Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  GarryB on Mon Apr 18, 2011 7:24 am


    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.

    I hardly think they decided to put a 152mm gun on a new tank for shts and giggles.
    The armour of opposing tanks would be assessed and a more powerful gun would be developed to defeat existing and potential future armour levels and the a gun AND AMMO would be developed around that.
    Going to a larger calibre is not done on a whim, it is very expensive and makes the ammo larger and bulkier and heavier too, which effects the design of the vehicles and makes it hard to retrofit to older models.

    You can think they are idiots if you like but I rather doubt they would bother with a new calibre without developing ammo for it and ensuring that it was able to do the job required.


    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.

    He was talking about compatibility with the AUTOLOADER, which in every 125mm calibre Russian T series tank stores its ammo in two pieces. In the case of the T-72/90 autoloader both pieces are stored horizontally with their tips pointing inwards.

    Traditionally a round describes a projectile, a cartridge case and propellent. The 125mm round has a stub case and the projectile has an extra propellent charge around it so it can be called a round.
    Talking about carousel limitations means the length of the propellent stub is not relevant.

    If you look at Fofanovs page in the section on armament under the link for 125mm ammo in the section on APFSDS rounds and click on overview and a page in the right hand side appears that describes APFSDS rounds for that calibre in a generic way.

    READ IT.

    If you can't read it here it is here:


    Layout overview




    Most Soviet 125mm APFSDS rounds have the following layout (the round
    assembly depicted is 3BM-16/3BM-18): in the front of the projectile is a
    ballistic cap (1) which covers the nose of a penetrator body (2); there
    is a ring-shaped three-part discarding sabot (3) with a driving band (4);
    stability in flight is provided by means of 5 bore-riding fins (6), that are
    equipped with ballbearings (7) for centering in the barrel. The round is
    assembled with the incremental charge (5).

    In addition to the incremental charge integral to the round, the
    standard propelling charge (4Zh40 or 4Zh52, with newer high-energy
    rounds - 4Zh63) is used;
    APFSDS rounds have an initial velocity between
    1700 and 1800 m/s, and velocity loss of 60-140 m/s/km depending on the
    model and current velocity (older models being faster at muzzle, but
    losing velocity at greater rate).

    The separated sabot petals possess significant kinetic energy and
    are considered a safety hazard out to 1000m and 2° to each side of the
    gun.










    Note the bold bits?

    In fact I will repeat: In addition to the incremental charge integral to the round, the
    standard propelling charge (4Zh40 or 4Zh52, with newer high-energy
    rounds - 4Zh63) is used;

    In other words the projectile with an incremental charge wrapped around the projectile IS THE ROUND.

    In addition to the round is the standard propelling charge stub that you are trying to count as part of the round.

    It certainly could be counted, but Fofanov clearly does not see both pieces together as the round... only the incremental charge and the projectile are termed the "round".
    Clear enough? ...can we get over this? Smile


    Well, when you're bombarding strategic military targets in
    Afghanistan, you don't want to use an inprecise 240 mm mortar do you
    now?

    They did, and it wasn't imprecise they used laser guided shells. The 240mm laser guided Smelchak round was one of the first guided shells they developed for artillery.
    The large physical size of the round and of course the relatively low velocity of the weapon made it cheaper and easier to develop.

    The fundamental difference is that the Smerch cannot do the job of the M270

    When you increase the radius of a circle by 1/3rd you triple the area of the circle. What happens when you increase the range of a rocket system from 40km to 90km?
    In a war with a front line that is important in a war with no solid front line that is even more important.

    and the Tochka can't do the job of the M270.

    Smerch is better as a multiple rocket launcher as real artillery than M270.
    Tochka and Tender are better as point target systems out to extended ranges than ATCCMS or whatever it is called.

    Two completely different jobs done well by two completely different systems in the Russian Army because the Russian Army expects to fight without air support.

    Within the US system the M270 does its job well because it is not for defence it is for attack and is to be used in a situation where they want to control where they are invading so collateral damage is bad because if you kill to many people while stealing their oil they might sabotage the oil industry you are trying to steal.
    It is also expected that the US AF will have control of the skies too.

    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.

    Yet a spoon and a fork and a knife actually make eating easier... if you really want a multipurpose money saver... your fingers can do anything a knife and a fork can do and a spoon? Drink from the plate like a heathen.

    Russia still has it's ATGMs and SAMs, but MLRS wise, it's deficient.

    Hahahahahahahha... you should put smileys when you joke.

    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 understand multi purpose and agree that most of the time it is good, but in this case it is combining two unrelated missions.
    The guided accurate rockets of M270 would be useful for single high priority targets, and for counter battery fire.
    The unguided rockets on the other hand are for area targets that require lots of fragments over wide areas quickly.
    A good example would be fighting an opponent that tends to run away when you hammer them with firepower.
    A Smerch can deliver an enormous number anti vehicle mines behind the enemy to cut off their escape route very rapidly and can do it out to 90km ACCURATELY.
    As I have told you there are inertial guidance systems in each rocket to keep the volleys properly spaced so whether they are firing at targets at 40km or 90km the spread of rockets is not excessive.

    Now after it has fired its rocket barrage that might include a few rockets with HE submunitions falling well short of the minefields to land directly on the enemy forces to encourage them to move back it will move to a new location and start reloading.
    Any enemy effort at counter battery fire in the next few minutes will be ignored by that particular Smerch battery because it is moving.
    A Tender or Tochka battery will be looking for enemy artillery return fire... locate the source and target it with missiles.
    Alternatively another Smerch battery in the region operating with a couple of vehicles with artillery radars could perform that role too with HE and anti armour sub munitions covering the square kilometre minutes after the first rounds of the counter battery fire are detected and tracked to their source.
    An M270 would be in the same boat... after setting up the minefields and perhaps hitting the targets it was supposed to hit it will move out if the enemy has counter battery fire capability.
    If it is moving out then what advantage does it have moving to a new position that needs to be at least a kilometre away from its previous launch position to start to be safe?
    Can it perform counter battery operations on the move with empty rocket tubes?
    Can it afford to remain in position for the 3 minutes it would take to reload in preparation for a counter battery fire mission?
    (I would suggest that it doesn't because it wouldn't take Smerch 3 minutes to locate a rocket artillery barrage source and return 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?

    Bigger rockets are likely more expensive than smaller rockets made by the same producer... I am sure the Russians could make M270 rockets cheaper than the US could however.

    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.

    You are right... lets ignore the forces these vehicles operate with and just look at the vehicles themselves.

    Suddenly the Russian systems win outright. Without the netcentric US imperial military system behind it the M270 wouldn't find point targets at 60km or 300km to hit so those guided munitions are useless and very expensive. Their unguided rockets on the other hand have lower performance than the Russian unguided rockets... even the Grad is comparable in performance to the M270 as it can fire sensor fused submunitions with IR and MMW combined seekers...

    Hang on... I just looked it up on wiki and M270 doesn't have sensor fused submunition rockets... so even the 122mm Grad is better at killing armour!

    The 122mm 9M217 rocket carries 2 sensor fused submunitions each of which has an IR sensor and a MMW sensor and attack the top armour of vehicles using a self forging fragment warhead.
    With 40 tubes that is 80 independently targeting tank killers. If they don't detect a target they convert into an anti belly mine by detecting metal objects travelling over them.

    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.

    Hit Tochkas and there are Tenders... and more Tochkas. Hit Smerch and there are more Smerch and Uragan and Grad and soon Tornado.

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

    It is nothing to do with the presence or otherwise of tubes or rifling.
    The projectile or munition is propelled by propellent in both cases but in tube artillery they are propelled while in the tube with standard ammo. With rockets it is propellent in the rocket that moves the projectile to the target.
    The situation has blurred with tube launched missiles but rockets are rockets and gun launched things are tube launched.

    I do think Russia has basic ballistic computers?

