Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Share
    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 Wed Apr 13, 2011 4:11 pm

    medo wrote:
    The funny thing of course is that because of the strength of NATO there are two areas where the Russians really are very strong and they are air defence weapons and anti tank weapons... good luck with that armoured charge into Russia BTW... hope them new uber US tanks have anti radiation lining.

    Don't forget artillery.

    That's debatable.
    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 Wed Apr 13, 2011 10:15 pm

    This happens a lot :v

    You are referring to the round's total length.

    I am referring specifically to the projectile itself, who's dimensions are about 540 mm long and 22 mm in diameter.

    Nope.

    The ammo is two piece so its total length (round and stub propellent case) is irrelevant.
    The important length is the length of the projectile within its own propellent charge which has to fit in the radius of the turret ring because being circular a round has to fit opposite it in the autoloader so it has to be less than the radius of the turret ring to fit.
    With a turret bustle autoloader there is no practical length limit for projectiles except the limit imposed by the length of the autoloader chamber for ammo storage.

    All the propellent stubs are a standard size and weight and would never have problems fitting in any T series tank designed to use 125mm ammo.

    The only component of the round that varies in length is the projectile which also has a propellent component in the case of the APFSDS rounds. It is the component that can be too long to fit in an autoloader because it doesn't bend.

    "Now, for the protection and survivability, we are ahead of other
    countries - and the complex of active protection and explosive reactive
    armor T-90 definitely a lot better and safer for all Western models. In
    these matters, we are superior to potential enemy at times "- so praised
    T-90 general.

    Which suggests they have fitted the newest ERA, newest Shtora and presumably the newest ARENA available... whatever models they are. (ERA most likely Relickt).

    "While lacking the command handling, to ensure that the controls can be
    quickly and efficiently allocate target and promptly set targets for
    destruction of enemy firepower. In this direction is actively working,
    if we achieve the results we will achieve the most advanced level in the
    world "- concluded Kovalenko.

    So the battle management system isn't fully functional yet... that sort of thing doesn't work if only a hand full of newly introduced tanks have a system... it needs to be applied to all vehicles and especially recon platforms and HQ and comms vehicles before it can work properly.

    Don't forget artillery.

    That's debatable.

    Actually he has a point.

    The Russians/Soviets didn't move to self propelled artillery as quickly as NATO did, but their rocket tube artillery is clearly superior... from 122mm rockets with the same range as MLRS through the Smerch 300mm rockets with more than double the range of MLRS all on cheaper wheeled vehicles.

    The Smerch rockets were more accurate than MLRS rockets because they had inertial guidance to keep the volleys relatively close.

    Regarding tube artillery the best were probably South African, but the Russian artillery made up in numbers and range of calibres and systems what it lacked in some minor areas.

    Also keep in mind that many of the laser beam guided artillery shells are not post cold developments.

    The most important thing was that they were the only branch of the Russian Military that used UAVs seriously.

    Another important factor was that when they introduced rocket artillery it was not at the expense of tube artillery.

    The rocket artillery was seen as expensive artillery but artillery that was best able to shoot and scoot because of the rate of fire. It was also seen as the best way to deliver chem or bio weapon agents due to the rapid build up of agent for a given target area.
    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 Thu Apr 14, 2011 12:38 am

    [quote="GarryB"]
    This happens a lot :v

    You are referring to the round's total length.

    I am referring specifically to the projectile itself, who's dimensions are about 540 mm long and 22 mm in diameter.

    Nope.

    The ammo is two piece so its total length (round and stub propellent case) is irrelevant.
    The important length is the length of the projectile within its own propellent charge which has to fit in the radius of the turret ring because being circular a round has to fit opposite it in the autoloader so it has to be less than the radius of the turret ring to fit.
    With a turret bustle autoloader there is no practical length limit for projectiles except the limit imposed by the length of the autoloader chamber for ammo storage.

    All the propellent stubs are a standard size and weight and would never have problems fitting in any T series tank designed to use 125mm ammo.

    The only component of the round that varies in length is the projectile which also has a propellent component in the case of the APFSDS rounds. It is the component that can be too long to fit in an autoloader because it doesn't bend.

    I don't see the problem here?

    A penetrator's capability is very much so dependent on it's potential KE but it's also dependent on penetrator design. Typically, longer and skinnier penetrators will go through more armor, which is what I was referring to in my post.

    Don't forget artillery.

    That's debatable.

    Actually he has a point.

    The Russians/Soviets didn't move to self propelled artillery as quickly as NATO did, but their rocket tube artillery is clearly superior... from 122mm rockets with the same range as MLRS through the Smerch 300mm rockets with more than double the range of MLRS all on cheaper wheeled vehicles.

    The Smerch rockets were more accurate than MLRS rockets because they had inertial guidance to keep the volleys relatively close.

    Regarding tube artillery the best were probably South African, but the Russian artillery made up in numbers and range of calibres and systems what it lacked in some minor areas.

    Also keep in mind that many of the laser beam guided artillery shells are not post cold developments.

    The most important thing was that they were the only branch of the Russian Military that used UAVs seriously.

    Another important factor was that when they introduced rocket artillery it was not at the expense of tube artillery.

    The rocket artillery was seen as expensive artillery but artillery that was best able to shoot and scoot because of the rate of fire. It was also seen as the best way to deliver chem or bio weapon agents due to the rapid build up of agent for a given target area.

    I was referring to tube arty too. The Smerch only has it's range due to it's size. The M270 MLRS has comparable range with the BM-27 Uragan, which is of comparable calibers. Also; the guided rounds of the M270 far surpasses any guided round for Russian tube arty that we know of, it's accuracy is comparable to that of a JDAM. Also, the Russian 122, 220, and 300 mm line of MLRSs lack a system that allows for quick reloading of said rockets (that has been fixed now), but the M270 has had it for quite a while.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  Austin on Thu Apr 14, 2011 6:22 am

    The report on T-90AM quoting the general says it will have an engine with more 130hp.

    So I am assuming it will have more power over existing T-90A engine by 130 hp.

    What is the power of existing T-90A engine in Russian service ?
    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 Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:38 am

    A penetrator's capability is very much so dependent on it's potential KE
    but it's also dependent on penetrator design. Typically, longer and
    skinnier penetrators will go through more armor, which is what I was
    referring to in my post.

    Skinnier penetrators are also easier to break up. The longer a penetrator is the more weight it concentrates on the tip on impact. Obviously too thick and it is like trying to punch a hole in paper with the blunt end of a pencil, but then that is what the sharpened end is for... to start the penetration.

    What I was saying in my post was that now they have a turret bustle autoloader they don't need to turn each component of the ammo 90 degrees to load it into the breach, it can be simply a straight ram from storage.

    They can intentionally make their penetrator longer than what can be fitted in a western tank to gain an advantage.

    I was referring to tube arty too.

    They have their eccentrics in tube artillery as well... the 2S7 152mm gun, the 2S9 203mm gun, the 240mm mortars, the MSTA. Most of their units now have 120mm mortar vehicles able to fire 120mm shells and 120mm mortar bombs (including western mortar rounds BTW), and they have laser guided shells for pretty much every calibre above 82mm. Does the west even today have anything like the Vasilek automatic mortar?

    The Smerch only has it's range due to it's size. The M270 MLRS has
    comparable range with the BM-27 Uragan, which is of comparable calibers.

    Both SMERCH and URAGAN have had sensor fused sub munition rockets since about 1987.
    Lets look at URAGAN compared to MLRS... similar range, similar payload, URAGAN is mounted on a truck which was widely used amongst WP forces, MLRS based on the Bradley... much more expensive to buy and operate and not used by any other NATO partner. URAGAN has 16 tubes, while MLRS has 12. URAGAN rockets have basic gyros in each rocket to help keep the volleys tighter than they would normally be... obviously you don't actually want all the rockets to hit the same point of ground.
    I would say even URAGAN is better than MLRS, and even the current model Grad can match it in range and with 40 rockets on board despite the fact that it carries less munitions per rocket it can actually carry more sensor fused submunitions per launcher.
    Smerch is a level above.

    Also; the guided rounds of the M270 far surpasses any guided round for
    Russian tube arty that we know of, it's accuracy is comparable to that
    of a JDAM.

    M270 is not tube artillery why would you compare it?

    The Tochka and Tender are the direct Russian equivalent of ATCMS and they really are as good if not better in some aspects.

