Farmplinker said:

One thing people tend to forget about is concussion.

What concussion?
The impulse of a 30 mm AP is not big enough to have a significant effect on a AFV if it does not penetrate. The explosion of a 30 mm HE  is not big enough to create a shockwave powerfull enough to endanger the crew inside an AFV unless it enters trough a hatch.

Back in the day my tank has been hit by accident during a life fire excercise with 20 mm AP. I only noticed the hits because I was above hatch and actually saw the impacts. There was nothing to here or feel. The guys inside didn't notice at all.

RovingPedant said:

I recall a tale from the 2003 Iraq operations where a Scimitar managed just that against Iraqi tanks. The RARDEN firing APDS at the range and angle they were at didn't have the oomph to penetrate the armour, but were able to keep hitting as quickly as you can with a RARDEN. In the end the Iraqi crews had enough and got out and legged it.

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?

schnuersi said:

Does this mean flare guns are effective in the AT role

Apparently they can be effective, at least once. But most would prefer an NLAW.

Russian Marine using what looks to be a modernized VSS? And unknown optic, looks almost like a Aimpoint Comp M4?

One of the more unusual items being sent to Ukraine:

https://www.fedscoop.com/mysterious-robotic-ships-headed-to-ukraine/

Most likely options per the article:

https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/naval-news/naval-news-archive/2021/october/10886-us-navy-uses-manta-t-12-unmanned-surface-vessels-in-persian-gulf.html

https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/mantas-t-series-unmanned-surface-vessels-usv/

https://www.textronsystems.com/products/cusv

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

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.

gatnerd said:

Russian Marine using what looks to be a modernized VSS?

ASM Val maybe ? (with a different stock).

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

Hadnt thought of these since the Anti Material Rifles thread. 

https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1515244755470401539

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2020/06/17/ukrainian-snipex-alligator-14-5x114mm-anti-materiel-rifle/

Made in Ukraine