Z-10 thread

Discussion in 'Air Force' started by Red Guard, Mar 2, 2006.

?

Can the Z-10ME on it own stand up to heavier counterparts such as AH-64 or MI-28NM?

  1. Z-10ME is the worst out of the three

    22 vote(s)
    68.8%
  2. Z-10ME is the best out of the three

    1 vote(s)
    3.1%
  3. Z-10ME is better than AH-64 but worse than MI-28NM

    2 vote(s)
    6.3%
  4. Z-10ME is better than MI-28NM but worse than AH-64

    7 vote(s)
    21.9%
  1. TerraN_EmpirE
    Offline

    TerraN_EmpirE Tyrant King

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    12,031
    Likes Received:
    10,374
    Abrams has power to spare. The gas turbine power. And in case you haven't noticed it actually adds less ERA then you see on Russian or Chinese tanks. That's because the frontal armor is monster tough. Well like all tanks the sides and rear are soft. By contrast the Russians and Chinese weakened the frontal armor for low weight as such they use ERA to try and close that gap.
    There's no such thing as a free lunch.
    That seems dubious. Because those are some small panels. HMGs and Auto cannons are likely to walk across the whole frontal arc. Fuselage or even better the tail. The tastiest part of almost all modern attack choppers is the tail rotor. If you knock that out the crew goes though the spin cycle and then gets a harsh landing.
     
  2. Biscuits
    Offline

    Biscuits Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    571
    Likes Received:
    793
    Hence his ridiculous statement. You don’t add on armor IF your vechicle doesn’t have power to spare.

    Russian and Chinese tank design are about as different as Chinese and American tank design.

    Both Russia and US try to strongly armor the entire tank while the Type 99A is all front loaded, it’s the exact opposite from what you are saying. China lowered weight by removing a crew member (smaller size), which let them install thicker front armor.

    The philosophies are all different. Russia expects a mobile war and needs fast and inexpensive tanks. US expects to be fired at by RPGs from every direction. And China expects to defend their borders from other modern tanks.

    HMGs and non anti air autocannons would be fired in bursts while the helicopter moves. Unless it stays still, it would likely just be glanced a few times.

    The add on armor isn’t supposed to turn the WZ 10 into a Type 99A’s front. It’s just there to minimize freak incidents.

    Any chopper would be destroyed if the tail rotor gets shot.
     
  3. TerraN_EmpirE
    Offline

    TerraN_EmpirE Tyrant King

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    12,031
    Likes Received:
    10,374
    sorry but you are in error. The whole point of the carousel auto loader on both Russian and Chinese tanks is to reduce the crew area to reduce weight and the ERA to thin the Armor.
    Again not quite.
    They designed Abrams to fight and push back against Russian tanks on the offence. The. The US found it's self more involved in the middle East cities where everyone started firing RPGs.
    Then why bother with the hull Billy plates?
    Really freak.
    If it has one. Some don't. But that's my point. What is the bigger risk? The one in a million of a shot through the LCD or a attack to the tail boom?
     
  4. Biscuits
    Offline

    Biscuits Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    571
    Likes Received:
    793
    The Type 99A weighs 58 tons while being T90 sized. Abrams is just 10 tons heavier and is almost 20% longer. T90 thinned the front armor but the Type 99A still has ~1200mm of RHA (most sources can’t make up their minds whether this is with ERA or not.) in front. Are you saying it was more than 1200mm before they thinned it?

    The drawback is that they sacrificed the loader, which makes the ROF worse. But this ties into Chinese tank doctrine which expected to face American tanks in Korea or Russian tanks in Mongolia.

    The add ons are anti autocannon. They add an extra layer to existing protection and the chopper is strong enough to easily carry them. I don’t know what else would justify them for you.

    Did you get your knowledge from call of duty or what? Helicopters don’t hover in clear sight slowly to get shot at. Are you saying it’s a “really freak” incident for just a few shots to hit? So what’s the “normal” incident for you? The entire clip hits? Try hitting something moving around 1km in the sky at 300km/hr with an entire autocannon clip. It’s a little speck.

    You’re lucky if you get one hit and there’s no way you can aim for the tail. The appliqué is there so even if you get lucky, your shot will bounce right off.
     