    They are used at ranges artillery is not normally used and would require other recon assets to find targets for them.

    The Russians separate that capability out of artillery support units and have it at a higher level.

    Also, the Russian 122, 220, and 300 mm line of MLRSs lack a system that
    allows for quick reloading of said rockets (that has been fixed now),
    but the M270 has had it for quite a while.

    Hahahahahahahahaha... you are joking right?

    I remember in the 1980s a western defence expert writing in their book in artillery comparing the Grad to a Warsaw Pact copy. The Warsaw Pact copy had a complete reload on the back of the vehicle in front of the launcher so a second volley could be delivered in about 3 minutes after the first volley have been fired.
    This western expert claimed this made the copy much better than the original.

    Absolutely hilarious.

    When you fire a volley of rockets whose launch can be seen from hundreds of kms because of the smoke and IR signature the last thing you will do is a quick reload and fire again.

    The first thing you will do is lower the launchers raise the stabilisers and drive to the next launch position as fast as you can.

    Once you get to the new launch position you can reload as much as you like.

    And by the way the new rocket artillery system called Tornado uses a smaller lighter truck that uses pallet based rocket launchers and it can be fitted with 122mm, 220mm, and 300mm rocket pods.

    Cheaper, lighter, and much more flexible than MLRS.

    The report on T-90AM quoting the general says it will have an engine with more 130hp.

    So I am assuming it will have more power over existing T-90A engine by 130 hp.

    What is the power of existing T-90A engine in Russian service ?

    Yes, the General said 130hp more than the 1,000 hp engine fitted to the T-90.
    They were working on a 1,200hp engine (V-99)so I guess a 1,130 hp engine is close enough.

    Alarm signal can be considered, and the loss of T-90 in the Malaysian
    tender Polish Main Battle Tank PT-91M (based on the Soviet T-72).

    It probably lost on price rather than anything else.
    Perhaps a cheaper tank should have been put forward like a T-72BM instead of the top of the line T-90... I rather doubt Malaysia wanted a tank to go toe to toe with an Abrams or Leclerc.

    Russian Defense Ministry with respect to it is still uncertain, and it
    is not clear whether the machine will develop, says the analyst.

    The alternative is much worse than nothing.

    This machine had the location of the crew in an isolated compartment in
    the body, issued placement of weapons (152 mm and 30 mm gun), new
    surveillance systems and fire control, tank management information
    systems, active protection systems, motors promising types. Prototypes
    of the tank were tested, but in 2010 research and development program
    was stopped the Russian Defense Ministry on the pretext of excessive
    cost and complexity of the tank.

    I suspected there would be a 30mm cannon fitted.

    To be perfectly honest I think the best solution is what they appear to be doing now.

    Upgrade the T-90 to remove its obvious problems and give it all the bits it needs like Shtora and Arena and new ERA, and actually produce some for the Russian Army and get rid of all the obsolete stuff... sell the T-80s to Cyprus and South Korea and even the Ukraine if they want them.

    For the future develop light, medium, and heavy vehicle families as planned... the irony is that it covers itself... if the world trends go for heavy to stay, then the replacement for the T-90AM can be a heavier tank, but with lots of new innovations perhaps including external gun, unmanned turret etc. If the world goes for lighter tanks then the medium brigade vehicle can be made of exotic new plastic armours with electric armour and high mobility and good protection. And the light brigades family will offer a range of protected lighter vehicles that will be suitable for COIN type operations and UN policing duties as well as roles in larger conflicts as more mobile forces.
    The Naval Infantry and the Airborne forces can pick and mix their vehicles depending on the conflict.
    For air dropping light vehicles will be needed, but for naval deployments medium and heavy stuff is an option.

    The family idea even extends to air defence vehicles... imagine a HARM simply not being powerful enough to kill an air defence vehicle unless it gets a direct hit?

    Most of the time they miss by quite a distance even when they are effective, but that doesn't matter because they destroy the soft van and the huge antenna above it with the blast wave.

    Imagine an armoured hardened AESA on a tank based chassis with a 57mm gun and IR optics which when it detects a HARM shuts covers and directs a beam of energy at a nearby rock face to attract the missile seeker so that the missile impacts 100m from the vehicle...

    Probably easier just to shoot it down with a TOR.
    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 Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:56 am

    [quote="GarryB"]
    A penetrator's capability is very much so dependent on it's potential KE
    but it's also dependent on penetrator design. Typically, longer and
    skinnier penetrators will go through more armor, which is what I was
    referring to in my post.

    Skinnier penetrators are also easier to break up. The longer a penetrator is the more weight it concentrates on the tip on impact. Obviously too thick and it is like trying to punch a hole in paper with the blunt end of a pencil, but then that is what the sharpened end is for... to start the penetration.

    What I was saying in my post was that now they have a turret bustle autoloader they don't need to turn each component of the ammo 90 degrees to load it into the breach, it can be simply a straight ram from storage.

    They can intentionally make their penetrator longer than what can be fitted in a western tank to gain an advantage.

    Right. But like I said, the latest Russian APFSDS is the BM-42M projectile, I have not heard of any further developments. I also doubt that Russian tanks can now load longer penetrators than Western tanks. The M829A3 projectile is over 830 mm long, almost a full feet longer than the latest Russian projectiles.

    I was referring to tube arty too.

    They have their eccentrics in tube artillery as well... the 2S7 152mm gun, the 2S9 203mm gun, the 240mm mortars, the MSTA. Most of their units now have 120mm mortar vehicles able to fire 120mm shells and 120mm mortar bombs (including western mortar rounds BTW), and they have laser guided shells for pretty much every calibre above 82mm. Does the west even today have anything like the Vasilek automatic mortar?

    I've noticed this is typical of your arguments. You list all the 'unique' objects that the Russians have that it seems apparent no one else does. This is a fallacious thought, as having more isn't necessarily better. The U.S. in particular has a habit of producing multi-purpose equipments, something the Russians haven't done too often until recently.

    The Smerch only has it's range due to it's size. The M270 MLRS has
    comparable range with the BM-27 Uragan, which is of comparable calibers.

    Both SMERCH and URAGAN have had sensor fused sub munition rockets since about 1987.
    Lets look at URAGAN compared to MLRS... similar range, similar payload, URAGAN is mounted on a truck which was widely used amongst WP forces, MLRS based on the Bradley... much more expensive to buy and operate and not used by any other NATO partner. URAGAN has 16 tubes, while MLRS has 12. URAGAN rockets have basic gyros in each rocket to help keep the volleys tighter than they would normally be... obviously you don't actually want all the rockets to hit the same point of ground.
    I would say even URAGAN is better than MLRS, and even the current model Grad can match it in range and with 40 rockets on board despite the fact that it carries less munitions per rocket it can actually carry more sensor fused submunitions per launcher.
    Smerch is a level above.

    Like I've said, I'd disagree. Notice that I said, "comparable" range. The M30 Guided munition has 25 km more range than the Uragan while having a precision strike capability, something all ex-Soviet MLRSs don't have. It is true that the Uragan is built on a more "common" chassis, but cost is no matter to capability, to which the M270 out-preforms the Uragan and the Smerch to some extent. The Grad is a joke compared to the M270.

    Also; the guided rounds of the M270 far surpasses any guided round for
    Russian tube arty that we know of, it's accuracy is comparable to that
    of a JDAM.

    M270 is not tube artillery why would you compare it?

    The Tochka and Tender are the direct Russian equivalent of ATCMS and they really are as good if not better in some aspects.

    They are used at ranges artillery is not normally used and would require other recon assets to find targets for them.

    The Russians separate that capability out of artillery support units and have it at a higher level.

    Uh...I hate to break this to you but the M270 is tube arty. The problem with the Tochka/Tender is that, for example, with the M270, you can fire a volley of GPS guided unitary-HE warheads out to 60 km, relocate, then load it with ATACMS, and then preform anti-counter battery fire. With the BM series of MLRSs, you can't do that, you have to have at least 2 vehicles which complicates logistics.

    Also, the Russian 122, 220, and 300 mm line of MLRSs lack a system that
    allows for quick reloading of said rockets (that has been fixed now),
    but the M270 has had it for quite a while.

    Hahahahahahahahaha... you are joking right?

