Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Share

    Zivo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1504
    Points : 1540
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  Zivo on Sun Sep 16, 2012 2:38 pm

    Don't you know that DU is 100% safe, with absolutely zero negative health effects. Rolling Eyes

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  TR1 on Sun Sep 16, 2012 9:58 pm

    Any Russian round can penetrate Chobham, just depends on thickness of the array.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  GarryB on Mon Sep 17, 2012 12:52 am

    Don't you know that DU is 100% safe, with absolutely zero negative health effects.

    There is no such thing as a 100% safe heavy metal.

    Lead is perfectly safe in solid form... if you wash your hands after handling it.

    The problem with DU is that it is mildly radioactive... which all experts agree on. What they don't agree on is how safe that level of radiation is.

    Most of the supporters of DU ammo will say that DU is actually less radioactive than things you will find in your garden in many northern hemisphere countries and therefore it is not dangerous.

    Those who oppose DU as an ammo option talk about how, when it is used, the pyrophoric nature of DU (ie it burns) and of course the velocity and energy of impacts both create a very very fine dust of DU that spreads over a very wide area around the impact point.

    In other words they are not saying the material is dangerous to handle, they are saying that when you use it it suddenly becomes very ingestible... and that is the problem. Outside you body it could be two or three times more radioactive than it is and still not do you any harm. Once it is inside your body however the problems suddenly become fairly drastic. Your body does not recognise is for what it is and mistakes it for different materials... just like caesium is mistaken and used in bone structure, the DU gets built into the body structure and while its low level of radiation can't penetrate skin it is genotoxic. It damages human body cells at the genetic level.
    Victims will suffer the effects of radiation poisoning... though the very low doses will delay the onset of symptoms, the half life of DU is billions of years... which means if you have a 7kg penetrator that completely burns out with the vehicle it destroys then in a billion years the radioactive decay means there will be 3.5kgs of DU and 3.5kgs of lead left. After another billion years there will be 1.75 kilos of DU etc etc.

    The effect on the soldiers will be serious and unexplained sicknesses that will be quite debilitating, but the worst thing is that their children will suffer a much higher rate of mutation because of the genotoxic nature of the DU.


    _________________
    “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

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  GarryB on Mon Sep 17, 2012 1:02 am

    BTW if you don't believe me that is fine... there is a powerful lobby in the US that wants to pretend that DU is perfectly safe... it is certainly effective in the role.

    The problem is the clean up afterwards, but then the US military doesn't care about that... look at how much agent orange and a range of other chemicals they poured over Vietnam in the 70s.

    Very simply DU is depleted uranium and is basically made of spent nuclear fuel rods. It is radioactive waste.

    While tricky to handle (it reacts with steel) it is very cheap and a "good use for waste".

    The alternative is very expensive alloys of tungsten, which together with a longer barrel like the L55 gun on the new Leopards gives it comparable performance to a DU round from the shorter barrel of the US Abrams.

    If DU really was 100% safe then why bother with expensive tungsten alternatives?

    Why do the US keep their DU rounds for war and not use them at their own training grounds?

    Clean up at home is expensive, while clean up in Iraq and Afghanistan and Serbia... is total free because it isn't done, because they deny there is a problem.

    It is the head in the sand attitude... we don't know that it is dangerous so we will continue to use it till proved otherwise.

    Of course they don't use it at home and as my nephew said... he can get me the empty 25mm shell cases from a LAV III, but he can't get the live AP rounds because they are radioactive... (and to be honest... I don't want the radioactive bits anyway.)


    _________________
    “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

    Zivo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1504
    Points : 1540
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  Zivo on Mon Sep 17, 2012 3:11 am

    BTW if you don't believe me that is fine... there is a powerful lobby in the US that wants to pretend that DU is perfectly safe... it is certainly effective in the role.

    Sarcasm, DU is horrible stuff. I hate it and it's sad to see my country using it, when even the supposedly evil Russians wont unless it's a doomsday WWIII scenario. I don't think many other European countries use it either.

    Really, there's some serious denial in the US military regarding DU munitions.

