Just consider how many Abrams have been lost due to enemy action, especially RPG fire. Then compare it to the Challenger 2.
The armour on the front of the Abrams is good, but unfortunatley the rest of the protection is very poor. An RPG fired at the side, rear or top of the Abrams will disable it at best, destroy it at worst. I have hear rumours that the US may scrap the Abrams entirely and replace them with Challengers.
In the Challenger 2, and RPG fired anywhere will just piss of the tank commander.
[QUOTE]Yeah, they came low from direction of islands so that they were hard targets for radar because of low altitude and those islands directly on background.
There was one document about one of those attacks in Finnish television few years ago.
It was precisely in that case where lack of real close range defense system proved costly, when fighter came from direction where other ship blocked visibility of guidance radar for short range missiles.[/QUOTE]Unfortuantly the British fleet didn't have the equipment needed to minimize this thread. Careful employment of airborn radar pushes back the engagement range, so that your fighters can jump the inbound planes before they reach firing range or have a target lock.
The British carriers were / are too small to launch any existing AWACs aircraft (like the E-2 Hawkeye [US Navy], or E-3 Sentry [US Airforce]), so they were limited to what their surface radar could see. And of course since radar is line of sight, a row of hills provides complete radar shielding, but an airborn radar could look 'over' the hills to spot inbound planes.
If you set up your radar coverage and ship deployments right you buy defensive depth, which is key. Close in weapon systems are great, but its even better if they don't have to be used.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Jon_S [/i]
[B]The British carriers were / are too small to launch any existing AWACs aircraft (like the E-2 Hawkeye [US Navy], or E-3 Sentry [US Airforce]), so they were limited to what their surface radar could see. And of course since radar is line of sight, a row of hills provides complete radar shielding, but an airborn radar could look 'over' the hills to spot inbound planes.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Personally, I'd be impressed if even a US Navy carrier could launch an E-3 Sentry. :)
The closest to AWACS or AEW coverage that is available with the Invincible class carriers are the Sea King helicopters, and those are primarily for anti-submarine ops. The last true AWACs aircraft that the RN had was on the old Ark Royal mounted in a Fairey Gannet fuselage. That radar was later ripped out and mounted in old Avro Shackleton fuselages and used as the sole line of AWACs coverage for the UK for many years which was compounded with the failure of the AWACs Nimrod program.
armour has come a long way since the 'State' class battleships were built.
Spaced, reactive and composite armours could make a huge difference to weight VS protection.
I can imagine the Mizzy et al with that kind of armour could be truly frightening in the ammount of shit they could take.
Thats also not to mention the use of wet armours, something experiented with for some time. Wet armours basically use a layer of spongy cellular gear, filled with water, which is capable of absorbing huge ammounts of heat and kinetic energy. Best bit about it is you can shed your water armour for transit.. and load up just before you reach theatre.
If a Battleship like this can be built light enough to travel at 60kts...
Comments
The armour on the front of the Abrams is good, but unfortunatley the rest of the protection is very poor. An RPG fired at the side, rear or top of the Abrams will disable it at best, destroy it at worst. I have hear rumours that the US may scrap the Abrams entirely and replace them with Challengers.
In the Challenger 2, and RPG fired anywhere will just piss of the tank commander.
[URL=http://www.towerhost.com/~taosap/AngelAndSpikeArgument.mp3]Listen[/URL]
-Φ
all too true
There was one document about one of those attacks in Finnish television few years ago.
It was precisely in that case where lack of real close range defense system proved costly, when fighter came from direction where other ship blocked visibility of guidance radar for short range missiles.[/QUOTE]Unfortuantly the British fleet didn't have the equipment needed to minimize this thread. Careful employment of airborn radar pushes back the engagement range, so that your fighters can jump the inbound planes before they reach firing range or have a target lock.
The British carriers were / are too small to launch any existing AWACs aircraft (like the E-2 Hawkeye [US Navy], or E-3 Sentry [US Airforce]), so they were limited to what their surface radar could see. And of course since radar is line of sight, a row of hills provides complete radar shielding, but an airborn radar could look 'over' the hills to spot inbound planes.
If you set up your radar coverage and ship deployments right you buy defensive depth, which is key. Close in weapon systems are great, but its even better if they don't have to be used.
[B]The British carriers were / are too small to launch any existing AWACs aircraft (like the E-2 Hawkeye [US Navy], or E-3 Sentry [US Airforce]), so they were limited to what their surface radar could see. And of course since radar is line of sight, a row of hills provides complete radar shielding, but an airborn radar could look 'over' the hills to spot inbound planes.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Personally, I'd be impressed if even a US Navy carrier could launch an E-3 Sentry. :)
The closest to AWACS or AEW coverage that is available with the Invincible class carriers are the Sea King helicopters, and those are primarily for anti-submarine ops. The last true AWACs aircraft that the RN had was on the old Ark Royal mounted in a Fairey Gannet fuselage. That radar was later ripped out and mounted in old Avro Shackleton fuselages and used as the sole line of AWACs coverage for the UK for many years which was compounded with the failure of the AWACs Nimrod program.
The pinched in beltline deal and stuff just make it so sexy.
Spaced, reactive and composite armours could make a huge difference to weight VS protection.
I can imagine the Mizzy et al with that kind of armour could be truly frightening in the ammount of shit they could take.
Thats also not to mention the use of wet armours, something experiented with for some time. Wet armours basically use a layer of spongy cellular gear, filled with water, which is capable of absorbing huge ammounts of heat and kinetic energy. Best bit about it is you can shed your water armour for transit.. and load up just before you reach theatre.
If a Battleship like this can be built light enough to travel at 60kts...
nothing is safe..:D
(Except those darned submarines.)