124 replies to this topic

[razenWing]

Alek Ituin, on 14 February 2017 - 10:55 PM, said:

I kek at your F-22/F-35 fanboyism. When your sooper-dooper stealth interceptor gets routinely trashed by a fighter bomber with an ECM pod, something is wrong.

Even the Me-262 scored consistent victories against Allied aircraft while the pilots were re-writing the rules of aerial warfare to account for an entirely new type of aircraft. You can only blame so much failure on new tech and a lack of established tactics. At a certain point you have to concede that the F-22 and F-35 are both lowest-bidder garbage forced in to being via backroom politics.

Case in point: The YF-22 vs YF-23 prototype testing. The YF-23 was a clearly superior aircraft in damn near ALL aspects, not to mention being clearly superior for its intended role and usage, and still lost to the then YF-22 because somebody at Lockheed knew how to really slob a politician's knob.

That's only part true. I am not going to deny that politics wasn't in play (cause, I remember, the YF-23 team had previous f-ed up another project, which skew the confidence of the higher up)

BUT, just judging from performance issues, the YF-22 was a superior subsonic fighter. So it's not true that the YF-23 won on all performance scale. If you watch documentary from Discovery Channel, that's part of the reason why the bid swung toward YF-22... simply because it handled more like a traditional dogfighter.

Now, it can be argued that the YF-23 has more untapped potential because of the revolutionary airframe, but that's really another issue all together.

Edit: Saw this after I made my reply:

Alek Ituin, on 14 February 2017 - 11:24 PM, said:

15:1 where and since when? Every single time I've read about F-22's going in to red flags, they get thrashed by EFT's with ECM pods.

Also, the F-35 is a clusterf**k, struggling to maintain performance with aircraft decades older than it, while being 10x more expensive and capable of doing... nothing that it was supposed to do. Sure, an F-22/F-35 could sneak up on a MiG-29K or Su-37... But then its 6 buddies will hunt your arse down. An F-22 MIGHT be able to take another 1 or 2 down and/or MAYBE escape, but that F-35? It's so bad as an aircraft I'd be surprised if it could even turn around before it got shredded.

Shove the F-35's avionics in to a YF-23 or X-29/Su-47 airframe and you'd have an argument for its superiority. But from the published specs, they're either REALLY good at underselling the F-35, or it is REALLY f**king bad as an aircraft. Lockheed are so hit-or-miss it could honestly be either one.

That's a complete lack of understanding of modern air combat. If you are fighting a scenario like you described, you are fighting your war wrong.

Also, you know those modern airplanes can do multi tracking and multi lock-on right? And EVEN if they encountered a fighter group far outnumbering them, the correct response is not to go all Ace Combat and try to kill all of them by him/herself. It's through vastly superior intel sharing, and basically use itself as a spotter for the 200 + I Love America that's going to be fired from multiple sources (including your ammo carrying fighters, drones, ships, land-air system, etc)

That's the value of F-22 and F-35, not a one man bravado fighter jet.

PS you know everytime they do redflag testing (does it even do red-flag? well, whatever mock program they run), they have to literally nerf the F-22s and F-35s so that other planes have a chance right? Also, it's probably a good idea not to reveal your whole hand when engaging in a multi-country exercise. If you are afraid that you are going to lose your freedom because of the Russians or the Chinese, you can sleep soundly at night knowing that as soon as that kind of fight breaks out, all of their traditional airforce will be trashed in like 2 weeks.

(Now, whether we can intercept all the nuclear warhead and prevent saying bye bye to planet Earth... again... another issue all together)

--------------

PS 2 why are we talking about this again?

Edited by razenWing, 14 February 2017 - 11:36 PM.

[visionGT4]

Snowbluff, on 14 February 2017 - 11:01 PM, said:

15:1 is a wicked kill/loss ratio. Maybe you should look into some real facts? I mean, you're proving my point right now. You don't understand the advantages and sophistication of these systems because you are locked into an older mindset. I know concepts like spike management, radar ranges, and sensor fusion are hard to wrap your head around without first hand experience, but at least look into it.