    Yeah, cause firing at targets 90km away is really easy... you don't need to worry about the effect of wind at different altitudes because you can calculate it based on how blue the sky looks...
    Even with state of the art ballistic computers a western sniper firing at targets 2km away will include the wind speed and direction if they want to hit the target. At 90km it becomes even more important including wind speed and direction at different altitudes... even the rotation of the earth has to be taken into account at that distance... Smile

    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.

    Well that shows what you know. Tender can easily kill a grid square... give you a hint... for that mission the warheads power is measured in kilotons.
    ATACMS can be shot down by any medium range or short range Russian SAM except for Strela and Igla.
    M270 is short on range for the area targets and short on range with pin point targets... it is clearly designed to operate in a war where the USAF can hit the real targets and it can prance around and look expensive. Razz

    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.

    Except that Tender and Tochka and Smerch and Uragan and Grad are all in service and new stuff is on the way.

    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.

    Tender has optical, IR, radar, and GLONASS guidance options. Tochka can use the same guidance options and the same warheads

    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.

    One TOR battery could easily take on that sort of threat. While the Smerch will be raining down sensor fuzed sub munitions all around where the rockets came from... wouldn't want to be in a metal vehicle with its engine on...

    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.

    A column of moving M270s should be an easy radar target... and a 480kg cluster munition warhead should be able to carry more than a dozen sensor fused submunitions...

    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.

    A Smerch battery is not supposed to be looking for point targets at 300km range... those targets will be handled much better by Tender.
    And a GPS guided round with a range of only 60km is pathetic. Tochka has more than double this range and has GPS guidance options.

    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.

    Reading does not equate to agreeing.
    Tell me what you know about Grad that makes it a joke and we can talk, or are you saying it is a joke because you don't know any better?

    But yes, it is a joke, it's rockets are nearly non-lethal and it's inaccurate as hell.

    I think perhaps you are referring to the Vietnam era rockets the Palestinians fire at Israel?

    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.

    You do know that Tornado is a modular system and can take rocket pods of 122mm, 220mm, and 300mm calibre?

    There are several options for warhead including thermobaric warheads, HEAT fragmentation submunitions, and of course sensor fused submunitions with IR and MMW radar sensors to attack armour.

    I guess you also know that they have added computers to the old truck and GPS receivers and reduced the crew to two men and have a rocket tube muzzle fuse setting system to set the height of the airburst for the HE warhead rockets. The last model HE rocket has a separating warhead that is deemed 6 times more powerful than the original rocket.

    But no... Grad is rubbish... ask the Georgians... they still use the ones they have left.
    avatar
    Pugnax
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 104
    Points : 95
    Join date : 2011-03-15
    Age : 52
    Location : Canada

    photos of t-95 and t-90am

    Post  Pugnax on Tue Apr 19, 2011 8:12 am

    Ironsides,as far as understanding artillery Garry is correct,the west has substituted precision for terror and mass effect.Artillery is not a scalpel it is the sledge hammer,in this way Russians are supreme because having a long history of near miss debacles, they understand that preservation of state surmounts preservation of the self.War is war ,people will die,rather than a single surgical strike which kills a warlord but leaves a thousand willing jihadis to fill the boots,a massive smash and awe artillery barrage will kill the enemy and destroy any wannabe cults.For scalpel precision ,the use of cell phone gps and cruise missles killed more than 1 georgian warlord.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

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

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  IronsightSniper on Tue Apr 19, 2011 8:55 am

    GarryB wrote:

    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.

    I hardly think they decided to put a 152mm gun on a new tank for shts and giggles.
    The armour of opposing tanks would be assessed and a more powerful gun would be developed to defeat existing and potential future armour levels and the a gun AND AMMO would be developed around that.
    Going to a larger calibre is not done on a whim, it is very expensive and makes the ammo larger and bulkier and heavier too, which effects the design of the vehicles and makes it hard to retrofit to older models.

    You can think they are idiots if you like but I rather doubt they would bother with a new calibre without developing ammo for it and ensuring that it was able to do the job required.

    152mm isn't a new caliber, this will be their new BL-10. So you'd agree that there is no Russian 125mm round that's longer than the BM-42M? Since that's what this paragraph of the whole discussion was about anyways.


    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.

    He was talking about compatibility with the AUTOLOADER, which in every 125mm calibre Russian T series tank stores its ammo in two pieces. In the case of the T-72/90 autoloader both pieces are stored horizontally with their tips pointing inwards.

    Traditionally a round describes a projectile, a cartridge case and propellent. The 125mm round has a stub case and the projectile has an extra propellent charge around it so it can be called a round.
    Talking about carousel limitations means the length of the propellent stub is not relevant.

    If you look at Fofanovs page in the section on armament under the link for 125mm ammo in the section on APFSDS rounds and click on overview and a page in the right hand side appears that describes APFSDS rounds for that calibre in a generic way.

    READ IT.

    If you can't read it here it is here:


    Layout overview




    Most Soviet 125mm APFSDS rounds have the following layout (the round
    assembly depicted is 3BM-16/3BM-18): in the front of the projectile is a
    ballistic cap (1) which covers the nose of a penetrator body (2); there
    is a ring-shaped three-part discarding sabot (3) with a driving band (4);
    stability in flight is provided by means of 5 bore-riding fins (6), that are
    equipped with ballbearings (7) for centering in the barrel. The round is
    assembled with the incremental charge (5).

    In addition to the incremental charge integral to the round, the
    standard propelling charge (4Zh40 or 4Zh52, with newer high-energy
    rounds - 4Zh63) is used;
    APFSDS rounds have an initial velocity between
    1700 and 1800 m/s, and velocity loss of 60-140 m/s/km depending on the
    model and current velocity (older models being faster at muzzle, but
    losing velocity at greater rate).

    The separated sabot petals possess significant kinetic energy and
    are considered a safety hazard out to 1000m and 2° to each side of the
    gun.

    Note the bold bits?

    In fact I will repeat: In addition to the incremental charge integral to the round, the
    standard propelling charge (4Zh40 or 4Zh52, with newer high-energy
    rounds - 4Zh63) is used;

    In other words the projectile with an incremental charge wrapped around the projectile IS THE ROUND.

    In addition to the round is the standard propelling charge stub that you are trying to count as part of the round.

    It certainly could be counted, but Fofanov clearly does not see both pieces together as the round... only the incremental charge and the projectile are termed the "round".
    Clear enough? ...can we get over this? Smile

    You are still not understanding what I am saying. I wasn't referring to the round; you were. I was referring to the penetrator, the thing that actually will hit the tank. That thing is only 500 mm long, why you thought it was 700 mm was your mistake. Like I said, why you didn't understand the difference between the two, I don't know.


    Well, when you're bombarding strategic military targets in
    Afghanistan, you don't want to use an inprecise 240 mm mortar do you
    now?

    They did, and it wasn't imprecise they used laser guided shells. The 240mm laser guided Smelchak round was one of the first guided shells they developed for artillery.
    The large physical size of the round and of course the relatively low velocity of the weapon made it cheaper and easier to develop.

    Yes, and thus less effective! 2 155s w/ Excalibur could of blown more holes in less time than
    the Tulip will ever do. That's one of the reasons why Western arty is coming out on top.

    The fundamental difference is that the Smerch cannot do the job of the M270

    When you increase the radius of a circle by 1/3rd you triple the area of the circle. What happens when you increase the range of a rocket system from 40km to 90km?
    In a war with a front line that is important in a war with no solid front line that is even more important

    Precisely! Now you understand. The Smerch can't defend itself in short ranges when a blitzkrieg of light APVs attacks it. The M270 can. Just another capability the Smerch lacks.

    and the Tochka can't do the job of the M270.

    Smerch is better as a multiple rocket launcher as real artillery than M270.
    Tochka and Tender are better as point target systems out to extended ranges than ATCCMS or whatever it is called.

    Two completely different jobs done well by two completely different systems in the Russian Army because the Russian Army expects to fight without air support.

    Within the US system the M270 does its job well because it is not for defence it is for attack and is to be used in a situation where they want to control where they are invading so collateral damage is bad because if you kill to many people while stealing their oil they might sabotage the oil industry you are trying to steal.
    It is also expected that the US AF will have control of the skies too.

