Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Share

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5998
    Points : 6400
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  Austin on Fri Mar 11, 2011 9:55 am

    Yes indeed the US Army have used Javelin extensively in GW 2 , hitting almost every thing that blocks its way and using F&F capability of Javelin to minimise exposure time and avoid direct fire from enemy.

    Well thats the advantage being a rich nation , you can use expensive toys at your will Laughing
    avatar
    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 476
    Points : 494
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  IronsightSniper on Fri Mar 11, 2011 1:56 pm

    GarryB wrote:Look at this freeze frame of a shot at a tank with Javelin...



    Now turn the tank around for a frontal shot and it is either going to hit the upper hull or turret front.... and it simply doesn't have the penetration capability to guarantee penetration from those angles in those areas.

    It also doesn't have the accuracy to hit a particular part of the tank... especially with a moving tank.

    Most of the time it will kill, I am not saying it is useless or anything, and for most tanks the US is currently fighting it is quite frankly overkill using a million dollar hammer to crack a 50 cent nut... from what I have seen of video footage the US grunts are using it on everything from individual shooting positions to buildings... everything but tanks.

    Actually, the Javelin has a fair sized warhead too. It has a tandem-HEAT warhead with about 8.4 kg of explosives and it's penetrative capability has been stated from 600 - 1,000 mm of RHA. Also, you have to remember that a stationary target is different than a moving target, so a Javelin would not be aiming for the Front of the Tank all the time.

    Also, the Javelin doesn't cost a million, it's more or less around $100,000 :v



    And Garry, answering your question of why not fill the air gap:

    "You need a space that allow sandwich (or flyer) plates to bulge (or move), you need also a room where HEAT jet and penetrator fragments can spread and would not be channeled into deeper parts of armour array. The clue is to have armour module volume as high as it is possible (of course with common sense and ergonomic issues in mind) while maintaining it`s weight at the lowest level, and "pure" space with air inside is probably the best here. "

    "What Przezdzieblo says is perfectly correct, with regards to bulging armor (and similar reactive armors).

    With regards to non-reactive armor with spaced components, the airgap is necessary for the creation of stresses in the penetrator.

    For instance, in a steel/airgap/steel spaced armor array: While penetrating the first steel layer, a long-rod penetrator will compress and shorten. Passing through the airgap allows it to lengthen again. It will compress and shorten again when penetrating the second steel layer. This compress-stretch-compress action creates tensile and compressive strain in the penetrator body, either breaking it, or weakening it and rendering it less effective at penetrating deeper layers of armor.

    In an aluminum whipple shield: Dozens or hundreds of aluminum/air/aluminum transitions cause rapid compressive and tensile loading in the nose of the penetrator, resulting in the destruction of some frontal length. This is similar to other "unsteady hypervelocity interactions" (such as a penetrator passing through a ceramic-filled metal matrix composite).

    In an edge-effect component: Part of the penetrator's front interacts with armor, while the other part does not (passes through an airgap). Imagine a baseball clipping the top of a fence. Because the lower half of the baseball meets resistance and the upper half does not, the baseball deflects and takes on spin. Similarly, the penetrator will experience shearing forces at the airgap/armor boundry, and flexural forces in its length, inducing yaw and possibly bending or breaking it.

    If the airgaps were filled with armor material, then the disparity of forces acting on the penetrator would be less acute, and the effects would be diminished or lost.

    -- TTK"
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16013
    Points : 16670
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  GarryB on Sat Mar 12, 2011 1:40 am

    Also, you have to remember that a stationary target is different than a
    moving target, so a Javelin would not be aiming for the Front of the
    Tank all the time.

    I would suggest that a moving target would make it rather harder to hit in a specific place... and in this case the rocket was fired from 500m... it could just as easily have been an RPG-29... which is also fire and forget.

    Also, the Javelin doesn't cost a million, it's more or less around $100,000 :v

    Well that makes it ok then... Cool

    If the airgaps were filled with armor material, then the disparity of
    forces acting on the penetrator would be less acute, and the effects
    would be diminished or lost.

    And what about something innovative like 10cm2 cells of very high pressure nitrogen in a layer 2.5cm thick?

    The layer could be put together in a cold chamber with cryogenic nitrogen poured into the separate compartments with the cells welded shut and sealed within the armour structure. As the armour returns to room temperature the pressure will increase in the cells so when they are penetrated... especially by a super hot HEAT the liquid would turn straight to a gas.
    It would be very interesting to test to see what effect that has on a solid (APFSDS) or plasma (HEAT) penetrator.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 476
    Points : 494
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sat Mar 12, 2011 4:17 am

    The IIR seeker will go for what's the hottest. The more you move the hotter you get, except if you have some camouflage on, but that just makes it more difficult but not inaccurate.

    The problem I see with using liquid nitrogen would be that it would lose multi-shot capability. Once you make a penetration all the pressure might disarm the first penetrator but the gases also escape which means it loses it's capability for when the second one comes along.

    Austin wrote:Will the 1200 mm RHAe penetration capability of Khrizantema ATGM HEAT warhead will allow penetration of most western armour in its strongest area ?

    As Garry said, shot placement is key, but answering your question, no.

    M1A2 Abram's strongest area would be it's front turret, that's where the DU in the entire tank is at. It's RHAe is about 1700 mm. Leopard 2x's strongest area would also be it's front turret (as you might notice, Front turrets are the most protected part of Western tanks). It's RHAe is almost 2000 mm. Western doctrine of reinforcing the front turret doesn't come with no merit either. Analysis of shot placement in the Gulf war showed that over 60% of tank rounds hit 1.5 m off the ground, which would be the Front turret for tanks that are around 2.5 m tall (including Abrams and T-80/90). Unfortunately for the Leopard 2, being 3m tall means that 60% of tank rounds will hit it's Glacis, which is fairly armored either way. Not really sure how tank rounds relate to ATGMs, but yeah.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16013
    Points : 16670
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  GarryB on Sat Mar 12, 2011 5:05 am

    The IIR seeker will go for what's the hottest. The more you move the
    hotter you get, except if you have some camouflage on, but that just
    makes it more difficult but not inaccurate.

    Very not true... otherwise the defence from Javelin would be the same as for aircraft... Flare elements in the smoke grenade launchers.
    An IR seeker might be fooled by flares, but an IIR seeker actually builds an image like a thermal imager so you can pick a part of the tank to hit... the problem clearly in this case is that the person launching the missile picked low on the side of the tank and picked a high lofted trajectory which resulted in a poor hit low down on the side at a steep angle.
    The problem with Javelin is that if the tank has no obvious heat signature to lock on to then it can't be fired in fire and forget mode because if the missile can't see the tanks signature the tank could move and the missile would hit where the tank was because it wouldn't see it moving.
    Most tanks however do have an IR signature and moving tanks more so.

