Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Share
    avatar
    Regular

    Posts : 2028
    Points : 2032
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Regular on Thu May 16, 2013 11:34 am

    GarryB wrote:
    You are being unfair... the T-90 is a tank developed from a cheap mass production tank that turned out to be even better than the top line expensive tank it was produced in parallel with... ie the T-80.
    I can I agree on that, but only because T-80 never achieved it's maturity. What Ukrainians are doing with T-80 tanks are nice, for example Oplot-M adresses all disadvantages of T-80 family. I can only imagine what Russians could do with that tank if they could make T-90MS. I'm not saying that T-90 is bad tank, but it's not the best too. So many years ago I was catching all the details about Black Eagle, who was considered T-80 on steroids. It happened to be just a mock up, but heart was in the right place. Not to mention FST projects that where way ahead of their time.
    The T-90 is the top of its evolutionary chart the same way the M1 Abrams in its current in service model is too. Just because the next gen vehicles will likely have unmanned turrets and perhaps even be completely unmanned does not mean they are bad tanks.
    I've heard that M1A3 will only get minor upgrades, new wiring/cables, new computers and other minor upgrades that will make tankers life bit easier. Nothing revolutionary, or maybe i'm missing something.
    Soviet union already had unmanned tank turret in the 70ies. Army like always, objected something that was ahead of it's time and over their heads. Nowadays we have better control suites and over all smaller and better electronics, maybe it was lack of them that stopped west and east to use remote controlled tank turrets. Cause it looks like no brainer to me.
    ..does not mean they are bad tanks.
    Again, please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's bad, but it going for T-90 is like dating super models and marrying a plain looking girl next door only because she will cost You less. Sorry for this analogy, Soviet union had some very advanced tanks of it's time. Should I mention T-64? Having two tanks wasn't an option for Russia and they chose the cheapest one. Too bad :/

    The ability of a tank to leave the ground and not require to be immediately sent for repair is not a practical thing that would be useful in combat... much like a tail slide for a fighter, but it shows acceleration and a certain level of mobility... just as a tailslide shows robust engines that are not bothered even by reverse air flows... which is very significant in combat... no point fitting your plane with TVC systems if your engines stall when the airflow changes direction.
    Can't argue with that.
    To hit something precisely over 1 km You have to be stationary.

    Except with Refleks... Smile
    You still have to maintain line of sight to guide the missile so driver have to behave properly. But I believe ATGM gives You edge in longer distances like steppes in Russia or vast deserts in middle east. So instead of moving in I would rather keep my distance and try to score hits while enemy tanks will have to close in or evade. For example Brandleys with TOW wrecked havoc among Iraqi T-72. They scored more kills than tanks because of their longer missile reach. I expect no less from Reflex. Still not sure about it's performance in central European landscape where engagement distances are short.
    avatar
    Zivo

    Posts : 1491
    Points : 1521
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Zivo on Thu May 16, 2013 11:48 am

    For example Brandleys with TOW wrecked havoc among Iraqi T-72. They scored more kills than tanks because of their longer missile reach.

    Care to elaborate on this?
    avatar
    Regular

    Posts : 2028
    Points : 2032
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Regular on Thu May 16, 2013 12:25 pm

    TR1 wrote:
    If we compare export prices, T-90A is not a cheap product at all by world standards. And why should it be, it is a good MBT. I can't imagine T-90MS being much cheaper than Leopard 2s either.
    Well prices depend on loads of things. Does the customer get logistical support, tech transfer,training, spares and of course how many tanks they are buying. It's cheaper to buy more. It's really hard to determine real price. South Korean tank K2 tank could be so expensive because of their industry not being ready to produce it and not because it's a spaceship with lasers.
    Then again, just a question. What makes T-90MS as expensive as Leopard 2A6? Is suspension on T-90MS is on same price range? What about it's gun? Engine? Transmission? Fire and control systems? Sights? Com systems?
    avatar
    Regular

    Posts : 2028
    Points : 2032
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Regular on Thu May 16, 2013 1:18 pm

    Zivo wrote:
    For example Brandleys with TOW wrecked havoc among Iraqi T-72. They scored more kills than tanks because of their longer missile reach.

    Care to elaborate on this?
    Sorry can't find where I was reading that, it was years ago. But M3 and M2 bradleys working together with infantry/heavier vehicles scored more kills in first and second war in Iraq than tanks did. Still the death rained from the sky.
    The only thing I can find is fas.org website without proper source.

    I think there was even some kills made with Bushmaster, but the real killer was TOW missiles. Hopefully I will go back from work and will find some info if You are interested.

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 776
    Points : 953
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Mindstorm on Thu May 16, 2013 2:15 pm

    Haha. There is nothing practical with jumping and shooting in same time......Judging by that kangaroos are best MBT in the world.


    Practical ?
    What this has to do with practicality ?

    Capability to execute those "jumps" on HARD soil (....not the very soft one ,on which the Merkawa of the video land, which obviously absorb the stress in place of MBT's suspension Wink ) retaining perfect mobility after, is a very good "marker" of a CRUCIAL battlefield capability for a MBT -product at its own time of a sound technical design- capable to enormously influence its exchange ratio in mobile engagements against direct enemy fire.

