Upgraded TAM

[ChalkLine]

The Argentine light tank TAM built by Thyssen Henschel has been upgraded

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by ChalkLine

The Argentine light tank TAM built by Thyssen Henschel has been upgraded

I am getting that "The image you are requesting is no available."

[ChalkLine]

Originally Posted by CDAT

I am getting that "The image you are requesting is no available."

Fixed, thanks

[Raellus]

Not a bad looking tank. There was some talk here (mostly from me, I think) of the TAM being an option for upgrading Mexico's armor force in a v1.0 T2K timeline. IIRC, it wasn't a popular idea.

[pmulcahy11b]

Doesn't look like a Stingray, but reminds me of one. I'm thinking it's basically the same class, IIRC.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Not a bad looking tank. There was some talk here (mostly from me, I think) of the TAM being an option for upgrading Mexico's armor force in a v1.0 T2K timeline. IIRC, it wasn't a popular idea.

I don't know, sounds logical to me.

[The Dark]

It's still (by modern standards) a light tank. The estimates I've seen are that it's probably about equal to a Marder 1A3 for KE protection, though it'll be better against explosive penetrators, since IMI's Iron Wall emphasizes protection against IEDs and RPGs over KE weapons. There's a thermal sleeve on the 2IP that isn't there on the original TAM, so there may be some changes to the FCS as well.

Note that the TAM 2C and TAM 2IP are not the same upgrade. The 2C added an APU, driver's night vision, an Elbit commanders's sight with thermal imaging and laser rangefinding, gunner's sight with Elbit TIFCS, and a laser warning system. The 2IP is the armor upgrade (though there may be some internal upgrades as well, but I haven't seen mention of them). A tank can supposedly receive either upgrade without receiving the other, so one could have a 2C, a 2IP, or a 2CIP (and I have seen one tank marked as a TAM 2CIP, possibly the demonstrator to prove that the 2C could accept the new upgrade).

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I don't know, sounds logical to me.

Thanks, Paul. I still think it's a good fit. It gives the Mexicans more punch, but it's certainly no world-beater. Its light armor would make it highly vulnerable to LAWs and the like.

[copeab]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Thanks, Paul. I still think it's a good fit. It gives the Mexicans more punch, but it's certainly no world-beater. Its light armor would make it highly vulnerable to LAWs and the like.

If they found enough sheet steel, they could do something like this:

http://www.mmodelstore.com/g35-029-158.aspx

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by copeab

If they found enough sheet steel, they could do something like this:

http://www.mmodelstore.com/g35-029-158.aspx

There aren't any really good T2K rules for shaped charge predetonation, are there? Spaced armor rules don't seem to simulate it properly, in my mind. I guess it's up to us...

[copeab]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

There aren't any really good T2K rules for shaped charge predetonation, are there? Spaced armor rules don't seem to simulate it properly, in my mind. I guess it's up to us...

For reference, I looked up how GURPS handled it. The WWII book had standoff armor, both as plates (as the drawing I linked to) and stout mesh.

In T2K terms, it functions similar to compound armor, halving shaped-charge penetration. Differences include:

* Provides some additional armor protection (1)
* When travelling off-road, an Driving:Average roll is required to avoid the standoff armor from being knocked or torn loose
* It can be damaged or destroyed by solid penetrators or normal explosives

[unkated]

Originally Posted by The Dark

It's still (by modern standards) a light tank. The estimates I've seen are that it's probably about equal to a Marder 1A3 for KE protection, though it'll be better against explosive penetrators, since IMI's Iron Wall emphasizes protection against IEDs and RPGs over KE weapons. There's a thermal sleeve on the 2IP that isn't there on the original TAM, so there may be some changes to the FCS as well.

Note that the TAM 2C and TAM 2IP are not the same upgrade. The 2C added an APU, driver's night vision, an Elbit commanders's sight with thermal imaging and laser rangefinding, gunner's sight with Elbit TIFCS, and a laser warning system. The 2IP is the armor upgrade (though there may be some internal upgrades as well, but I haven't seen mention of them). A tank can supposedly receive either upgrade without receiving the other, so one could have a 2C, a 2IP, or a 2CIP (and I have seen one tank marked as a TAM 2CIP, possibly the demonstrator to prove that the 2C could accept the new upgrade).