The F22 won because it appealed to the F15 mafia, according to the lockheed test pilot. Both were great planes, but the F22 focused more on maneuverability. The level of technology involved makes it moot anyway. American engines and avionics are stupidly good. The ATF was going to be unrivaled for... well might as well be forever at this point, barring a new ATF-style project.

yf23 was the superior weapons platform. It carried more, further whilst being better in the EM and IR spectrums in terms of LO. Poduced by a manufacturer which knew a thing or two thanks to its very successful ATB program.

The major technical risks articulated via open source channels were the stacked weapons in the bays, and perceived capability of current and near future generation 4+ russian fighters in the WVR fight (if a raptor drivers enters the merge with a 4+ sukhoi he should be court martialed). In reality it was a political decision to go with lockmart.

Regarding 15:1 vs Alaskan AESA albinos. Could you provide your primary source which states that the yf23 would not have been able achieve the same or greater exchange rate under the same roe.

Edited by visionGT4, 14 February 2017 - 11:40 PM.

[kuma8877]

As has been said, personal power armor, Elementals and Heavy Gears would be about the extent of machine augmentation to troops. These types of weapons platforms allow for a broader range of tasks to be completed (do to the flexibility of the humanoid frame) while being able to be intuitively piloted if the UI can maintain as much of a 1 to 1 movement profile as possible. Something about the size of the mechs from the matrix.

For larger war platforms, I could see large quads used as artillery or AA platforms. And of course there is no limit on size when referring to industrial mechs. How big the job is would dictate how big the frame would need to be.

[Alek Ituin]

razenWing, on 14 February 2017 - 11:26 PM, said:

That's only part true. I am not going to deny that politics wasn't in play (cause, I remember, the YF-23 team had previous f-ed up another project, which skew the confidence of the higher up)

BUT, just judging from performance issues, the YF-22 was a superior subsonic fighter. So it's not true that the YF-23 won on all performance scale. If you watch documentary from Discovery Channel, that's part of the reason why the bid swung toward YF-22... simply because it handled more like a traditional dogfighter.

Now, it can be argued that the YF-23 has more untapped potential because of the revolutionary airframe, but that's really another issue all together.

Edit: Saw this after I made my reply:



That's a complete lack of understanding of modern air combat. If you are fighting a scenario like you described, you are fighting your war wrong.

Also, you know those modern airplanes can do multi tracking and multi lock-on right? And EVEN if they encountered a fighter group far outnumbering them, the correct response is not to go all Ace Combat and try to kill all of them by him/herself. It's through vastly superior intel sharing, and basically use itself as a spotter for the 200 + I Love America that's going to be fired from multiple sources (including your ammo carrying fighters, drones, ships, land-air system, etc)

That's the value of F-22 and F-35, not a one man bravado fighter jet.

PS you know everytime they do redflag testing (does it even do red-flag? well, whatever mock program they run), they have to literally nerf the F-22s and F-35s so that other planes have a chance right? Also, it's probably a good idea not to reveal your whole hand when engaging in a multi-country exercise. If you are afraid that you are going to lose your freedom because of the Russians or the Chinese, you can sleep soundly at night knowing that as soon as that kind of fight breaks out, all of their traditional airforce will be trashed in like 2 weeks.

(Now, whether we can intercept all the nuclear warhead and prevent saying bye bye to planet Earth... again... another issue all together)

--------------

PS 2 why are we talking about this again?

And yet the F-22 is used as an interceptor and intruder... Which means a faster, stealthier airframe is superior to a low speed dogfighter. Hell, even with modern air combat being almost completely BVR, the YF-23 should be able to trash the F-22 because it's both faster and stealthier, meaning it could dominate the engagement. F-22 gains the upper hand? Run away and hide, then come back and re-engage on more favorable terms. Need to do some intruding? Going faster and being harder to see means you reduce your window of vulnerability. Low-speed dogfighters were obsolete by the Spanish Civil War, when the Bf-109 showed its brutal superiority via BnZ tactics (not to mention it just being a superior aircraft), allowing it to dictate the terms of any engagement against the slower biplanes it faced.