    I remember in the 1980s a western defence expert writing in their book in artillery comparing the Grad to a Warsaw Pact copy. The Warsaw Pact copy had a complete reload on the back of the vehicle in front of the launcher so a second volley could be delivered in about 3 minutes after the first volley have been fired.
    This western expert claimed this made the copy much better than the original.

    Absolutely hilarious.

    When you fire a volley of rockets whose launch can be seen from hundreds of kms because of the smoke and IR signature the last thing you will do is a quick reload and fire again.

    The first thing you will do is lower the launchers raise the stabilisers and drive to the next launch position as fast as you can.

    Once you get to the new launch position you can reload as much as you like.

    And by the way the new rocket artillery system called Tornado uses a smaller lighter truck that uses pallet based rocket launchers and it can be fitted with 122mm, 220mm, and 300mm rocket pods.

    Cheaper, lighter, and much more flexible than MLRS.

    Like I've said, the problem of rapid-reload has been fixed. Why you didn't catch part, I don't know.
    Regardless, I am not joking. The BM series of MLRSs require roughly 20 minutes to reload all rockets. While the M270 only requires 3 minutes. This is very important for a shoot and scoot scenario. For example, a single M270 can eliminate a grid square in less than 40 seconds. Then, it can relocate to avoid it's grid square being removed. In it's new local, it can reload in just 3 minutes, fire another volley, and then relocate further. While the BM-27, has to fire it's volley, relocate, than doodle for about 20 minutes, fire again, and then relocate.

    The simple end result is that the M270 can lay more pain in less time than the Uragan, which makes it, at least IMO, clearly superior.

    Also, this is off topic.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  Austin on Thu Apr 14, 2011 12:11 pm

    GarryB wrote:Yes, the General said 130hp more than the 1,000 hp engine fitted to the T-90.They were working on a 1,200hp engine (V-99)so I guess a 1,130 hp engine is close enough.

    I dont think the current russian T-90S uses 1000 hp engine more like 840 or latter variants 950HP.

    Only the export variant of IA T-90 Bhishma uses 1000hp engine
    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 Thu Apr 14, 2011 12:53 pm

    Right. But like I said, the latest Russian APFSDS is the BM-42M
    projectile, I have not heard of any further developments. I also doubt
    that Russian tanks can now load longer penetrators than Western tanks.
    The M829A3 projectile is over 830 mm long, almost a full feet longer
    than the latest Russian projectiles.

    Do you think the latest Russian APFSDS would be known about?

    Tell me all about all the types of ammo developed for the T-95.

    (If you don't know anything about the types of ammo developed for the T-95 why would you know more about new rounds being developed now?)

    Existing Russian tanks have to store their ammo in an under floor autoloader that limits the length each of the two components can be and still be loaded.

    This new tank modification (T-90AM) removes that restriction on ammo design... do you think they are going to keep the penetrators shorter or start making them longer?

    I've noticed this is typical of your arguments. You list all the
    'unique' objects that the Russians have that it seems apparent no one
    else does. This is a fallacious thought, as having more isn't
    necessarily better.

    They inherited a lot of stuff. Stuff that included a wide variety of very capable artillery. Do you think that makes them weak in artillery or does it mean they have experience and choice when it comes to different capabilities and features.

    The U.S. in particular has a habit of producing multi-purpose
    equipments, something the Russians haven't done too often until
    recently.

    The US has a habit of taking a good idea like rocket artillery and making it really expensive.
    The whole idea of a precision strike with an MLRS is a joke isn't it?
    The Soviets went for gyro and inertial guidance to keep the volleys close together over long distances (90km) so they were as effective at 90kms as they were at 40km.
    The US used their MLRS to try to replace Honest John and Lance type weapons and they really are different roles which artillery units shouldn't be getting into.

    The M30 Guided munition has 25 km more range than the Uragan while
    having a precision strike capability, something all ex-Soviet MLRSs
    don't have.

    The Russian forces have tactical precision strike capability. They don't waste time trying to make rocket artillery into a Lance II unit and vice versa.

    It is true that the Uragan is built on a more "common" chassis, but
    cost is no matter to capability, to which the M270 out-preforms the
    Uragan and the Smerch to some extent. The Grad is a joke compared to the
    M270.

    How many NATO countries decided to buy M270?
    How many more would they have bought if they were truck mounted?
    I hear the US military has introduced a light truck model for MLRS so it seems its does matter.

    And in what way does M270 outperform even Uragan?
    Grad can reach targets out to 40km these days.

    Point targets are dealt with CAS and Tochka and Tender (Iskander).


    Uh...I hate to break this to you but the M270 is tube arty.

    You might like to alert the rest of the world about that... tube artillery is gun artillery and rocket artillery is something else.

    Check out:
    Rocket artillery vs tube artillery


    at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_artillery#Rocket_artillery_vs_tube_artillery

    The problem with the Tochka/Tender is that, for example, with the M270,
    you can fire a volley of GPS guided unitary-HE warheads out to 60 km,
    relocate, then load it with ATACMS, and then preform anti-counter
    battery fire. With the BM series of MLRSs, you can't do that, you have
    to have at least 2 vehicles which complicates logistics.

    With Tornado you can fire anti tank guided submunitions to 90km and while the unit is relocating any counter battery fire can be dealt with using Tochka and Tender units much further back.

    In the hour it takes to reload and relocate to a new firing site how is the MLRS going to monitor the airspace and detect and track artillery rounds headed for its previous firing position... and then fire quickly enough before the enemy unit moves?

    It isn't.

    Like I've said, the problem of rapid-reload has been fixed. Why you didn't catch part, I don't know.

    Thought I pointed out pretty clearly rapid reload is a useful feature but not actually that important unless the unit is supporting lots of different units at once.

    In it's new local, it can reload in just 3 minutes, fire another
    volley, and then relocate further. While the BM-27, has to fire it's
    volley, relocate, than doodle for about 20 minutes, fire again, and then
    relocate.

    The higher costs of operation and to procure mean that MLRS units generally replace tube artillery units. SMERCH is cheap enough to operate in larger numbers and can operate much more safely because being up to 90km from its targets (they are working on extending that to 120km for standard rockets) it is well out of enemy tube artillery range.

    The Tornado has pallets that reduce reload time to a few minutes too.

    The simple end result is that the M270 can lay more pain in less time
    than the Uragan, which makes it, at least IMO, clearly superior.

    But that is the point it is not just the M270 against the Uragan... it is up against the Uragan, the Grad, the Smerch, and even the Buratino and the Tochka and the Tender.
    I dont think the current russian T-90S uses 1000 hp engine more like 840 or latter variants 950HP.

    The Russians don't use the T-90S, that is the export version of their T-90A... which also uses a 1,000hp engine.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  Austin on Thu Apr 14, 2011 1:29 pm

    GarryB wrote:The Russians don't use the T-90S, that is the export version of their T-90A... which also uses a 1,000hp engine.

    No ,the original T-90A uses 840hp engine and newer T-90A's uses 950hp.

    I just hope the MOD orders more T-90AM while they work on Armata project , ordering it would also help in export of Russian tank compete globally , plus the AM model seems to have every thing that would make it competitive for the next 10 years against western peers , the BMS should not be a problem.

    I wonder if AM has APU.
    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 Thu Apr 14, 2011 2:06 pm

    The T-90A has an APU. The T-90S doesn't.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  Austin on Thu Apr 14, 2011 2:11 pm

    IronsightSniper wrote:The T-90A has an APU. The T-90S doesn't.

    If what you say is true then its surprising Bhishma did not opt for an APU.
    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 Apr 15, 2011 12:25 am

    The Bhishma opted out for many things :v
    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 Fri Apr 15, 2011 4:33 am

    What is the name of this 950hp engine?

    The V-92 fitted to T-90A tanks is a 1,000hp tank engine.

    The T-90AM is hardly going to be fitted with an 840hp V84MS engine fitted to old T-72s when they are exporting 1,000hp V92S2 engines.

    They were working on the V-99 which was supposed to be a 1,200hp diesel engine, so if they say they increased engine performance by 130hp I personally think it will be a 1,130hp engine they are using.

    If you want to think that they are using a 1,070 hp or 1,080 hp engine that is completely up to you.

    BTW I looked up wiki and it describes the V-92 engine as being 950hp and gives Jedsite as the source.
    Don't know about you, but I had never heard of JEDsite before.

    Every other site I go to and the V-92 is a 1,000hp engine...