  5. gelgoog
    Offline

    gelgoog Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2017
    Messages:
    1,230
    Likes Received:
    1,340
    Russia has had to cope with weight restrictions on MBTs because a lot of bridges in Russia AFAIK cannot withstand a lot of weight. This was one reason why projects like the IS-7 were cancelled in the 1950s. They typically coped with that by minimizing internal volume as much as possible in an attempt to not compromise the armor too much. The M1A1 had thick composite armor in large sections, while tanks like the T-72 initially only used composite armor in parts of the turret. There is a really wide difference in terms of the standard armor between different T-72 versions depending on year and model and make. The tanks are clearly made for frontal assaults on mostly flat terrain though. You can tell it by the typical Soviet choice to use a low turret profile and make vehicles with poor gun depression ever since the T-62 came out.

    I have heard from multiple sources that the WZ-10 helicopter engines initially had lower performance than originally designed so they had to shed a lot of weight on the armor. As they get newer lightweight armor or more powerful engines it was expected they would beef the armor up. I do not know the exact specs but I would be surprised if the existing armor was good against anything more than small arms fire. It might even be the case it's only good against shrapnel.
     
    TerraN_EmpirE likes this.
  6. TerraN_EmpirE
    Offline

    TerraN_EmpirE Tyrant King

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    12,031
    Likes Received:
    10,374
    I am speaking in General. And Abrams varies based on versions and users the latest versions are more than 10 tons heavier. As for the Russian and Chinese tanks. But as a rule they give up degrees of armor thickness across the board for compact size. To make up for this they added ERA.
    As for the Loader actually in combat conditions a autoloader is more consistent in loading speed vs a manual this is as the human after firing the well placed rounds has to go hunting for oddly placed rounds where the autoloader just cycles the next round.
    The previous iterations sacrificed protection for performance. The PLA Z10 has been upgraded since then however these panels are questionable. You claim they offer defence from cannon fire. I point out they are small and don't offer much in the way of coverage gor the flight crew.
    It's like claiming a car is arnord because the wind screen is bullet resistant well the doors, windows, tires and under body are unchanged.
    You are going out of your way to laud a small set of panels as anti cannon and sure they might stop some cannon rounds but what about the windscreen? What about next to it.

    "You say how well it won't hover in one place."
    Well Duh!
    But if it comes under fire from auto cannons it's not getting a quick three round burst. Most auto cannon fire in 10 round strings or more. And even if the panels stop an AP round you are likely to be showered with High explosive and other high calibre shells in the string of firing.
    Where did you learn antiaircraft Space invaders?

    Modern systems are radar guided and if you are in cannon range there is a lot more than one shot coming your way. Farther more the modern cannons are starting to go up the caliber range and penetration. The graphine plates may claim 30mm protection but is that 30x113mm 30x165mm or 30x173mm big difference between them. And then you get the higher calibers 35mm, 40x255mm cta, Bofors and above.
    As for no way to hit the tail rotor. Don't need to If you destroy the tail boom it's on. You don't need to hit the spinning blades just the axial or the strut. A auto cannon would do that easily. And oh yeah even with modern sensors in the chopper targets like a Shorad can still pop up.
     
    externallisting likes this.
  7. Biscuits
    Offline

    Biscuits Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    571
    Likes Received:
    793
    The latest Abrams weighs 68 tons, i.e. 10 tons more.

    Let’s drop the tank discussion.

    The helicopter itself is already armored, the add ons help deflect even more. Just like your example with the bulletproof windows on a car.

    If it gets shot in the windscreen (with an autocannon+) it’s going to take heavy damage. That’s true for every chopper. These things are sort of glass cannons.

    Now you are bringing up radar guided AAA systems... While we are at it, why not fire HQ-9s and S400s at it? If you get caught in modern AAA fire, you are already dead regardless of what helicopter you are in. SEAD missiles and jet fighters are for taking out those, not attack helicopters.

    If SEAD does their job, these helicopters will just be fired at by ak47s. Maybe DSHK if they’re unlucky. And the plates add survivability to that. Again there is no point in refusing extra armor as long as your platform has enough power.
     
