They designed to create a metal jet to penetrate the armor, and that is less than ideal to defeat an aircaft.

The required explosive and fregments different for tanks and aircrafts.


And anyway, the issue of the Ukrainans is the purposfully made MANPADSs are inefficient against modern helicopters, so what could be expected if you use ATGMs ?
Click to expand...
Sorry for confusing MANPADS for ATGMs, I meant ATGMs... I want to discuss the vulnerability of armoured vehicles to currently utilized modern ATGMs... Accordingly, armoured vehicles must be made much thicker to greatly reduce their vulnerability, which will make them more massive, and as such with the same engines driving them, their speeds will be reduced... That would mean slower pace of battle... It is along these lines I am speaking...
 
RottenPanzer

RottenPanzer

Junior Member
Registered Member
Weaasel said:
Can NATO supplied MANPADS take out Abrams and other NATO tanks?

What must be done to overcome these most modern MANPADS? Must speed and mobility be sacrificed for much greater armour? MANPADS are making blitzkriegs obsolete... Advances must be slower and much more cautious... And one of the prime objectives of battle tactics will be to take out MANPAD teams...
Click to expand...
I think you specifically meant ATGM but it seems someone already corrected it for you, anyway, depends on the type of ATGM we are talking about 60s-80s ATGMs usually don't have enough penetration to destroy Abrams frontally , but late 90s to current ones stuff like Kornet, Javelin, Spike, etc should theoritically able to penetrate Abrams frontally, especially Javelin and Spike because both of them are Top-Attack Missile.
Gloire_bb said:
Nah, the interesting part is behind.
UPABs(gliding guided bombs).
Click to expand...
I actually forgot to put a question mark in the "Those are Anti-Radiation Missile" statement, but it seems it's uneditable.
 
LawLeadsToPeace

LawLeadsToPeace

Senior Member
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
Registered Member
Weaasel said:
Sorry for confusing MANPADS for ATGMs, I meant ATGMs... I want to discuss the vulnerability of armoured vehicles to currently utilized modern ATGMs... Accordingly, armoured vehicles must be made much thicker to greatly reduce their vulnerability, which will make them more massive, and as such with the same engines driving them, their speeds will be reduced... That would mean slower pace of battle... It is along these lines I am speaking...
Click to expand...
Haha. Don't worry about it. Based on the recent posts, it looks like some of the senior members here don't know what MANPADS stand for as well. So you aren't alone. :p

On a more serious note, yes since that also makes the vehicle even easier to target. Plus, missiles don't need to immediately kill; they just need to at least disable the vehicle. To make matters worse, since missiles can be rapidly improved when it comes to penetration, that thicker armor would quickly become obsolete. With that in mind and excluding tech like APS's, the pace of battle would drastically slow down.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top