    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 Apr 15, 2011 6:11 am

    IronsightSniper wrote:The Bhishma opted out for many things :v

    Its a pity , we ordered 1600 T-90 can you imagine those figures it is substantially more then any country or even Russia has it.

    I am just hoping they move to T-90AM as it would be logical to go for an improved variant considering the big numbers.

    I think T-90AM would be the best bet considering it eliminates most of its weakness and improves on most of its strength.

    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 Apr 15, 2011 6:30 am

    GarryB wrote:What is the name of this 950hp engine?

    http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-294.html

    4
    ) T-90 later series, T-90A, T-90S - V-shaped 12-cylinder 4-stroke multi-fuel diesel V-92S2 turbo (upgraded B-84, different setting turbokonagnetatelya and improved design) production by CTZ (Chelyabinsk).
    Power - up to 1000 liters. с. with at 2000 rpm (950 hp - In-92)
    Dimensions - 1458 x 895 x 960 mm
    Weight - 1020 kg
    Working volume - 39 L
    Specific fuel consumption - 170 g / hp. в час per hour
    Coefficient of adaptability - 1.25
    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 Fri Apr 15, 2011 12:05 pm

    I see your blog site and raise you the makers of the tank:

    http://uvz.ru/product/70/3

    Scroll down to the section on the engine and it says:

    Тип двигателя В-92С2 (дизель)
    Максимальная мощность, кВт (л.с.) 736(1000)
    The (1000) is the horse power rating. 736Kw of power.

    Its a pity , we ordered 1600 T-90 can you imagine those figures it is substantially more then any country or even Russia has it.

    It is probably because the T-90 is your numbers tank that they didn't spend money on all the extras. They didn't buy Shtora either did they?

    I am just hoping they move to T-90AM as it would be logical to go for an improved variant considering the big numbers.

    The Russian Army will likely buy it because there is no current alternative.
    The Indian Army is rather unlikely to buy it because it costs twice as much as the tanks they have bought so far.

    I think T-90AM would be the best bet considering it eliminates most of its weakness and improves on most of its strength.

    If the Russian Army orders it in enough numbers the price might be reduced and the Indian Army might consider adopting some of the features like the enlarged turret and bustle autoloader.

    Would assume any exported model with T-90AM upgrades will be called T-90SM.

    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 Apr 15, 2011 12:34 pm

    GarryB wrote:I see your blog site and raise you the makers of the tank:

    http://uvz.ru/product/70/3

    The (1000) is the horse power rating. 736Kw of power.

    Believe the T-90C is an export model.

    It is probably because the T-90 is your numbers tank that they didn't spend money on all the extras. They didn't buy Shtora either did they?

    T-90Bishma is a frontline tank will be used in offensive formation , even Arjun is put in defensive role.

    They didnt buy Shotra or APS becuase they wanted to go for global tender on those system.

    The Russian Army will likely buy it because there is no current alternative.
    The Indian Army is rather unlikely to buy it because it costs twice as much as the tanks they have bought so far.

    Indian Army keeps in upgrading tanks and goes for upgrade model , like they are upgrading the T-72 about 600 off them and going for Mk2 model of Arjun , they well might go for T-90AM considering its being lic built here.

    If the Russian Army orders it in enough numbers the price might be reduced and the Indian Army might consider adopting some of the features like the enlarged turret and bustle autoloader.

    Yes it would help , but tank warfare in India is mostly in Indo-Pak context , so as long as Pakistan Army does not qualitatively upgrade its tank , we might see less incentive to upgrade existing one if its already good to meet its match like in case of PA it is T-80UD , the existing T-90 will have a edge over it and so will Arjun.
    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 Fri Apr 15, 2011 1:26 pm

    we might see less incentive to upgrade existing one if its already good
    to meet its match like in case of PA it is T-80UD , the existing T-90
    will have a edge over it and so will Arjun.

    I would think the turret bustle upgrade would be worth it alone for the improved crew safety of not having loose ammo in the crew compartment.

    Believe the T-90C is an export model.

    Look at the engine designation... Тип двигателя
    В-92С2 (дизель)

    V-92S2.

    Are you suggesting there are two V-92S2 engines in production in Russia... one for Export T-90S tanks with 1,000 hp, and one for domestic T-90A tanks with 950 hp that are both called V-92S2?

    Or perhaps that blog is wrong.

    Power - up to 1000 liters. с. with at 2000 rpm (950 hp - In-92)

    What does the In-92 mean?

    Does it mean that in 1992 the V-92 had a rating of 950 hp... the V-92S2 is the second improvement and has 1,000hp?

    This would suggest that the current rating is 1,000hp and that increasing its performance by 130hp to 1,130hp when they were aiming for 1,200 makes sense. A 1,130hp engine is close enough to 1,200 hp to not bother further development to get the extra 70hp.
    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 Fri Apr 15, 2011 1:35 pm

    http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product893.html

    and from the horses mouth...

    http://chtz-uraltrac.com/catalog/items/19.php



    • Military Parade"
    • Date:01-01-2000(MPD-No.001)
    • Size:4,818 Kb.
    • Words: 724



    V-92S2 NEW TANK DIESEL


    The Military-Technical Council of the Defense Ministry of the Russian
    Federation has adopted an armor development and upgrading program. It
    focuses on upholding the high standards of operational readiness of
    armored forces, radical modernization of equipment (latest specimens
    above all), creation of a new auspicious tank that would have an edge in
    performance over existing foreign vehicles, and the gradual rearming of
    army units with the new tank.
    These tasks cannot be resolved unless an up-to-date engine is developed,
    because the tank's effectiveness and mobility heavily rely on it.
    The core of the Russian Army's armored forces and of the armored forces
    of some foreign countries is the T-72 tank powered either by the 780hp
    V-46-6 or 840hp V-84 MS diesel engine. Some time ago, these engines were
    considered to have high performance characteristics.
    Presently, the development trends lean towards enhancing the specific
    power rating of tank engines in order to increase mobility of armored
    vehicles and units.
    A demand arose for a more powerful engine adapted specifically for the
    T-72 tanks being modernized. The Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant JSC, which
    has vast experience in designing and manufacturing diesel engines, took
    on this project and in 1999 a new 1,000hp engine, designated V-92S2, was
    created.
    The new engine has already been put through all types of
    tests.
    In June - July 1999, installed in the T-90S tank, this engine underwent
    successful precontractory assessment tests in India. The tests were
    carried out in arduous desert conditions, where the dust content in the
    air was high and temperature rose up to +47 oC. The engine demonstrated
    high reliability and good traction qualities.
    Development work on more powerful auspicious engines is currently
    underway at the plant. It is worth mentioning that for the T-72 tank
    modernization, the V-92S2 diesel engine is unrivaled. To install it,
    minimum modification of the vehicle's engine compartment and minimal
    funding are required.

    source: http://dlib.eastview.com/browse/doc/167893


    Last edited by George1 on Sun Feb 21, 2016 10:30 pm; edited 4 times in total
    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 Apr 15, 2011 3:19 pm

    [quote="GarryB"]
    Right. But like I said, the latest Russian APFSDS is the BM-42M
    projectile, I have not heard of any further developments. I also doubt
    that Russian tanks can now load longer penetrators than Western tanks.
    The M829A3 projectile is over 830 mm long, almost a full feet longer
    than the latest Russian projectiles.

    Do you think the latest Russian APFSDS would be known about?

    Tell me all about all the types of ammo developed for the T-95.

    (If you don't know anything about the types of ammo developed for the T-95 why would you know more about new rounds being developed now?)

    Existing Russian tanks have to store their ammo in an under floor autoloader that limits the length each of the two components can be and still be loaded.

    This new tank modification (T-90AM) removes that restriction on ammo design... do you think they are going to keep the penetrators shorter or start making them longer?

    If no one has heard of them, assume they're not there.

    So far, they're not there.

    The U.S. in particular has a habit of producing multi-purpose
    equipments, something the Russians haven't done too often until
    recently.

    The US has a habit of taking a good idea like rocket artillery and making it really expensive.
    The whole idea of a precision strike with an MLRS is a joke isn't it?
    The Soviets went for gyro and inertial guidance to keep the volleys close together over long distances (90km) so they were as effective at 90kms as they were at 40km.
    The US used their MLRS to try to replace Honest John and Lance type weapons and they really are different roles which artillery units shouldn't be getting into.