    KomissarBojanchev
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 986
    Points : 1139
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Mon Sep 17, 2012 6:40 am

    One of the main reasons the US army brass adores DU so much is because of the supposed pyrophoric effect the DU penetrator making it more deadly.
    But they also forget that the abrams DU armor is also pyrophoric and thats a little issue when defending against a CE liquid metal jet 1000s of degrees hot Laughing

    Infact the melting temperature of DU is about 1500 F while RHA melts at about 1700 F. Thats a bad thing because even the most rudimentary HEAT warheads are designed to melt RHA. So this shows that despite all those flashy adgectives the corporate media uses about DU its completeley useless against HEAT projectiles. Maybe thats why so many abrams were knocked oot by 40+ YO RPG-7 warheads in iraq.

    Supposedly the M1 crew manual shows procedures for the prevention of the tank from becomeing nuclear waste. So much for the harmless nonradioactivity of DU Laughing

    There is a very nice series on youtube called "the real abrams" which exposes very large amounts of dirty little secrets of the supposedly most powerful tank in the world. I really recommend watching it.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  TR1 on Mon Sep 17, 2012 8:30 am

    Not many Abrams have been knocked out in Iraq at all, let alone from old RPG-7s.
    And the armor array is most certainly not useless against HEAT.

    Sujoy
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 914
    Points : 1082
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  Sujoy on Mon Sep 17, 2012 11:24 am

    TR1 wrote:Not many Abrams have been knocked out in Iraq at all, let alone from old RPG-7s.
    And the armor array is most certainly not useless against HEAT.

    Abrams tanks were INCAPITATED and there are evidences to support it.Though much of the YouTube ( among other)videos have been pulled down .

    Now , as a rule of the thumb , no side will ever disclose the actual loss it has suffered . While the opposite side will invariably jack up the loss figure of the opponents. I remember during the Kargil war in 1999 almost 2000 Pakistani soldiers were killed . Pakistani initially denied it & later stated that most of them were non state actors.

    Similarly it is wrong to say that a large number of Abrams took a hit , but it can be stated that a sizeable number of them were hit by IED's or RPG that caused unacceptable damages.

    USA Today report from 2005 :

    In the all-out battles of the 1991 Gulf War, only 18 Abrams tanks were lost and no soldiers in them killed. But since the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, with tanks in daily combat against the unexpectedly fierce insurgency, the Army says 80 of the 69-ton behemoths have been damaged so badly they had to be shipped back to the United States



    Last edited by Sujoy on Mon Sep 17, 2012 11:32 am; edited 1 time in total

    Zivo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1504
    Points : 1540
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  Zivo on Mon Sep 17, 2012 11:30 am

    Chobham armor is good, but it isn't invincible. The M1 has incurred causalities from the humble rpg-7, same with the T-72. There's also instances were both tanks have absorbed multiple RPG hits and have made it out with the crew intact.

    The east and the west have just taken far different approaches to MBT design and protection.

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Russian ATGMs vs Western Tanks

    Post  nemrod on Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:07 pm

    During the 2006 summer, we've seen how the russians'weapons are efficient. How the russian Kornet, inflcted a heavy loss to the one of the top western's main battle tank aka Merkava -in hebrew God's chariot-.
    Does it exist in russian anti tank missiles a harware that can disable M1 Abrams ?

    Best regards.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  TR1 on Mon Dec 31, 2012 8:34 pm

    Why not? Abrams is not magically better armored then Merkava (if we average the numbers and angles out).

    Take an old Konkurs, hit either tank in the rear quadrant of the hull or the turret, and the crew won't be pleased.

    Merkava did pretty good in 2006 btw. I guess only people who thought it was invincible were shocked that it could be damaged heavily.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jan 01, 2013 2:02 am

    The only tank design I have ever heard of that actually tried to get all round 360 degree armour protection was the German Maus... a 180 ton tank...

    Its armour was about 250mm thick from all horizontal angles and it would have been a serious problem for land based vehicles to tackle... but its mobility was pathetic... 6 miles an hour at top speed a single aircraft bomb or rocket likely would have damaged it enough to make it ineffective.

    It is interesting that the modern T-90 is a similar weight to a WWII Panther, though exceeding its performance in all parameters, while the new T-99 is likely to be similar in weight to a KV-1 at about 50-54 tons and again the difference would be fairly significant.

