Thread 64377062

Why isnt the roof of the tank turret armored? Isnt that a pretty obvious weakspot? Do western tanks also have this problem?

>>64377062 (OP)
Its basicaly about making distance beetwen you and the shaped charge.

>>64377062 (OP)
Tanks are meant for direct fire, and designed half a century ago. Top-attack ATGMs and PGMs in general are relatively new. Old tech then takes on a new role on the battlespace. It may have more vulnerabilities, but at some point you still need an armored gun with infantry support to take ground.

>>64377062 (OP)
>disclaimer: I am not an expert but a mere random retard on the internet; any or all of my understanding could be wrong, so if anyone knows better then please correct me
more armor = more weight = worse speed, fuel economy, ability to traverse soft ground, etc, plus on the turret it's presumably going to not be able to turn as quickly
you can only put so much armor on a tank because that extra weight is going to make it worse in other factors; the standard practice has therefore been to minmax its distribution, by using thinner armor in the parts less likely to be taking fire (e.g. the rear) and then spending that saved weight budget on bulking up the parts more likely to be taking fire (e.g. the front) so that they'll be more resistant to penetrating munitions
until fairly recently with top-attack ATGMs, "traditional" anti-tank weapons would simply travel in a straight line from operator to target, which would make them very unlikely to hit the top of the tank unless launched from a tall building or aircraft

>>64377062 (OP)
Because the top of the tank is a much larger surface area, and heavy to armor. Historically, artillery and airpower were really bad at actually hitting tanks.

Yes.

>>64377062 (OP)
In a nutshell, all tanks suffer from this. It's not simply practical due to weight, as getting enough armor against even the basic bitch RPG-7 warheads would pretty easily double the weight of the vehicle and make it a logistics nightmare.
Before the current battlefield with top attack portable missiles and cheap drones most threats to the top of the vehicle were planes and helicopters, which were dealt with dedicated anti air.
Right now drones exploit the current anti-air system due to them being plentiful and cheap but hard and expensive to counter. When anti drone systems develop further and active protection systems become cheaper and more commonplace on tanks, the balance of power will shift back towards the tank, but it's going to take time.

>>64377062 (OP)
In a nutshell design constraints determine how much a tank can weigh. Whether that's the engine/transmission, reasonable fuel efficiency, or more frequently outside factors like the ability of a tank to drive over at least the better built preexisting bridges in most places. Ok, now you have a weight limit you can't go over. Where do you put the armor then? If you spread it out evenly then you have less armor on the front and sides of the tank, which is going to be the side presented to enemy tanks or infantry 90% of the time. Before drones and top attack anti tank missiles became a thing this made great sense, sure it was a problem but only really in situations like somebody using an anti tank missile from a roof top or something. It happens sometimes but just isn't worth making the tank worse for the 90% of the time it doesn't matter.

>>64377062 (OP)
Because armour weighs a lot. There's simply no capacity to armour the entire the tank.

Western tank roofs are also really thin. On top of the thin roof western tanks also have super thin hull upper glacis.

Attack helicopter shooting 30mm APDSFS eats tanks for a snack. Hovering just above treetop level is enough elevation to pierce roof armour.

And no. GAU-8 full bore 30mm API ammo couldn't penetrate T-72 or T-64 roof armour. 30mm APDDFS is another beast entirely

>>64377225
nuh uh, tanks are over regardless because recon drones are omnipresent from now on, the only thing that keeps a tank alive is how long it takes for the artillery to get in range. Guided shells equals more direct hits too.

>>64377062 (OP)
All the previous replies are good and answer the question well.
I would also add that modern munitions are really good and armor really sucks in comparison.
Pounds of high explosives can win against tons of metal. The defense vs. attack meta of the modern world is extremely attack-sided.
You either attack the round before it gets you in an active protection attack vs. attack sort of way, or you're probably fucked.
So you use your entire limited weight budget to stack up a prayer's worth of armor on the part most likely to be attacked, which is of course the front, and then you pray.
And I'm sure it needs no spelling out that if you moved the front armor to the roof, drone operators would start attacking the front, they attack the roof because they can choose to attack any part they want.

>>64377290
Okay, and after all the indirect fire munitions are spent, how do you take ground?

>>64377290
sick die hard reference +1

>>64377435
whats the doctrinal role of a tank after all the tank ammunition is spent
how are you even dumber than the 'tanks are over' guy you're replying to

>>64377446
I meant after the phase of warfare after your missiles and airpower have fucked up all known targets. You still need to take ground. Lil nigga doesn't know that desert storm came after desert shield.

>>64377492
oh sure, agree with that, sorry for calling you dumb but the phrasing was unclear.
I think >>64377290 is arguing from the perspective that every war from now on is Ukraine. In Ukraine everyone lacks air superiority but everyone also has enough aerial recon and fires to fuck any vehicle that tries to cross the static trenchlines. So 'taking ground' is basically outside the scope of things he comprehends. Everyone is planning for the next war with the intention of killing the enemy a little bit cheaper in a neverending attritional stalemate where attacks always fail, right?