    That really is irrelevant when you need pin-point precision from long-range rocket fire, instead of just blanketing an area. The Russians have only began recently to use GPS-guided munitions, it will be a while before their rockets get the same treatment as the M270 has. Because, like I've said, the M270 can put rockets out to 60 km out and have them all hit the same house; if they really needed to.

    The M30 Guided munition has 25 km more range than the Uragan while
    having a precision strike capability, something all ex-Soviet MLRSs
    don't have.

    The Russian forces have tactical precision strike capability. They don't waste time trying to make rocket artillery into a Lance II unit and vice versa.

    Precisely. The M270 is multi-purpose while the Russian way has it all specialized in 2 vehicles; thus, in reality, to achieve the same capabilities as the M270, the Russians has to pay more money.

    It is true that the Uragan is built on a more "common" chassis, but
    cost is no matter to capability, to which the M270 out-preforms the
    Uragan and the Smerch to some extent. The Grad is a joke compared to the
    M270.

    How many NATO countries decided to buy M270?
    How many more would they have bought if they were truck mounted?
    I hear the US military has introduced a light truck model for MLRS so it seems its does matter.

    And in what way does M270 outperform even Uragan?
    Grad can reach targets out to 40km these days.

    Point targets are dealt with CAS and Tochka and Tender (Iskander).

    How much does a Iskander cost? It's launch system? C2 vehicle? Loading vehicle? Production line? Etc?

    So like I've said, the M270 is all that, in one, for cheap.

    In case you're wondering, not a lot of people use tube arty.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rocket_artillery


    Uh...I hate to break this to you but the M270 is tube arty.

    You might like to alert the rest of the world about that... tube artillery is gun artillery and rocket artillery is something else.

    Perhaps you don't understand the terminology I was using.

    Gun arty = Howitzer
    Tube arty = MLRS


    The problem with the Tochka/Tender is that, for example, with the M270,
    you can fire a volley of GPS guided unitary-HE warheads out to 60 km,
    relocate, then load it with ATACMS, and then preform anti-counter
    battery fire. With the BM series of MLRSs, you can't do that, you have
    to have at least 2 vehicles which complicates logistics.

    With Tornado you can fire anti tank guided submunitions to 90km and while the unit is relocating any counter battery fire can be dealt with using Tochka and Tender units much further back.

    In the hour it takes to reload and relocate to a new firing site how is the MLRS going to monitor the airspace and detect and track artillery rounds headed for its previous firing position... and then fire quickly enough before the enemy unit moves?

    It isn't.

    Like I've said, having 2 vehicles complicates logistics. The M270 is multi-purpose to which the BM series is not. And no, it takes 3 minutes to reload for the M270, 20+ for the BM series. Relocating depends on terrain, but for now, I'm assuming out of the grid square, so, 1 km distance, which the M270 can cover in a minute at full speed.

    Like I've said, the problem of rapid-reload has been fixed. Why you didn't catch part, I don't know.

    [quoteThought I pointed out pretty clearly rapid reload is a useful feature but not actually that important unless the unit is supporting lots of different units at once.

    See above. M270 can shoot and scoot in ~5-10 minutes. BM series takes at least 20.

    In it's new local, it can reload in just 3 minutes, fire another
    volley, and then relocate further. While the BM-27, has to fire it's
    volley, relocate, than doodle for about 20 minutes, fire again, and then
    relocate.

    The higher costs of operation and to procure mean that MLRS units generally replace tube artillery units. SMERCH is cheap enough to operate in larger numbers and can operate much more safely because being up to 90km from its targets (they are working on extending that to 120km for standard rockets) it is well out of enemy tube artillery range.

    The Tornado has pallets that reduce reload time to a few minutes too.

    The ATACMS can take down a Smerch from farther than the Smerch can. While, the Smerch has to rely on independent tactical missile launchers to take down the M270, which like I've said about twice, is far more costly than the M270.

    The simple end result is that the M270 can lay more pain in less time
    than the Uragan, which makes it, at least IMO, clearly superior.

    But that is the point it is not just the M270 against the Uragan... it is up against the Uragan, the Grad, the Smerch, and even the Buratino and the Tochka and the Tender.

    ATACMS. So, 1 M270, $2.3m can do the job of: Uragan, Smerch, Tochka. I don't know how much each of those cost but they sure as hell don't cost $750k each.
    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 Apr 16, 2011 6:38 am

    If no one has heard of them, assume they're not there.

    So far, they're not there.

    You mean like no photos of T-95s till this year so they must have started work on it... this year?

    They have been working on the T-95 for some time and the company that makes tank MG ammo will have developed MG ammo for its large calibre gun.
    That company will also be working with UVZ on the turret bustle autoloader to make sure it operates properly... do you think they might have developed rounds with longer penetrator rods because of this?

    Whether you think so or not is not really important, they developed a brand new gun for this vehicle it is perfectly logical for them to develop new ammo too.

    That really is irrelevant when you need pin-point precision from long-range rocket fire, instead of just blanketing an area.

    When you need pin point accuracy from a shotgun... you get a sniper rifle... only a moron would convert a shotgun to make it like a sniper rifle.

    The Russians have only began recently to use GPS-guided munitions, it
    will be a while before their rockets get the same treatment as the M270
    has.

    The Russians have never used GPS guided munitions... civilian GPS doesn't work at over 800km/h or so.
    They don't use rocket artillery to hit point targets... that is what Tochka and Tender are for.
    Rocket artillery is for area targets or large numbers of enemy vehicles or troops.

    Because, like I've said, the M270 can put rockets out to 60 km out and
    have them all hit the same house; if they really needed to.

    A mission for which the Russians would use Tochka out to about 180km in the current version.

    The M270 is multi-purpose while the Russian way has it all specialized
    in 2 vehicles; thus, in reality, to achieve the same capabilities as the
    M270, the Russians has to pay more money.

    The Russians don't have the C4IR within artillery units to identify Saddam cowering in a basement from 60km so what would be the point of having equipment to hit that?
    They do have the ability to detect armour concentrations and can hit them at 90kms.

    How much does a Iskander cost? It's launch system? C2 vehicle? Loading vehicle? Production line? Etc?

    In a duel with MLRS which is going to win? 400km behind the frontline the Iskander.... like the guided MLRS rockets will be hitting point targets like air defence systems, HQs, etc. The coverage of the Tender will be much greater than the MLRS and what is safer is cheaper.

    Perhaps you don't understand the terminology I was using.

    Gun arty = Howitzer
    Tube arty = MLRS

    So you have created your own terminology... good for you.

    The rest of the world uses:

    Tube arty = gun and howitzer and mortar... ie weapons that use tubes to accelerate projectiles
    Rocket arty = rockets... usually multiple, but including FROGs.

    See above. M270 can shoot and scoot in ~5-10 minutes. BM series takes at least 20.

    Rubbish. BM series vehicles are all fully mobile and can start to move as the last rocket is fired.

    The ATACMS can take down a Smerch from farther than the Smerch can.

    Tender can hit targets at 480km range.

    While, the Smerch has to rely on independent tactical missile launchers
    to take down the M270, which like I've said about twice, is far more
    costly than the M270.

    And also far more capable, while the Smerch can a much better job than the M270 at pretty much every thing else.

    ATACMS. So, 1 M270, $2.3m can do the job of: Uragan, Smerch, Tochka. I
    don't know how much each of those cost but they sure as hell don't cost
    $750k each.

    No it can't, and there is no way Grad is $750K, or Uragan, or Smerch, or Tochka. Tender might be.
    Grad, Uragan, Smerch, Tochka and Tender are far superior to M270, both individually and together.
    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 Apr 16, 2011 10:04 am

    GarryB wrote:
    If no one has heard of them, assume they're not there.

    So far, they're not there.

    You mean like no photos of T-95s till this year so they must have started work on it... this year?

    They have been working on the T-95 for some time and the company that makes tank MG ammo will have developed MG ammo for its large calibre gun.
    That company will also be working with UVZ on the turret bustle autoloader to make sure it operates properly... do you think they might have developed rounds with longer penetrator rods because of this?

    Whether you think so or not is not really important, they developed a brand new gun for this vehicle it is perfectly logical for them to develop new ammo too.

    That's a chronology thing. No one even a picture or even a name of your imaginary Russian APFSDS, so thus, it is either your delusion or we don't know about it. Logic points us to the former until we actually do know about it.

