• It has been confirmed that Spacebattles is filtering out links to The Sietch. Discussions with the owner of SB have indicated that they desire a clean break with us and feel that this is a means to that end. Out of respect for their desire for a clean break we request that our members refrain from violating this unwritten policy.
  • We have defeated the e-COVID! (we hope). If you are still running into issues with posting, post in the technical support forum about it. If you can't post there, PM Tippy.

Tanks and other Armoured Vehicles Image thread.

BF110C4

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2019
Reaction score
331
Ok, I knew the vehicles themselves exist, they have done so in one way or another from WWII but to put in large numbers in the field to deal with the current trend of making smaller and cheaper drones would be where a revision of the AA doctrine would be needed and then an increase in the budget to equip both frontline armored units as well as motorized versions for everyone else.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
8,913
Ok, I knew the vehicles themselves exist, they have done so in one way or another from WWII but to put in large numbers in the field to deal with the current trend of making smaller and cheaper drones would be where a revision of the AA doctrine would be needed and then an increase in the budget to equip both frontline armored units as well as motorized versions for everyone else.
Not a big revision though, just return to previous times, when total air superiority was not taken for granted.
With some caveats some meaningful part of these duties can also be shifted to multi role IFVs.
They use an autocannon with usually decent elevation by default, and its not unheard of to stick a missile launcher on them either. The rest is a matter of sensors and software.

There are also self-contained SHORAD missiles packages like Starstreak, that can be pretty much stuck on the back of a truck and work well enough.

And then there is the more future oriented solution, to kill a mass of cheap drones, make cheap drone hunting drones.

And then there are dedicated anti drone weapons like this.
 

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Comrade
Joined
Aug 31, 2019
Reaction score
5,802
Taking "total air superiority for granted" is mostly a USA thing, and is partly because we've had very bad luck with land based AAA systems. The T249 Vigilante was cancelled for the stillborn MIM-46 Mauler because the Army jumped too soon at the promise of guided missiles, and then the legitimately very capable M247 Sergeant York fell to media hit pieces and political pressure. The Army then dropped out of the joint-with-Canada ADATS for political reasons, and adopted the relatively makeshift Bradley Linebacker and Humvee Avenger. . . then downsized both into oblivion.
 

Aaron Fox

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2019
Reaction score
1,982
And ironically the US planes got high altitude threats well under control while low flying aircraft and helicopters, drones and missiles are the most likely to slip the net of air supremacy fighters.
That's a 'yes and no' answer, largely because the environment has changed, and more specifically the sensor environment changed. Take the Sgt. York, for example, had the revolutionary ability to pick up any aircraft from ground clutter that is anything less than radar opaque. That sort of radar capability is in the F-35 and in any upgrades to the F-teen fighters' radar sets (please note that the Sgt York's designers managed this feat with an F-16 radar set, they had some bugs to work out on the sensitivity and fire control). So, unless you're skimping out on upgrades and maintenance (like *cough* Russia *cough*), modern aircraft are going to pick helicopters, missiles, and drones out of the ground clutter.

Add the 'fun' that is AAA rounds like AHEAD and... well... it isn't going to be a good time to be in the air.
 

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Comrade
Joined
Aug 31, 2019
Reaction score
5,802
I would point out that AHEAD was designed as an anti-missile round rather than an AAA round, and actually less effective against aircraft than a "plain" proximity fused AA shell. What AHEAD is designed for and shines at is laying controlled scatter patterns of heavy slugs along the projected trajectory of a very fast incoming round.
 

Aaron Fox

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2019
Reaction score
1,982
I would point out that AHEAD was designed as an anti-missile round rather than an AAA round, and actually less effective against aircraft than a "plain" proximity fused AA shell. What AHEAD is designed for and shines at is laying controlled scatter patterns of heavy slugs along the projected trajectory of a very fast incoming round.
That's a bit of a 'yes and no' answer, largely because aircraft don't react well to, well, much of anything hitting them at high velocity. Tends to do things like rip into components and control surfaces and whatnot. Also, missiles don't generally fly that fast anyway, generally less than a kilometer per second (outside of the Russian 'lolhuge' supersonic ASMs) from my understanding.
 

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Comrade
Joined
Aug 31, 2019
Reaction score
5,802
Those are what AHEAD was made to counter, as an alternative concept to "regular" CIWS systems. Extend the engagement range with heavier caliber autocannon, compensate for lower RoF and also for the inability to fit proximity fuses by using smart canister shells.
 

paulobrito

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 11, 2019
Reaction score
2,428
Location
Searching...
Well, while at the beginning of the 'Special Operation' the Pantsir/Thor/Tugunska systems showed a clear difficulty in dealing with drones, they have apparently fixed most of that. Now, if that is via software upgrades or better training/use is not known (yet).
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
8,913
Well, while at the beginning of the 'Special Operation' the Pantsir/Thor/Tugunska systems showed a clear difficulty in dealing with drones, they have apparently fixed most of that. Now, if that is via software upgrades or better training/use is not known (yet).
Considering the similar issues in Karabach, i think the issue is "it's doable but requires the crew to fiddle with sensor/fire control settings that they are normally told not to touch as they are not trained to touch them and/or degrade performance against other air threats".
Considering the regular stories of Ukraine using drones as a distraction for AA, a lot of fiddling may be required.
 
Last edited:

Aaron Fox

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2019
Reaction score
1,982
Well, while at the beginning of the 'Special Operation' the Pantsir/Thor/Tugunska systems showed a clear difficulty in dealing with drones, they have apparently fixed most of that. Now, if that is via software upgrades or better training/use is not known (yet).
Largely because the forces deployed are... Iraqi conscript-level competent at best, with equipment that hasn't been properly maintained (from my understanding). It's telling that even China -which is in the same ballpark as Russia in the corruption department- still forces its military to at least be competent in maintaining their equipment... but then again even China has shyed away from conscription.
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
Joined
Aug 12, 2019
Reaction score
31,130
Well, while at the beginning of the 'Special Operation' the Pantsir/Thor/Tugunska systems showed a clear difficulty in dealing with drones, they have apparently fixed most of that. Now, if that is via software upgrades or better training/use is not known (yet).
And yet a Russian refinery got blyat'd by a drone the Ruskie's apparently either didn't see coming, or thought was their own.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
8,913
Largely because the forces deployed are... Iraqi conscript-level competent at best, with equipment that hasn't been properly maintained (from my understanding). It's telling that even China -which is in the same ballpark as Russia in the corruption department- still forces its military to at least be competent in maintaining their equipment... but then again even China has shyed away from conscription.
China at least has good conditions for maintaining their hardware. They are modernizing and expanding their army, so they get rid of old crap that may need restoration. Something like at least half of their armored vehicles were built in this century, and they are building more all the time.
As such, their machine park is nothing like Russia's reserve, built around a core of vehicles built in the Soviet Union, some even discontinued. They also don't have as much manpower shortages in their military for maintaining vehicles, and i'm pretty sure their new equipment is less reliant on foreign made components too.
 
Top Bottom