  8. TerraN_EmpirE
    Offline

    TerraN_EmpirE Tyrant King

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    12,031
    Likes Received:
    10,374
    Fine. But that's the base weight. If the Sep v2
    look though this thread and reports have come up pointing to the Armor having been weakened due to weight limits. And then the Chinese placing an emphasis on long range. These mean that there would be trade offs vs shorter ranges but more powerful choppers. In essence weaker protection.
    Cars are not armored by nature most pistol caliber projectiles will easily pass though all but possibly the transmission. That's my point. It's it's not armored if all you did was tack on one or two fixes.
    finally we agree on something.
    This assumes that such targets have been clearly identified before engagement and cleared form the area of operations.
    large systems like S400 cover a large area with there systems they are however not pancreas. There are always gaps. And they would be higher value targets. Maneuver forces may have there own smaller systems like radar guided triple A, a class or Short Range Air Defense ShoRAD. These systems are often organic to armored forces and may be mixed among them. The mission of attack choppers is close air support and anti Armor.
    Farther more thanks to recent technology more and more armor vehicles have organic anti helicopter and aircraft capabilities. Including IFVs who in the modern era come basically standard with 30x173mm auto cannons.
    assuming that the enemy is only limited in capacity to such systems as the extreme of a long range air defense system and small arms.
    If the basic armor of the vehicle has already been compromised for weight and range. Then the addition of small plates of additional armor is of little benefit. It would demand a replacement of The existing cockpit module not bolting on some strike faces. You assume that the existing armor is of significant protection as is to protect against heavier weapons such as autocannons that is to say weapons of 20mm and above.
    If the design was compromised to a more restrictive weight it may fall into a ballistic rating of resistant to 14.5mm guns.
    Don't get me wrong that's a decent armor level of the case. But would be a far cry from that you insist. Even if protection is up to 23mm in the modern era that is increasingly a limited worth.
    https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/z-10-thread.t2879/page-238#post-525931
    https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/z-10-thread.t2879/page-237#post-525721
    https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/z-10-thread.t2879/page-236#post-525683
     
  9. Biscuits
    Offline

    Biscuits Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    571
    Likes Received:
    793
    @TerraN_EmpirE

    I think you’re expecting tankiness from something that was never designed to be tanky.

    There’s a reason many air forces believe attack helicopters are of limited usefulness, especially against high tech opponents.

    It’s impossible to tell what kind of armor the Z10 has, but let’s assume 14.5mm resistant like you said. Adding a couple of 30mm resistant plates mean that it could survive some hits it might otherwise not, just like putting the SEP kits on Abrams tanks.

    You are trying to make it sound like a negative thing because the plates won’t render the helicopter invulnerable, but no helicopter is invulnerable to autocannons. It won’t be able to fly if you proof the whole thing. You’d just have a funny looking IFV.

    Attack helicopters have been relegated to missile launch platforms and lower intensity warfare. Against a foe with 30mm autocannon IFVs and shorad, the helicopter has already committed a fatal mistake if he’s locked on by those IFVs. His only chance is to shoot the IFVs with his missiles before being spotted. And that goes for a Tiger, Apache or Z10 equally.
     
  10. TerraN_EmpirE
    Offline

    TerraN_EmpirE Tyrant King

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    12,031
    Likes Received:
    10,374
    Except the plates only cover a minute portion of the aircraft. Which is why I question there function. As the actual chances of an attack hitting just those plates is rare.

    It's the joke about female fantasy armor. Even if the Armor does stop arrows to the heart. It's just as likely to hit the exposed midriff.
    They did the same thing to the Z10E it's wearing an armored Bikini, And they laud there enginuity and brag about these impressive plates.
    And they are but if they don't actually mount then around something valuable it's not practical.

    That tracks all the way back to the beginning of this and
    Because if not the flight crew arguably the most valuable of the helicopter weapons system.
    And well I am at it let me make more more correction for you.
    All military close air support aircraft
    Fixed wing or rotary wing.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads
  1. 美國友邦
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    10,746
  2. MIGleader
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    93,794
  3. ultrafang
    Replies:
    75
    Views:
    31,685
  4. Inst
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,165
  5. Inst
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,375

Share This Page