1 The crew uses it to get in and out
2 It's the least likely place to get hit by ground forces
3 Top-attack atgm's are rather new to the battlefield
4. It's easier and cheaper to just add a simple structure above than to redesign the whole damn thing

>>64377080
It's not. We've been over this a bijillion times. Simply increasing the standoff doesn't help because the ideal HEAT standoff is 10-12 times the diameter of the warhead anyway.
The netting traditionally seen on the sides of western vehicles in GWOT or on Israeli vehicles is to dud out PG warheads and has about a 50% chance of working since the nose of the warhead is supposed to go in the open space while the slats or metal wires then crush the nose cone and defeat the nose part fuze from sending a signal back to the base.
Netting on top of vehicles only makes sense in a situation where PGs would be coming from above like a city. For various reasons it won't do shit against top attack missiles.
The solid armor like shown here, on the top can catch HE grenades being dropped, which in the drone era has some value. This also will do very little against HEAT.

>>64379894
*like shown here.

Example of side netting with solid armor at angles

>>64377062 (OP)
>Why isnt the roof of the tank turret armored?
Armour thickness varies because if you put ~1m RHA equivilant armour all round like the front of the turret and hull have your tank would weigh hundreds of tons and have the speed of a WW1 tank.
It couldn't be airlifted, it couldn't use bridges and it would sink into all but the hardest ground.
>Isnt that a pretty obvious weakspot?
Yep, that's why top attack ATGMs and AT cluster bombs have existed for decades.
>Do western tanks also have this problem?
Yep.

>>64379903
>>64377062 (OP)
The more these evolve the more i'm convinced that no matter how silly it would look a big propeller with a electric washing machine motor to spin it on top would have legitimate defensive value. Make it with random bits covered with IR reflective tape so it looks like a strobing QR code from above confusing terminal IR sensors.

>>64379894
>We've been over this a bijillion times...the ideal HEAT standoff is 10-12 times the diameter of the warhead anyway
so what you're telling me is the cages just need to be bigger?

>>64380056
Aluminum hoop and spokes, lawnmower engine and chicken wire. Use the metal flashing tape that they use to seal HVAC ducts. That should show up on IR and thermals great so it really would show up on sensors as a flickering QR code, it would act a dazzle camouflage. It would not prevent it from being hit but might prevent precise targeting. Obviously it would be destroyed quickly but might be good for a few hits.

love how russia tried to correct the record about cope cages, saying they were always for drones and not an embarrassing attempt to defend against javelins

>>64380170
You have been pushing this retarded shit for 3 years now, I remember Grozny and RPG attacks from the top of commie blocks.

>>64380170
>>64380183
There's a simple way this is settled.
If there's 1 picture of a tank from the first week of the war with -netting- on it, then someone was thinking about drone dropped grenades and not top attack missiles. Because there's no amount of vodka to think a net would stop a javelin but it's obviously useful and commonly used these days against grenades. If it's all metal cages then they were thinking that would stop top attack missiles.
So either produce an invasion tank with netting from some media footage that can be dated, or he's right and shut up.

>>64380195
Netting wouldn't stop an RPG either...

>>64380204
Oh, my bad, I get what you're saying now.
I'm captain hindsight and forgot they were expecting to roll through the streets of Kyiv so that was what they were planning for.

>>64380170
>>64380183
>>64380195
>>64380219

Worth noticing that the only other major user of armor and top attack missiles in this conflict beside the main two isn't doing cope cages, their designs are doubling down on APS, MANPADs, HMGs and low level air defense in general.

If cope cages worked against anything other than light improvised drone munitions the Norks (and Chinese) would be trying them out. They are not since they know they don't work.

Reminder that all wars and weapons after the nuke are fake and gay. The only thing that should have been designed after the nuke was a better delivery method and they have that in an ICBM. Any wars between nuclear capable enemies is totally fake and totally gay. The US is in a proxy with Russia to keep the plebs busy. You won't see WWIII in earnest until bikes are detonating. There is no concern for WWIII because the same bankers own everyone, so unless the masses wake up and attack the bankers, it isn't happening. Anyone saying anyone is "stopping WWIII" is at best low IQ and at worst a shill. The bankers don't want total nuclear war because we've been such good little slaves wearing muzzles and rolling up sleeves. Now go back to sleep sheep to the rhythm of the war drums in Ukraine and maybe Venezuela.

>>64380228
>bikes
I meant nukes

>>64380228
>There is no concern for WWIII because the same bankers own everyone
Why do you think we are getting ready to fight the only major economy that has the state own banks rather than those same investors?