    That really is irrelevant when you need pin-point precision from long-range rocket fire, instead of just blanketing an area.

    When you need pin point accuracy from a shotgun... you get a sniper rifle... only a moron would convert a shotgun to make it like a sniper rifle.

    Incorrect. Only a fool would have purchased both. A genius would of had both in one.

    The Russians have only began recently to use GPS-guided munitions, it
    will be a while before their rockets get the same treatment as the M270
    has.

    [quoteThe Russians have never used GPS guided munitions... civilian GPS doesn't work at over 800km/h or so.
    They don't use rocket artillery to hit point targets... that is what Tochka and Tender are for.
    Rocket artillery is for area targets or large numbers of enemy vehicles or troops.[/quote]

    Uh...KAB-500-SE?

    Because, like I've said, the M270 can put rockets out to 60 km out and
    have them all hit the same house; if they really needed to.

    [quoteA mission for which the Russians would use Tochka out to about 180km in the current version.[/quote]

    A mission that Smerch cannot achieve.

    The M270 is multi-purpose while the Russian way has it all specialized
    in 2 vehicles; thus, in reality, to achieve the same capabilities as the
    M270, the Russians has to pay more money.

    The Russians don't have the C4IR within artillery units to identify Saddam cowering in a basement from 60km so what would be the point of having equipment to hit that?
    They do have the ability to detect armour concentrations and can hit them at 90kms.

    Neither does the M270. But we do have the capability to, to which the Russians require 2 vehicles for. Thus, NATO saves the money.

    How much does a Iskander cost? It's launch system? C2 vehicle? Loading vehicle? Production line? Etc?

    In a duel with MLRS which is going to win? 400km behind the frontline the Iskander.... like the guided MLRS rockets will be hitting point targets like air defence systems, HQs, etc. The coverage of the Tender will be much greater than the MLRS and what is safer is cheaper.

    I thought you were going to argue the cost argument? Perhaps you have lost this? In any case, you admitted that the Russians don't have the C4I capability within their arty systems to detect something beyond 90 km so what's to assume they can at 400km? The M270 will know this and play by it's strengths, close in 300 km, bombard the Iskander to pieces with their ATACMS and then wipe out whatever BM-series happens to be around. Multi-purpose = Money saving.

    Perhaps you don't understand the terminology I was using.

    Gun arty = Howitzer
    Tube arty = MLRS

    [quoteSo you have created your own terminology... good for you.

    The rest of the world uses:

    Tube arty = gun and howitzer and mortar... ie weapons that use tubes to accelerate projectiles
    Rocket arty = rockets... usually multiple, but including FROGs.[/quote]

    Obviously tube arty won't apply to rifled guns. Perhaps I'm just more diverse.

    See above. M270 can shoot and scoot in ~5-10 minutes. BM series takes at least 20.

    [quoteRubbish. BM series vehicles are all fully mobile and can start to move as the last rocket is fired.[/quote]

    But it can't reload when it's in a new local as fast. Which means, less pain, more pay.

    The ATACMS can take down a Smerch from farther than the Smerch can.

    Tender can hit targets at 480km range.

    Tender + Smerch = M270.

    If I were whoever manages the logistics in the Russian military I'd trade the two in for a M270-esque platform.

    While, the Smerch has to rely on independent tactical missile launchers
    to take down the M270, which like I've said about twice, is far more
    costly than the M270.

    And also far more capable, while the Smerch can a much better job than the M270 at pretty much every thing else.

    The Smerch can't hit another Smerch from 300 km, which makes it inefficient at it's job v.s. the M270s. Again, multi-purpose, money saving. The M270 is superior in those regards v.s. the BM-series of tube arty.

    ATACMS. So, 1 M270, $2.3m can do the job of: Uragan, Smerch, Tochka. I
    don't know how much each of those cost but they sure as hell don't cost
    $750k each.

    No it can't, and there is no way Grad is $750K, or Uragan, or Smerch, or Tochka. Tender might be.
    Grad, Uragan, Smerch, Tochka and Tender are far superior to M270, both individually and together.

    But I just told you how Uragan and Smerch flops v.s. the M270 Neutral Lack of precision, lack of rapid reload, lack of long-range strike, etc. Grad is a joke.
    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 Apr 16, 2011 12:59 pm

    That's a chronology thing. No one even a picture or even a name of your
    imaginary Russian APFSDS, so thus, it is either your delusion or we
    don't know about it. Logic points us to the former until we actually do
    know about it.

    It is hardly a chronology thing.
    It is a common sense thing.
    Your position equates to the the T-95 is crap because it will have a new 152mm gun but no ammo for it to fire.

    The Burlak upgrade, the Black Eagle, they were all programs that had turret bustle auto loaders that could load longer projectiles.

    I posted a link to a Fofanov page describing a longer penetrator.

    You want to assume they have not and will not develop longer penetrators that is up to you.

    Incorrect. Only a fool would have purchased both. A genius would of had both in one.

    Now look at the difference between what I said and what you said.

    I said a fool would try to rework a shotgun to make it into a sniper rifle.

    Now you claim that someone who needs a shotgun and a sniper rifle should get something that does both.

    I think the fundamental difference here is that the US has an empire to keep in order and actually likes going to war to test its toys out. The problem of course is that it is a little embarassed when its new toys kill people at weddings etc. Obviously it is not Americas fault... no matter what the facts are, but this drives them to try to achieve real precision... that way it becomes easier to justify a war for minor things.

    The Russians on the other hand are facing opponents like NATO and China where collateral damage... who cares?
    Rocket artillery is not precision artillery and shouldn't be.
    Russian features that improve accuracy like inertial nav and gyro stabilisation of rockets is to keep the groups together, not so they just need to fire one rocket.
    The US has forgotten what artillery is.

    Uh...KAB-500-SE?

    GLONASS, not NAVSTAR.

    And the Kh-38, Kh-25, and lots of others as well.

    A mission that Smerch cannot achieve.

    If you want a house levelled that is 90km away Smerch can do it... it will level the whole city block but that house will be toast. If you just want that house destroyed then use Tochka.

    Neither does the M270. But we do have the capability to, to which the
    Russians require 2 vehicles for. Thus, NATO saves the money.

    Except if a M270 battery is operating near the front lines then it is rather more vulnerable than a Smerch battery operating further back because of its extra range.
    In the rocket artillery role the Smerch is better than the M270 already and with the new pallet based model will have the same rapid reload capability... if that were important... which it isn't.

    They are tools for a job and the Smerch and Uragan and Grad are sledge hammers. They are not for putting in tacks, there are other tools for that. As sledge hammers the Smerch has the same number of rockets with significantly longer range with larger warheads. It even has a UAV rocket it can launch to determine if the target is destroyed or if it needs to be hit again.

    I thought you were going to argue the cost argument? Perhaps you have lost this?

    Hardly any point without knowing what everything costs. The Russian rocket artillery vehicles are much cheaper to buy and operate than any track layer and have longer range than the M270 and so are probably safer from counter battery fire.

    In any case, you admitted that the Russians don't have the C4I
    capability within their arty systems to detect something beyond 90 km so
    what's to assume they can at 400km?

    Tochkas and Iskanders(Tender) were used in the Georgian conflict. The Russians have satellite imagery of fixed targets near their borders and can get more with aircraft. It is certainly an area that needs work and they are improving the situation now.

    The M270 will know this and play by it's strengths, close in 300 km,
    bombard the Iskander to pieces with their ATACMS and then wipe out
    whatever BM-series happens to be around.

    Even SA-11 can defeat Lance II type ballistic missiles... can Patriot deal with a manouvering Mach 7 target with decoys and jammers?

    Multi-purpose = Money saving

    All your eggs in one basket you mean.

    Obviously tube arty won't apply to rifled guns. Perhaps I'm just more diverse.

    Yeah cause a rifled barrel is not a tube... hang on... yes it is.
    The funny thing is that the Grad Rocket tubes have a groove to give the rocket some spin as it leaves the rocket launcher... Smile

    But it can't reload when it's in a new local as fast. Which means, less pain, more pay.

    And if it moves any distance it needs to wait for new meteorological data for wind speeds at different altitudes anyway. There will be more than one rocket artillery unit within 90kms of the front line... if the enemy is pathetic enough to concentrate its forces more than twice an hour for an attack then they deserve what they get.