    Standard modern tanks are designed to be protected from the enemies main gun and standard anti armour weapons from the front 60 degrees... ie about 30 degrees from directly front on left and right. The side armour is generally designed to stop cannon fire from IFVs (ie 30mm), while the rear protection is usually enough to stop standard HMG fire. Most tanks can be defeated with light cannon fire to the rear of the vehicle. The rear of the turret is often a weak spot too... note the Panther had a particularly weak rear turret... but with a moving tank such a target is fleeting and difficult to hit reliably.

    Most vehicles also have weakpoints even in their heavy frontal armour and generally the front turret has been found to be the most often hit area of a tank and therefore is often the most heavily armoured area on most tanks.

    The armata tank however has most of its armour on the hull front because its turret above the turret ring where a shell hit would pass through does not contain crew or ammo, so an APFSDS or HEAT round would make a narrow hole in and a narrow hole out and likely destroy everything it actually passes through but do little other damage.

    Regarding your question the Kornet-EM, the Krisantema, and the Hermes and Vikhr-M would all be serious threats to any model Abrams from the front. Most of the other anti tank missiles like Metis-M1 and Konkurs and Faggot would be seriously dangerous from the side or rear and could inflict serious damage.

    Of course even from the front a burst of 14.5mm HMG fire could blow off a track and immobilise the vehicle.

    In terms of hand held weapons the RPG-28 is a very potent weapon, as is the RPG-29 and the new RPG-31 and RPG-32 would both be problems, while the 105mm rounds for the RPG-7 would also be serious threats in close.

    Regarding aircraft delivered weapons, top attack cluster munitions have been a serious threat since the mid 1980s, and they can also be delivered by land based rocket artillery, while the Kh-25ML and family of weapons would also be a threat with its 90kg warhead coming in at mach 2+ while the 317kg shaped charge warhead of the Kh-29 family of weapons was originally designed to undermine heavy concrete structures like dams and heavy bridges and would leave a big hole no matter what armoured target it hit (including the MAUS)... it would also be very effective against naval targets. Other than that even relatively small aerial bombs would be able to shatter the optics and kill the crew or any tank.


    _________________
    “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

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  Werewolf on Tue Jan 01, 2013 2:41 am

    There is no big deal in disabling an M1 doesn't matter of its version with even old RPG-7 warheads like were used in Iraq.

    This old warheads PG-7 (~300mm RHA) have even destroyed Abrams tanks.

    For the enemy it doesn't matter if they only disable an Abrams or destroy it as long they achieve one of those that the enemy can't represent any threat to own forces, anymore.

    Also there are footage of insurgents with RPG-29 who destroyed the first Abrams and probably the second too.


    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  nemrod on Thu Jan 10, 2013 1:49 pm

    Werewolf wrote:There is no big deal in disabling an M1 doesn't matter of its version with even old RPG-7 warheads like were used in Iraq.

    This old warheads PG-7 (~300mm RHA) have even destroyed Abrams tanks.
    ....

    Thx to all, Iam seeing, and realizing that, Iam among specialists. In fact Iam not a specialists, and untill now, this is the first time I saw these pictures, that never been watched here in Europe, or generally in western countries.
    I was very far -untill today - to imagine that a light weapon like RPG could disable a tank.
    I realize now, why the US got out from Iraq, and why they are going flee Afghanistan.

    I realize that how the propaganda and hype made us idiots. Untill now I believed that M1 Abrams was unbeatable, and this tank was impossible to destroy only by huge bombs inside the road.

    In fact now, I realize how the iraqi resistance was so near the victory during the fallujah battle number 1, however, there is not without knowing the new, and the best US had the greatest joker, a weapon that brought to US every victory in arab world. The Joker is Al Qaida.
    Al Qaida is here in the goal to divide people into confessional war, leaving US, free hands.

    Thx guys for your advises, and remarqs.
    It was worth to subscribe in this forum.

    Regards.


    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  Werewolf on Thu Jan 10, 2013 8:11 pm

    nemrod wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:There is no big deal in disabling an M1 doesn't matter of its version with even old RPG-7 warheads like were used in Iraq.