I would agree that it is still a light tank. Note that for the most part this is an upgrade of existing tanks (the orignal contract covered a little more than half the existing TAMs); I could see Argentina being willing to part with a battalion's worth of additional upgrades sold to someone else for cash or oil before the Twilight war begins.

The hull is the same; I could see raising the turret armor a little due to better sloping (description says its proof vs 20mm all around, but he original already had that) - unless that's applique bolted on?; the speed as quoted comes out a little lower than the original TAM, but it is notably more efficient on range (fuel consumption); plus improved stabilization, better night sight equipment, better FCS.


Stab: Good (up from Fair)
IR Targ: A/PIR
FCS: 4 (+1 on 3)

Trav Move: 150/105 km in 4 hours
Cbt Move: 50/35 m per round
Fuel Consumption: 110L in 4 hours

Weaponry:

• L7A1 105mm equivalent; uses NATO 105mm ammo
• NATO 7.62mm MG Coax in turret
• NATO 7.62mm MG Coax on open moungt on turret roof

Armor: Suspension = T4
__TF 40 ____HF 35
__TS 25 ____HS 25
__TR 20 ____HR 15

Uncle Ted

[The Dark]

That seems much heavier on the non-frontal areas than Paul's TAM (32/6/6 hull and 26/8/8 turret). Given Iron Wall's emphasis on HEAT overmatch, I'd estimate it closer to 35Sp/12Sp/12 and 30Sp/15Sp/15 for the 2IP. I'm also assuming that's a CIP, since it has both armor and fire control upgrades. I think more of them will end up as IP, with the heavier armor but only Fair stabilization, Passive IR, and 3 Fire Control, mostly because Argentina doesn't really need the electronics upgrades in any likely future scenario.

In a T2K scenario, I agree that I could see them selling non-upgraded TAMs to raise funds to upgrade the remaining TAMs to TAM 2 (C/IP/CIP) standard. There was also talk of upgrading the TAM 2 with Rheinmetall's 120mm L/44 (the Leopard 2's early main armament). I'm not sure how well a 31 ton tank would handle its recoil, but it's something to think on.

[WallShadow]

If the idea of stand-off armor is to pre-detonate the HEAT warhead outside of its optimal detonation distance, what easily-available/manufacturable substance would make the thermal jet even less effective? Firebricks? (yeah, I know, really heavy). Compressed layers of aluminum foil wrapping fragments of tempered glass (pyrex dishes)? Filled water containers/heavy plastic bags or plastic water bottles nestled between the detonation plate and the hull or turret armor? Enamelled metal plates (it was tried in WW1 for body armor)?

Yes, I know some of these are being pulled out of left field, but if you are an occupant of that vehicle, you may be stretching your brain as to how to survive some overeager marauder or Pact greenie with an RPG or antitank grenade, especially if you've seen some buddies get fragged in their tank or APC.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by WallShadow

If the idea of stand-off armor is to pre-detonate the HEAT warhead outside of its optimal detonation distance, what easily-available/manufacturable substance would make the thermal jet even less effective? Firebricks? (yeah, I know, really heavy). Compressed layers of aluminum foil wrapping fragments of tempered glass (pyrex dishes)? Filled water containers/heavy plastic bags or plastic water bottles nestled between the detonation plate and the hull or turret armor? Enamelled metal plates (it was tried in WW1 for body armor)?

Yes, I know some of these are being pulled out of left field, but if you are an occupant of that vehicle, you may be stretching your brain as to how to survive some overeager marauder or Pact greenie with an RPG or antitank grenade, especially if you've seen some buddies get fragged in their tank or APC.

Somebody had a random thought one time, I'm trying to remember specifics (I cannot for the life of me recall what forum I saw this on but it was about a decade ago) - a sandwich of steel, packed sand, steel. His thought being that the sand being granular and not hard packed, would cause the jet to behave irregularly plus the heat would fuse the sand and add a further layer of material to penetrate.