    In substance those "jumps" or ,for better say, capability of the MBT's torsion bar suspensions to absorb similar level of energy (see attentively the slow motion from 0:25 of this video)






    indicate capability of the tank in question to proceed off-road in battle at any speed and velocity's delta and long any vector of motion independently of the gradient and height's gap characterizing it.

    The combined effect with the vastly reduced target area of domestic MBT and theirs turret design produce an enormous difference in the final PHit of unguided enemy direct fire in mobile engagements at tactically relevant ranges.


    I provided a brief explanation of the terms of this specific question and its effects about an year and half ago at post 555 of another thread ,read it if you want.



    http://www.russiadefence.net/t1368p540-first-photos-of-t-95-and-t-90am


    Usually the fire produced during those "jumps" (the round ,as you would have surely noted by now, is effectively shoot just before leave the terrain when FCS can still compute a fire solution) include mostly HE/HE-Frag rounds against infantry positions/bunker or Ainet-programmed rounds against known position of hovering helicopters/ATGM squads.



    Still not sure about it's performance in central European landscape where engagement distances are short.

    Metropolitan legends....even more those useful at justify in some way a western failure in designing a particular weapon system Razz....are truly die-hard even in the era of Google map. Laughing Laughing

    Give a direct "look" to the morphological characteristic of area involved in the hypothetical Warsaw Pact armoured offensive in Europe, such as the "Fulda Gap" the "Northern Plain route" or "HOF's Bisector" (or even better visit those places personally..) and you will realize the incredible nerve of those people attempting, still today, to justify western failure to produce an efficient gun launched ATGM for theirs MBTs with fairy tales on the LOS in Germany Laughing Laughing






    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Fri May 17, 2013 2:14 am

    I'm not saying that T-90 is bad tank, but it's not the best too.

    The T-90 is a brilliant tank... it manages fire power and armour comparable with western tanks at 10-20 tons less weight... and several million dollars less cost.

    I'm not saying that T-90 is bad tank, but it's not the best too. So many years ago I was catching all the details about Black Eagle, who was considered T-80 on steroids. It happened to be just a mock up, but heart was in the right place. Not to mention FST projects that where way ahead of their time.

    The Black Eagle was a design necessitated by the way ammo is stored in a T-80. Turret bustle ammo is exposed to enemy fire and is a potential weak point. The Burlak upgrade of the T-90 was rejected because it used both an under floor autoloader like the T-72 and a turret bustle autoloader like the Black Eagle.

    I've heard that M1A3 will only get minor upgrades, new wiring/cables, new computers and other minor upgrades that will make tankers life bit easier. Nothing revolutionary, or maybe i'm missing something.

    Certainly nothing revolutionary, just like the T-90MS is not revolutionary either... both are top of the evolutionary charts of their tank families is all I said. For the Russians the introduction of the armata family of vehicles is the revolutionary new tank... along with the medium and light vehicles families.

    Cause it looks like no brainer to me.

    The turret front of a tank is generally the most heavily armoured part of a tank because it is the most likely part to get hit in combat, but it is not as simple as just deciding to put the crew in the hull. They need to be able to have the same situational awareness as a tank commander with his head sticking out the top of a tank. A US tank commander was killed in desert storm because his vehicle turned a corner and stumbled upon a BMP which when fired upon exploded and the commander of the Abrams was killed by shrapnel from the explosion. The Abrams has excellent optics... panoramic sights, thermal imagers etc etc... yet the commander operating in a built up area wanted to have his head and upper body exposed so he could see the battlefield better.

    In other words with all the sophisticated optics in a modern western tank at the end of the cold war the visibility and automation from the top of the turret wasn't sufficient for the tank commander... there is little chance that 1970s level technology would provide a better view from down in the hull.

    Keep in mind that the BMP-1 had the commander sitting in the hull behind the driver... next to the front mounted engine, with the gunner in the one manned turret. Operationally however the commander often kicked the gunner out of the turret and took that position himself for better views of the battlefield.

    The BMP-2 had a two man turret with the commander and gunner seated there.

    The first prototypes of the Bradley had the same arrangement as the BMP-1, but they copied the new arrangement of the BMP-2 later on.

    but it going for T-90 is like dating super models and marrying a plain looking girl next door only because she will cost You less.

    It feels great entering a bar with a super model on your arm, but can she cook... can she even hold a sensible conversation? Beauty fades with time... and is in the eye of the beholder too. What happens when there is a male supermodel in the bar... are you sure she will be leaving with you, or the guy with the most expensive car there?

    Should I mention T-64? Having two tanks wasn't an option for Russia and they chose the cheapest one. Too bad :/

    No they didn't.

    The T-64 and T-80 were the most expensive Soviet tanks but were also troublesome. The T-72 was simple and cheap to make, but the T-90 adopted all the expensive technology that made the T-80 expensive... it got new armour and new sensors and new guns etc etc and in the end it was a better tank than the T-80... and likely not cheaper at all. Its main advantage was that it was Russian made, whereas the T-80 was only partly Russian made... the two main strands of development for the new T-80s made in the Ukraine were to remove Russian made components and to make it more NATO friendly.

    For example Brandleys with TOW wrecked havoc among Iraqi T-72. They scored more kills than tanks because of their longer missile reach. I expect no less from Reflex.