    Well, I just proved to you how the Smerch is an inferior tube arty system (inaccurate rounds, short range). Then I went on to 'prove' how the Tochka is an inferior rocket system (very slow reload, 1 rocket at a time). Plus, developmental costs, rocket costs, logistics, etc. The M270 does the job that both of them tries to do, and perhaps even does it better, all while being cheaper. I don't know what system of measurement you use to gauge the effectiveness of tube arty, but it's quite clear that the M270 is overall superior to the two.

    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.

    Yet a spoon and a fork and a knife actually make eating easier... if you really want a multipurpose money saver... your fingers can do anything a knife and a fork can do and a spoon? Drink from the plate like a heathen.

    Which really just goes to show how advanced and multipurpose Western military techs are; if compared to current Russian and ex-Soviet systems.

    Russia still has it's ATGMs and SAMs, but MLRS wise, it's deficient.

    Hahahahahahahha... you should put smileys when you joke.

    You should stop throwing red herrings when trying to learn.

    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 understand multi purpose and agree that most of the time it is good, but in this case it is combining two unrelated missions.
    The guided accurate rockets of M270 would be useful for single high priority targets, and for counter battery fire.
    The unguided rockets on the other hand are for area targets that require lots of fragments over wide areas quickly.
    A good example would be fighting an opponent that tends to run away when you hammer them with firepower.
    A Smerch can deliver an enormous number anti vehicle mines behind the enemy to cut off their escape route very rapidly and can do it out to 90km ACCURATELY.
    As I have told you there are inertial guidance systems in each rocket to keep the volleys properly spaced so whether they are firing at targets at 40km or 90km the spread of rockets is not excessive.

    Now after it has fired its rocket barrage that might include a few rockets with HE submunitions falling well short of the minefields to land directly on the enemy forces to encourage them to move back it will move to a new location and start reloading.
    Any enemy effort at counter battery fire in the next few minutes will be ignored by that particular Smerch battery because it is moving.
    A Tender or Tochka battery will be looking for enemy artillery return fire... locate the source and target it with missiles.
    Alternatively another Smerch battery in the region operating with a couple of vehicles with artillery radars could perform that role too with HE and anti armour sub munitions covering the square kilometre minutes after the first rounds of the counter battery fire are detected and tracked to their source.
    An M270 would be in the same boat... after setting up the minefields and perhaps hitting the targets it was supposed to hit it will move out if the enemy has counter battery fire capability.
    If it is moving out then what advantage does it have moving to a new position that needs to be at least a kilometre away from its previous launch position to start to be safe?
    Can it perform counter battery operations on the move with empty rocket tubes?
    Can it afford to remain in position for the 3 minutes it would take to reload in preparation for a counter battery fire mission?
    (I would suggest that it doesn't because it wouldn't take Smerch 3 minutes to locate a rocket artillery barrage source and return fire.)

    You are joking right? Tochka/Smerch are essentially MLRS (albeit 1 rocket isn't multiple). The M270, hence, combines the two into a modular platform that can be outfitted with whatever role that needs to be done. In fact, when you're a MLRS, you need to be able to do counter-battery fire to defend yourself, something the Smerch can't do, but something the M270 can. When you need a column of tanks destroyed, you can do that. When you need a safehouse hit, you can do that. With the Smerch? You can, but you'll expend all your rockets on each target and then spend 25 minutes or so relocating and then reloading.

    And lets be honest now, the Smerch can't hit "precisely" at 90 km, it's just more accurate than regular MLRS at that range. It sure as hell isn't as precise as the M30.

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

    [quoteBigger rockets are likely more expensive than smaller rockets made by the same producer... I am sure the Russians could make M270 rockets cheaper than the US could however.

    And I am sure the Chinese would make the rockets for the two of us. But that just goes to show the uneeded expenses that the Russians endure when a multipurpose platform can do the job of the two while cutting costs in half. 2 in 1.

    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.

    [quote[You are right... lets ignore the forces these vehicles operate with and just look at the vehicles themselves.

    Suddenly the Russian systems win outright. Without the netcentric US imperial military system behind it the M270 wouldn't find point targets at 60km or 300km to hit so those guided munitions are useless and very expensive. Their unguided rockets on the other hand have lower performance than the Russian unguided rockets... even the Grad is comparable in performance to the M270 as it can fire sensor fused submunitions with IR and MMW combined seekers...

    Hang on... I just looked it up on wiki and M270 doesn't have sensor fused submunition rockets... so even the 122mm Grad is better at killing armour!

    The 122mm 9M217 rocket carries 2 sensor fused submunitions each of which has an IR sensor and a MMW sensor and attack the top armour of vehicles using a self forging fragment warhead.
    With 40 tubes that is 80 independently targeting tank killers. If they don't detect a target they convert into an anti belly mine by detecting metal objects travelling over them.[/quote]

    Unfortunately, those Grads will be pounded by ATACMS. If you want to pretend that Russia has a competent ASAT force, lets assume NAVSTAR is in the pooper. At which point, I should add, the M270 also has IR guided EFP submunitions (why you didn't see SADARM, I don't know), which will make a mince meat out of T-90s and other mobile bunkers.

    But Reality! Getting back on point, if the war doesn't end nuclear it's a proxy war. If it does, at least the M270 came out on top.

    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.

    Hit Tochkas and there are Tenders... and more Tochkas. Hit Smerch and there are more Smerch and Uragan and Grad and soon Tornado.

    Hit them all! No more long range; or no more area denial. While in the M270, any and each can do it's job.

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

    It is nothing to do with the presence or otherwise of tubes or rifling.
    The projectile or munition is propelled by propellent in both cases but in tube artillery they are propelled while in the tube with standard ammo. With rockets it is propellent in the rocket that moves the projectile to the target.
    The situation has blurred with tube launched missiles but rockets are rockets and gun launched things are tube launched.

    I don't know about you, but there is a fundamental difference between "tube arty" and "gun arty" even in it's etymology. Gun arty, as you might know, refers to a round that is propelled by a foreign source. While a tube arty is, well, just a tube. Rockets come out of tubes.

    I do think Russia has basic ballistic computers?

    Yeah, cause firing at targets 90km away is really easy... you don't need to worry about the effect of wind at different altitudes because you can calculate it based on how blue the sky looks...
    Even with state of the art ballistic computers a western sniper firing at targets 2km away will include the wind speed and direction if they want to hit the target. At 90km it becomes even more important including wind speed and direction at different altitudes... even the rotation of the earth has to be taken into account at that distance... Smile

    Perhaps Russia requires modern ballistic computers then.

    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.

    Well that shows what you know. Tender can easily kill a grid square... give you a hint... for that mission the warheads power is measured in kilotons.
    ATACMS can be shot down by any medium range or short range Russian SAM except for Strela and Igla.
    M270 is short on range for the area targets and short on range with pin point targets... it is clearly designed to operate in a war where the USAF can hit the real targets and it can prance around and look expensive. Razz

    I told you, this will end nuclear (I CAN READ YOUR MIND). Assuming ATACMS isn't the thing that's going to turn those "short-medium" range SAMs, that is, you know, because it's very accurate and all. In fact, the M270 has a longer range than the Uragan which is only a tube diameter of 7 mm short of the M270. I mean, your house of cards is turning into a house of magic now. You know very well that all arty acts like land-based air support, it's just that the M270 is like a B1-B while the Uragan is like the B-25.

    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.

    Except that Tender and Tochka and Smerch and Uragan and Grad are all in service and new stuff is on the way.

    But I just told you how Tochka/Smerch and the BM pals are inferior...

    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.

    Tender has optical, IR, radar, and GLONASS guidance options. Tochka can use the same guidance options and the same warheads

    It only has Inertial with GPS or Optical or Radar.

    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.

    One TOR battery could easily take on that sort of threat. While the Smerch will be raining down sensor fuzed sub munitions all around where the rockets came from... wouldn't want to be in a metal vehicle with its engine on...