    Tender + Smerch = M270.

    Hahahahaha... you wish. Smerch has much longer range than M270s unguided rockets and that range advantage is going to be extended shortly as they are talking about adding wings that will not greatly increase weight but extend range to about 150km a bit like the wing packages for unguided bombs.
    And Tender has a 480km range with a 480kg warhead.

    If I were whoever manages the logistics in the Russian military I'd trade the two in for a M270-esque platform.

    Tochka might be getting replaced with Tender but Tornado will likely be used to replace Grad and Uragan and suppliment Smerch. HERMES will have truck mounted 40 tube launchers with two stage missiles using terminal seekers and a range of 100km to hit point targets using MMW radar and IIR and GLONASS seekers so I really don't see the problem. There is a distinct difference between rocket artillery and missile artillery that they are working on. The US seems to have combined the two... and good for them.

    The Smerch can't hit another Smerch from 300 km, which makes it inefficient at it's job v.s. the M270s.

    If M270s want to use any ammo other than ATCMs then it will have to move closer to the frontline than that... and even if they don't as soon as they launch Tender will hit them.

    he M270 is superior in those regards v.s. the BM-series of tube arty.

    The primary role of Smerch is to hit grouped enemy forces and in that role out to 90km currently it is ideally suited. M270 can't currently do that because it has no rockets that can be fired in large numbers at more than 40km range.
    Sounds like Smerch is superior to me.

    But I just told you how Uragan and Smerch flops v.s. the M270 Neutral Lack of precision, lack of rapid reload, lack of long-range strike, etc. Grad is a joke.

    Hahahahaha.... now Grad is a joke is it? You are entitled to your opinion of course. Rolling Eyes
    avatar
    Russian Patriot
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1172
    Points : 2066
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 26
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  Russian Patriot on Sat Apr 16, 2011 7:25 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    That's a chronology thing. No one even a picture or even a name of your
    imaginary Russian APFSDS, so thus, it is either your delusion or we
    don't know about it. Logic points us to the former until we actually do
    know about it.

    It is hardly a chronology thing.
    It is a common sense thing.
    Your position equates to the the T-95 is crap because it will have a new 152mm gun but no ammo for it to fire.

    The Burlak upgrade, the Black Eagle, they were all programs that had turret bustle auto loaders that could load longer projectiles.

    I posted a link to a Fofanov page describing a longer penetrator.

    You want to assume they have not and will not develop longer penetrators that is up to you.

    Incorrect. Only a fool would have purchased both. A genius would of had both in one.

    Now look at the difference between what I said and what you said.

    I said a fool would try to rework a shotgun to make it into a sniper rifle.

    Now you claim that someone who needs a shotgun and a sniper rifle should get something that does both.

    I think the fundamental difference here is that the US has an empire to keep in order and actually likes going to war to test its toys out. The problem of course is that it is a little embarassed when its new toys kill people at weddings etc. Obviously it is not Americas fault... no matter what the facts are, but this drives them to try to achieve real precision... that way it becomes easier to justify a war for minor things.

    The Russians on the other hand are facing opponents like NATO and China where collateral damage... who cares?
    Rocket artillery is not precision artillery and shouldn't be.
    Russian features that improve accuracy like inertial nav and gyro stabilisation of rockets is to keep the groups together, not so they just need to fire one rocket.
    The US has forgotten what artillery is.

    Uh...KAB-500-SE?

    GLONASS, not NAVSTAR.

    And the Kh-38, Kh-25, and lots of others as well.

    A mission that Smerch cannot achieve.

    If you want a house levelled that is 90km away Smerch can do it... it will level the whole city block but that house will be toast. If you just want that house destroyed then use Tochka.

    Neither does the M270. But we do have the capability to, to which the
    Russians require 2 vehicles for. Thus, NATO saves the money.

    Except if a M270 battery is operating near the front lines then it is rather more vulnerable than a Smerch battery operating further back because of its extra range.
    In the rocket artillery role the Smerch is better than the M270 already and with the new pallet based model will have the same rapid reload capability... if that were important... which it isn't.

    They are tools for a job and the Smerch and Uragan and Grad are sledge hammers. They are not for putting in tacks, there are other tools for that. As sledge hammers the Smerch has the same number of rockets with significantly longer range with larger warheads. It even has a UAV rocket it can launch to determine if the target is destroyed or if it needs to be hit again.

    I thought you were going to argue the cost argument? Perhaps you have lost this?

    Hardly any point without knowing what everything costs. The Russian rocket artillery vehicles are much cheaper to buy and operate than any track layer and have longer range than the M270 and so are probably safer from counter battery fire.

    In any case, you admitted that the Russians don't have the C4I
    capability within their arty systems to detect something beyond 90 km so
    what's to assume they can at 400km?

    Tochkas and Iskanders(Tender) were used in the Georgian conflict. The Russians have satellite imagery of fixed targets near their borders and can get more with aircraft. It is certainly an area that needs work and they are improving the situation now.

    The M270 will know this and play by it's strengths, close in 300 km,
    bombard the Iskander to pieces with their ATACMS and then wipe out
    whatever BM-series happens to be around.

    Even SA-11 can defeat Lance II type ballistic missiles... can Patriot deal with a manouvering Mach 7 target with decoys and jammers?

    Multi-purpose = Money saving

    All your eggs in one basket you mean.

    Obviously tube arty won't apply to rifled guns. Perhaps I'm just more diverse.

    Yeah cause a rifled barrel is not a tube... hang on... yes it is.
    The funny thing is that the Grad Rocket tubes have a groove to give the rocket some spin as it leaves the rocket launcher... Smile

    But it can't reload when it's in a new local as fast. Which means, less pain, more pay.

    And if it moves any distance it needs to wait for new meteorological data for wind speeds at different altitudes anyway. There will be more than one rocket artillery unit within 90kms of the front line... if the enemy is pathetic enough to concentrate its forces more than twice an hour for an attack then they deserve what they get.


    Tender + Smerch = M270.

    Hahahahaha... you wish. Smerch has much longer range than M270s unguided rockets and that range advantage is going to be extended shortly as they are talking about adding wings that will not greatly increase weight but extend range to about 150km a bit like the wing packages for unguided bombs.
    And Tender has a 480km range with a 480kg warhead.

    If I were whoever manages the logistics in the Russian military I'd trade the two in for a M270-esque platform.

    Tochka might be getting replaced with Tender but Tornado will likely be used to replace Grad and Uragan and suppliment Smerch. HERMES will have truck mounted 40 tube launchers with two stage missiles using terminal seekers and a range of 100km to hit point targets using MMW radar and IIR and GLONASS seekers so I really don't see the problem. There is a distinct difference between rocket artillery and missile artillery that they are working on. The US seems to have combined the two... and good for them.

    The Smerch can't hit another Smerch from 300 km, which makes it inefficient at it's job v.s. the M270s.

    If M270s want to use any ammo other than ATCMs then it will have to move closer to the frontline than that... and even if they don't as soon as they launch Tender will hit them.

    he M270 is superior in those regards v.s. the BM-series of tube arty.

    The primary role of Smerch is to hit grouped enemy forces and in that role out to 90km currently it is ideally suited. M270 can't currently do that because it has no rockets that can be fired in large numbers at more than 40km range.
    Sounds like Smerch is superior to me.

    But I just told you how Uragan and Smerch flops v.s. the M270 Neutral Lack of precision, lack of rapid reload, lack of long-range strike, etc. Grad is a joke.

    Hahahahaha.... now Grad is a joke is it? You are entitled to your opinion of course. Rolling Eyes


    Grad was never a joke but yes they must of worked on Brishma for longer than one year, I agree with you there.
    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 Apr 16, 2011 8:58 pm

    [quote="GarryB"]
    That's a chronology thing. No one even a picture or even a name of your
    imaginary Russian APFSDS, so thus, it is either your delusion or we
    don't know about it. Logic points us to the former until we actually do
    know about it.

    It is hardly a chronology thing.
    It is a common sense thing.
    Your position equates to the the T-95 is crap because it will have a new 152mm gun but no ammo for it to fire.

    The Burlak upgrade, the Black Eagle, they were all programs that had turret bustle auto loaders that could load longer projectiles.

    I posted a link to a Fofanov page describing a longer penetrator.

    You want to assume they have not and will not develop longer penetrators that is up to you.