    Not really sure how tank rounds relate to ATGMs, but yeah.

    Of course helicopter fired missiles will be launched from 6-8km away and will as a rule be fired at the flanks of an armoured force. The automatic tracking system will likely aim for the centre of the tank and if the missile hits there then we are talking about a good chance of a hit on the turret ring from the side.

    It should also be mentioned that the Krisantema is the cheap replacement for the ATAKA and that when facing front line enemy armour the missile used would likely be HERMES with its 28kg warhead which is designed to defeat current and future enemy main battle tanks.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 476
    Points : 494
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sat Mar 12, 2011 5:07 am

    But as we all know, Khrizantema hasn't been adopted as an air-launched ATGM, and as we discussed a whiles back, we're not really sure why either.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16013
    Points : 16670
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  GarryB on Sat Mar 12, 2011 6:22 am

    But as we all know, Khrizantema hasn't been adopted as an air-launched
    ATGM, and as we discussed a whiles back, we're not really sure why
    either.

    It is part of the Mi-28M upgrade of the N model.

    And I am guessing it is because the TOR system of EOs for the gunners sight didn't have the appropriate laser beam for guidance as the ATAKA doesn't use laser beam riding and nor does any other weapon the Mi-28N normally carries. (The Vikhr uses it but that is a Hokum weapon.)
    The TOR system is going to be replaced by an UOMZ turret EO system in the M model Mi-28.

    Additionally I would think the M upgrade will have a fully operational MMW radar system for targeting ground targets.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 476
    Points : 494
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sat Mar 19, 2011 5:22 am

    Austin wrote:I think a taller turret will also make it a jucier target , in the sense the opposite gunner would see it much earlier then say it would sight a t-90

    I wouldn't say so. Iraqi T-72s did terrible in the Iraq war for a multitude of reasons. One of them was that they were employed in the Hull down, or defensive position. The problem for T-72s and basically any modern Russian tank in that regard is that because their profile is so short, they can't take advantage of many hull down positions.

    Another thing about short tanks is that their height limits the elevation and depression they can reach. The current gun on the T-90 can only elevate 12+ and -5 degrees. The elevation for the gun on the Abrams is +15 and -7 degrees. Depression matters in combat environments, when tanks are forced to hug the enemy, and a RPG team somewhere up high or somewhere down low can ambush you and not expect you to fire on them (although a guy following behind would handle it).

    GarryB wrote:Odds are that targets are detected using a number of sensors and the taking out of one of those sensors will effect performance, but will not take the tank out of action.

    Besides it would be logical for the gunner to recognise the target and realise their is little point in firing on the turret so he might aim for the hull.

    "taking out a tank" by hitting its main gun or ammo would be much easier on an Abrams because its ready to use ammo is in the turret bustle, but how often has that happened in real combat?

    I would suspect the top of the turret likely contains some form of protection from top attack weapons and may include an APS to protect the top of the tank from submunitions and top attack weapons.

    Or it could be a new form of protection as used by postal services and marketing departments all over the world... you've bought that MP3 player that comes in a box the size of a shoebox for a product the size of a matchbox. How many times will they hit it before they work out where the vital components are...

    Studies of tank hits in the Gulf war showed that 65% of tank rounds will land 1.5 meters above the ground. Western tanks having the best protected tank turrets in the world, means that most rounds will hit it in it's safest part. For Russian tanks, that means most rounds will hit on it's 2nd safest part.

    I highly doubt Russia will field any APS en masse to be honest. Simply said, too expensive and ARENA has fallen behind western APSs like TROPHY.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16013
    Points : 16670
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  GarryB on Sat Mar 19, 2011 7:14 am

    All said that still does not disqualify my reasoning that T-95 will be
    detected much earlier due to its higher profile compared to other tanks ,
    so first look and first kill advantage might not be that of T-95
    ,irespective of its sensors or APS

    Really?

    Did the fact that M1 Abrams tanks are larger than T-72s help Iraqi Tanks find Abrams tanks first?

    Anybody can spot a moving tank. A stationary tank is much harder to detect... especially with optical and other types of camouflage. A 20m tall tank is invisible... when sitting behind a 22m tall building.

    When firing at a target don't believe the bullshit... you don't aim for the drivers hatch... you aim for centre of mass and that results quite often in a turret front hit... it is not an accident that 90% of modern tanks have their heaviest armour on the front of their turret. It is not a new thing either.

    BTW have read your comments on mpnet and I think you are a little confused about Armata... Armata is a FAMILY, not a single vehicle.

    Right now the T-90 is the chassis for the MBT, it is also the chassis for the MSTA 152mm artillery vehicle.

    Armata will be the same, in fact it is quite likely that all air defence and artillery vehicles will use the Armata chassis, so when they talk about Armata being up to 65 tons they are probably talking about a Coalition type vehicle (that twin gunned MSTA) on an Armata Chassis that weighs 65 tons... with a huge turret and significant on board 152m calibre ammo. The development money was cut but it was a joint Army Navy program so it is likely the Navy will still get a new system of much longer range perhaps.

    Depression matters in combat environments, when tanks are forced to hug
    the enemy, and a RPG team somewhere up high or somewhere down low can
    ambush you and not expect you to fire on them (although a guy following
    behind would handle it).

    The remote control 12.7mm calibre HMG is for engaging infantry or helos, but for most roles they don't want enemy infantry near their tanks... tanks are stand off firepower. BMPs are armed with 100mm HE frag shells fired in direct fire mode that are very accurate and have 60 degree plus elevation plus a 30mm automatic cannon and 7.62mm coaxial mgs for all sorts of infantry targets... hard or soft... and of course they have their own infantry too.

    Tanks alone amongst enemy infantry are in trouble. The purpose of the BMPT was as a fire support vehicle to deal with targets tanks are not very good at dealing with... sort of a failed attempt to put BMP firepower in a tank protection level package.

    I highly doubt Russia will field any APS en masse to be honest. Simply
    said, too expensive and ARENA has fallen behind western APSs like
    TROPHY.

    I agree it wont be ARENA, but after all the blubbing about T-90s not being able to deal with Javelin and top attack submunitions I would expect they will have an upgraded APS system that can defend against those sorts of threats... ARENA 4 perhaps?

    I suspect the complaints heard about the cost of T-90s compared with the cost of Leopards suggests strongly that Russian tank crews are finally getting APS systems... after testing them first in combat they might get some into service.
    $4 million a vehicle... not likely for a Russian company to gold plate their tanks... something I hope they never learn from the west.
    avatar
    runaway
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 350
    Points : 371
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  runaway on Sat Mar 19, 2011 2:33 pm

    GarryB wrote:Really?