    Unfortunately, the M270 wouldn't be in range.

    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.

    A column of moving M270s should be an easy radar target... and a 480kg cluster munition warhead should be able to carry more than a dozen sensor fused submunitions...

    Should be, unfortunately Tender will probably be whacked too.

    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.

    A Smerch battery is not supposed to be looking for point targets at 300km range... those targets will be handled much better by Tender.
    And a GPS guided round with a range of only 60km is pathetic. Tochka has more than double this range and has GPS guidance options.

    Of course, ATACMS has double the range of Tochka +GPS guidance system. Like I've said before, the BM-series is not as capable as the M270. The Tochka isn't either.

    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.

    Reading does not equate to agreeing.
    Tell me what you know about Grad that makes it a joke and we can talk, or are you saying it is a joke because you don't know any better?

    It's a joke because now Russia has a family of 3 (you can argue 4) MLRS systems, who's rockets and warhead's ranges from the shortest range of the M270 to it's longest range. Literally, the M270 is doing the job of 4 Russian systems, thankfully they're fixing that but that's just hilariously expensive and ineffective. Grad was the joke of the BM-series as it's not too much cheaper than it's bigger brothers yet it's more inaccurate than the Tulip while putting down pencil-projectiles. It may be good if you want to blanket Tel Aviv with Grads but otherwise it's pretty shitty.

    But yes, it is a joke, it's rockets are nearly non-lethal and it's inaccurate as hell.

    [quoteI think perhaps you are referring to the Vietnam era rockets the Palestinians fire at Israel?[/quote]

    No, I'm referring to it's supposedly, "modern" ones. If by modern they meant 90s era, sure.

    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.

    You do know that Tornado is a modular system and can take rocket pods of 122mm, 220mm, and 300mm calibre?

    There are several options for warhead including thermobaric warheads, HEAT fragmentation submunitions, and of course sensor fused submunitions with IR and MMW radar sensors to attack armour.

    I guess you also know that they have added computers to the old truck and GPS receivers and reduced the crew to two men and have a rocket tube muzzle fuse setting system to set the height of the airburst for the HE warhead rockets. The last model HE rocket has a separating warhead that is deemed 6 times more powerful than the original rocket.

    But no... Grad is rubbish... ask the Georgians... they still use the ones they have left.

    Exactly, unfortunately the Tornado isn't modular enough to use tactical ballistic missiles which means it's still mince meat for the M270.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  GarryB on Tue Apr 19, 2011 12:55 pm

    For scalpel precision ,the use of cell phone gps and cruise missles killed more than 1 georgian warlord.

    The missile or bomb or munition might have excellent precision... the fact is that the payload is an explosive that has a spherical blast and kills in every direction... not just at the person it might be aimed at.

    The talk of scalpel, and surgical strikes and precision weapons is just western bullshit to hide the fact that weapons kill and they often kill people the operators don't want to kill.

    So you'd agree that there is no Russian 125mm round that's longer than the BM-42M?

    The BM-42M was developed in the late 1990s I rather expect, considering they have come out with a new APFSDS round every 4 years or so that there are likely at least 2 other designs we don't know anything about, and if they haven't already they will right now be developing newer longer penetrators knowing that the T-90AM is the new standard T-90 tank design.

    You are still not understanding what I am saying. I wasn't referring to
    the round; you were. I was referring to the penetrator, the thing that
    actually will hit the tank. That thing is only 500 mm long, why you
    thought it was 700 mm was your mistake. Like I said, why you didn't
    understand the difference between the two, I don't know.

    Because if you look at the APFSDS section in the left hand side below where it links to the overview posted above, there is a link below it called nomenclature and if you click on that link it lists all the rounds known at the time the page was written and if you scroll to near the bottom it lists the details of the round in a table.
    Under the section on the inflight projectile it tells you the material the projectile is made of... in this case W for Wolfram or Tungsten... and it also gives the length of the projectile... 730mm. Further down the table it lists the penetrator as 570mm by 22mm, but that is the penetrator component of the projectile.

    Yes, and thus less effective! 2 155s w/ Excalibur could of blown more holes in less time than
    the Tulip will ever do. That's one of the reasons why Western arty is coming out on top.

    What do you mean less effective? Since when would a 130 kg HE round be less effective than rounds with 7kg warheads? There are reasons heavier weapons are used... there were reasons the Tu-16 bomber was used in Afghanistan instead of more modern ones... I will give you a hint... FAB-5000.

    Very simply a little bomb will have little effect on most cave systems, you need a heavy hammer in the exact right place to do the job... and the Tulip did the job.

    Precisely! Now you understand. The Smerch can't defend itself in short
    ranges when a blitzkrieg of light APVs attacks it. The M270 can. Just
    another capability the Smerch lacks.

    SMERCH can fire sensor fuzed submunitions that will target and destroy armour accurately and precisely far better than the M270 can and out to much greater ranges.

    The area the SMERCH can cover without moving is more than triple the area the M270 can cover.

    And it is the precision anti armour capability out to 90km that the M270 lacks.

    Well, I just proved to you how the Smerch is an inferior tube arty system (inaccurate rounds, short range).

    Smerch is rocket artillery and outranges M270 and is more accurate.

    Then I went on to 'prove' how the Tochka is an inferior rocket system (very slow reload, 1 rocket at a time).

    But a battery has 6 rockets that are more accurate than anything the M270 can fire with a wide range of warheads including nuclear and a range of guidance options too.

    Plus, developmental costs, rocket costs, logistics, etc.

    Costs are already paid for.

    The M270 does the job that both of them tries to do, and perhaps even
    does it better, all while being cheaper. I don't know what system of
    measurement you use to gauge the effectiveness of tube arty, but it's
    quite clear that the M270 is overall superior to the two.

    M270 is too expensive and short on range to be rocket artillery and short on range for the missile precision strike role. It fails.

    Which really just goes to show how advanced and multipurpose Western
    military techs are; if compared to current Russian and ex-Soviet
    systems.

    The problem with multipurpose things like Sporks is that you usually end up using your hand to push food onto it, which is very unhygenic. It might be reducing your load but is less efficient and harder to use to save yourself the weight of a knife or fork or spoon. It is a gimmick.


    You should stop throwing red herrings when trying to learn.

    Even in a backwater like the 58th Army near Georgia where the forces don't even have first rate or second rate armour and equipment they still had Tochka and Tender and Smerch available to use within hours.
    I think this clearly shows their rocket and missile artillery is not deficient.

    Tochka/Smerch are essentially MLRS (albeit 1 rocket isn't multiple).

    Rubbish, they are theatre tactical precision strike. The Tochka replaces a volley of chemical warhead or bio warhead equipped FROG-7 rockets likely aimed at front line airfields or HQ or staging areas. The Tender replaces the Scud in engaging airfields and ammo depots and HQs and staging areas and logistics hubs further back.
    A MLRS is a rapid heavy barrage system to defeat enemy forces when the group up for an attack or when they group up to defend from an attack.
    They are for area targets so precision is not important, but coverage is. That is why the Smerch has INS and gyro stabilisation in each rockets, not so the rocket hits the target exactly but so that the volley stays close together to make sure the coverage of bomblets or warheads or munitions is kept over the target area rather than spread randomly.

    The M270, hence, combines the two into a modular platform that can be outfitted with whatever role that needs to be done.

    M270 is mediocre at both roles.

    In fact, when you're a MLRS, you need to be able to do counter-battery
    fire to defend yourself, something the Smerch can't do, but something
    the M270 can.

    Why wouldn't a Smerch battery be able to perform counter battery missions?

    Smerch has guided anti armour munitions and could take out an armoured column using a couple of rockets.

    And lets be honest now, the Smerch can't hit "precisely" at 90 km, it's
    just more accurate than regular MLRS at that range. It sure as hell
    isn't as precise as the M30.

    M270 can deliver barrage fire at 90km range. M30 has zero accuracy at 90km... it has a range of 60km.

    And I am sure the Chinese would make the rockets for the two of us.

    And one in three might work but they wont have the range or accuracy of the Russian or American rockets.