As for multi-lock... You do know the Russians lead the way in missile and countermeasure tech, right? They'd kek at your missiles, flip around, and fire a few of their 95% hit ratio missiles back at you. And if they chase you down (and there's a good chance they will), may God have mercy on your soul, because they sure as hell won't. As for being used as a "spotter" there's like 7 missiles in the US armory that use SARH, only 4 of them with the range to practically use it, only 2 of those still in service, and they're both naval SAM's. The other 3 are ~50km range, 1 of them is a short range PD launcher, and the other two are aircraft launched. So you're either mixing high-capacity non-stealth fighters in to your formations, or you're always within 180-ish kilometers of a Navy warship. Make no mistake here, if you're mixing non-stealth fighters with your stealth fighters, they'd be slaughtered before your stealth fighters could be used as spotters; Russian missiles are just THAT good. I'd take an R-77 Vympel over an AIM-120 any day.

SARH is pointless by itself anyway, terminal ARH guidance ensures 90%+ hit rates against aircraft, and IIRC only the RIM-174, RIM-162, and one or two AIM-9 variants use SARH/ARH combination homing.

Convenient that you can just wave off consistent failures as "well they nerfed it to give them a fighting chance". Even leading USAF figures have noted the incredibly efficacy and performance of the EFT, especially when given the chance to fly one. Maybe they didn't nerf the F-22, it's just that the EFT with an ECM pod can do damn near the same thing for half the cost.

Also, quoting the Discovery Channel is like quoting the History Channel, it only harms your argument.

Edited by Alek Ituin, 15 February 2017 - 12:16 AM.

[Hit the Deck]

kuma8877, on 14 February 2017 - 11:44 PM, said:

...
For larger war platforms, I could see large quads used as artillery or AA platforms.

[Alek Ituin]

kuma8877, on 14 February 2017 - 11:44 PM, said:

For larger war platforms, I could see large quads used as artillery or AA platforms. And of course there is no limit on size when referring to industrial mechs. How big the job is would dictate how big the frame would need to be.

Honestly, those applications are probably the only time I'd advocate tracks over legs. SPAAG platforms don't need to be particularly maneuverable, they just need to be able to move. Now if you were proposing some kind of light SPAAG platform used for mountainous or otherwise difficult terrain, to be used with highly mobile forces operating there... Then sure, give it legs.

As for an SPG: It doesn't need to be maneuverable, just mobile. But again, if you were proposing some kind of modern-day assault gun platform, designed to bust buildings and/or bunkers like the good ol' days (WWII), then yeah, give that SOB legs. I'd love to see a hexapodal Stürmtiger waddling around with a ridiculously oversized rocket mortar... It would be equal parts adorable and horrifying.


Point being that outside of niche roles, a vast majority of combat support vehicles would be better served with tracks or wheels.

Edited by Alek Ituin, 15 February 2017 - 12:24 AM.

[Valhallan]

Battlemechs will never be MBT's, even in TT if the advanced rules that ungimp vehicles are used then combat vehicles provide the anchor for the shooty shooty battleline. The use for battlemechs will be as someone mentioned earlier, armored cavalry (so really mostly lights and meds, assaults are definitely going to be rare/nonexistent), the ability to quickly maneuver and apply force concentration with your armored forces into a specific area (bonus points for being able to traverse harsh terrain). Essentially battlemechs are better in a war of maneuver, in a war of attrition then vehicles are far superior. Mechs will also NEVER carry more weapons than a vehicle, which can carry a far heavier load if similarly modified with xl engines (they are even hilariously xl safe, since if the tanks armor gets breached its usually hosed already anyway because the small profile also means no spare space, internal structure is already the important stuff).

[Vellron2005]

I admit, I have not read the entire topic, but I did the OP, and here's my thought on that..

A battlemech, as seen in the BT setting is a BAD combatant.. the sheer size makes it a big target with a huge profile. It's only marginally more mobile than a tank with a much smaller profile.

On a modern battlefield, a battlemech would be sniped off the roster by a helicopter 3 kilometers away. No ECM would help, cose' the battlemech produces enough heat to track it that way, and it's so visually prominent, a pilot could guide the missile by hand and still hit the cockpit glass..

Also.. a battlemech requires massive support structures. On a modern battlefield, such support would be difficult to hide, and easy to take out by air strikes, artillery, or even orbital strikes. Not to mention drones and cruise missiles.

So yeah..

A modern-day army would make short work of a company of Atlases.. They would not know what hit them..