    Did the fact that M1 Abrams tanks are larger than T-72s help Iraqi Tanks find Abrams tanks first?

    Anybody can spot a moving tank. A stationary tank is much harder to detect... especially with optical and other types of camouflage. A 20m tall tank is invisible... when sitting behind a 22m tall building.

    When firing at a target don't believe the bullshit... you don't aim for the drivers hatch... you aim for centre of mass and that results quite often in a turret front hit... it is not an accident that 90% of modern tanks have their heaviest armour on the front of their turret. It is not a new thing either.

    Comparing T-72M1:s with Iraq crew against M1A1:s with professional soldiers, doesnt.
    In fact, the M60 and M48 tanks in Vietnam suffered because of their heights. It sometimes is infantry firing, and yes, larger targets are easier to hit.

    Yes, when firing antitank missiles and such, you aim in the middle. If you have a Carl Gustav or RPG, you can aim for the soft spots. And i am talking of close combat, not over 400m.
    Veteran Tank crews certainly aims for the soft spots when its possible.

    GarryB wrote:I agree it wont be ARENA, but after all the blubbing about T-90s not being able to deal with Javelin and top attack submunitions I would expect they will have an upgraded APS system that can defend against those sorts of threats... ARENA 4 perhaps?

    Truth is, you can never defend a tank from top attacks. Because at the moment you have a defence system that can deal with it, the offensive systems is being improved and enhanced.

    As of now, the STRIX and EXCALIBUR systems can destroy any known tank.

    Warfare is a very complex thing, not just one system against one other, its every system against almost everything.

    And about gun depression, it played some part in the Golans, T-55, T-62 vs Centurian and Shermans. But overall other things decided the battle. Like crew training and tactics. Like support and aircover. Like professionalship and hmm, lots of things.






    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5998
    Points : 6400
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  Austin on Sat Mar 19, 2011 6:21 pm

    GarryB wrote:Did the fact that M1 Abrams tanks are larger than T-72s help Iraqi Tanks find Abrams tanks first?

    Thats not a fair comparision , considering even of T-72 managed to hit the Abrams they would been by and large inffective , ofcourse the Abrams in most occasion never gave a chance or the chopper did that for them.

    When firing at a target don't believe the bullshit... you don't aim for the drivers hatch... you aim for centre of mass and that results quite often in a turret front hit... it is not an accident that 90% of modern tanks have their heaviest armour on the front of their turret. It is not a new thing either.

    you are still missing the point , lets says if you let a T-90 and T-95 approach a Abrams , chances are Abrams will see the T-95 before it sees the T-90, that was my point. I read in some board that T-95 was 3m tall.


    BTW have read your comments on mpnet and I think you are a little confused about Armata... Armata is a FAMILY, not a single vehicle.

    Right now the T-90 is the chassis for the MBT, it is also the chassis for the MSTA 152mm artillery vehicle.

    Armata will be the same, in fact it is quite likely that all air defence and artillery vehicles will use the Armata chassis, so when they talk about Armata being up to 65 tons they are probably talking about a Coalition type vehicle (that twin gunned MSTA) on an Armata Chassis that weighs 65 tons... with a huge turret and significant on board 152m calibre ammo. The development money was cut but it was a joint Army Navy program so it is likely the Navy will still get a new system of much longer range perhaps.

    Yes thats what I think too , that Armata project could be an attempt to develop common chassis for different platform.

    I would still wait and see how the new tanks develop , the jury is open after the generals latest statement on this issue.

    I would personally be happy to see a 65T tank with either 125 mm or 152 mm gun if not initially atleast at future date for higher caliber gun , considering they do have those guns developed for T-95 it would be a waste not to use it for some project


    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5998
    Points : 6400
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  Austin on Sat Mar 19, 2011 7:48 pm

    here is some additional news on price of T-90A link

    In addition, the criterion of "cost-effectiveness, T-90A exceed the nearest competitor - a German" Leopard "- at least 1,5 times, he said. A direct comparison between two similarly priced MBT provides an advantage in 2-2,5 times in favor of Russian products. "And declared Commander SW price of Russian tanks, at least 1.5 times the figure for which the manufacturer is ready to deliver the T-90A to the troops," - said the official.

    So what he is saying is they can deliver the T-90A at 1.5 times lower price than what the Chief said which was $4million.

    1.5 times lower cost will be $2.6 million unit cost of T-90A
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16013
    Points : 16670
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  GarryB on Sat Mar 19, 2011 11:12 pm

    Comparing T-72M1:s with Iraq crew against M1A1:s with professional soldiers, doesnt.
    In
    fact, the M60 and M48 tanks in Vietnam suffered because of their
    heights. It sometimes is infantry firing, and yes, larger targets are
    easier to hit.

    I quite agree that larger targets are easier to hit, but with modern fire control systems getting a hit on a tank isn't currently a problem is it?

    And your first point is your best... in real combat the height of the T-72M1 or lack of it was not significant enough to save it. In real combat it was C4IR and the thermal optics of the M1s that meant the T-72s weren't given a chance to get good close shots at them... ignoring the fact that their ammo was rubbish.

    If you have a Carl Gustav or RPG, you can aim for the soft spots. And i am talking of close combat, not over 400m.
    Veteran Tank crews certainly aims for the soft spots when its possible.

    You certainly do aim manually aimed weapons at soft spots... but as range increases and target speed increases the chances of actually hitting what you aim at decreases. In a strong cross wind at more than 150m range you will be happy just to get a hit with most unguided weapons. Volley shots are common with such weapons for a reason as a good hit in a soft area is more often a case of luck than intent.

    Certainly the chance of hitting soft spots with RPGs and CGs is greatly increased by firing at tanks from the side or rear or from above at the side, rear, and top armour respectively.


    Truth is, you can never defend a tank from top attacks. Because at
    the moment you have a defence system that can deal with it, the
    offensive systems is being improved and enhanced.

    The measure/countermeasure war is a circle. The point is that if the rival has a measure in widespread service then a counter to that measure is worth it. For example the RPG-7 is widely used in Russian and other forces so a counter makes sense. Trying to counter the effect of a tactical nuclear weapon is a waste of time on two fronts... it is too powerful to protect something from, and the likelyhood of it being used against a tank is so low as to consider it to be zero.
    With Javelins in widespread US service however it makes sense to develop and deploy a counter to it... even if it is not a perfect 100% shield.

    As of now, the STRIX and EXCALIBUR systems can destroy any known tank.

    And Hermes and Kh-29L and Kh-29T could probably do the same.

    There is no point developing armour for western tanks to stop a 317kg HEAT warhead of the Kh-29 simply because the blast will kill the crew even if the weapon hits the ground 5m beside the tank.