    But that just goes to show the uneeded expenses that the Russians endure
    when a multipurpose platform can do the job of the two while cutting
    costs in half. 2 in 1.

    You can think that if you want, but for Russia rocket artillery and precision guided missile artillery are different things used at different times requiring different assets at different levels.
    The average Smerch battery will shoot at area targets and perform counter battery roles, but targets 300km inside enemy territory they will know little about most of the time as they will be busy suppressing enemy artillery, large armour formations and forward SAM sites/HQ/airfields etc etc.

    Unfortunately, those Grads will be pounded by ATACMS.

    How? Those grads will not reveal their position till they fire and it takes 20 seconds to fire all 40 rockets and 30 seconds later they are driving to their next launch position.

    The Grad trucks will be moving before their last rockets have hit the target.

    And even if they remained there a single TOR battery could protect them from ATACMS.

    At which point, I should add, the M270 also has IR guided EFP
    submunitions (why you didn't see SADARM, I don't know), which will make a
    mince meat out of T-90s and other mobile bunkers.

    APUs will greatly reduce IR signature... along with any fitted with Nakidka kits, and of course the fact that Russian decoy tanks have IR signatures too... and of course when T-90s are in M270 range then the M270 will be within Smerch range and Tochka range and Tender range.

    If it does, at least the M270 came out on top.

    Hahahahahaha... when was the last proxy war the M270 came up against Smerch?

    I don't know about you, but there is a fundamental difference between
    "tube arty" and "gun arty" even in it's etymology. Gun arty, as you
    might know, refers to a round that is propelled by a foreign source.
    While a tube arty is, well, just a tube. Rockets come out of tubes.

    Katusha is fired from a rail and not a tube. Referring the the eytymology of a word is amusing... are you suggesting a hand grenade is a type of fruit because the word for grenade came from a type of fruit?

    Perhaps Russia requires modern ballistic computers then.

    The sophistication of the ballistic computer is irrelevant... all calculations need to include wind speed at different altitudes for tube and rocket artillery to be approaching accurate.

    You know very well that all arty acts like land-based air support, it's
    just that the M270 is like a B1-B while the Uragan is like the B-25.

    Now you are getting childish.

    But I just told you how Tochka/Smerch and the BM pals are inferior...

    You also told me they are tube artillery...

    Unfortunately, the M270 wouldn't be in range.

    But it would because you said they would fire one ATCAMS and 6 GPS guided rockets... the latter only have a range of 60km which means it is well within the 90km range of SMERCH.

    Should be, unfortunately Tender will probably be whacked too.

    And M270 would be near the front line and likely whacked very quickly.

    Of course, ATACMS has double the range of Tochka +GPS guidance system.
    Like I've said before, the BM-series is not as capable as the M270. The
    Tochka isn't either.

    Again with this childish rubbish. ATACMS can be shot down easily so it is irrelevant. Tochka has double the range of the GPS guided M270 rockets and a much larger payload.

    It's a joke because now Russia has a family of 3 (you can argue 4) MLRS
    systems, who's rockets and warhead's ranges from the shortest range of
    the M270 to it's longest range.

    And still more expensive to operate being a tracked vehicle.

    Literally, the M270 is doing the job of 4 Russian systems, thankfully
    they're fixing that but that's just hilariously expensive and
    ineffective.

    It is M270 that is expensive and ineffective. Most of its roles can now be done by tube artillery with guided shells or short range strike aircraft.

    Grad was the joke of the BM-series as it's not too much cheaper than
    it's bigger brothers yet it's more inaccurate than the Tulip while
    putting down pencil-projectiles. It may be good if you want to blanket
    Tel Aviv with Grads but otherwise it's pretty shitty.

    Yeah... it must be crap... I see Egypt and Pakistan still make them too... must be rubbish.

    Exactly, unfortunately the Tornado isn't modular enough to use tactical
    ballistic missiles which means it's still mince meat for the M270.

    It has enough range to destroy the grid square kilometre around the M270 up to 90km distant... at that range the M270 can fire two ATACMS which should be easy to bring down.
    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 20, 2011 10:14 pm

    So you'd agree that there is no Russian 125mm round that's longer than the BM-42M?

    The BM-42M was developed in the late 1990s I rather expect, considering they have come out with a new APFSDS round every 4 years or so that there are likely at least 2 other designs we don't know anything about, and if they haven't already they will right now be developing newer longer penetrators knowing that the T-90AM is the new standard T-90 tank design.

    Let me rephrase that, no Russian 125mm round that we know of?

    You are still not understanding what I am saying. I wasn't referring to
    the round; you were. I was referring to the penetrator, the thing that
    actually will hit the tank. That thing is only 500 mm long, why you
    thought it was 700 mm was your mistake. Like I said, why you didn't
    understand the difference between the two, I don't know.

    Because if you look at the APFSDS section in the left hand side below where it links to the overview posted above, there is a link below it called nomenclature and if you click on that link it lists all the rounds known at the time the page was written and if you scroll to near the bottom it lists the details of the round in a table.
    Under the section on the inflight projectile it tells you the material the projectile is made of... in this case W for Wolfram or Tungsten... and it also gives the length of the projectile... 730mm. Further down the table it lists the penetrator as 570mm by 22mm, but that is the penetrator component of the projectile.

    Precisely. You shoulda read the whole page before you thought you knew what you were talking about.

    Yes, and thus less effective! 2 155s w/ Excalibur could of blown more holes in less time than
    the Tulip will ever do. That's one of the reasons why Western arty is coming out on top.

    What do you mean less effective? Since when would a 130 kg HE round be less effective than rounds with 7kg warheads? There are reasons heavier weapons are used... there were reasons the Tu-16 bomber was used in Afghanistan instead of more modern ones... I will give you a hint... FAB-5000.

    Same reason why MIRVs are more common place than Unitary warheads. Same reason why submunitions are more commong than Unitary muntions. More rounds, less dispersion, more concentration, more doom. Not to mention the terrible reload/range of the Tulip.


    Very simply a little bomb will have little effect on most cave systems, you need a heavy hammer in the exact right place to do the job... and the Tulip did the job.

    I heard they missed half the time too.

    Precisely! Now you understand. The Smerch can't defend itself in short
    ranges when a blitzkrieg of light APVs attacks it. The M270 can. Just
    another capability the Smerch lacks.

    SMERCH can fire sensor fuzed submunitions that will target and destroy armour accurately and precisely far better than the M270 can and out to much greater ranges.

    The area the SMERCH can cover without moving is more than triple the area the M270 can cover.

    And it is the precision anti armour capability out to 90km that the M270 lacks.

    Didn't I just say "defend itself"? The Smerch can't hit anything it can't see; it can't see a blitzkrieg coming right for it, therefore, it's doomed because of it's lack of short-long range modularity, something that M270 has.

    Well, I just proved to you how the Smerch is an inferior tube arty system (inaccurate rounds, short range).

    Smerch is rocket artillery and outranges M270 and is more accurate.

    Smerch can't hit a house at 300 km, M270 can.

    You really aren't doing anything but ignoring contrary evidence now.

    Then I went on to 'prove' how the Tochka is an inferior rocket system (very slow reload, 1 rocket at a time).

    But a battery has 6 rockets that are more accurate than anything the M270 can fire with a wide range of warheads including nuclear and a range of guidance options too.

    A battery lol. 6 M270s = 12 ATACMS which outrange and and out-precisions the Tochkas.

    Plus, developmental costs, rocket costs, logistics, etc.

    Costs are already paid for.

    Same with the M270. Except we paid less.

    The M270 does the job that both of them tries to do, and perhaps even
    does it better, all while being cheaper. I don't know what system of
    measurement you use to gauge the effectiveness of tube arty, but it's
    quite clear that the M270 is overall superior to the two.

    M270 is too expensive and short on range to be rocket artillery and short on range for the missile precision strike role. It fails.

    The M270 is cheaper than what the Russians need to accomplish it's job, it's rockets have longer range than same caliber tube arty, it's precision missiles have longer range than the Tochka and is more accurate. Again, I don't know if you're even thinking now.