>>64380183
I'm sure the flaming bucket attachment was designed to distract roof chechens too

Cope cages are a subtle but obvious proof of Russia being incapable of training their crews to use their own doctrine and designs; All soviet tanks pre T-80/T-90 are equipped to have a high elevation 12.7mm HMG with AA sights. The cage prevents that.

If their crews were trained to use them AND the cages were only for drones then given that they were not expecting such massive drone use them they would not have used them unless they expected them to protect against top attack missiles. They would have tried to shoot down the drones at first, at least until it proved ineffective. The existence of cages prior to massive drone use proves that they were not meant to protect against drones as they significantly reduce the tanks capabilities both in terms of AA and urban combat.

>>64380265
>what about this completely different thing

>>64380270
anon if you've noticed, none of the russian soldiers have glasses. i assume theres no military-issued corrective lenses and most of these guys probably have trash eyesight. its completely unreasonable to expect them to be able to spot tiny FPV drones

>>64380228
>all wars and weapons after the nuke are fake and gay. The only thing that should have been designed after the nuke was a better delivery method
Remarkably this schizophrenic break was practically US doctrine for a little while after we invented the nuke, until we realized that sometimes minor bullshit happens like some humanitarian crisis or hostage crisis or spat between two other parties we want to force peace on and everyone is asking how we're going to make it better and we're not willing to do a nuclear holocaust over this so did we remember to keep a bit of funding for gentler, easier to use stuff? Oh good we did, fund that more.

>>64380277
That is common across the entire former USSR in all sectors of life, they invented LASIK eye correction and make widespread use of it.

>>64380305
Correction: They didn't invent it but did introduce it on a massive scale early on.

>>64380170
>still damage controlling to this day
Sad!

>>64380204
It would, 50%ish of the time. Thats the entire reason it's in western vehicles in the GWOT.
>>64380195
Huh? Netting doesn't work against dropped HE. You want solid tops for that. Slats or netting are for PG warheads. If Russia was expecting to be inside cities in the first week they'd still have been traumatized from getting shreked in Grozny from RPGs being fired from above, so top netting or slats do make sense.
As the war has gone on you've seen the move from slats to the mobile armored sheds because drones drop HE. The FPV drones tend not to be coming from straight up, but the sides.
While some crews in the field might have gotten comfort in thinking cages would help against top attack ATGMs when it really wouldn't have helped, their mistaken cope doesn't mean the armor didn't initially have some reasoning behind it.

I'm not even pro-Russia but damn these conversations are frustrating.

>>64380265
Looks like a ghetto Rhino horn. Which I dunno, if they were taking off route mine/IED hits in the area makes sense.

>>64380204
What do you think picrel is for?

>>64380520
>>64380540
Huh, the more you know. I saw people start putting improvised nets on vehicles after Ukraine dropped a shitload of hastily rigged grenades on Russian vehicles in the early stages of the war in the days before FPVs - and figured that was because a net was pointless in the way of a real antitank munition traveling hundreds of meters a second, but would physically block a grenade dropped by gravity.
What's the netting in your pic made of, something especially tough or does even fishing net or chicken wire tier shit disrupt an RPG?

>>64380676
I see now the netting you mean. I was still talking about purpose made armor.
The netting in your pic is indeed to bounce HE (or maaaaybe something similar to M42s which are HEAT but a soft enough catch and bounce by the net MIGHT dud them).
The purpose made anti-PG nets are made of steel cables. An important part of the design is having lots of open space for the nose of the round to pass into.

Its holds though that when you look at early war tanks what you see are slats and not sheds. Slats do work against PG rounds from above, which makes sense if you're planning to be in a city and shot at by irregulars with RPGs. You see the transition from slats to sheds as drones star dropping HE from above.

>>64378335
>o 'taking ground' is basically outside the scope of things he comprehends.
Kek

>Slats aren't for missile protection!
Someone should have informed the Russian media.
https://web.archive.org/web/20220729202405/https://vpk.name/news/521682_na_rossiiskie_tanki_nachali_ustanavlivat_improvizirovannuyu_zashitu_ot_javelin_i_bpla.html
https://rg.ru/2021/06/18/reg-ufo/protivoraketnyj-kozyrek-t-72b3-s-novoj-zashchitoj-zamechen-pod-rostovom.html?utm_source=rnews

>>64380958
>the media is retarded

>>64380958
>The Ministry of Defense reported that it is intended to enhance protection against various weapons.
And then the media reporter babbled about Javelins.

>>64377062 (OP)
Armor adds weight
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhuMyxm05Vg

Gepards are back on the menu again!
https://youtu.be/Pr_tbpCK0gI

If vatniks would have spent only a fraction of the time they spouted cope cages stop ATGMs and Top Attack ammunition into thinking for 3 seconds, they wouldn't had to spend literal years trying to retcon their fuckup and pretend how they didn't said it.

I'm begin to understand why Russia is so much of a failure, half of the brain capacity and efforts of their whole population is wasted on coming up with cope and lies only to then lie and cope about said cope and lies for years to come.