    The advantage of the TOW in that respect is that at night the Iraqi tanks likely couldn't see 4km in the dark so they likely never saw them coming. In Europe however the wire guided requires the Bradley to remain stationary during the entire flight of the missile to the target, which is quite some time. With refleks there is no wire so the tank can be moving slowly while controlling the missile. In the T-90 there is an autotarget tracker... just like in the Kornet-EM so firing while moving should not be a problem... though obviously line of sight needs to be maintained.

    I think there was even some kills made with Bushmaster,

    True, but only T-55s from the side, not from the front.



    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Regular

    Posts : 2028
    Points : 2032
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Regular on Fri May 17, 2013 5:52 am

    Mindstorm wrote:Capability to execute those "jumps" on HARD soil (....not the very soft one ,on which the Merkawa of the video land, which obviously absorb the stress in place of MBT's suspension Wink

    What makes You think that Merkava landed on a pillow? I'm pretty sure it hurt them pretty bad. Merkava suspension would be the weakest part of this tank.
    retaining perfect mobility after, is a very good "marker" of a CRUCIAL battlefield capability for a MBT -product at its own time of a sound technical design- capable to enormously influence its exchange ratio in mobile engagements against direct enemy fire.
    Why not to stick bayonet on it too? Koроче, умеешь ты говорит конкретно? ))
    In mobile engangements You will hardly have speed to jump at all.





    You can see same thing in war games that recreate real battle. No one is flying their tanks there.

    In substance those "jumps" or ,for better say, capability of the MBT's torsion bar suspensions to absorb similar level of energy (see attentively the slow motion from 0:25 of this video)
    Torsion bar suspension is well known to be durable.

    indicate capability of the tank in question to proceed off-road in battle at any speed and velocity's delta and long any vector of motion independently of the gradient and height's gap characterizing it.
    Capability that is used to impress crowd. Pokazukha. Torsion bar suspension is already proven, what else there to prove? But somehow in real life Russian tanks don't parquer. Maybe it is something to do with crew not wanting their spines go right through their arses? All Russian tank maneuvers involve moderate speed and tanks tend to keep battle formations and don't rush through field like headless chickens.

    The combined effect with the vastly reduced target area of domestic MBT and theirs turret design produce an enormous difference in the final PHit of unguided enemy direct fire in mobile engagements at tactically relevant ranges.
    In era of modern FCS reduced target area doesn't play such important role. Tanks use even smaller targets for practice. Where is enormous difference when look at the size of T-90AM, it's not really a dwarf.

    I provided a brief explanation of the terms of this specific question and its effects about an year and half ago at post 555 of another thread ,read it if you want.



    http://www.russiadefence.net/t1368p540-first-photos-of-t-95-and-t-90am
    Thanks, I'll do that

    Usually the fire produced during those "jumps" (the round ,as you would have surely noted by now, is effectively shoot just before leave the terrain when FCS can still compute a fire solution) include mostly HE/HE-Frag rounds against infantry positions/bunker or Ainet-programmed rounds against known position of hovering helicopters/ATGM squads.
    Flying bunkers? Barrel can't depress lower because hull is climbing up on the hill/ramp, look again at the video. Best effective way to toast infantry positions is not to jump at all, just shoot from stationary position. Infantry is helpless if You keep right distance. What about shots in mid air? How You gonna rehabilitate them?

    Metropolitan legends....even more those useful at justify in some way a western failure in designing a particular weapon system Razz....are truly die-hard even in the era of Google map. Laughing Laughing
    |
    So what are typical combat ranges in Europe?
    And what's so special about 80ies technology that West can't design? Oh, I get it, they are stupid.
    What's wrong with Lahat then?


    Give a direct "look" to the morphological characteristic of area involved in the hypothetical Warsaw Pact armoured offensive in Europe, such as the "Fulda Gap" the "Northern Plain route" or "HOF's Bisector" (or even better visit those places personally..) and you will realize the incredible nerve of those people attempting, still today, to justify western failure to produce an efficient gun launched ATGM for theirs MBTs with fairy tales on the LOS in Germany Laughing Laughing
    There is still places where ATGM wouldn't be perfect choice. If it was such game changer Why soviets didn't go for full missile tank then like we seen before? Are You saying that when monkey countries like Iran or Ukraine can build AT-11 derivatives NATO can't?


    Last edited by Regular on Fri May 17, 2013 6:08 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    Regular

    Posts : 2028
    Points : 2032
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Regular on Fri May 17, 2013 6:06 am

    [quote="GarryB"]


    Thanks for reply, good read. Voted.
    Can't say that I disagree, but for me it's natural to feel more sympathetic towards T-80 family, Ukraine is lucky to have Kharkov. Too bad they are rehashing same thing all over again. They are not as capable as Russia and their financing must be way lower. I was reading a lot about Soviet prototypes and some of them really make my jaw drop.
    The only thing that restrained soviet designs was imposed by doctrine and.. stubbornness of certain people.
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5679
    Points : 5707
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  TR1 on Fri May 17, 2013 7:20 am

    T-80 was made in Leningrad.

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Fri May 17, 2013 11:49 am

    As TR-1 points out T-80 was also made in Omsk...

    I don't dislike the T-80, but the ammo arrangement needs serious attention.