[MW Waldorf Statler]

Vellron2005, on 15 February 2017 - 02:34 AM, said:

I admit, I have not read the entire topic, but I did the OP, and here's my thought on that..

A battlemech, as seen in the BT setting is a BAD combatant.. the sheer size makes it a big target with a huge profile. It's only marginally more mobile than a tank with a much smaller profile.

On a modern battlefield, a battlemech would be sniped off the roster by a helicopter 3 kilometers away. No ECM would help, cose' the battlemech produces enough heat to track it that way, and it's so visually prominent, a pilot could guide the missile by hand and still hit the cockpit glass..

Also.. a battlemech requires massive support structures. On a modern battlefield, such support would be difficult to hide, and easy to take out by air strikes, artillery, or even orbital strikes. Not to mention drones and cruise missiles.

So yeah..

A modern-day army would make short work of a company of Atlases.. They would not know what hit them..

like Aircraft Carrier or Battleships ? ...the Size and Mobility is the factor ...a modern Helicopter is a very easy target , a Modern tank a easy target for a modern Jet .

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 15 February 2017 - 03:12 AM.

[razenWing]

Alek Ituin, on 15 February 2017 - 12:12 AM, said:

And yet the F-22 is used as an interceptor and intruder... Which means a faster, stealthier airframe is superior to a low speed dogfighter. Hell, even with modern air combat being almost completely BVR, the YF-23 should be able to trash the F-22 because it's both faster and stealthier, meaning it could dominate the engagement. F-22 gains the upper hand? Run away and hide, then come back and re-engage on more favorable terms. Need to do some intruding? Going faster and being harder to see means you reduce your window of vulnerability. Low-speed dogfighters were obsolete by the Spanish Civil War, when the Bf-109 showed its brutal superiority via BnZ tactics (not to mention it just being a superior aircraft), allowing it to dictate the terms of any engagement against the slower biplanes it faced.

As for multi-lock... You do know the Russians lead the way in missile and countermeasure tech, right? They'd kek at your missiles, flip around, and fire a few of their 95% hit ratio missiles back at you. And if they chase you down (and there's a good chance they will), may God have mercy on your soul, because they sure as hell won't. As for being used as a "spotter" there's like 7 missiles in the US armory that use SARH, only 4 of them with the range to practically use it, only 2 of those still in service, and they're both naval SAM's. The other 3 are ~50km range, 1 of them is a short range PD launcher, and the other two are aircraft launched. So you're either mixing high-capacity non-stealth fighters in to your formations, or you're always within 180-ish kilometers of a Navy warship. Make no mistake here, if you're mixing non-stealth fighters with your stealth fighters, they'd be slaughtered before your stealth fighters could be used as spotters; Russian missiles are just THAT good. I'd take an R-77 Vympel over an AIM-120 any day.

SARH is pointless by itself anyway, terminal ARH guidance ensures 90%+ hit rates against aircraft, and IIRC only the RIM-174, RIM-162, and one or two AIM-9 variants use SARH/ARH combination homing.

Convenient that you can just wave off consistent failures as "well they nerfed it to give them a fighting chance". Even leading USAF figures have noted the incredibly efficacy and performance of the EFT, especially when given the chance to fly one. Maybe they didn't nerf the F-22, it's just that the EFT with an ECM pod can do damn near the same thing for half the cost.

Also, quoting the Discovery Channel is like quoting the History Channel, it only harms your argument.

You are making the difference like between 0 and 100. First of all, when we say YF-23's stealth signature is better, we are talking about the score of 100 to 98. BOTH platforms are invisible to modern radar spectrum outside of long wave radar. But at that point, it's not a matter of YF-22 or YF-23, you can have YF-400 and it wouldn't matter. Luckily, long wave radar is not precise enough to provide precise locations for things like a lock-on signature.

Second of all, no need to inflate Russian equipment because none of them have ever been successfully tested in combat. Remember how Mig-25 was like the supposed wonder plane? So no, to say that Russians will easily shake those locks and somehow launch missiles to counter all the missile launchers (which btw, as I stated, is a 3d environment) is just ridiculous. Everything they boast they can do have not been delivered. You know how I can independently verify this? Cause China and India have been buying Russians equipment for years including advance missile systems. But nope. No reports ever come out of these places that Russian equipment is giving them a miraculous edge over everyone else.