    This old warheads PG-7 (~300mm RHA) have even destroyed Abrams tanks.
    ....

    Thx to all, Iam seeing, and realizing that, Iam among specialists. In fact Iam not a specialists, and untill now, this is the first time I saw these pictures, that never been watched here in Europe, or generally in western countries.
    I was very far -untill today - to imagine that a light weapon like RPG could disable a tank.
    I realize now, why the US got out from Iraq, and why they are going flee Afghanistan.

    I realize that how the propaganda and hype made us idiots. Untill now I believed that M1 Abrams was unbeatable, and this tank was impossible to destroy only by huge bombs inside the road.

    In fact now, I realize how the iraqi resistance was so near the victory during the fallujah battle number 1, however, there is not without knowing the new, and the best US had the greatest joker, a weapon that brought to US every victory in arab world. The Joker is Al Qaida.
    Al Qaida is here in the goal to divide people into confessional war, leaving US, free hands.

    Thx guys for your advises, and remarqs.
    It was worth to subscribe in this forum.

    Regards.



    No tank is invincible and thise light weight RPGs are by far stronger than the side armor of any existing tank.
    Even very old models have no big trouble to break the side or rear armor of any existing tank, as long they don't use ERA.
    Tanks only have composite armour at front and sides of turret not the hull.

    You could even destroy every existing tank with an very old T-55 with old rounds to the side or rear armor.

    And like in every scenario doesn't matter Chechnya,Iraq,Afghanistan,Vietnam or any battlefield where tanks are used in urban warfare they attract the most of the enemies interest to just destroy it.Tanks are very vulnerable in urban warfare even more vulnerable than lighter armored IFVs which weaponary suites more for such environments.

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  Vladimir79 on Fri Jan 11, 2013 6:46 am

    Disabling a modern tank is easy, knock the tracks off. Destroying one where everyone inside dies is another story. T-90 in Chechnya took 7 RPG-7 hits and still kept the crew safe. Yeah it was a loss, but keeping the crew alive is the main purpose of that armour and Western tanks do that as well.


    _________________
    The true value of life knows only the paratrooper. For he is more likely to look death in the eye.  -- Vasily Margelov

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jan 11, 2013 9:33 am

    The biggest threat to the crew of an armoured vehicle is the detonation of its ammo and/or fuel, and unfortunately it has been an area of weakness on Soviet tanks.

    It is not that the Soviet tanks were poorly armoured or equipped, it was the positioning of ammo and fuel in places that were vulnerable leading to low crew survival rates when penetrated.

    The whole concept of the T-90SM/AM and the armata and kurganets and boomerang designs is to improve troop and crew safety by separating weapons and ammo and fuel from the various crew compartments of the different vehicle types.

    The Abrams has faults... it is very heavy, and expensive, but it is designed to protect its crew... and it does a good job of that generally.

    Having said that they have not really been as severely challenged as the ex soviet vehicles have... ie Iraqi T-55s against Abrams in Desert Storm had little chance, while Abrams tanks in Afghanistan face a difficult enemy but one that lacks capable modern AT weapons.

    If the Soviet Union still existed and they were supplying the Iraqis and Afghans then the Abrams would have been in serious trouble... as would their Apaches etc.


    _________________
    “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

    KomissarBojanchev
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 986
    Points : 1139
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Fri Nov 29, 2013 8:53 pm

    TR1 wrote:Not many Abrams have been knocked out in Iraq at all, let alone from old RPG-7s.
    And the armor array is most certainly not useless against HEAT.
    Its confirmed that there were extremely few RPG-29s in in Iraq and given how many abrams were knocked out its certain that most of them were from RPG-7s and IEDs. Only the extremely heavy and expensive Tusk can have armor martgianlly good against HEAT. It has been confirmed that the M1A2 lacks chobham and only has DU and regular laminated armor not much better than the T-64's. While it may be good against APSFDS, due to the DU's very low melting temperature makes it vulnerable. Not to mention that when burned DU is radioactive and very polluting.