    If it was such game changer Why soviets didn't go for full missile tank then like we seen before?

    Because the Soviets were very conservative... the people doing the buying... not the designers. There were plenty of missile armed tanks including the IT-1 with ATGMs based on AT-2, but it was realised that like ERA it wasn't the secret super solution.

    ERA is useful, but heavy base armour is needed too... plus soft kill systems like smoke grenades and IR dazzlers like Shtora, and of course hard kill systems like ARENA.

    Missiles are excellent, but APFSDS rounds are very good too as are HEAT rounds and HE FRAG ANIET fused rounds too.

    More importantly the first missiles used command guidance boxes like SHTURM and ATAKA, but the most common ones were laser beam riders which can be very high speed and very high performance missiles.

    Interesting to note the US gun launched ATGM system was the Sheridan which was rubbish... they later did what the Soviets did and developed a tank based version, but they made the mistake of basing the gun around the missile instead of the other way around so they ended up with an M60 with a gun that was useless for anything except firing a missile that didnt really work. The French made the same mistake.

    In comparison the Soviets came up with a range of missiles that could be added to most of their tanks with a minor change of sights... the cost was a minor reduction in the number of live rounds it could carry.

    In comparison the Sheridan was a joke... an M113 filled with TOW missiles cost a fraction of what the Sheridan did and was more mobile and far more effective in actual combat.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 776
    Points : 953
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Mindstorm on Fri May 17, 2013 4:30 pm

    What makes You think that Merkava landed on a pillow? I'm pretty sure it hurt them pretty bad. Merkava suspension would be the weakest part of this tank

    What ? Practically anything....

    1) Depressed position of the front axle
    2) Very high amount and overall consistency of the terrain lifted by the track train in the motion and in the "jump"
    3) Wide presence of short root plants (it is an any effect a soft grassland Smile )
    4) Almost complete absence of any suspension generated elastic bounce after the landing (you can notice the immense difference with any video where a MBT, forcibly much lighter than western behemoth, absorb really the energy produced by similar impact)


    Why not to stick bayonet on it too?

    Shocked

    Reading comprehension anyone ? Laughing



    In mobile engangements You will hardly have speed to jump at all.

    I image that you know the difference between engagements in marksmanship training (where the maximum hit percentage is the central parameter taken into account) and tactical maneuver training (where variation of position in relation to tempo and time of exposure to enemy fire and the mode of enemy direct fire's Phit is taken in consideration too).







    Usually in war MBT armored spearhead proceed ,in uncontested zones, at high speed (compatibly with average speed in that specific terrain of the supporting IFVs and APCs) to deprive enemy vital time for reactive manoeuver; in contested zones instead average MBT's speed depend on volume and nature or enemy fire : where high density of unguided direct fire (mostly artillery barrages, MBT's APFSDS and auto-cannon fire ) a relatively high speed with frequent changes of direction is maintained, where instead enemy fire is constituted mostly by ATGMs and PGM munitions the speed is significantly lower, to maximize Phit and capitalize at maximum zone of coverage of multispectral battlefield obscurants.


    Western nations MBT's training has historically stressed on marksmanship training for the simple reason that them expected to fight a defensive war against overwhelming enemy forces from almost fixed entrenched or defilades positions, neither that theirs same design don't allowed for good strategic and tactical mobility or capable to achieve a substantial hit avoidance in mobile engagements.



    Torsion bar suspension is well known to be durable.

    Obviously not.
    Above all if over the same suspension, in the same condition of T-90, would burden 17-18 tons more falling from 1,80 m.......
    There is no chance that an M1 Abrams, Challenger 2, Leopard 2 and the likes would not disintegrate their suspensions with a solicitation ,on hard terrain, even only several times lower than that.


    Flying bunkers? Barrel can't depress lower because hull is climbing up on the hill/ramp, look again at the video.

    Shocked

    Not Regular, simply any fixed targets attacked with HE-Frag rounds (possibly with Ainet setted detonation) with usual ballistic trajectory.
    I repeat one more time: it is not that the "jump" is necessary for something Laughing ; being capable to sustain similar jumps point instead to the capability to proceed at relatively high speed off road in terrain characterized by high gradient.



    So what are typical combat ranges in Europe?


    Well ,only to talk of the area interested in Soviet offensive in West Germany :


    Fulda Gap's "mouth" near Rasdorf and Geisa




    Ulst-Tann area ,start axis of second Warsaw Pact spearhead in the sector



    http://www.ipernity.com/doc/m83.eu/4683277



    On the southern sector: Bogen,(... the famous "Bogen's Fulcrum") near Danube. You can realize also the Soviet stress on amphibious capabilities Wink .







    Central/Northern sector :


    Berga's grassland (always Third Shock Army)





    Northern Plain : Rhine's plateau




    Do you can realize now why i laugh when see people attempting ,still today, to sold around this comical fairy tale on the gun launched ATGMs....not fruitable in European regions, when in reality it represent an almost perfect environment for theirs employment Razz Razz


    And what's so special about 80ies technology that West can't design?

    The same preventing, for example,to the West to design any supersonic cruise missiles up to today Wink

    Obviously it is not a problem of stupidity or intelligence but of different evolutionary priority and sector of historical excellence between West and East : West in particular USA ,has always strongly stressed as first priority on information and data processing/integration/dissemination technology and the related electronic components; this is the main sector of western excellence.