PS what's wrong with quoting Discovery Channel or History Channel? I trust them certainly a lot more than I trust you. They have actual interviews with people involved in the design process. Which part of the plane did you design? What advance weapon system did you design, ever? What is your qualification that I should trust you, over people actually working on these machines?

PS2 Where are these "consistent" failures that you are reading? There's maybe 1 article mentioning some dubious exercise in 2009 where 1 F-22 is shot down in mock battle. Which, as big of a deal as it is, remember that they still won with only 1 loss. Again, those exercises are done with strict parameters on the part of the F-22s to force them into dogfighting range. The F-16 Falcon is one of, if not the most nimble jet in dogfighting. Is the Falcon the best fighter plane today then? Cause there's an actual physical limitation to dogfighting. You are not going to push a plane to be more nimble than a design from the 70s. (outside of using a completely computerized jet where you can surpass the human limitation of 10-11g) But the measure of combat effectiveness is never just how cool you can be by dogfighting people.

Say whatever you want about the F-35. No weapon platform in existence can handle as much information while simultaneously fight in the infosphere. And it's not even close, everyone else is pretty much doing catchup. If the measurement is purely whether it can dogfight a F-16, then I'm sorry, your understanding of war is way in the last century.

PS 3 You keep bringing up ECM as if it's some miracle equipment. Understand that ECM is only a defensive/passive measure. It doesn't mean you are seeing the enemy better, or can attain locks better. Maybe we can't see precisely where you are (assuming, cause there are counter-ECM, but that's going too far), but what does that accomplish on your end? You are still fighting an enemy you can't see. Except, like the long wave radar argument, we know where you are, we just can't have a precise lock-on signature until verified.

Is it better to be not seen from the start to be a successful thief, or to boisterously come in a group of 50 guys in attempt to divert your attention from the real thief?

[Zergling]

Alek Ituin, on 15 February 2017 - 12:12 AM, said:

As for multi-lock... You do know the Russians lead the way in missile and countermeasure tech, right?

Lmao, someone has been reading RT and Sputnik.

Alek Ituin, on 15 February 2017 - 12:12 AM, said:

I'd take an R-77 Vympel over an AIM-120 any day.

Yeah... funny thing about the R-77? The Russian Air Force probably never accepted it into service; their primary BVR missile is still the semi-active homing R-27.

Only in late 2015 did the Russians announce plans to purchase a useful number of R-77s, but it is still unknown if they'll actually go through with it or if they actually will end up putting a useful number of the missiles into service.

Alek Ituin, on 15 February 2017 - 12:12 AM, said:

Maybe they didn't nerf the F-22, it's just that the EFT with an ECM pod can do damn near the same thing for half the cost.

In case you didn't notice, the Eurofighter Typhoon is a $200 million USD aircraft, up there with the F-22 in cost.

Edited by Zergling, 15 February 2017 - 03:59 AM.

[Luca M Pryde]

Most people are taking the negative on this but to me the advantage is obvious. Mechs are ideal for environments that are in-hospital to human life. They can move across many different types of terrain. Why have a small mech when you can have a huge one that can smash the environment that gets in the way. They are also ideal for space and low and high gravity environments.

The engines, armour and weapons are all fiction at this point of time.

Edited by Luca M Pryde, 15 February 2017 - 05:07 AM.

[WolvesX]

Luca M Pryde, on 15 February 2017 - 04:29 AM, said:

Most people are taking the negative on this but to me the advantage is obvious. Mechs are ideal for environments that are in-hospital to human life. They can move across many different types of terrain. Why have a small mech when you can have a huge one that can smash the environment that gets in the way. They are also ideal for space and low and high gravity environments.

The engines, armour and weapons are all fiction.

The engines are in the realm of possibility, the artificial muscle fiber also, the weapon systems are also kinda "real". Its obviously is a game and real military hardware wouldn't look or function like MWO / BT.

Zumwalt-Class has 2 155mm "gauss-rifles"

2017 - and we got basic railguns and prototype laser weapons.

Edited by WolvesX, 15 February 2017 - 04:41 AM.