    Warfare is a very complex thing, not just one system against one other, its every system against almost everything.

    Indeed... the US could deploy a 1950s fighter bomber to bomb the Taleban in Afghanistan and Pakistan... if that 1950s fighter is wired to carry satellite guided bombs... they are already using the B-52 from the 1950s and it does its job fine without needing stealth or supersonic speed.

    Thats not a fair comparision , considering even of T-72 managed to hit
    the Abrams they would been by and large inffective , ofcourse the Abrams
    in most occasion never gave a chance or the chopper did that for them.

    It is not a fair comparison... but it is a real comparison. The fairest fight of the last 50 years was probably the conflict in Georgia in 2008. Very similar sized forces very similar equipment, except the Georgians has a sophisticated C4IR system with UAVs etc and the Russian forces used cellphones for communications...
    It is not just skill and training... the Russians wanted to help their neighbours while the Georgians didn't seem interested in dying to take a little slice of land called South Ossetia.

    you are still missing the point , lets says if you let a T-90 and T-95
    approach a Abrams , chances are Abrams will see the T-95 before it sees
    the T-90, that was my point. I read in some board that T-95 was 3m tall.

    And lets follow that analogy and say it fires first on the T-95 and the round penetrates the turret... no crew in there and no ammo so it is a clean hit that goes straight through the turret... without anything critically hit that will stop the tank and knock it out... which is fuel, crew, or ammo, the tank continues to function. It will fire back at that M1 and most likely with a 152mm gun will kill it. If its main gun is damaged then it can pass on target data to other vehicles in its unit to do the same and monitor the results.
    Now lets take the T-90... it gets closer... but is still spotted by the M1 and fired upon. The engagement will continue till one of the vehicles destroys the other but the better protection of the T-95 means it is more likely to be able to take a hit and keep fighting.

    Yes thats what I think too , that Armata project could be an attempt to develop common chassis for different platform.

    Armata is a standard chassis for a new tank and the rest of the family of vehicles that operates with the tank.

    If they want tank based IFVs for the heavy brigade it will be based on the Armata chassis too, as will all the air defence vehicles and the artillery etc etc.

    The medium brigade will be the same... there will be a medium weight vehicle... Boomerang or something wasn't it? And all the vehicles... ie tank/direct fire support vehicle, APC, Artillery, Air defence, etc etc will be based on that chassis.

    The light Brigade will be the same with a new chassis design... though they might go for a mix of 8 wheeled and 4 wheeled vehicles... so that would be in todays vehicles... the tank/fire support vehicle would be based on the BTR with a 125mm gun, while the APC might be Volk or PVP or SP3 or whatever, while air defence might be on a Vodnik or something and artillery might be the 2S23 with a 120mm mortar on a BTR-80 chassis.

    I would still wait and see how the new tanks develop , the jury is open after the generals latest statement on this issue.

    He is complaining about the price per vehicle... when they start with orders of 100 or 200 a year once the design is finalised then the price will likely go down... especially if it is an impressive new upgrade that might appeal to export customers... though Indian might not want it because it might want the T-90 to remain the cheap numbers tank.

    I would personally be happy to see a 65T tank with either 125 mm or 152
    mm gun if not initially atleast at future date for higher caliber gun ,
    considering they do have those guns developed for T-95 it would be a
    waste not to use it for some project

    The game of measure and countermeasure means the sooner you deploy it into service and the wider you get it into service the quicker the rival will develop measures to defeat it.


    So what he is saying is they can deliver the T-90A at 1.5 times lower price than what the Chief said which was $4million.

    1.5 times lower cost will be $2.6 million unit cost of T-90A

    I suspect that the 4 million is for the T-90M and that the Chief is getting this out into the public to try to force them to drop the price.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 476
    Points : 494
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sun Mar 20, 2011 1:02 am

    Depression matters in combat environments, when tanks are forced to hug
    the enemy, and a RPG team somewhere up high or somewhere down low can
    ambush you and not expect you to fire on them (although a guy following
    behind would handle it).

    The remote control 12.7mm calibre HMG is for engaging infantry or helos, but for most roles they don't want enemy infantry near their tanks... tanks are stand off firepower. BMPs are armed with 100mm HE frag shells fired in direct fire mode that are very accurate and have 60 degree plus elevation plus a 30mm automatic cannon and 7.62mm coaxial mgs for all sorts of infantry targets... hard or soft... and of course they have their own infantry too.

    Tanks alone amongst enemy infantry are in trouble. The purpose of the BMPT was as a fire support vehicle to deal with targets tanks are not very good at dealing with... sort of a failed attempt to put BMP firepower in a tank protection level package.

    The funny thing is that combat experience in Iraq has proved the ineffectiveness of the 12.7 mm TC's gun and the 7.62 coax. The latter doesn't have the penetration power to hit past the houses and cause lethal wounds while the former over penetrates (stories in Iraq of families finding 12.7 mm ammo passing through 4 houses). The main gun has shown to be the most effective urban anti-personal weapon. Shrapnel rounds have enough velocity to punch through a wall and kill the guy but not enough mass to punch through more than one wall, thus reducing collateral.

    The BMPT has been canceled.

    I highly doubt Russia will field any APS en masse to be honest. Simply
    said, too expensive and ARENA has fallen behind western APSs like
    TROPHY.

    I agree it wont be ARENA, but after all the blubbing about T-90s not being able to deal with Javelin and top attack submunitions I would expect they will have an upgraded APS system that can defend against those sorts of threats... ARENA 4 perhaps?

    I suspect the complaints heard about the cost of T-90s compared with the cost of Leopards suggests strongly that Russian tank crews are finally getting APS systems... after testing them first in combat they might get some into service.
    $4 million a vehicle... not likely for a Russian company to gold plate their tanks... something I hope they never learn from the west.

    It depends on what Russian tank needs. Top attack isn't a critical problem for tanks in general as no top attack weapon has been used against any modern tank force yet. Only top attack tactics have been employed. In that sense, what the T-90 needs would be something similar to the Trophy, in that it's an external module that can rotate 360 and elevate at least 60 degrees. Whatever they decide to come out with, it of course needs a better reload mechanism. And it should at least edge on being relatively affordable by Russian standards.


    And Hermes and Kh-29L and Kh-29T could probably do the same.

    There is no point developing armour for western tanks to stop a 317kg HEAT warhead of the Kh-29 simply because the blast will kill the crew even if the weapon hits the ground 5m beside the tank.

    Put a Stinger on it! *not actually advising that, but just saying
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16013
    Points : 16670
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  GarryB on Sun Mar 20, 2011 1:38 am

    The funny thing is that combat experience in Iraq has proved the
    ineffectiveness of the 12.7 mm TC's gun and the 7.62 coax. The latter
    doesn't have the penetration power to hit past the houses and cause
    lethal wounds while the former over penetrates (stories in Iraq of
    families finding 12.7 mm ammo passing through 4 houses).