    In era of modern FCS reduced target area doesn't play such important role. Tanks use even smaller targets for practice. Where is enormous difference when look at the size of T-90AM, it's not really a dwarf.

    This is simply NOT TRUE (unless someone manage to create a future reading FCS or KE rounds increase enormously theirs average speed Very Happy ) and nothing more nothing less than the umpteenth metropolitan legend circulating on those subjects.

    We talk here of unguided fire (such as today APFSDS ) at tactically relevant range in mobile engagements ; please read why at the link i pointed out in the last post.
    Anyway this is an image showing the difference in target area between a T-90 and an M1 Abrams








    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1175
    Points : 1184
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 21
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  collegeboy16 on Mon May 20, 2013 4:27 pm

    Mindstorm wrote:

    I hope someone creates an M1A2(or any other western tank) disguise-kit for this tank, it would be the ultimate Nakidka Twisted Evil .
    avatar
    Regular

    Posts : 2028
    Points : 2032
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Regular on Mon May 20, 2013 7:40 pm


    What ? Practically anything....

    1) Depressed position of the front axle
    2) Very high amount and overall consistency of the terrain lifted by the track train in the motion and in the "jump"
    3) Wide presence of short root plants (it is an any effect a soft grassland Smile )
    4) Almost complete absence of any suspension generated elastic bounce after the landing (you can notice the immense difference with any video where a MBT, forcibly much lighter than western behemoth, absorb really the energy produced by similar impact)
    I was addressing weight issue as collegeboy said that increase of weight could be the reason T-90AM didn't jump. I say it's because different reasons and even tanks as heavy as Merkava can jump. 4). Merkava has different suspension, plus we don't know if all coils survived. Hydro pneumatic suspension would absorb energy best and would extinguish that bouncing too, but not sure about it's life time.
    I'm not arguing with simply physics. Never said that land is hard as concrete, but I think it's enough to cause damage too. There is a reason why tank jumping happens in shows where soldiers break bricks, do backflips and other nonsense. There is reason why it's called pokazukha.


    Reading comprehension anyone ? Laughing

    English is not my first or second language so I beg a pardon.

    In mobile engangements You will hardly have speed to jump at all.

    I image that you know the difference between engagements in marksmanship training (where the maximum hit percentage is the central parameter taken into account) and tactical maneuver training (where variation of position in relation to tempo and time of exposure to enemy fire and the mode of enemy direct fire's Phit is taken in consideration too).
    Maybe I'm seeing through eyes of infantry, but what is the tactical movement under direct fire? I'm talking about tanks. Didn't Russia have upper hand at longer distances and good variety of recon vehicles? I thought NATO tanks would be showered with ATGM fire by overwatch units(don't know name in English, Avangard?) until they would be able to engage in to direct fire and only after tanks deplete their ATGM they proceed their movement. Cause for us infantry moving under direct fire is usually would mean suicide.

    Sorry, I'm not interested in Indian military. They still want to continue with Arjun I bet they use this piece of crap with same tactics no matter it's limitations.
    Russian tank manoeuvres
    [/quote]






    Western nations MBT's training has historically stressed on marksmanship training for the simple reason that them expected to fight a defensive war against overwhelming enemy forces from almost fixed entrenched or defilades positions, neither that theirs same design don't allowed for good strategic and tactical mobility or capable to achieve a substantial hit avoidance in mobile engagements.
    Some western tanks, like for example Leopard 2 have very good off-road mobility and speed. Better than T-72 of course. And French emphasised on mobility. But as far as I understand their tanks were terrible.


    Obviously not.
    Care to say why? As most of cold war tanks went for it.
    Above all if over the same suspension, in the same condition of T-90, would burden 17-18 tons more falling from 1,80 m.......
    Probably even driving with that extra weight would shorten it's life-time.

    There is no chance that an M1 Abrams, Challenger 2, Leopard 2 and the likes would not disintegrate their suspensions with a solicitation ,on hard terrain, even only several times lower than that.
    Don't know about two of them, but Leopard-2 have jumped.



    Not Regular, simply any fixed targets attacked with HE-Frag rounds (possibly with Ainet setted detonation) with usual ballistic trajectory.
    I repeat one more time: it is not that the "jump" is necessary for something Laughing ; being capable to sustain similar jumps point instead to the capability to proceed at relatively high speed off road in terrain characterized by high gradient.
    Sure, take the jumping bit from it and any modern MTB can do it too. Why they need to emphasise jump so much?

    Well ,only to talk of the area interested in Soviet offensive in West Germany :
    OK, thanks. Tank playground. Now I'm not against ATGM and that only shows why Soviets sought perfection in their ATGM technology.

    Do you can realize now why i laugh when see people attempting ,[b]still today, to sold around this comical fairy tale on the gun launched ATGMs....not fruitable in European regions, when in reality it represent an almost perfect environment for theirs employment Razz Razz
    You are right. Having this capability doesn't hurt either.



    The same preventing, for example,to the West to design any supersonic cruise missiles up to today Wink
    I French already has something.

