Military FAQ thread

[zraver]

They store the ammo in the crew compartment, so only if the ammo penetrates into crew compartment can it result in a member kill, similar to M1 where the ammo is sealed somewhere else - any penetration into crew compartment is fatal and survivability is the same. I guess they can also make ammos that won't "cook" when hit.

Dude seriously, Abrams have suffered penetrating hits to the crew compartment and only suffered injuries. it dpends on how much energy the penetration has and what type of penetration. However if the Abrams had combustables in with the crew like the T series do then even minor penetrating hits stand a very good chance of cooking off the ammo so the chances are not the same, not even close.

T-series any penetration stands a good chance of causing a catastrophic explosion

isolated bustle rack storage system, any penetration to the crew compartment must have enough energy left over after defeating the armor to actually deal with the crew.

The Leclerc, Type 90, and SK2, T80UM2 all use a cassette style bustle rack autloader that is sealed away from the crew. The only drawbacks being very ready ammo (about 22 rounds) which could cause the tank to have to stop in combat and manually transfer the remainign ammo from the armored hull storage bins

 

[ahho]

T-72 and Chinese tanks with carousel autoloader suffer this mentinoned proplem becouse the ammunition surrounds the turret and crew, but Japanese Type90 and Leclerc have the hazarous ammunition in the buzzle seperated by armourplates from the crew.

with the design of autoloader of type90 and leclerc, would that mean bigger space for turret and tank itself?

 

[kovona]

Top Tank Armour

I don't understand why most tanks have such thin top armour. Yes it adds weight, but shouldn't armor design allow aleast adequate protection from aircraft cannon fire? How much do you need to stop a 30mm DU round?

In the future please address questions to the FAQ thread. Do not start a thread to ask a specfic question.

 

[Kampfwagen]

5.56x45MM V.S 7.62x39

Alright. Hi there. I have another question.

Right now, I am trying to get some data on some of the two most frequently used rifle cartridges in the world today. Those being the 5.56x45 cartridge used in various assault rifles today (M16, SA-80A2, G36 Family) and the Soviet-era 7.62x39MM used for the AK-47 and it's other derivatives.

I have heard several odd statements about the rifle cartridges. Including something mentioning a 'tumble' effect with the M16 (and the AK-47's lack thereof). So I want to know if these have any merit.

And please guys. Let's try to be civil.

No comparison threads! If you have a question please ask.

 

[The_Zergling]

Re: 5.56x45MM V.S 7.62x39

Alright. Hi there. I have another question.

Right now, I am trying to get some data on some of the two most frequently used rifle cartridges in the world today. Those being the 5.56x45 cartridge used in various assault rifles today (M16, SA-80A2, G36 Family) and the Soviet-era 7.62x39MM used for the AK-47 and it's other derivatives.

I have heard several odd statements about the rifle cartridges. Including something mentioning a 'tumble' effect with the M16 (and the AK-47's lack thereof). So I want to know if these have any merit.

And please guys. Let's try to be civil.

Well as far as I know the 5.56 gets most of its killing/injuring power from its 'tumble' when it enters a body (rather than its size), basically acting like a uber-high speed power drill... yeah, it's nasty.

On the other hand the 7.62 simply punches bigger holes in the body due to simple virtue of being a bigger round.

When comparing, there are obviously pros and cons when deciding which caliber to use, although at the current stage a very big consideration is simply logistics regardless of which type of bullet is actually more effective. NATO will probably stick with the 5.56 for quite some time, at least until they buy new rifles that don't use the ammunition, which is unlikely considering how fast he G-36 proliferation has gone. Same goes for AKs. The 7.62 is heavier so a soldier may not be able to carry as many rounds possible... but then it may take more shots to kill someone when using a 5.56. Personally I don't think there's really *that* much of a difference, all a matter of what is the most efficient for that particularly military.

 

[swimmerXC]

I searched all over the forum, what is this...

and yes i been living under a rock these days

 

[zraver]

with the design of autoloader of type90 and leclerc, would that mean bigger space for turret and tank itself?

yes and no, the frontal aspect and height don't really change, but the turret does get longer. While this presents more of a target to flank shots, those are eless common that frontal shots.

I don't understand why most tanks have such thin top armour. Yes it adds weight, but shouldn't armor design allow aleast adequate protection from aircraft cannon fire? How much do you need to stop a 30mm DU round?

Quite a bit actually the GAU-8 will penetrate 38mm at 1000M, 60mm at 500M so you'd be devouting signifigant mass to top peotection that still wont defeat the far more common ATGM top down attack.

 

[bd popeye]

I searched all over the forum, what is this...
[qimg]http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/8901/h20042807apj6.jpg[/qimg]
and yes i been living under a rock these days

How was that rock????

Scroll down the page on the link below. It's an article by Mr Richard Fisher.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

H-200 Phased Array Radar: This phased array radar is associated with the KS-1A SAM. The sets of secondary radar phase shifters on the top and bottom are strong indications this radar also has a missile guidance function, leading to the possibility that both the KS-1A and the active guided FT-2000A use a “track-via-missile” technology.

 

[zraver]

Re: 5.56x45MM V.S 7.62x39

Well as far as I know the 5.56 gets most of its killing/injuring power from its 'tumble' when it enters a body (rather than its size), basically acting like a uber-high speed power drill... yeah, it's nasty.

On the other hand the 7.62 simply punches bigger holes in the body due to simple virtue of being a bigger round.

When comparing, there are obviously pros and cons when deciding which caliber to use, although at the current stage a very big consideration is simply logistics regardless of which type of bullet is actually more effective. NATO will probably stick with the 5.56 for quite some time, at least until they buy new rifles that don't use the ammunition, which is unlikely considering how fast he G-36 proliferation has gone. Same goes for AKs. The 7.62 is heavier so a soldier may not be able to carry as many rounds possible... but then it may take more shots to kill someone when using a 5.56. Personally I don't think there's really *that* much of a difference, all a matter of what is the most efficient for that particularly military.

IIRC the originla tumbling was named dum-dum after a british arnor that invented them, they had increased leathjiliy from a smaller rou nd becuas eif they hit broadside thier aspect would be grreater than a bigger round and the tumbling would also allow the formation of a igger hydrostatic cone and possible deflection off bone. Older M-16 bullets do not tumble, but they did bounce easily. Often an M-16 hoit in the arm would exit the chest. This path of destruction did more than just tear flesh, it would push the body's fluids ahead of it in a nearly solid wall causing massive hydrostaic shock waves superior to that generated by a bigger round that would just smash through an area. Smaller rounds alos allowed a bigger basic load, less recoil, and a lighter gun improving combat performace all around.

However modern M-16 bullets are designed to defeat body armor, in Somlia US troops had to hit th4e skinny's over and over again. jacke dup on kat the new very fast and stable bullets would zip right though the body. if the round or small hydrostatic wave didn't hit a vital organ even leathal shots would not stop an attacker.

 

[alamgir]

Re: New J-10 thread II

can some one give the details about china,s achivments in air radars, and related electronics and are these comparable with EU