    I would suspect that the remote control 12.7mm commanders gun is there for a reason on Russian tanks and if over penetration is a problem then there is a range of ammo types that could be used to reduce the problem... the duplex rounds sometimes used in the gatling guns on early model hinds would reduce penetration and increase kill probability. Using HE rounds would also reduce penetration too.

    Of course there is no perfect solution... houses range from thick stone walls in cold places like Siberia where outer house walls have 1 metre of soil for insulation to the paper thin walls in warmer climates... one solution wont fit every problem. The T-90s do have ANIET and shot rounds have been developed AFAIK.

    The BMPT has been canceled.

    They are adopting weight class families of vehicles which suggests that a BMPT type vehicle will be needed if they want to maintain fire power in the heavy brigades. The heavy APC will not have enough room for troops and heavy calibre armament like a BMP-3 does, and shifting the heavy armament out of the troop transports will make them more resistant to enemy fire. A dedicated fire support vehicle will make much more sense in such a force structure... and I think something like the BMP-3M armament would be ideal anyway.

    It depends on what Russian tank needs. Top attack isn't a critical
    problem for tanks in general as no top attack weapon has been used
    against any modern tank force yet.

    By the time it is used it will be too late. BILL 2 has been available for decades as have Soviet top attack munitions, so the threat is real as former Soviet states will have such things too.

    Whatever they decide to come out with, it of course needs a better
    reload mechanism. And it should at least edge on being relatively
    affordable by Russian standards.

    A modification of ARENA with lots of modules that overlap each other so the use of a module will not create a gap that can engage steeply diving threats would be ideal. It can already deal with overflying weapons like BILL 2 reportedly, so it is really only the steep diving attack weapons like GRAN and Krasnopol etc are the problem.

    Put a Stinger on it! *not actually advising that, but just saying

    If stinger could cope with a high supersonic missile like Kh-29 they could have used it instead of SEA RAM as a CIWS.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 476
    Points : 494
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sun Mar 20, 2011 2:04 am

    [quote="GarryB"]
    The funny thing is that combat experience in Iraq has proved the
    ineffectiveness of the 12.7 mm TC's gun and the 7.62 coax. The latter
    doesn't have the penetration power to hit past the houses and cause
    lethal wounds while the former over penetrates (stories in Iraq of
    families finding 12.7 mm ammo passing through 4 houses).

    I would suspect that the remote control 12.7mm commanders gun is there for a reason on Russian tanks and if over penetration is a problem then there is a range of ammo types that could be used to reduce the problem... the duplex rounds sometimes used in the gatling guns on early model hinds would reduce penetration and increase kill probability. Using HE rounds would also reduce penetration too.

    Of course there is no perfect solution... houses range from thick stone walls in cold places like Siberia where outer house walls have 1 metre of soil for insulation to the paper thin walls in warmer climates... one solution wont fit every problem. The T-90s do have ANIET and shot rounds have been developed AFAIK.

    For the most part, 12.7 mm HMGs have proven their worth v.s. mass attacks in open terrain or urban warfare. 7.62 coax is, IMO, not exactly useful. Also, I'd suspect that the ammo used on the TC guns aren't 12.7 SLAP, but rather HEI. I'd also suspect that the reason they're not detonating on the first wall or so because of the ranges involved. Insurgants would engage well within the 50-100m envelope, and a 12.7mm round being a 12.7mm round, has enormous penetrative capabilities, even if it's a HE round, at those ranges.

    The BMPT has been canceled.

    They are adopting weight class families of vehicles which suggests that a BMPT type vehicle will be needed if they want to maintain fire power in the heavy brigades. The heavy APC will not have enough room for troops and heavy calibre armament like a BMP-3 does, and shifting the heavy armament out of the troop transports will make them more resistant to enemy fire. A dedicated fire support vehicle will make much more sense in such a force structure... and I think something like the BMP-3M armament would be ideal anyway.

    They still do have the BTR-T and an unknown, possible Heavy APC that has a 57 mm gun option.

    It depends on what Russian tank needs. Top attack isn't a critical
    problem for tanks in general as no top attack weapon has been used
    against any modern tank force yet.

    By the time it is used it will be too late. BILL 2 has been available for decades as have Soviet top attack munitions, so the threat is real as former Soviet states will have such things too.

    There's a first for everything, but like runaway said, you can't prepare for everything. It's a better, as in cost wise, intermediate solution to beef up the top of the tanks to protect it from 1st and 2nd generation RPG warheads, which is what those K-5 ERA on the roof are for.

    Whatever they decide to come out with, it of course needs a better
    reload mechanism. And it should at least edge on being relatively
    affordable by Russian standards.

    A modification of ARENA with lots of modules that overlap each other so the use of a module will not create a gap that can engage steeply diving threats would be ideal. It can already deal with overflying weapons like BILL 2 reportedly, so it is really only the steep diving attack weapons like GRAN and Krasnopol etc are the problem.

    Krasnopol actually doesn't have a 'steep' trajectory, it's trajectory is about the same as the Javelin's at 45 degrees. But like I said before, insurgents or anybody is fighting, including the Russians, don't use projectiles like guided artillery/mortar rounds, so it's not worth it to upgrade, produce, and and equip Russia's tank force with $300,000 toys.

    Put a Stinger on it! *not actually advising that, but just saying

    If stinger could cope with a high supersonic missile like Kh-29 they could have used it instead of SEA RAM as a CIWS.

    No, to shoot down the plane.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5998
    Points : 6400
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  Austin on Sun Mar 20, 2011 7:02 am

    I wrote this big response to Garry post and lost all when for some strange reason the browser went back and I lost it all Sad

    Hence to just briefly sum up the response.

    If the round enters the turret it will simply damage electronics,machines, hydraulics and any thing inside the turret causing it to fail , the assumption that it would simply create a hole and do nothing is wrong , the KE of the hit might even cause a fire.

    India has a big order for T-90 like 1500 tanks , I am certain like Arjun is getting upgraded to Mk2 standard with BMS ,ERA ,APA and missile , the T-90Bishma will be eventually upgraded to M standard , considering Arjun order is so small now 128 Mk2 and total order of mk1 and mk2 is just 248 tank it will make mk2 upgrade expensive.