Would this actually work? I have absolutely no idea. It sounds as though it "might" work but I don't know all the physics involved. I'm also left to wonder about the required thickness of sand to provide that effect (and the subsequent weight added).
I believe his idea was inspired by the use of sandbags on some tanks during WW2 but while I can understand bags of sand would degrade the performance of kinetic projectiles, I'm not convinced that they would degrade a HEAT round enough to stop it causing damage (unless they were stacked thick enough).

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by WallShadow

...Filled water containers/heavy plastic bags or plastic water bottles nestled between the detonation plate and the hull or turret armor?...

I have often wondered (and asked here) what would be the AV of rucks, equipment, water cans, etc, strapped to the sides or rear of vehicles, or in the bustle rack of an armored vehicle. Surely these would disrupt a HEAT jet (ruining the item in the process, of course).

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by WallShadow

If the idea of stand-off armor is to pre-detonate the HEAT warhead outside of its optimal detonation distance, what easily-available/manufacturable substance would make the thermal jet even less effective? Firebricks? (yeah, I know, really heavy). Compressed layers of aluminum foil wrapping fragments of tempered glass (pyrex dishes)? Filled water containers/heavy plastic bags or plastic water bottles nestled between the detonation plate and the hull or turret armor? Enamelled metal plates (it was tried in WW1 for body armor)?

Yes, I know some of these are being pulled out of left field, but if you are an occupant of that vehicle, you may be stretching your brain as to how to survive some overeager marauder or Pact greenie with an RPG or antitank grenade, especially if you've seen some buddies get fragged in their tank or APC.

Good question. I know that in WWII, Allied tank crews often piled filled sandbags on their tanks to add an extra layer of protection. The big problem with that, though, was the added weight- especially when the sandbags got wet- could damage the suspension/transmission.

Extra sections of track have also been a popular form of field expedient, jury-rigged modular armor. I suspect the benefits of said to be negligible, but I reckon over half the payoff of ersatz armor is psychological (i.e. it makes the crew feel safer).

During the last year of the war, the Soviets used old bedsprings attached to their tanks to pre-detonate Panzerfaust HEAT warheads. In more recent times, various armies have attached sections of chain-link fence to pre-detonate HEAT warheads. This option is relatively lightweight, compared to welded on armor plate, sandbags, jerry cans full of water, etc.

IIRC, we had a thread devoted to this topic. I think someone also found a picture/account of a T-34-85 with add-on armor made of thick rubber sheets that was used by one of the combatants during the Balkans Wars of the 1990s. I can't imagine that such "armor" was particularly effective.

-

[The Dark]

I thought the goal with the rubber on the T-34 was to mess with thermal imaging by masking the outline of the vehicle.

For protection against HEAT, you're going to want an air gap. The goal is to detonate the warhead away from the hull and have a gap for the molten copper jet to start to disperse before hitting anything solid. The AT4 was known for being able to punch through sandbags and sand-filled crates when used as a bunkerbuster, so I don't think sand (or water) will be effective enough to justify the added weight. If you could afford the volume for it, you'd want a setup with the hull, air gap, sheet metal, air gap, hillbilly armor to maximize the number of medium changes the warhead would go through. The problem with that is now you have an awkwardly wide vehicle, so (as always), compromises need to be made between effectiveness and efficiency.

[WallShadow]

Originally Posted by The Dark

I thought the goal with the rubber on the T-34 was to mess with thermal imaging by masking the outline of the vehicle.

For protection against HEAT, you're going to want an air gap. The goal is to detonate the warhead away from the hull and have a gap for the molten copper jet to start to disperse before hitting anything solid. The AT4 was known for being able to punch through sandbags and sand-filled crates when used as a bunkerbuster, so I don't think sand (or water) will be effective enough to justify the added weight. If you could afford the volume for it, you'd want a setup with the hull, air gap, sheet metal, air gap, hillbilly armor to maximize the number of medium changes the warhead would go through. The problem with that is now you have an awkwardly wide vehicle, so (as always), compromises need to be made between effectiveness and efficiency.

My goal was to disperse/deflect the stream before it hit the organic armor integral to the vehicle. I could see where a HEAT warhead could blast through sandbags, but the sandbags are intended to further reduce the jet's force after the spaced sheet steel panels pre-detonate the shaped charge and before it even gets close to steel. It's an additive factor, not the actual vehicle armor between the outside and the crew.