British Army to possess most lethal tank in Europe

I'm not convinced of the utility of manually guided rockets against Avn. Can you provided me any evidence of a chopper being downed by one of these munitions?

its not manual, it’s a beam riding missile linked into the FCS.
see also the Israeli LAHAT, another beam riding tube launched missile with an anti air capability.
Most modern FCS are also capable of hitting a helicopter within range with Fin too.
 
its not manual, it’s a beam riding missile linked into the FCS.
see also the Israeli LAHAT, another beam riding tube launched missile with an anti air capability.
Most modern FCS are also capable of hitting a helicopter within range with Fin too.
I googled the solution to the problem. Some time ago, people dealt with this problem and found the solution:
GEPARD-KMW-001.jpg



Bild268g.jpg

Now the tank can do the job it was designed for, fight other armoured targets and if necessary infantry, and the other guys do their thing with the flying stuff.
 
I googled the solution to the problem. Some time ago, people dealt with this problem and found the solution:
GEPARD-KMW-001.jpg



Bild268g.jpg

Now the tank can do the job it was designed for, fight other armoured targets and if necessary infantry, and the other guys do their thing with the flying stuff.


Pah! Just two gun or just two missiles!

AF1-Pantsir-S1_SAM.jpg
 
Pah! Just two gun or just two missiles!

View attachment 572452
Well, the 35mm pretty much ruins every aircraft's day and a lot of ground targets won't be too pleased when they get acquainted with it either.

The Roland on Marder chassis had two drum magazines with 4 missiles each, if I remember correctly. Roland as well as Gepard could operate alone, but the trick was to manage the whole thing via a mobile command and control system, where 8 or 10 fire units Roland could be guided via radio data transmission. Furthermore, something like 20 or 30 other anti-aircraft weapon systems like Gepard or Stinger squads could be integrated.

In any case, this is a better concept than using a weapon system that is conceivably unsuitable for air defence, such as a Panzer, guided weapons or not.

I want to continuously monitor the airspace and engage and eliminate targets at an early stage. ATGMs generally have a significantly longer range than the cannon of a tank and, to put it bluntly, an opponent who brings attack helicopters into the air will probably also bring a lot of armoured vehicles into the field and it is therefore rather counterproductive to use the already chronically few Panzers of the "normal" NATO partners in fighting the flyboys.
 
Well, the 35mm pretty much ruins every aircraft's day and a lot of ground targets won't be too pleased when they get acquainted with it either.

The Roland on Marder chassis had two drum magazines with 4 missiles each, if I remember correctly. Roland as well as Gepard could operate alone, but the trick was to manage the whole thing via a mobile command and control system, where 8 or 10 fire units Roland could be guided via radio data transmission. Furthermore, something like 20 or 30 other anti-aircraft weapon systems like Gepard or Stinger squads could be integrated.

In any case, this is a better concept than using a weapon system that is conceivably unsuitable for air defence, such as a Panzer, guided weapons or not.

I want to continuously monitor the airspace and engage and eliminate targets at an early stage. ATGMs generally have a significantly longer range than the cannon of a tank and, to put it bluntly, an opponent who brings attack helicopters into the air will probably also bring a lot of armoured vehicles into the field and it is therefore rather counterproductive to use the already chronically few Panzers of the "normal" NATO partners in fighting the flyboys.
I’d like to point out that I raised the idea of using autocannon-equipped IFVs as supplementary Anti Air Defence against drones, so how it got onto using MBTs against helicopters confuses me.*

*Except Photex is involved, so drawing ”alternative” conclusions shouldn’t be a surprise.
 
I’d like to point out that I raised the idea of using autocannon-equipped IFVs as supplementary Anti Air Defence against drones, so how it got onto using MBTs against helicopters confuses me.*

*Except Photex is involved, so drawing ”alternative” conclusions shouldn’t be a surprise.
Yes, but are any MBTs fitted with radar?
 

TamH70

MIA
Yes, but are any MBTs fitted with radar?

Yep. Quick Bing search found this:


And I quote:

"The modernised M-84AB1 main battle tank is equipped with an air-conditioning system, a digital passive intelligence radar system, a new fire control system (FCS), a laser warning sensor and a battle management system (BMS)."

The Indians also have the Arjun, as seen here:


And any tank that has the Trophy active protection system has a radar built-in as well.
 