    This is simply NOT TRUE (unless someone manage to create a future reading FCS or KE rounds increase enormously theirs average speed Very Happy ) and nothing more nothing less than the umpteenth metropolitan legend circulating on those subjects.
    Well Russians themselves said that their new FCS can precisely hit moving targets from great distances. I think west is not lagging behind in that matter.


    Mindstorm

    Posts : 776
    Points : 953
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Mindstorm on Tue May 21, 2013 10:07 am




    Well Russians themselves said that their new FCS can precisely hit moving targets from great distances. I think west is not lagging behind in that matter.


    Performances of FCS has almost nothing to do with the point we are debating.
    I believe that reposting mine explanation of the terms of the question will be useful at clarify why today APFSDS ,at tactically relevant ranges, have negligible Phit against targets moving with not-uniform delta of speed and direction , independetly of FCS's performances.




    - The ever open question of Probability to Hit of a MBT equipped with a modern FCS and importance ,or lack of it, of target's surface area for this crucial parameter -



    An advanced, modern FCS ,provided with all the necessary chrono-spatial and environmental informations (precise range from target ,accurate measure of its motion's vector, overall environmental temperature, wind speed, specific humidity, barrel level of thermal expansion and its level of structural fatigue etc..etc..)can effectively allow a modern MBT to find a fire solution and reliably hit a relatively small target -smaller than the frontal projection of a MBT- at long range (in the right conditions even more than 3000-3500 meters), but what is almost always, strangely, "forgotten" is that ,at medium/medium-long range (2000 m and over) considering actual HEAT and APFSDS rounds ,all that remain true only against stationary/near-stationary targets or those changing theirs motion vector in a proportional linear way .

    Image an engagement attempt against a target at 2200 meters moving at 36 Km/h (10 meter/second), for simplicity we can image this target moving perfectly perpendicular to the barrel's axis of the shooting tank (selecting, therefore, a very unlikely and very advantageous geometry for the shooter); from the processed data and the precise instant of the found fire solution to the moment of the APFSDS arrival on the computed point of interception, taking into account: gun collimation ,fire initialization, velocity and gravity drop of the round and travelling time long the parabolic trajectory to this point 2200 m far, elapse about 2 seconds for a round like M829A3 (1540 m/s at barrell exit).
    Now any change of the target motion from the vector computed by the FCS ,at the instant of the fire solution found, capable to modify the actual spatial position of the silhouette's centre of a measure superior to its semi-projection (half of the projection of its target area at the shooting point) will cause an assured miss; anyone can easily realize as a variation as small as +/-15 Km/h in the target speed or a simply turn ,even of only few degrees, or even the effect of some terrain morphology is more than sufficient for a tank with an average silhouette to cause a miss by part of the named round at this range.

    What is very important to point-out is that what now expressed remain totally valid independently from the FCS's sophistication (unless someone will manage to create a future-reading FCS ) because those variations of target's vector in the mentioned time window are totally arbitrary ,therefore completely out of the computing capabilities of any data processing system in the past ,in the present or in the future.
    The unique factors, conversely, capable to influence a similar engagement sequence against a target randomly changing its motion's parameters are : round's speed, distance from target, target capability to quickly change its motion vector, round average dispersion at this date range, and size of the target actual aspect projection at the shooting point.

    Now anyone can easily realize too as even small variations in a MBT's area projection (in the order of some dozen of cm ) produce an enormous, disproportionate effect in the related PtH -Probability to Hit- parameter for engagements at 2000-2500 m or over, between randomly moving opposing MBTs not employing guided ammunitions, because those features allow both to increase the time window useful for initialize a motion variation capable to cause a miss and/or mitigate the "required" entity of the same motion's variable.

    In particular is demonstrable that considering the process's function of those discrete and aleatory variables in a stocastic model, we have that the projection of potential hit's distribution tend to be concentrated ,in a non-linear way, long the peripheral aerea of target area silhouette ( in particular ,for obvious reasons, of the turret's area ).

    You can easily realize why, before the new Soviet military doctrine of 1987, Soviet tank crews in service in the spearhead armored divisions stationed in East Germany and planneed for transition over Rasdorf, areas around Geisa, to overcome NATO resistance long the Fulda Gap,was instructed ,at the beginning of the offensive, to employ all theirs GLATGM (against armored vehicles as priority targets and ,in second instance, against any low flying target of opportunity) while, when reaching the range of possible counterfire by part of enemy MBT's main guns ,change almost continually and randomly speed and direction of motion (in the training, the conscripts followed the cadences of a brief litany).

    In facts, the apparently randomly advancing armoured divisions that is possible to see in some very old videos of Soviet exercices for "STOSS" plan was not the effect of lack of training or vodka, like some laughable ignorant had suggested, but the training for this type of non linear mobile advancement toward enemy defense lines in West Germany.

    We must, now, also add that a MBT with a smaller silhouette show, almost always, also a smaller internal volume and a significantly lower inertial mass, elements that don't allow only to maintain a greater armoured-mass-to-surface index but also a far better capability to quickly change direction and speed in the unitary time segment of reference , one of the variables in the Probability to Hit function for medium-long range engagements.

    The operational factors previously described wouldn't be simply important but literally crucial in any major MBT's engagements between peer opponents employing armoured brigades ,both in offensive and in defensive missions, in theirs classical CONOPS and even more considering modern concepts of adaptive ground maneuvering warfare.