    Precisely. For all we know, those 152mm rounds could be made out of paper! For all we know. We don't know, don't assume.

    You are kidding me right? That "Fofanov page" you linked, WAS EXACTLY, the one I was talking about. That "long 740 mm round" WAS THE ROUND I WAS TALKING ABOUT. Why you don't understand that the length of the round is not the length of the penetrator, I don't know.


    Incorrect. Only a fool would have purchased both. A genius would of had both in one.

    Now look at the difference between what I said and what you said.

    I said a fool would try to rework a shotgun to make it into a sniper rifle.

    Now you claim that someone who needs a shotgun and a sniper rifle should get something that does both.

    I think the fundamental difference here is that the US has an empire to keep in order and actually likes going to war to test its toys out. The problem of course is that it is a little embarassed when its new toys kill people at weddings etc. Obviously it is not Americas fault... no matter what the facts are, but this drives them to try to achieve real precision... that way it becomes easier to justify a war for minor things.

    The Russians on the other hand are facing opponents like NATO and China where collateral damage... who cares?
    Rocket artillery is not precision artillery and shouldn't be.
    Russian features that improve accuracy like inertial nav and gyro stabilisation of rockets is to keep the groups together, not so they just need to fire one rocket.
    The US has forgotten what artillery is.

    Well, when you're bombarding strategic military targets in Afghanistan, you don't want to use an inprecise 240 mm mortar do you now? The Russians taught us that, do not forget. Don't throw red herrings. The fundamental difference is that the Smerch cannot do the job of the M270 and the Tochka can't do the job of the M270. You'd need both, it's like getting a spoon and a fork, while I have a spork. I'm just a multi-purpose money saver, while you doodle around.

    Uh...KAB-500-SE?

    GLONASS, not NAVSTAR.

    And the Kh-38, Kh-25, and lots of others as well.

    Obviously you really don't understand what GPS meant. If I was talking about NAVSTAR I'd say NAVSTAR.

    A mission that Smerch cannot achieve.

    If you want a house levelled that is 90km away Smerch can do it... it will level the whole city block but that house will be toast. If you just want that house destroyed then use Tochka.

    While if you want both of the two, get a M270. Face it, it's just better. Russia still has it's ATGMs and SAMs, but MLRS wise, it's deficient.

    Neither does the M270. But we do have the capability to, to which the
    Russians require 2 vehicles for. Thus, NATO saves the money.

    Except if a M270 battery is operating near the front lines then it is rather more vulnerable than a Smerch battery operating further back because of its extra range.
    In the rocket artillery role the Smerch is better than the M270 already and with the new pallet based model will have the same rapid reload capability... if that were important... which it isn't.

    They are tools for a job and the Smerch and Uragan and Grad are sledge hammers. They are not for putting in tacks, there are other tools for that. As sledge hammers the Smerch has the same number of rockets with significantly longer range with larger warheads. It even has a UAV rocket it can launch to determine if the target is destroyed or if it needs to be hit again.

    Hahahaha, what did I say about listing things that the Russians make that are unique to themselves but aren't necessarily better? Come on Garry, you're just pulling random scenarios out of your hat to try to rationalize how the M270 is inferior to the Smerch/Tochka when it's quite obvious that a multi-purpose vehicle that can do both jobs fine is clearly superior in terms of both logistics and tactics than to have 2 vehicles that specialize in one of the two areas.

    I thought you were going to argue the cost argument? Perhaps you have lost this?

    Hardly any point without knowing what everything costs. The Russian rocket artillery vehicles are much cheaper to buy and operate than any track layer and have longer range than the M270 and so are probably safer from counter battery fire.

    Of course, no one actually knows how much they cost...perhaps the BM-30 costs $10m USD? Big rockets are expensive am I correct?


    The M270 will know this and play by it's strengths, close in 300 km,
    bombard the Iskander to pieces with their ATACMS and then wipe out
    whatever BM-series happens to be around.

    Even SA-11 can defeat Lance II type ballistic missiles... can Patriot deal with a manouvering Mach 7 target with decoys and jammers?

    You got to be kidding me? Are you going to play the "systems win wars" card again? You know the war will end nuclear, so get back to talking about MRLs, to which, I might add again, the M270 is superior to the BM-series and if you really want to lump them in, the Tochka/Tender tactical missile systems.

    Multi-purpose = Money saving

    All your eggs in one basket you mean.

    All of Russia's eggs maybe. Hit the Tochkas, no more long range. Hit the Smerchs, no more area denial. Hit one M270, the other can do it's job.

    Obviously tube arty won't apply to rifled guns. Perhaps I'm just more diverse.

    Yeah cause a rifled barrel is not a tube... hang on... yes it is.
    The funny thing is that the Grad Rocket tubes have a groove to give the rocket some spin as it leaves the rocket launcher... Smile

    I don't know about you but my tubes are straight. Rockets come out of tubes.

    But it can't reload when it's in a new local as fast. Which means, less pain, more pay.

    And if it moves any distance it needs to wait for new meteorological data for wind speeds at different altitudes anyway. There will be more than one rocket artillery unit within 90kms of the front line... if the enemy is pathetic enough to concentrate its forces more than twice an hour for an attack then they deserve what they get.

    I do think Russia has basic ballistic computers?


    Tender + Smerch = M270.

    Hahahahaha... you wish. Smerch has much longer range than M270s unguided rockets and that range advantage is going to be extended shortly as they are talking about adding wings that will not greatly increase weight but extend range to about 150km a bit like the wing packages for unguided bombs.
    And Tender has a 480km range with a 480kg warhead.

    Playing the wrongs cards again I see. ATACMS will turn Smerch into a thousand Grads. Tender can't kill a grid square. M270 can do both. More capability; less cost; more better.

    If I were whoever manages the logistics in the Russian military I'd trade the two in for a M270-esque platform.

    Tochka might be getting replaced with Tender but Tornado will likely be used to replace Grad and Uragan and suppliment Smerch. HERMES will have truck mounted 40 tube launchers with two stage missiles using terminal seekers and a range of 100km to hit point targets using MMW radar and IIR and GLONASS seekers so I really don't see the problem. There is a distinct difference between rocket artillery and missile artillery that they are working on. The US seems to have combined the two... and good for them.

    The problem is that like I've said, Russian arty is inferior to U.S. arty today. Why you keep arguing the future is not relevant until we see some non-CGI of your mystical Hermes launcher.

    The Smerch can't hit another Smerch from 300 km, which makes it inefficient at it's job v.s. the M270s.

    If M270s want to use any ammo other than ATCMs then it will have to move closer to the frontline than that... and even if they don't as soon as they launch Tender will hit them.

    False. Like you've said, Tender uses "satellite images" of the pre-planned area, obviously they won't know exactly where the rocket was fired and so won't be able to hit a moving target. Remember that because the M270 is so modular, it can fit 6 M-30 GPS-guided rounds and 1 ATACMS rocket, which means that it can kill the BM-30 and then wipe out the local military base and then run away in less than a minute. Tender will need more than that to detect, track, fire, guide, and land it's round, which won't happen because by then they'll be hitting Russian paramedics.

    he M270 is superior in those regards v.s. the BM-series of tube arty.

    The primary role of Smerch is to hit grouped enemy forces and in that role out to 90km currently it is ideally suited. M270 can't currently do that because it has no rockets that can be fired in large numbers at more than 40km range.
    Sounds like Smerch is superior to me.

    huh? Obviously you don't know anything about the M270's rockets which includes the M-30 GPS guided round with 404 submunitons. Not to mention that it can also hit targets precisely and can also hit them at over 300 km with ATACMS, to which, like I've said, is nothing the Smerch can do.

    But I just told you how Uragan and Smerch flops v.s. the M270 Neutral Lack of precision, lack of rapid reload, lack of long-range strike, etc. Grad is a joke.

    Hahahahaha.... now Grad is a joke is it? You are entitled to your opinion of course. Rolling Eyes

    I told you Grad was a joke like 5 posts ago. If you aren't going to read any opposing points than why I continue to fight your impenetrable ignorance, I don't know. But yes, it is a joke, it's rockets are nearly non-lethal and it's inaccurate as hell. Katayushas for the modern day, I'll be waiting for Russia to replace them with the Tornado as that'll be just inching it closer to M270 capability.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed May 24, 2017 5:40 pm