    Which really just goes to show how advanced and multipurpose Western
    military techs are; if compared to current Russian and ex-Soviet
    systems.

    The problem with multipurpose things like Sporks is that you usually end up using your hand to push food onto it, which is very unhygenic. It might be reducing your load but is less efficient and harder to use to save yourself the weight of a knife or fork or spoon. It is a gimmick.

    If only you knew how to use a spork to avoid spork-to-hand incidents. Which we Americans are very well adapted for, the Russians probably still need trade schools for fork and spoon handling.


    You should stop throwing red herrings when trying to learn.

    Even in a backwater like the 58th Army near Georgia where the forces don't even have first rate or second rate armour and equipment they still had Tochka and Tender and Smerch available to use within hours.
    I think this clearly shows their rocket and missile artillery is not deficient.

    If it's available to use, that's good. But will it do it's job? Maybe.

    Tochka/Smerch are essentially MLRS (albeit 1 rocket isn't multiple).

    Rubbish, they are theatre tactical precision strike. The Tochka replaces a volley of chemical warhead or bio warhead equipped FROG-7 rockets likely aimed at front line airfields or HQ or staging areas. The Tender replaces the Scud in engaging airfields and ammo depots and HQs and staging areas and logistics hubs further back.
    A MLRS is a rapid heavy barrage system to defeat enemy forces when the group up for an attack or when they group up to defend from an attack.
    They are for area targets so precision is not important, but coverage is. That is why the Smerch has INS and gyro stabilisation in each rockets, not so the rocket hits the target exactly but so that the volley stays close together to make sure the coverage of bomblets or warheads or munitions is kept over the target area rather than spread randomly.

    If Russia's supreme logic of "throw more, hope for hits" is essentially better than ours of "throw less, get hits" than I pity the Smerch as if all it needs to do is launch rockets, move away, then wait 20 minutes, while all we have to do is launch 1 rocket, relocate, launch another, relocate, etc etc, as our rockets will essentially hit anything we tell it to compared to the Smerch where it has to spam rockets to do what it needs, than I consider that totally deficient. You are trying to argue that the role of the Smerch is essentially inaccurate suppressive fire but if it needed an INS system than it's Russia's attempt at precision strike capability; to which failed. Maybe I'm just a maverick but I don't need to waste ammo.

    The M270, hence, combines the two into a modular platform that can be outfitted with whatever role that needs to be done.

    M270 is mediocre at both roles.

    This may be true in the sense that it fires light rockets and light missiles. But essentially it can do both jobs while being cheaper; which means tactically, they're on par, strategically, the M270 is supreme.

    In fact, when you're a MLRS, you need to be able to do counter-battery
    fire to defend yourself, something the Smerch can't do, but something
    the M270 can.

    Why wouldn't a Smerch battery be able to perform counter battery missions?

    Smerch has guided anti armour munitions and could take out an armoured column using a couple of rockets.

    You need the same range or more than the incoming projectiles to do counter-battery. 300 km > 90 km.

    And lets be honest now, the Smerch can't hit "precisely" at 90 km, it's
    just more accurate than regular MLRS at that range. It sure as hell
    isn't as precise as the M30.

    M270 can deliver barrage fire at 90km range. M30 has zero accuracy at 90km... it has a range of 60km.

    If you think M270 can reach 90 km you must be asleep or something Rolling Eyes

    The GPS guidance will work at any range (till battery dies). The missile can only go as far as it's fuel allows.

    At 60 km the M30 has the accuracy of a JDAM.

    And I am sure the Chinese would make the rockets for the two of us.

    And one in three might work but they wont have the range or accuracy of the Russian or American rockets.

    China has the longest range MLRS in the world.

    But that just goes to show the uneeded expenses that the Russians endure
    when a multipurpose platform can do the job of the two while cutting
    costs in half. 2 in 1.

    You can think that if you want, but for Russia rocket artillery and precision guided missile artillery are different things used at different times requiring different assets at different levels.
    The average Smerch battery will shoot at area targets and perform counter battery roles, but targets 300km inside enemy territory they will know little about most of the time as they will be busy suppressing enemy artillery, large armour formations and forward SAM sites/HQ/airfields etc etc.

    Maybe I'm just a Maverick, but if I had a gun that can do all the job of all infantry held weapons fine, I'll prefer that over any other gun. That's essentially what the M270 is, well, more so than the BM series.

    Unfortunately, those Grads will be pounded by ATACMS.

    [quite]How? Those grads will not reveal their position till they fire and it takes 20 seconds to fire all 40 rockets and 30 seconds later they are driving to their next launch position.

    The Grad trucks will be moving before their last rockets have hit the target.

    And even if they remained there a single TOR battery could protect them from ATACMS.[/quote]

    The M270 won't reveal itself until the Grad fires. Even if TOR is present (seriously, I told you, nuke war, both dead, you never listen), it'll get hit by F-15, if not, F-16, if not, F-18, if not, B-1, if not B-2, if not B-52, if not, AC-130, if not, A-10, if not, Apache, if not, Cobra, if not, F-22, if not, F-35, if not...etc etc etc

    At which point, I should add, the M270 also has IR guided EFP
    submunitions (why you didn't see SADARM, I don't know), which will make a
    mince meat out of T-90s and other mobile bunkers.

    APUs will greatly reduce IR signature... along with any fitted with Nakidka kits, and of course the fact that Russian decoy tanks have IR signatures too... and of course when T-90s are in M270 range then the M270 will be within Smerch range and Tochka range and Tender range.

    T-90s don't have Nakidka and a 1 kw APU will last them like an hour.

    If it does, at least the M270 came out on top.

    Hahahahahaha... when was the last proxy war the M270 came up against Smerch?

    I don't know, you seem to think there has been? :neutral:

    I don't know about you, but there is a fundamental difference between
    "tube arty" and "gun arty" even in it's etymology. Gun arty, as you
    might know, refers to a round that is propelled by a foreign source.
    While a tube arty is, well, just a tube. Rockets come out of tubes.

    Katusha is fired from a rail and not a tube. Referring the the eytymology of a word is amusing... are you suggesting a hand grenade is a type of fruit because the word for grenade came from a type of fruit?

    Perhaps Katyusha is not a tube arty then?

    Perhaps Russia requires modern ballistic computers then.

    The sophistication of the ballistic computer is irrelevant... all calculations need to include wind speed at different altitudes for tube and rocket artillery to be approaching accurate.

    I heard there are nice ballistic computers that do that.

    You know very well that all arty acts like land-based air support, it's
    just that the M270 is like a B1-B while the Uragan is like the B-25.

    Now you are getting childish.

    Just playing fair.

    But I just told you how Tochka/Smerch and the BM pals are inferior...

    You also told me they are tube artillery...

    I bet you're fed up about that.

    Unfortunately, the M270 wouldn't be in range.

    But it would because you said they would fire one ATCAMS and 6 GPS guided rockets... the latter only have a range of 60km which means it is well within the 90km range of SMERCH.

    I didn't say that the Smerch was in the base that was hit by the M30s.

    Should be, unfortunately Tender will probably be whacked too.

    And M270 would be near the front line and likely whacked very quickly.

    Near the front, out of range.

    Of course, ATACMS has double the range of Tochka +GPS guidance system.
    Like I've said before, the BM-series is not as capable as the M270. The
    Tochka isn't either.

    Again with this childish rubbish. ATACMS can be shot down easily so it is irrelevant. Tochka has double the range of the GPS guided M270 rockets and a much larger payload.

    Personally I think it's childish that you think the ATACMS will be shot down. Tochka has half the range of ATACMS.

    It's a joke because now Russia has a family of 3 (you can argue 4) MLRS
    systems, who's rockets and warhead's ranges from the shortest range of
    the M270 to it's longest range.

    And still more expensive to operate being a tracked vehicle.

    Cheaper overall.

    Literally, the M270 is doing the job of 4 Russian systems, thankfully
    they're fixing that but that's just hilariously expensive and
    ineffective.