    KomissarBojanchev
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 986
    Points : 1139
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Fri Nov 29, 2013 8:59 pm

    By 2005 there were 221 knocked out abrams, 15 totaled, 16% of the entire US tank force stationed there.

    Regular
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1955
    Points : 1962
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  Regular on Fri Nov 29, 2013 9:49 pm

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:By 2005 there were 221 knocked out abrams, 15 totaled, 16% of the entire US tank force stationed there.
    Can I have source? Rather big number I would say. I know that not all of them suffered irreparable damage, but still.

    KomissarBojanchev
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 986
    Points : 1139
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Fri Nov 29, 2013 10:04 pm

    151 abrams knocked out during invasion-http://www.wnd.com/2003/05/18885/

    80 destroyed by Iraqi insurgency 2005-http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-03-29-abrams-tank-a_x.htm?POE=click-refer


    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  TR1 on Fri Nov 29, 2013 10:11 pm

    Uh no. 150 were HIT.

    Not knocked out.

    Plenty were nailed by RPG-7s, and most of the time the damage was either negligible, or well-within economically feasable repair status.
    Crew being killed is a good indicator of this as well.

    Stealthflanker
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 808
    Points : 894
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 28
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  Stealthflanker on Sat Nov 30, 2013 5:24 am

    Sujoy wrote:*** Below calculations/formulas as per Armour Penetration table ***



    Formula of tank kinetic rounds (long rod):

    T * (1/cos@)^0.75 = (M/D^3) * (D/L)^0.3 *(v^2/U^2)

    T = plate thickness (cm)
    * = multiplication
    ^=  to the power of
    @ = angle
    u = constant
    L = penetrator length (cm)
    M = penetrator mass (g)
    D = penetrator diameter (cm)
    v = penetrator velocity (m/s)

    The 3BM48M developed for the T80UM2 Black eagle can penetrate 900mm RHAe and APFSDS fired from the 2A46M4 travels at1750m/s

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://russianarmor.info/Tanks/ARM/apfsds/ammo.html

    Therefore , the 3BM48 "Свинец-2" can penetrate Cobham armour.
    That formula is susceptible and to make things worse.. i never found any journal quoting it. I tried that formula before and found it does not give correct value.. basically the shorter you make the penetrator the better it would be.

    Better use something better like

    http://longrods.ch/

    Ranxerox71
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 18
    Points : 23
    Join date : 2015-04-25
    Age : 46
    Location : Ex YU

    Τank warfare General Thread (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour)

    Post  Ranxerox71 on Sat May 07, 2016 1:15 am

    Vann7 wrote:

    So many cool things for Russian Army.. but unfortunately too slow the acquisition of new armata units.  Russia needs to have Armata already in big numbers in the many hundreds and in this year, because it face potential land wars in several fronts already.