    I just fancy IA with T-90M ,gives me goose bums

    I dont think T-90M will cost $4Million unless they have gold plated the gun and comes with diamond studded interiors Very Happy

    Jokes apart I would think the T-90M will cost in the order of $3.3 million or so at best which is still 30 % more costly then T-90A.
    avatar
    AbsoluteZero
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 81
    Points : 105
    Join date : 2011-01-29
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  AbsoluteZero on Sun Mar 20, 2011 7:12 am

    Hi guys I've got a question, recently there had been a number of images circulating in defense forums about a certain Object 195, now isn't that the T-95 project that just got canceled recently? or is it a totally new design thats being developed for serial production in replacement of the T-90?

    here are some images I've collected:





    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5998
    Points : 6400
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  Austin on Sun Mar 20, 2011 7:21 am

    AbsoluteZero wrote:Hi guys I've got a question, recently there had been a number of images circulating in defense forums about a certain Object 195, now isn't that the T-95 project that just got canceled recently? or is it a totally new design thats being developed for serial production in replacement of the T-90?

    Object 195 or T-95 project got cancelled last year along with other project.

    But the chief designer of the tank mentioned that technologies developed and experienced gathered for T-95 will be incorporated in the new tank which is under development.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16013
    Points : 16670
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  GarryB on Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:09 am

    For the most part, 12.7 mm HMGs have proven their worth v.s. mass
    attacks in open terrain or urban warfare. 7.62 coax is, IMO, not exactly
    useful.

    Out to 800-1,000m 7.62mm is OK... the point is that tanks rarely operate alone and will likely have BMPs with all sorts of fire power there too.

    Also, I'd suspect that the ammo used on the TC guns aren't 12.7 SLAP,
    but rather HEI. I'd also suspect that the reason they're not detonating
    on the first wall or so because of the ranges involved.

    It very much depends on the ammo... some have self igniting incendiary rounds where hitting a wall that is not particularly hard might not ignite it properly, but I would suspect they have it loaded mostly with ball ammo which will likely over penetrate most of the time.

    They still do have the BTR-T and an unknown, possible Heavy APC that has a 57 mm gun option.

    I think their heavy tank based BMP should not have heavy armament because putting all that ammo inside would make it too vulnerable to wiping out the crew. I think it makes sense to have a separate firepower vehicle full of HE rounds and high elevation weapons to operate as a fire support vehicle to operate with tanks (able to hit targets tanks can't hit) and can also be used as a substitute tank for operations where the enemy doesn't have any heavy armour so a high velocity 125mm gun is not needed but a 100mm HE shell might be useful in direct fire mode.

    There's a first for everything, but like runaway said, you can't prepare
    for everything. It's a better, as in cost wise, intermediate solution
    to beef up the top of the tanks to protect it from 1st and 2nd
    generation RPG warheads, which is what those K-5 ERA on the roof are
    for.


    This T-90 modification supposedly has a new turret, a 1,000-hp
    engine, an improved thermal sight, new active defense measures, and a
    number of other improvements.

    source: http://russiandefpolicy.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/postnikov-on-the-army-and-opk-part-ii/ (well worth a read)

    BTW the tops of Russian tanks have been fitted with ERA since the 1980s... new APS systems are in addition to all the other measures... the combination of which makes the tank better protected rather than if it simply relied on one measure for defence.

    Krasnopol actually doesn't have a 'steep' trajectory, it's trajectory is about the same as the Javelin's at 45 degrees.

    That depends on the range to the target...

    But like I said before, insurgents or anybody is fighting, including the
    Russians, don't use projectiles like guided artillery/mortar rounds, so
    it's not worth it to upgrade, produce, and and equip Russia's tank
    force with $300,000 toys.

    It is likely only a matter of time before Georgia gets Javelin...

    No, to shoot down the plane.

    Kh-29 has a range of about 12km and HERMES about 15km so Stinger with its range of 6kms wouldn't be much use.

    If the round enters the turret it will simply damage
    electronics,machines, hydraulics and any thing inside the turret causing
    it to fail , the assumption that it would simply create a hole and do
    nothing is wrong , the KE of the hit might even cause a fire.

    Look back at that book shown on here somewhere about the RPG-7. It clearly shows that when hitting targets like the M113 APC that unless it hits something that can burn the HEAT jet of the RPG can go right through the vehicle... any person in the path will be injured or killed but it wont just kill everyone.

    Just the same if a HEAT or APDS round hits the turret of the T-95 there is no fuel to ignite, not ammo to set off, and no crew to kill or injure so it could easily enter the front and exit the rear without doing that much damage at all. The Russians aren't idiots and know the turret will likely be hit and so they will more than likely make everything modular and build some redundancy into the design. Putting all the ammo down in the turret bustle will keep them out of the line of fire and safe. Optics and sensors will likely have some protection and periscopes used to connect them to mirrors on the roof to be useful. A HEAT beam going through the empty middle of a periscope will have little effect. Much of the electronics is probably in the hull and there seems to be plenty of room in the rear of the vehicle for most of the electronics to be fitted there. Most of the roof mounted stuff is probably modularised and field replaceable.

    I just fancy IA with T-90M ,gives me goose bums

    The saying is goose bumps... Smile And personally I would love to see a more potent T-90 in service in India too.

    I dont think T-90M will cost $4Million unless they have gold plated the gun and comes with diamond studded interiors

    I have read the high cost is largely because of the small order size and a decent order of tanks would dramatically reduce the price per unit. New APS systems and possibly a new model of Shtora could easily increase the price, but it would be worth it.

    But the chief designer of the tank mentioned that technologies developed
    and experienced gathered for T-95 will be incorporated in the new tank
    which is under development.

    I have read that there are several companies that have put their hat in the ring for designs of new tanks even though only UVZ has the production capacity to actually make them. It should be interesting.

    Have heard the T-90M will have been through all its tests by 2012 and that production should start then too if everything is OK.

    Then begins the contest for the replacement of the T-90 which likely wont go into production till 2020.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5998
    Points : 6400
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  Austin on Mon Mar 21, 2011 9:14 am

    From that link from Chief Designer

    Izvestiya talked to Uralvagonzavod’s chief armor designer, Vladimir Nevolin, who said:

    “The main complaints against the T-90 today are connected with its insufficient survivability. Its deficiency is the placement of people, weapons, and fuel in one compartment. In any case of armor penetration, the igniting of fuel is unavoidable. Even with a fire suppression system, such a possibility isn’t excluded. Therefore, the development of modern armored equipment is going the way of separating people from the fuel and munitions. Moreover, the employment of remotely-controlled armaments is essential. These principles were implemented in our future product – “item 195.” For example, on it, the tank turret no longer had the crew. But it turns out no one needed such a project.”