    Naturally, one more time, Gulf War, with Iraqi ground forces employing theirs MBT as....fixed pillbox/field artillery pieces ....have generated a lot of low level platitudes (among which capability to engage enemy MBT with APFSDS or HEAT at 3 km or over “thanks to advanced FCS” )very difficult to eradicate from low level common imaginary and completely irreconcilables not only with physical reality but with what would actually happen ,or would have happened, for example, in the highly mobile engagement in the Thar Desert between India and Pakistan armored forces (or, in the past,in the Fulda Gap and in the Nothern German Plain and between URSS and NATO forces) where the heavy effects of lower probably to hit triggered by lower target area and lower inertial mass of some of the MBTs involved would generate an huge impact on the final attrition ratio .


    a89

    Posts : 105
    Points : 110
    Join date : 2013-01-09
    Location : Oxfordshire

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  a89 on Tue May 21, 2013 11:30 am

    Can't say that I disagree, but for me it's natural to feel more sympathetic towards T-80 family, Ukraine is lucky to have Kharkov. Too bad they are rehashing same thing all over again. They are not as capable as Russia and their financing must be way lower. I was reading a lot about Soviet prototypes and some of them really make my jaw drop.

    T-80 were manufactured in Omsk, Kharkov and Leningrad. I doubt Ukraine has the capability of producing T-84M Oplot nowadays. The last contract they won for brand new tanks was in 1996 (320 T-80UD for Pakistan). Since then they have been selling T-55/72. A couple of years ago they signed a contrat with Thailand for T-84M. They were supposed to hand in the first vehicles in January, then it was pushed until May, but nothing yet...

    Recently they offered Peru T-64E.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Sat May 25, 2013 11:18 am

    Well Russians themselves said that their new FCS can precisely hit moving targets from great distances. I think west is not lagging behind in that matter.

    They both mean predictibly moving targets... like a car on a road you can take its speed and predict where it will be in 3-4 seconds time... however if you fire and at exactly that time the car starts to slow down then you will miss because there is very little lee way in the calculations as to where the target will be in the time it takes the munition to get there.

    If the target is randomly moving with changes in speed and direction that can't be predicted then no FCS can see the future and anticipate the right combination of moves the target actually will make between the time the gun is fired and the round impacts the target.

    I do like the bustle autoloader concept, at least for a small supplementary number of rounds that wouldn't result in a catastrophic burn if it were hit. The bustle would house GLATGMs or maybe some APFSDS for a higher fire rate.

    I agree, but the Russian Army sees the exposed ammo as a liability

    It will be interesting to see how they design the MBT armata... they are designing two armata vehicles... one with the engine in the front and one with the engine in the rear... engine in front has a few issues like IR signature and the fact that the engine offers very little real ballistic protection so putting it in the front does not make the crew safer, but in terms of an IFV it means rear ramp doors so it is a good idea. For the artillery vehicle it means ammo can be loaded directly into the rear hull into an ammo rack which also be a good thing.

    For a MBT I prefer the engine in the back so all the main gun ammo will likely be stored within the turret ring and perhaps some in the hull just behind the turret where it could be loaded into the turret autoloader when the turret is turned to the correct angle... just as extra ammo.

    To efficiently use the available space I would either go with radial storage with several layers as the turret is unmanned, or vertical storage to get the most out of the available space.

    I would suspect the autoloader will have rounds and charges behind the main gun stored perhaps in a rotary magazine of 4-5 rounds to allow rapid fire of useful types, so rounds can be loaded from the main magazine under the turret ring, with the fresh rounds being slotted into a rotary 5-6 tube revolver behind the breach. The four or 5 chambers can be preloaded with perhaps a missile and a few APFSDS rounds and a few HE FRAG rounds with the new round going into the chamber to be fired. If another target presents itself they can roll to the nearest appropriate round and load and fire rapidly without having to eject a perfectly good unfired round or put it back in the magazine and get an appropriate round to fire.

    Actually perhaps 5-6 might be too big... perhaps a 2-3 tube revolver.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3245
    Points : 3331
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    AFAIK modern MBTs offroad speeds don't really have any practical difference, If there is

    Post  medo on Sat May 25, 2013 11:22 am

    Well Russians themselves said that their new FCS can precisely hit moving targets from great distances. I think west is not lagging behind in that matter.

    They could, their tanks use gun fired atgms, which FCS guide until it hit the target.
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5679
    Points : 5707
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  TR1 on Mon Jul 01, 2013 7:42 am

    This is sort of the general tank discussion thread, so I will ask here: thoughts on Merkava IV hull armor scheme?
    THe front plate is ~80mm thick, and engine and fuel is in front. Idea is they form part of integral protection.
    But the downside...any penetration of the weak front plate, and your engine is done. Tank is disabled.

    Seems like a terrible compromise for anything but irregular warfare.

    The more I read about Merkava family in general, the more hilarious PR that ttank has recieved for decades falls apart. Best armored tank my ass...
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:32 pm

    I have said many times before... the engine of a large heavy tank is not made of ballistic hardened armour and its performance at stopping kinetic penetrators would be pathetic.

    The only reason you would put the engine in the front is to allow ramp rear doors for the troops to enter easily and so for a tank it makes no sense.