    Why? First Russia already have enough Excellent Tanks, T-90-A is shown his real capability, in Syria, where in first year of civil-terrorist group war, so many older Tanks, whit out few most important features, was easily lost, they have not proper R.A second they not have proper F.O.S(or Fire operation system) especially when we talk about modern gadgets for finding targets and see threat's and it is big question what kind of a munition they have, does it that was old models of a munition(which also was dearly cost Iraqi T-72 ) like fact old one piercing sub munition, made to the somewhere around 1975. cant be compare whit present armor piercing,where between those years and present day Russian army was have for sure three modernization of a munition, same story was whit cumulative one, like whit Bunker buster a munition, whit out two types of guided AT, and again guided Fortification buster rockets.
    My point is that T-90-A actually is capable to fight against any Abrams, le'clerc, or Challenger or LEO2. Then their is T-80 UD which are also excellent tank, whit Night and Thermal vision, very good Protection , both tanks, by mobility is around 40% better then western counter part, while T-90-A have significantly lower top and globally is significant smaller target.
    Second ARMAT already coming earlier then that was planed, but she must go thru "torture" of testing of every single mechanical assemble,, especially power train as a whole, and of course Testing of Hardware and Software in cockpit is also extremely important, But Russian is famous by one school of making military hardware, where first Upgrades coming almost right a way after first making series.There is some problems, whit the emergence of matching the frequency of vibration, engine, transmission and chassis thin where there is an undesirable effect of amplification when whole tank start to vibrate, of course that is happened only two times when driver go thru speed and R.P.M of engines.....That are is words of main constructor , where he said that util know, only serious problem which emerge during the tests until know, because such kind of vibration, can significantly shorten the proper working time of the whole transmission or other mechanical assemblies, but that's just the effect that they had not met before, and therefore did not do specific calculations. And he is emerge only on T-14, why because different weight distribution and Inner space on T-15(Barbaris) probably simply is made that such sync of small vibration(can't happened), which when rich full "harmony" amplified and become something not desirable and possible for Serial TANK.By his words on which that problem(first serial tranche) will be "cured" from that "childhood illness".
    So Armata coming significantly before then that was planed, Barbaris T-15 in second serial tranche will get different turret whit gun of 57 mm, Kurganec will get same (variant for heavy fire close support for infantry and, Only problem will be how many cars per Year they can assemble , But UVZ is purposely for Armata program will made(if already isn't finished) brand new Assembly line, because they wish to separate places when they made Armata Program, and they other cars.Because, Armata will be changed, whit features and capability,every year and half, that is guaranteed, and it is a Russian school Tenko-strojenja, until she simply become Tank which use 99% of her true capability, like imagined modular concept of modern Tank. and So do not worry, warmongering statement of new Commander of NATO forces in EU, is nothing more then chip collecting of political points, nothing more, because he like every General in Pentagon knows, that full scale war whit Russia, only will bring Misery over whole Europe, and also US generals which do not wish to Dream American Dream. Knows that Russia have means and capability to deliver just enough nuclear heads on USA soil, and to change American way of life for next 1000 years. And no body of them is prepare to carry such burden. From other side, in Military always was exist enough high ranks Lunatics, which calculated whit billions of dead people. And in they crazy heads they somehow come to the result that America will be partial destroyed by nuke's, but Americans will have greatest chance . that right after 50-60 years become to rebuild old way of life. Like, until Others such is Russians will be practical fully destroyed, and then Americans can freely start to use wast natural resources of Russia...around which and reason why all this fuss and pressure on Russia is happened.
    Sorry on little longer post.

    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3225
    Points : 3349
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  Vann7 on Sat May 07, 2016 2:32 am

    T-90 tanks in the Russian army are not prepared to deal with Top Attack weapons or face
    NATO tanks and guarantee a win in a one vs one.  The only tanks Russia have that
    can guarantee a very high probability to win ,even if taken by surprise is the armata tank.

    If Russia face a major war with Turkey , and the madman do something really stupid like sinking
    a Russian submarine with american help or atacking Russian military base in Syria and many die.The retaliation of Russia will have to be full scale war. means Russia will have to invade Turkey and at least capture Istanbul  to guarantee the movement of their ships over the strait to the mediterranean.

    So its means that Russia needs to be very well prepared for the unthinkable .
    Even to the case that ISIS takes control of Turkey with CIA help and later start a war
    against Russia.  So if Russia needs to invade a major power like Turkey is.. it will be far better
    if Russia do it in armata and not in T-90. Good enough tank is not enough. Russia needs a tank
    that can guarantee the maximun security possible to their soldiers and that is Arma. and not t-90.

    Also Russia face a threat of a war with Ukraine ,with NATO mercenaries very well armed with state of the art modern weapons . So this is why to be fully prepared and avoid taking risk ,
    and minimize as many casualties as possible in Russian army ,it will be better that Russia army is fully armed with Armata and all their latest weapons. because when it comes to a fight against countries well armed by NATO ,good enough military hardware is not enough. Russia needs simply the best technology they can and deployed in big numbers.

    yes i know t-90 is capable but it will not guarantee the level of safety Russian army needs to fight major powers. Missiles like Spike or Javeline can cause a lot of trouble used in numbers
    against a T-90.

    And yes Russia have nuclear weapons ,but they are not enough deterrence for crazy leaders
    like Erdogan. or ISIS. So conventional military also needs to be very state of the art and
    strong too.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Τank Warfare (AT rounds, missiles, tank armour): General Thread

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 4:51 am


      Current date/time is Sun Dec 04, 2016 4:51 am