[SmokedJag]

razenWing, on 14 February 2017 - 09:21 PM, said:

Cube-Square law is a frequently quoted rule as to why mechs are not feasible. EXCEPT, the official data has Atlas the same volume as a modern Abhram tank, except right side up. If you look at battlemechs in the lore, not just in the Mechwarrior series video games where they are clearly exaggerated in terms of size, but Battletech lore where they were mere a piece of the battlefield, then there's not an issue with size.

And I don't see how treads are "harder" to kill. US Armies are losing Abhrams all the time due to simple IEDs during the Invasion of Iraq. The fact is, if something is going to precision kill something (e.g. mech joints), then that same precision can be applied to kill other things (e.g. tank treads) And as I said, there's a lot more "joints" on a tread than 2 legs.

Center of Gravity - that's more of a technical issues. We are assuming that this is worked out through some futuristic gyros 1000 years more advanced than what we have.

Regarding ballistic storage, again, this is not a battlemech issue, but a weapon platform issue. Just because it's a tank doesn't mean it doesn't carry high explosives at some point. Any weapon system being hit in the storage department will cause failure fairly quickly, regardless of the platform. (A few notable terrorist attack on US Navy Destroyers during the early 90s come to mind)

As for having clean surfaces, TO BE FAIR, outside of Atlases, most IS assault mechs do have angular armors. Though, we are technically not arguing whether mechs in 1000 years will appear exactly like how battletech envision them. Cause, I think you are absolutely right in that most... won't. But they are what they because frankly... they look cool for video games. So, I don't think that's really an issue either. Mechs in realistic future will have the angular fierce armors like they should.

The Abrams hull is 8 meters by 3.6 meters. 8 meters is baby Light 'Mech type height. The big BT Mechs are much bigger than that. But even if they weren't they wouldn't be remotely comparable in mass. The Abrams is mostly hollow inside (a 'Mech can't be and they aren't depicted that way either) and, critically, the Abrams is not heavily armored except in its forward arc. All other aspects of its exterior can be penetrated by WWII class weapons. And what glacis armor it has is not actually that thick, it's just sloped back so far that it has huge effective thickness. The heaviest plate is on the less sloped turret front and that is a very small % of the Abrams surface area.

This is okay because the Abrams was designed to fight other tanks solely on that glacis aspect, and generally dug in at that. It's a Cold War tank intended to fend off Soviet tank rush. The opposing vehicle can't hit anything besides that heavily armored front. That's out the window as soon as you turn it on its end, eliminating the slope of the front glacis and requiring tank class armor on the *entire* face. And that's before we start giving it arms that have to be protected and have to heavily 360 protect those legs because unlike the engine deck of the tank or the tracks if it is dug in, it is totally possible to shoot those legs and if you break one, the 'Mech dies. At least a mobility kill but it's also gonna fall over if it gets its foot blown off. The 'Mech wants to go down. The tank already is down.

There's no getting away from incoming fire hitting largely vertical armor, which is the most inefficient armor possible. You can slope it somewhat but nothing like what is achieved on modern tanks. So the 'Mech, to stand any chance, needs a lot more armor than the tank does while also not making itself more top heavy than it already is. Mounting armor requires support structure beyond what else the protected area is supposed to be doing so the sort of limbs seen in BT aren't really possible. They're way too thin, especially those legs again that have to counterbalance the mass of the rest of the thing while not carrying the weapons or power plant. And you have to move all this mass, at a reasonable failure rate of those joints.

Fast, small 'Mech that is glorified battle armor, equipped with lightweight weapons and intended to not get shot by tank-class guns has fewer issues across the board (besides the "how do you power this and where does that engine fit" one I'm just putting aside). But main battle tank heavy 'Mech? Not happening. You can't protect it because BT uses magic tinfoil armor.

[Snowbluff]

razenWing, on 14 February 2017 - 11:26 PM, said:

--------------

PS 2 why are we talking about this again?

I was making a point about how if mechs would be developed for warfare, that they would probably have their own tactics compared to MBTs.