I’d like to point out that I raised the idea of using autocannon-equipped IFVs as supplementary Anti Air Defence against drones, so how it got onto using MBTs against helicopters confuses me.*

*Except Photex is involved, so drawing ”alternative” conclusions shouldn’t be a surprise.

because some people will insist on teaching their tank crews that their BFO gun has the reach and teeth to ruin some ersatz Biggles in his scout helicopters day if its hangs around poking its nose where it’s not wanted.

naturally, if the fabled CR3 and DM11 does ever darken Salisbury Plain, some Very Bright Officer will insist no training on shooting at annoying flying things like helicopters and drones is to be undertaken, that not being a proper job for tanks.
 
because some people will insist on teaching their tank crews that their BFO gun has the reach and teeth to ruin some ersatz Biggles in his scout helicopters day if its hangs around poking its nose where it’s not wanted.

naturally, if the fabled CR3 and DM11 does ever darken Salisbury Plain, some Very Bright Officer will insist no training on shooting at annoying flying things like helicopters and drones is to be undertaken, that not being a proper job for tanks.
If AH are around, the very last place I would want to be is sat in an AFV.
 
Yep. Quick Bing search found this:


And I quote:

"The modernised M-84AB1 main battle tank is equipped with an air-conditioning system, a digital passive intelligence radar system, a new fire control system (FCS), a laser warning sensor and a battle management system (BMS)."

The Indians also have the Arjun, as seen here:


And any tank that has the Trophy active protection system has a radar built-in as well.
" a digital passive intelligence radar system"

Do these things actually work in the battlefield?
 
" a digital passive intelligence radar system"

Do these things actually work in the battlefield?
Sounds like a radar warning receiver, which have been working on aircraft and ships for more than a few decades.

How much use you derive from it depends on how much your opponent uses radar to inconvenience you.
 
Sounds like a radar warning receiver, which have been working on aircraft and ships for more than a few decades.

How much use you derive from it depends on how much your opponent uses radar to inconvenience you.
You may be right, but that's not my interpretation. I understand that a passive radar system uses radar noise to create a radar image. I'm sure it can work in a benign environment, I'm just not sure about a complex environment like a battlefield.
 
because some people will insist on teaching their tank crews that their BFO gun has the reach and teeth to ruin some ersatz Biggles in his scout helicopters day if its hangs around poking its nose where it’s not wanted.

naturally, if the fabled CR3 and DM11 does ever darken Salisbury Plain, some Very Bright Officer will insist no training on shooting at annoying flying things like helicopters and drones is to be undertaken, that not being a proper job for tanks.
Maybe we should look at it from a more pragmatic point of view.

Our friend in the helicopter doesn't kindly stay hovering in one place for a long time just so that he can be shredded in the air by a DM11 in the loudest and most grotesque way possible and a tank crew can pat themselves on the back.

If I recall correctly, they were pretty good at exploiting the terrain, hiding behind all sorts of things like woodland or hills, popping up for a moment but then disappearing again very quickly and pissing off to another place where the game started all over again.

So what are the main problems for a tank?
a) It has to see the helicopter
b) It has to lock on to it and laser it and then hit it.

Easier said than done I would say. As far as I remember, at least with the Leopard 2, the gunner would lock on and laser the target, the computer would calculate the elevation and speed, automatically adjust the elevation and lead, and if everything was OK, the target would be hit and destroyed.

Whether this works as easily with a fast moving and disappearing target such as a helicopter is something the tank people here can certainly say more about.

Personally, I would rather see the job with dedicated air defence with smaller calibres of 20-50 mm and the corresponding ammunition or, as already mentioned by @incendiarycutlery, IFV, but I'm sure I'm wrong.
 
You may be right, but that's not my interpretation. I understand that a passive radar system uses radar noise to create a radar image. I'm sure it can work in a benign environment, I'm just not sure about a complex environment like a battlefield.
From the article:
The digital passive intelligence radar system is used to automatically detect, identify and warn land or air targets. It is also capable of detecting and identifying pulse Doppler radars, continuous-wave radars, quasi-continuous-wave radars, and all types of scanning and non-scanning pulse radars at long ranges.
Sounds like a RWR to me.
The sort of radar that works off other emitters isn’t something I‘d expect to see on particularly mobile platforms as you’d have to map out and keep track of the emitters. (based on my incomplete understanding of how it works)
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top