    It is M270 that is expensive and ineffective. Most of its roles can now be done by tube artillery with guided shells or short range strike aircraft.

    You'd think a plane with bombs and 4 MLRS + gun arty w/ non-exsistant Russian GPS shells is going to cost more than 1 M270. Perhaps Russia has them made in China, would explain a lot.

    Grad was the joke of the BM-series as it's not too much cheaper than
    it's bigger brothers yet it's more inaccurate than the Tulip while
    putting down pencil-projectiles. It may be good if you want to blanket
    Tel Aviv with Grads but otherwise it's pretty shitty.

    Yeah... it must be crap... I see Egypt and Pakistan still make them too... must be rubbish.

    Sarcasm aside, essentially yes.

    Exactly, unfortunately the Tornado isn't modular enough to use tactical
    ballistic missiles which means it's still mince meat for the M270.

    It has enough range to destroy the grid square kilometre around the M270 up to 90km distant... at that range the M270 can fire two ATACMS which should be easy to bring down.

    Unfortunately the Tornado wouldn't be in range if the M270 were to fire it's ATACMS. Finally, I'll just like to list what the Russians need, according to you, to counter the M270, if you don't mind:

    4 MLRS (Grad, Uragan, Smerch, Tochka) + Msta w/ imaginary Russian GPS-shells + "Short range aircraft" w/ guided munitions + TOR-M1 short-range ADS.

    Which according to you, are all cheaper than the M270.


    This is why no one takes you seriously lol!
    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 21, 2011 5:15 am

    Let me rephrase that, no Russian 125mm round that we know of?

    During the 1990s... a period of very little funding they developed the BM-42M.
    Is it logical to assume they stopped working on penetrators in the late 1990s?
    If you could prove that we knew everything about everything they are working on you would have a very good point. Problem is that we know there are lots of things they are working on we don't have a clue about so your argument that because we don't know what they are working on now means they must not be working on anything does not hold water.

    Precisely. You shoulda read the whole page before you thought you knew what you were talking about.

    The length of the projectile is 730mm.

    Same reason why MIRVs are more common place than Unitary warheads. Same
    reason why submunitions are more commong than Unitary muntions. More
    rounds, less dispersion, more concentration, more doom. Not to mention
    the terrible reload/range of the Tulip.

    For some targets submunitions are useless... trying to hit a weapons store in a cave network using HEAT bomblets is pointless... the reason they put it in caves is to protect it from attack so you need a large heavy accurate warhead to penetrate and have the power to blow down into the cave and set off the ammo stored there. That is why they chose to use the Tulip because it has a steep trajectory, a very heavy shell, and with laser guidance it has the accuracy to precisely hit where it is needed. The terrain where it was used air power was unable to do the job. It managed the job in a few shots.

    I heard they missed half the time too.

    Air power had completely failed to have an effect because of the terrain in the area. I am sure the US would not have any problems taking out a cave network it had no information about the layout of because they use magic. The Tulip got the job done. It was very accurate, but they did need a few shots to find a vulnerable area to hit to destroy the dump.

    Didn't I just say "defend itself"? The Smerch can't hit anything it
    can't see; it can't see a blitzkrieg coming right for it, therefore,
    it's doomed because of it's lack of short-long range modularity,
    something that M270 has.

    WTF are you talking about? Smerch has its own UAVs... if it spots an armoured unit approaching it it can fire anti armour submunitions and guided bomblets to take the armoured unit out.

    Smerch can't hit a house at 300 km, M270 can.

    WTF would rocket artillery be targeting an individual house 300km away for?
    Tender would deal with that.

    You really aren't doing anything but ignoring contrary evidence now.

    What evidence? M270 can't detect point targets at 300km it needs information from HQ. When it fires that one missile at the target the whole battery has to move because the launching of that ATACMS reveals the location of that unit and while it moves to a new location that M270 battery is useless to the forces it is supposed to be supporting... wow that is handy.

    Sounds to me like the M270 will spend most of its time moving... which will make it an ideal target for aircraft with radar like Su-34s.

    A battery lol. 6 M270s = 12 ATACMS which outrange and and out-precisions the Tochkas.

    And a battery of 8 Tenders each vehicle carrying two missiles means 16 Tender-M missiles with 480km range that are unlikely to be shot down by any air defence systems the US deploys... unlike ATACMS which will be sitting ducks.

    Same with the M270. Except we paid less.

    You paid less?
    You paid for Honest John (ie Tochka), and Lance II (Tender), and withdrew them and paid for ATACMS as well. You also paid for Pershing too so your bloated budget is perfectly justified.
    You also pay for the increased operational costs of a tracked vehicle to carry around your rockets...

    It is not an accident that when Finland bought M270s it is having 122mm calibre rocket tube adapters fitted so it can save money by training with 122mm rockets. They only have the 20km range 122mm rockets BTW.
    Egypt seems to be continuing production of 122mm rockets while using M270s as well so it seems some countries appreciate them.

    The M270 is cheaper than what the Russians need to accomplish it's job,
    it's rockets have longer range than same caliber tube arty, it's
    precision missiles have longer range than the Tochka and is more
    accurate. Again, I don't know if you're even thinking now.

    Hahahahahahahahahaha... reminds me of Discovery Channel trying to say how big and powerful American heavy lift helos are without mentioning that they are not the biggest or the best. The most powerful helo in the West. M270 is expensive for what it is. The vast majority of its rockets used in its primary role of square grid remover and not longer ranged than rockets currently used in the 122mm Grad system, and are comparable in range to the similar calibre Uragan and have less than half the range of the 300mm Smerch rockets used in the same role.
    M270 can fire a missile but that missiles performance does not exceed the performance of the Tender-M used in the Russian military in some of the same roles, but also used in other roles as well.

    If only you knew how to use a spork to avoid spork-to-hand incidents.
    Which we Americans are very well adapted for, the Russians probably
    still need trade schools for fork and spoon handling.

    Why? It makes more sense to have two eating utensils to me and the extra weight is not really a problem.

    A spork is like single ply toilet paper. Sounds like a great idea, but in practise it is harder to use and in the case of the TP you end up using much more per session so it works out easier just to buy two ply.

    If it's available to use, that's good. But will it do it's job? Maybe.

    There were criticisms of lots of things in the Russian military after the invasion by Georgia, but lack of artillery was not one of them.

    If Russia's supreme logic of "throw more, hope for hits" is essentially
    better than ours of "throw less, get hits" than I pity the Smerch

    Russian logic with rocket artillery is to cover the target in HE and shrapnel till everything in the area is dead.
    Americas logic is that we shouldn't be fighting here because all we want is the oil so we just need to kill the locals that oppose us coming in and taking it and leave the rest alive so we need the precision to do that.

    Like I said before... it is take a cheap simple weapon (Shotgun) and make it really really expensive and able to do things you wouldn't normally do with shotguns (ie make it a long range sniper rifle).
    They already had long range sniper rifles (LANCE II). Instead of making a shorter range model that abides by the INF treaty they thought... lets take the MLRS... a system we already fked up because it is supposed to be cheap and simple and we already made it ridiculously expensive to buy and to operate... and lets make it even more expensive and fked up.
    You couldn't get away with that in Britain or France... but in the US it is kinda expected.

    You are trying to argue that the role of the Smerch is essentially
    inaccurate suppressive fire but if it needed an INS system than it's
    Russia's attempt at precision strike capability; to which failed. Maybe
    I'm just a maverick but I don't need to waste ammo.

    The INS and gyro stabilisers reduce the spread effect of wind on the rockets so instead of spreading all over the place they tend to land in large spread out groups... ideal for hitting area targets. Not much use for precision targets except when the precision targets are a column or group of armour, in which using sensor fused submunitions means only the armour gets hit so that is a precision attack.
    A machinegun in a combat unit is to provide suppressive fire and long range killing power. In an american armed unit the role of the machinegun is to suppress the enemies fire and make them keep their heads down.
    In this role single shots are not fired. Ammo is delivered to target in bursts that don't all hit their target. By your analogy this is a waste of ammo. I would suggest you explain to the US military why all their machineguns should be single fire and 100 round belts are simply wasteful.   Rolling Eyes

    But essentially it can do both jobs while being cheaper; which means
    tactically, they're on par, strategically, the M270 is supreme.

