gatnerd

Military Guns and Ammunition

Hosted by gatnerd

This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.

  • 3323
    MEMBERS
  • 188501
    MESSAGES
  • 12
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Ukraine weapons thread   General Military Discussion

Started 24-Feb by gatnerd; 97327 views.
In reply toRe: msg 422
gatnerd

From: gatnerd

16-Apr

Probably the biggest news is the sinking of the Moskva by Ukrainian Neptune Anti Ship Missiles, which is the biggest ship kill since WW2:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_cruiser_Moskva

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-360_Neptune

RovingPedant

From: RovingPedant

16-Apr

schnuersi said...

There are anecdotes from WW2 where German troops without any AT weapons out of desperation fired their flare guns at assaulting soviet tanks... who apparently mistook the flares for tracers of AT guns and disengaged.

Does this mean flare guns are effective in the AT role?

Not at all, just an example of it actually happened. I wouldn't have wanted to be in one of those light tanks bouncing rounds off something that could one-shot them in return if it hit. If I remember the description of the incident, I don't think the crews involved were particularly happy about it either. I'm sure that they would have been much happier to have an effective AT weapon like a missile, a bigger gun or a better projectile for the gun they had.

 

EmericD

From: EmericD

16-Apr

gatnerd said:

Russian Marine using what looks to be a modernized VSS?

ASM Val maybe ? (with a different stock).

RovingPedant

From: RovingPedant

16-Apr

schnuersi said...

This is not true.
The behind armor effect of a penetrator depends on the residual kinetic energy of the penetrator or its parts after penetration and the fragments it created. A large caliber penetrator with allmost no residual KW will do allmost nothing behind armor.
120 mm penetrators also are rather small. Yet they are highly effective.

You are right for thick armour, I was thinking about relatively thin armour that both projectiles will perforate, particularly in less densely packed vehicles like APCs - I wasn't clear and it's a bit of a tangent considering the more recent videos are focussing on tanks.

There is a tradeoff between optimising for armour penetration and behind armour effect - tanks tend to use HE on soft and lightly armoured vehicles because the high performance AP shot will go straight through. When considering the kind of targets that AP shells from short 75mm guns were designed to engage you can see that they are optimising for behind armour effect over penetration because the contemporary tanks were not as well protected.

schnuersi said...

A full caliber shell is slower by comparison and uses much more of its KE to actually penetrate. Which can result in ineffective penetrations. This is the reason why a lot of effort was put into bursting charges and reliable fuses for AP shells.

I thought it was more of a holdover from naval artillery, where shot would be much less effective given the much greater sizes of armoured warships

In reply toRe: msg 427
gatnerd

From: gatnerd

16-Apr

Interesting 'combined arms' - UA using a military IFV/APC, backed by civilian Technicals and deployed infantry, to storm a small position. Sadly this looks to be filmed via potato. 

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

17-Apr

gatnerd said:

Interesting 'combined arms' - UA using a military IFV/APC, backed by civilian Technicals and deployed infantry, to storm a small position.

That looks very staged to me.
There is no oposition. A single machine gun could have ruined the day of the completly expose dismounts. Same with the unprotected vehicles. Even a BTR is not exactly well protected. It also doesn't have much firepower. It would be very difficult for this "assault" to effectively supress a squad or platoon in position so they can not fight back anymore.

Farmplinker

From: Farmplinker

17-Apr

So, you're saying the Ukrainian government is putting out propaganda videos? wink

TOP