    Vesti FM asked Igor Korotchenko whether Postnikov’s claim that Russian arms aren’t up to snuff is true. He said there are objective problems with Russian-designed weapons, and some planned for introduction are really obsolete. But, according to Korotchenko, the Defense Ministry’s main criticism is that Russian combat vehicles don’t meet survivability requirements.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16013
    Points : 16670
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    New Pictures of T-95 have emerged

    Post  GarryB on Mon Mar 21, 2011 10:44 am

    Speaking to a RIA Novosti press conference, Director of the Ministry of Industry and Trade’s
    (Minpromtorg) Defense-Industrial Complex Development Department, Igor Karavayev answered Postnikov this way:
    “Unfortunately, we are encountering unwarranted criticism of the tactical-technical characteristics of Russian military equipment lately. Allegedly, it doesn’t match its international counterparts.
    An objective evaluation of the characteristics and tests conducted, but also the pace at which our exports are growing, attest to the contrary.”
    He said more than a few countries buy Russian tanks, and the T-90A got a positive evaluation from testing in difficult climatic conditions, including in Saudi Arabia, India, and Malaysia. In Saudi Arabia, according to Karavayev, the T-90A was the only tank to destroy more than 60 percent of its targets after a road march. Karavayev continues:
    The tests conducted in Saudi Arabia as part of an open tender fully and completely contradict the Glavkom’s [Postnikov’s] assertions.”

    One of the goals behind the T-90T is to address the survivability issues already identified.The fact that the Army has been to cheap to pay for the survivability enhancements for the tanks suggests a whole new design is a waste of time because they wont buy that either.ERA is cheap yet Russian tanks went into combat without it in Chechnia in the mid 1990s, or with the blocks fitted but no explosive installed.T-90s are bought but not with their full equipment like Shtora and Arena or Drodz because they say they are too expensive.An M1A2 would be expensive too.As mentioned in your post Austin they designed the T-95 to address the survivability issues raised and the Army called it obsolete.Pretty clear the Army knows more about what it doesn't want than what it does want, and the media is hardly the best method of telling the defence industry what it does or does not want.The Russian industry has worked hard to get export orders in a time when the Russian military has been useless in supporting it financially with little or no orders.All this public whining will only undermine all that hard work and result in a loss of income for the Russian industry.... so who will pay for the next generation of weapons if the exports dry up?The Russian military will pay of course... which means the next gen of weapons will be even more expensive and the Russian Military will have no one to blame but themselves.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 476
    Points : 494
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  IronsightSniper on Mon Mar 21, 2011 11:36 pm

    [quote="GarryB"]
    For the most part, 12.7 mm HMGs have proven their worth v.s. mass
    attacks in open terrain or urban warfare. 7.62 coax is, IMO, not exactly
    useful.

    Out to 800-1,000m 7.62mm is OK... the point is that tanks rarely operate alone and will likely have BMPs with all sorts of fire power there too.

    That is correct. Another thing that the U.S. has learned is that the chances of another massive tank battle are quite minimal, so there's really no need for a 7.62 coax that works at 800-1000m, as well, really, why do you need to cut down a row of insurgents from that far when they'll probably sneak up to around 50m behind you?

    They still do have the BTR-T and an unknown, possible Heavy APC that has a 57 mm gun option.

    I think their heavy tank based BMP should not have heavy armament because putting all that ammo inside would make it too vulnerable to wiping out the crew. I think it makes sense to have a separate firepower vehicle full of HE rounds and high elevation weapons to operate as a fire support vehicle to operate with tanks (able to hit targets tanks can't hit) and can also be used as a substitute tank for operations where the enemy doesn't have any heavy armour so a high velocity 125mm gun is not needed but a 100mm HE shell might be useful in direct fire mode.

    It depends on what the Russian army wants and or needs again. The BMP is traditionally an IFV platform, while the BTR are APC platforms. Ideally, I'd want a Heavy APC, but a APC-BMP would theoretically work fine, if ERA is attached.

    There's a first for everything, but like runaway said, you can't prepare
    for everything. It's a better, as in cost wise, intermediate solution
    to beef up the top of the tanks to protect it from 1st and 2nd
    generation RPG warheads, which is what those K-5 ERA on the roof are
    for.


    This T-90 modification supposedly has a new turret, a 1,000-hp
    engine, an improved thermal sight, new active defense measures, and a
    number of other improvements.

    source: http://russiandefpolicy.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/postnikov-on-the-army-and-opk-part-ii/ (well worth a read)

    BTW the tops of Russian tanks have been fitted with ERA since the 1980s... new APS systems are in addition to all the other measures... the combination of which makes the tank better protected rather than if it simply relied on one measure for defence.

    The problem is that the T-90M has a 1,250 HP engine and it obviously doesn't have any new APS system other than Shtora-2.

    Krasnopol actually doesn't have a 'steep' trajectory, it's trajectory is about the same as the Javelin's at 45 degrees.

    That depends on the range to the target...

    We're not talking about guided mortar rounds here.

    But like I said before, insurgents or anybody is fighting, including the
    Russians, don't use projectiles like guided artillery/mortar rounds, so
    it's not worth it to upgrade, produce, and and equip Russia's tank
    force with $300,000 toys.

    It is likely only a matter of time before Georgia gets Javelin...

    But that freeze-frame photo you posted earlier on already showed that Russian tanks should be safe from the Javelin's attack angle.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16013
    Points : 16670
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  GarryB on Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:08 am


    That is correct. Another thing that the U.S. has learned is that the
    chances of another massive tank battle are quite minimal, so there's
    really no need for a 7.62 coax that works at 800-1000m, as well, really,
    why do you need to cut down a row of insurgents from that far when
    they'll probably sneak up to around 50m behind you?

    Well it depends on whether you are using your tank offensively or defensively. Often in Afghanistan the Soviets would dig positions on either side of a hilltop base with tanks sitting there looking out over the planes below pretty much using them as direct fire artillery and using them as armoured pill boxes. In such a use the enemy can be spotted from long range. In an assault on a village the tanks could sit back 500-800m and offer fire support if the infantry come under fire. There are plenty of situations where such a weapon would be useful. Even in close combat the Soviet infantry found it easy to crawl all over Elefants because they had no machinegun, and place charges or drop molotov cocktails into the engine compartment. With a coaxial machine gun most tanks can support each other against enemy infantry by hosing each other down with machine gun fire.

    Considering the minor weight and complexity penalty I would keep the MG for flexibility.

    The BMP is traditionally an IFV platform, while the BTR are APC
    platforms. Ideally, I'd want a Heavy APC, but a APC-BMP would
    theoretically work fine, if ERA is attached.

    The Soviets didn't really see it that way and used BMPs and BTRs and tanks in mixed formations. The difference between a motor rifle unit and a tank unit was that a tank unit had a higher proportion of tanks, but both units had tanks and BMPs and BTRs.