    Having such a large heat source at the front of your vehicle reduces the effectiveness of IR optics and makes you a much easier to see target on the battlefield... and reduces your protection levels from the front.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1428
    Points : 1429
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  AlfaT8 on Mon Jul 01, 2013 3:22 pm

    I have read many discussion on the Merkava and it's always the same story, great protection, great combat record, great mobility, ext overall when i think about the Merkava 3 things always struck me as odd:
    1)The engine in the front
    2)The rear door
    3)The driver being moved to the side

    They said the engine in the front was meant to increase protection, but as Garry mentioned the engine isn't made of hardened tank armor, so the protection against armor penetrating rounds/ATGMs is almost non-existent.

    The rear door is said to provide the crew a quick escape, but they may as well paint a target that say "hit here to kill crew and blow-up tank".

    And the driver being moved to the side to make room for the engine is just stupid, instead of being in the center with maximized protection from all 3 sides, driver is moved to one side making him/her a good target!


    The counter arguments that i have read for these issues are:

    That the same could be said about tanks with the engine in the rear the engine isn't made of hardened tank armor and so is easily penetrated.

    And the active protection system will cover both the rear door and driver from being hit.
    avatar
    Regular

    Posts : 2028
    Points : 2032
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Regular on Mon Jul 01, 2013 5:56 pm

    Any serious penetrator will go through engine like nothing. We seen Syrian video of RPG-29 where it penetrated engine compartment.

    And silly arguments- front of the tank is way more exposed than a rear of the tank.
    I've heard numerous claims that Merkava family tanks outperform Abrams tanks in almost all parameters. And it's beyond ridiculous.
    APS will have hard time protecting from let's say in tank vs tank engagement.
    Merkava is good tank and it's unorthodox design. It's tailored for IDF needs. And it's success has more to do with how and who employed them. Same as Soviet tanks had some limitations, but they were made according doctrine needs and achieved what was expected.
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5679
    Points : 5707
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  TR1 on Tue Jul 02, 2013 1:45 am

    Yeah agreed Regular.
    Mind you Abrams has its own design limit, the incredibly thin upper glacis. Any sort of hull angle below horizontal, or a target shooting from above (urban scenario) and your driver is dead. However in most combat scenarios it presents the enemy with a pretty small and sharply angled plate. The Merkava....I can't think of any scenario where that front isn't a massive DISABLE ME HERE sign.
    I guess with applique armor the thickness is more than 80mm @ an angle, and it works to stop most HEAT projectiles.
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3245
    Points : 3331
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  medo on Tue Jul 02, 2013 4:50 pm

    Merkava is Israeli tank, which Israel build for their own army, not for export and it is build on their own experiences in tank battles in their wars. They find out, that front engine and back door in tanks suit them in their need. Russian tanks are build on russian experiences and needs.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Merkava IV armor

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jul 03, 2013 1:37 am

    They said the engine in the front was meant to increase protection, but as Garry mentioned the engine isn't made of hardened tank armor, so the protection against armor penetrating rounds/ATGMs is almost non-existent.

    In terms of kinetic penetrators an engine is a nice gooey caramel centre... even soft lumps of lead at a low velocity (ie shot gun solid slug) will easily penetrate engine blocks. For HEAT rounds the layers and empty spaces might reduce its performance, but all the lubricants and fuels make a fire a much more likely result and in a tank or a ship or a sub or a spacecraft a fire is your worst nightmare.

    The counter arguments that i have read for these issues are:

    That the same could be said about tanks with the engine in the rear the engine isn't made of hardened tank armor and so is easily penetrated.

    And the active protection system will cover both the rear door and driver from being hit.

    Engines can be easily penetrated and that is why you put them at the back where they are the least likely to be hit in the first place.

    If APS were so effective why bother with all that heavy frontal armour in the first place?  Just drive around in an MRAP... save on fuel.

    The fact is that an APS might be tested to be effective against all sorts of threats, but it will never be 100 % reliable so don't rely on it...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Zivo

    Posts : 1491
    Points : 1521
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Zivo on Thu Nov 21, 2013 4:32 am

    Here's some interior panoramic shots of the T-80.

    Commander's station


    http://perfectumlab.com/gallery/panorams/tours/military/t80bv/?h=310.55&v=-4.13&f=155.00&l=commander&m=view_fisheye

    Gunner's station

    http://perfectumlab.com/gallery/panorams/tours/military/t80bv/?h=377.79&v=10.98&f=155.00&l=gunner&m=view_fisheye&lang=en

    Driver's station

    http://perfectumlab.com/gallery/panorams/tours/military/t80bv/?h=378.84&v=34.84&f=155.00&l=driver&m=view_fisheye&lang=en


    Take a look at this image, it's an autoloader model from the T-84, functionally the same as the T-80.



    Notice those large white cylinders behind the screens. Those are what holds the propellant charges.

    Here's a single unit.




    Now, open the commander's station link in a separate tab.

    First, look down were your feet would be.

    Second, zoom in as far as it will go.

    Third, look down in that large hole beyond the footrest.

    In that open space you can see some very odd looking rusted metal pieces. Do they look familiar?




    That is what an unarmored magazine looks like.

    Sponsored content

    Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:46 pm