What's new
British Ordnance Collectors Network

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Age of Tanks (2017)

Could we be seeing the end of the age of tanks?

Why build tanks at $6 million a tank - Abrams or $3m T-80 - only to have them taken out by soldiers with £20k a shot missiles (NLAW) or £70k (Javelin) ?
 
You just fit said tank with an active protection system (APS), which takes out missiles with counter munitions.

The APS isn't cheap, but the counter munitions are far cheaper than said missiles.

It's simply the constant weapon-armour-weapon battle, which has been repeated ad nauseam since time immemorial.
 
Last edited:
I know close to nothing about these man-held portable anti armour weapons BUT I do know that they are filled up with electroniocs which emit various radio signals and that one can track those digital signatures thus one can defeat them before they are deployed.
 
I know close to nothing about these man-held portable anti armour weapons BUT I do know that they are filled up with electronics which emit various radio signals and that one can track those digital signatures thus one can defeat them before they are deployed.

The APS don't detect the munitions by their electronics' emissions as far as I'm aware and electronics can be shielded and systems can be spoofed.

The APS detect munitions, electronic-packed missiles, or dumb munitions like the PG-series, their equivalent Western weapons, gun-fired munitions (HEAT/APFSDS/etc.) commonly in a similar manner. This is often by utilising microwaves emitted from the APS that reflect off the incoming munition and are processed by very fast detection systems. If not microwaves, or in addition to them, the APS may use IR, optical and UV emissions from the munition.

Of course there are ways to harden the munition so current APS countermeasures, explosive or otherwise, are pretty ineffective. There are also ways to get the munition to be effective out of the APS's reach.

Of course there are also ways to make the countermeasures more effective, the detection systems faster. So the constant weapon, countermeasure, counter-countermeasure, continues ad nauseam for time immemorial.
 
You just fit said tank with an active protection system (APS), which takes out missiles with counter munitions.

The APS isn't cheap, but the counter munitions are far cheaper than said missiles.

It's simply the constant weapon-armour-weapon battle, which has been repeated ad nauseam since time immemorial.

I believe the Javelin is set up to defeat active armour. It has two explosive charges one to set off the active armour and the shaped charge to go through up to 500mm of steel. That's job done.
 
I believe the Javelin is set up to defeat active armour. It has two explosive charges one to set off the active armour and the shaped charge to go through up to 500mm of steel. That's job done.


The FIM-148 ATGM series, codename JAVELIN, do indeed have a tandem shaped charge warhead system; a smaller precursor and a larger main charge.

As to penetration, far in excess of 500 mm, more likely at least 2.0 to 2.5 times that at a stand-off of 5-10 charge diameters.

Bar/slat armour above the turret will not help the occupants of the vehicle when attacked by a Javelin series missile, even with one layer of ERA fitted too.

I debunked the Russian turret cages some time ago as I was sick and tired of seeing so called experts on Twitter stating that it would defeat Javelin, or the unpowered laser-guided MAM-L munition.
 
Last edited:
Is that posible to have an active human containing tank surrounded by larger cheaper made decoy tanks (drones) which would mimic the human tank movement and emit stronger radio signals thus confusing Javelin into attacking them instead of the human containing tank? Does such a thing already exist? I played a computer game called "Real War" many many years ago in which one could make other tanks blindly follow you and defend you.
 
Why have a human in a tank? The tank formation commander could be watching drone footage from many miles away whilst his subordinates also work remotely via remote audio and visual links.

The problem is that the human eye and brain on the ground is often the best planner and decision maker.

Anyway the Javelin works by the operator holding the sight on the target for a few seconds, the missile then locks on and hits what it was aimed at. I don't think they could be distracted by drone tanks.
 
Top