[Zergling]

SmokedJag, on 15 February 2017 - 05:15 AM, said:

and, critically, the Abrams is not heavily armored except in its forward arc. All other aspects of its exterior can be penetrated by WWII class weapons. And what glacis armor it has is not actually that thick, it's just sloped back so far that it has huge effective thickness. The heaviest plate is on the less sloped turret front and that is a very small % of the Abrams surface area.

Slight error here; the turret sides of the Abrams are reasonably well protected, about 400mm LOS thickness of composite armor.




As for the glacis, the lower glacis takes up most of the frontal hull protection, and it has little angle, but about 610mm LOS thickness of composite armor.

The upper glacis is only 50mm of rolled-homogenous steel armor, but angled at 82 degrees from vertical for 359mm LOS thickness.
That is actually still fairly thin, but due to the extreme angle, kinetic-energy projectiles tend to shatter due to ricochet forces, while shaped-charged warheads fail to fuse correctly.

Edited by Zergling, 15 February 2017 - 05:30 AM.

[Snowbluff]

Zergling, on 15 February 2017 - 05:27 AM, said:

Slight error here; the turret sides of the Abrams are reasonably well protected, about 400mm LOS thickness of composite armor.




As for the glacis, the lower glacis takes up most of the frontal hull protection, and it has little angle, but about 610mm LOS thickness of composite armor.

The upper glacis is only 50mm of rolled-homogenous steel armor, but angled at 82 degrees from vertical for 359mm LOS thickness.
That is actually still fairly thin, but due to the extreme angle, kinetic-energy projectiles tend to shatter due to ricochet forces, while shaped-charged warheads fail to fuse correctly.

IMO the armor sloping is relatively unimportant. The Chobham armor is actually 50% hollow anyway, designed to resist explosive rounds and trap penetrators. RHA ratings aren't very good at describing that.

[WolvesX]

I think comparing TANKs to mechs is like comparing helis to planes.

[Zergling]

Snowbluff, on 15 February 2017 - 05:33 AM, said:

IMO the armor sloping is relatively unimportant. The Chobham armor is actually 50% hollow anyway, designed to resist explosive rounds and trap penetrators. RHA ratings aren't very good at describing that.

It's the line-of-sight/LOS thickness that matters the most for composite armor arrays.

Against KE projectiles, the RHA equivilant is less than the LOS thickness, although unknown just how much; it could be anywhere from 50% to 90% equivilant (presumably more modern composites would be higher); note that this doesn't make composite armor inferior to RHA in protection vs KE, because such armor arrays are considerably lighter than the same amount of RHA equivilant protection if the armor only consisted of RHA.
Eg, a 600mm LOS composite armor array might resist as 500mm RHA equivilant vs KE, but only weigh as much as an equivilant plate of 300mm RHA.

Against Shaped-Charge warheads/HEAT, RHA equivilant tends to be much greater than LOS thickness, possibly as much as double.

Sloping is quite important for the upper glacis though, as there aren't any composites there, just solid steel plate.

Edited by Zergling, 15 February 2017 - 05:46 AM.

[visionGT4]

/tank nerd ON
Some very interesting pictures have come out of Syria recently, interesting in the sense that what many assumed (myself included) to be the composition of modern composite front turret armor arrays is not the case at all(steel + alloy + some form of quartz/ceramic in a matrix). Where as in fact its 'simply' a combination of NERA & NxRA.

For what its worth, one does not 'trap' a modern Long Rod Penetrator, one attempts to destabilise the penetrator and where possible erode the tip (with DU being self sharpening... its not easy) to reduce penetration. Nor does one resist an explosive round (assuming HEAT here?), eroding the jet by early fusing and placing more material in front of the jet is the current defeat mechanism of choice.

Some one earlier mentioned that the Armor vs Firepower balance has swung back in favour of the firepower which is spot on. The proliferation of heavy RPG's (RPG29) and ATGM's (AT6/Kornet) really has turned the tide. THE TANK IS DEAD! APS is probably the next technical evolution in AFV protection, which will then (thankfully!) herald a return of high velocity guns!

Right tread heads, whats the next topic:
4 man crews vs 3 men + an autoloader
What conclusions should be drawn from ODS in relation to what may have played out on the central front
that anything sam makes is automatically far superior to RoW
or my very very very favourite topic T64 vs M60 (e.g. clan tech vs IS tech)