Okay, yes--the APDS round that is not the one with a penetrator formed from depleted uranium. That is what I meant, though most can probably infer the point I was getting at.
To your point about 25mm and inadequacy against a T-55 (or any tank for that matter), it shouldn't be employed against a T-55, so inadequacy is irrelevant. If a BMP is approaching tank weight and protection, don't bother trying to kill it with an IFV direct-fire weapon. Get a Javelin, or a tank.
I guess you could say this goes back to gute's question about sticking with a 25mm, especially in light of the trend in BMP (and comparable AFV/IFV) protection. There is no way threat capabilities are ignored, but rather planners are looking at smarter ways to counter the threat. It also goes back to the point about trying to kill a monster IFV with another IFV. If the enemy wants to push the armor/weight boundaries, maybe we should just let them, but remain flexible with our task organization.
Vehicles look great when they are all pristine in a glossy manufacturer's pamphlet or an edition of Janes, but in the field, amidst the muck and the mire, advertised capabilities become an entirely different proposition. There are penalties to pay with the protection.
Ona slightly related tangent, has anyone been catching Russian-narrated videos of Syrian armor in the attack, or of the absolute havoc being wrecked on the tanks when they let their security down and the insurgents get to employ RPG-29s? Eye-opening for sure...
Bookmarks