    From what I have read the new brigades will be tank level protection in the heavy brigades, BMP level protection in the medium brigades and BTR weight and lighter vehicles in the light brigades.
    This means that for the heavy brigades something like the BTRT will be needed, but the weight of the chassis will mean a heavy turret with lots of ammo will contradict it purpose of carrying troops so the armament is likely to be fairly light... probably a 12.7mm HMG... possibly a single 30mm cannon in an external mount but not likely to be anything more.
    Remember the current BTRT hasn't got all the electronics being added for this net centric stuff, so they will need communications etc to be added as well.

    The problem is that the T-90M has a 1,250 HP engine and it obviously doesn't have any new APS system other than Shtora-2.

    Obviously? The T-90M will have a 1,000hp engine... they are working on a 1,250hp engine but there is no confirmation that will be ready.

    Look here:
    http://igorrgroup.blogspot.com/2010/01/90-new-specs.html

    note:
    In work:

    - Mono-block power unit on 1200 hp V-99 engine.
    - Steering wheel control.

    Emphasis on "In Work"... ie in development. Obviously the steering wheel control is a direct result of complaints that the T-90 is a T-34 and still uses levers to steer. That was only a year ago so it is hardly surprising they having completed that change just yet. The BMP-1 had a steering wheel for control so it is not like they can't do it. It was just never considered a problem in the past.
    They said the T-95 was ready for trials and I would suggest that it probably had a new APS system designed for it... ARENA is from the mid 1990s and Drodz is from the late 1980s so I would guess they have progressed beyond what has been revealed so far publicly.
    The PAK FA and T-95 shows they can keep a secret.

    We're not talking about guided mortar rounds here.

    Actually we are in a sense. The difference between a gun and a mortar is elevation and muzzle velocity. The Standard laser guided shells fired by Russian guns have muzzle velocities that are only a small fraction of their standard round which makes their trajectories much steeper than their standard rounds.

    In this article it describes the terminal attack profile of both Krasnopol and Krasnopol-M as being diving top attack.

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/krasnopol.htm

    But that freeze-frame photo you posted earlier on already showed that
    Russian tanks should be safe from the Javelin's attack angle.

    That was one test, we know very little about the parameters of the engagement... and safe is too strong a suggestion...
    avatar
    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 476
    Points : 494
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  IronsightSniper on Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:47 am

    [quote="GarryB"]

    That is correct. Another thing that the U.S. has learned is that the
    chances of another massive tank battle are quite minimal, so there's
    really no need for a 7.62 coax that works at 800-1000m, as well, really,
    why do you need to cut down a row of insurgents from that far when
    they'll probably sneak up to around 50m behind you?

    Well it depends on whether you are using your tank offensively or defensively. Often in Afghanistan the Soviets would dig positions on either side of a hilltop base with tanks sitting there looking out over the planes below pretty much using them as direct fire artillery and using them as armoured pill boxes. In such a use the enemy can be spotted from long range. In an assault on a village the tanks could sit back 500-800m and offer fire support if the infantry come under fire. There are plenty of situations where such a weapon would be useful. Even in close combat the Soviet infantry found it easy to crawl all over Elefants because they had no machinegun, and place charges or drop molotov cocktails into the engine compartment. With a coaxial machine gun most tanks can support each other against enemy infantry by hosing each other down with machine gun fire.

    Considering the minor weight and complexity penalty I would keep the MG for flexibility.

    Tanks used Defensively are a terrible waste of good armor. I wouldn't keep the 7.62 simply on the basis that it's coaxial, which means that the turret has to rotate along. Better to just throw away coaxes and just throw in an extra remote MG.

    The BMP is traditionally an IFV platform, while the BTR are APC
    platforms. Ideally, I'd want a Heavy APC, but a APC-BMP would
    theoretically work fine, if ERA is attached.

    The Soviets didn't really see it that way and used BMPs and BTRs and tanks in mixed formations. The difference between a motor rifle unit and a tank unit was that a tank unit had a higher proportion of tanks, but both units had tanks and BMPs and BTRs.

    From what I have read the new brigades will be tank level protection in the heavy brigades, BMP level protection in the medium brigades and BTR weight and lighter vehicles in the light brigades.
    This means that for the heavy brigades something like the BTRT will be needed, but the weight of the chassis will mean a heavy turret with lots of ammo will contradict it purpose of carrying troops so the armament is likely to be fairly light... probably a 12.7mm HMG... possibly a single 30mm cannon in an external mount but not likely to be anything more.
    Remember the current BTRT hasn't got all the electronics being added for this net centric stuff, so they will need communications etc to be added as well.

    The turret of course is the biggest "module" to a tank. Take it off, and you leave your tank with lots of room. A 12.7 remote MG with up to date comms and computers won't take up too much space. You should be able to put at least a squad in it.

    The problem is that the T-90M has a 1,250 HP engine and it obviously doesn't have any new APS system other than Shtora-2.

    Obviously? The T-90M will have a 1,000hp engine... they are working on a 1,250hp engine but there is no confirmation that will be ready.

    Look here:
    http://igorrgroup.blogspot.com/2010/01/90-new-specs.html

    note:
    In work:

    - Mono-block power unit on 1200 hp V-99 engine.
    - Steering wheel control.

    Emphasis on "In Work"... ie in development. Obviously the steering wheel control is a direct result of complaints that the T-90 is a T-34 and still uses levers to steer. That was only a year ago so it is hardly surprising they having completed that change just yet. The BMP-1 had a steering wheel for control so it is not like they can't do it. It was just never considered a problem in the past.
    They said the T-95 was ready for trials and I would suggest that it probably had a new APS system designed for it... ARENA is from the mid 1990s and Drodz is from the late 1980s so I would guess they have progressed beyond what has been revealed so far publicly.
    The PAK FA and T-95 shows they can keep a secret.

    Obviously. We know that the T-90M will get an updated Shtora, which is considered an APS system. It's far from likely that ARENA will be standardized simply on the basis of cost.

    We're not talking about guided mortar rounds here.

    Actually we are in a sense. The difference between a gun and a mortar is elevation and muzzle velocity. The Standard laser guided shells fired by Russian guns have muzzle velocities that are only a small fraction of their standard round which makes their trajectories much steeper than their standard rounds.

    In this article it describes the terminal attack profile of both Krasnopol and Krasnopol-M as being diving top attack.

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/krasnopol.htm[/quite]

    And as you recall, Javelin is described as "diving top attack".

    A picture of a U.S. 155mm laser guided arty round, the Copperhead:



    But that freeze-frame photo you posted earlier on already showed that
    Russian tanks should be safe from the Javelin's attack angle.

    That was one test, we know very little about the parameters of the engagement... and safe is too strong a suggestion...

    Well, think about it this way. The Russians aren't going to buy $300,000 toys just on the assumption that the Georgians are going to get Javelins and that Javelins will defeat their tanks.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed May 24, 2017 5:37 pm