    But that is not true. The Smerch greatly outranges the M270 with most of its munitions... there is only one missile the M270 can fire that can outrange the Smerch and it is likely to be shot down as it crosses the front line. Therefore the Smerch can inflict counterbattery fire on an M270 unit long before the M270 can effectively do the same to it. I think that makes the Russian setup superior. Tender and Tochka would be ideal for counter battery fire missions and would be ready at any time to do the job, meanwhile the Smerch can be destroying large numbers of NATO armour in each barrage and relocating to avoid any return fire.

    You need the same range or more than the incoming projectiles to do counter-battery. 300 km > 90 km.

    An M270 that is 300km away from a Smerch battery can only fire one type of missile and that is all it could do.

    A Smerch battery could operate 50km behind the unit it is supporting and still hit an M270 battery 40km away from the Russian unit the Smerch is supporting with every rocket it can fire while the M270 could only reach the Smerch with ATACMS.
    The Smerch on the other hand can hammer the M270 and the units it is supporting.

    China has the longest range MLRS in the world.

    Does it? Tender has two missiles on its TEL just like an M270 loaded with 2 ATACMS...

    Maybe I'm just a Maverick, but if I had a gun that can do all the job of
    all infantry held weapons fine, I'll prefer that over any other gun.
    That's essentially what the M270 is, well, more so than the BM series.

    Except that gun is 2.4m per system and as a shotgun it isn't as good as a SMERCH and not even superior to a Uragan or Grad, while as a sniper rifle it isn't as good as a Tender.

    The M270 won't reveal itself until the Grad fires.

    And after the grad fires and by your account gets destroyed the M270 will fire at something else and it in turn will be destroyed too. If neither system can fire and survive then the best system must be the cheapest... which means the Grad is the best.

    a 1 kw APU will last them like an hour.

    What? Do you understand what an APU is don't you? It is a small engine that runs on the same fuel the main engine runs on but instead of propelling the vehicle around the battlefield the APU generates power to operate the electric systems on the tank... it could run for DAYS.

    I don't know, you seem to think there has been? :neutral:

    You start a sentence with if and then complete the sentence like it was more than just your personal opinion...
    If it does, at least the M270 came out on top.

    At least the M270 came out on top... you tell me... when has that happened?

    Perhaps Katyusha is not a tube arty then?

    Of course it is not, and neither is M270 or Smerch or Grad or Uragan or FROG.

    I heard there are nice ballistic computers that do that.

    ALL BALLISTIC COMPUTERS DO THAT. They all include factors like windspeed and direction at different altitudes. Standard practise in an artillery unit is to release a balloon with a radar reflector and track it with radar to determine wind speed and direction at different altitudes.... when you move 50km south however you need to release a balloon and track it again to make sure the winds are the same there. Even the best most high tech ballistic computer needs wind speed and wind direction INPUT to be accurate. It can take the GPS coordinates of the launch area and determine the effect of the earths rotation but it can't calculate wind speed or direction without sending up a balloon to test them.
    Even modern snipers have wind speed gauges to determine wind speed and direction for long shots... they can make guesses based on the way things on the ground or near the ground like tree branches and grass moves in the wind but for artillery there is rarely cloud at enough different heights to accurately gauge wind speed and direction without using a balloon.

    Just playing fair.

    No you aren't. The Uragan has similar range to the M270 in unguided rockets and has 4 extra rockets so your comparison would be wrong.


    I bet you're fed up about that.

    The fact that you are trying to argue that Russian artillery is rubbish tells me you are stubborn and have too much pride to admit when you are mistaken.

    That isn't really my problem... it is yours... and I hope you can find a way to deal with it.

    I didn't say that the Smerch was in the base that was hit by the M30s.

    No you didn't, but a single ATACMS is easy to swat away and everything else ends up uselessly out of range.

    If the Smerch is doing what it should be then it will be supporting its units... if the M270 is out in the rear area of the US forces within ATACMS range but out of SMERCH range then it is only able to perform counter battery roles because it will be too far from the forces the SMERCH is supporting to do anything to them except with ATACMS.

    Makes the M270 sound pretty useless to me.

    Near the front, out of range.

    So where would you think the SMERCH batteries would be located? The Moon?

    Personally I think it's childish that you think the ATACMS will be shot down. Tochka has half the range of ATACMS.

    The export Tochka has a range of about 120km in the early models and 150km in later models. The current Russian service missile is believed to have a range of about 180km. Tender on the other hand has a range of 480km and according to Vlad will likely replace the Tochka.
    And you can think it is childish of me to think ATACMS will be shot down. The army air defence units of Russia in the 1980s had a focus on defending against ballistic targets... first Honest John and LANCE II, but now the threat is ATACMS... what exactly do you think the purpose of the TOR system is within an army unit?
    Why do you think BUK has been upgraded to intercept HARM and other fast small RCS targets and ballistic weapons?

    Cheaper overall.

    Not really. An M270 fires a barrage of rockets to take out a threat (like it is supposed to do)... the immediate reaction is that a SMERCH battery opens up with anti armour rockets of several different types and then moves out... now that M270 battery has a target but it just fired off its rockets and can either stop and reload in 3 minutes and get clobbered by the SMERCH rockets already on their way or it can run out of range and reposition, then reload and fire on an empty field where the SMERCH battery was.

    Because of its extra reach with standard rockets the SMERCH can sit 40km back from the targets it is engaging and have 50km reach beyond that without changing rockets.
    The M270 has to be within 40km of its target to ensure it can hit it when it needs to which puts it in range of all current in service SMERCH rounds.

    You'd think a plane with bombs and 4 MLRS + gun arty w/ non-exsistant Russian GPS shells is going to cost more than 1 M270.

    Yes. It is also going to be much more flexible and capable in responding to the artillery needs of the Russian Army. BTW the 4 MLRS are going to be replaced by one... the Tornado system in medium and light units, while the Tender is likely to replace the Tochka... and they are going to have planes with bombs whether they had Russian rocket artillery or M270s.

    Sarcasm aside, essentially yes.

    You are entitled to your opinion. I have a similar opinion of M270. Gold plated white elephant.


    Unfortunately the Tornado wouldn't be in range if the M270 were to
    fire it's ATACMS. Finally, I'll just like to list what the Russians
    need, according to you, to counter the M270, if you don't mind:

    4
    MLRS (Grad, Uragan, Smerch, Tochka) + Msta w/ imaginary Russian
    GPS-shells + "Short range aircraft" w/ guided munitions + TOR-M1
    short-range ADS.

    Which according to you, are all cheaper than the M270.

    Smerch and Tender (Tochka is not an MLRS BTW... it fails in the Multiple category) together are far superior to the M270 in every aspect... range accuracy, mobility, fire power, and cost.

    M270 is gold plated rubbish that is a sledge hammer painted up to look like a sniper rifle for the price of a tank.


    Last edited by GarryB on Fri Apr 22, 2011 4:15 am; edited 1 time in total

    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 21, 2011 5:59 am

    Deputy General Director of JSC Scientific Production Corporation Uralvagonzavod Vyacheslav Khalitov

    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 21, 2011 8:07 am

    Some excerpts from above interview

    What are the priorities in the development of tanks in the near future see the designers of the Ural Tank Forge?

    In our country, when you create a military technology has become a priority for construction of an integrated family of not only military vehicles, but also the engineering, logistics based on a standardized chassis. The implementation of this principle allows us to solve a set of interrelated issues.

    Under modern conditions of warfare is particularly acute problem of providing reliable and efficient administration, the interaction of tank and combined arms units. It lies in the contradiction between the speed of the basic management processes directly in the tank and in subdivisions.

    Moreover, in modern combat sharply rising short duration of action in a cascade of increasing the flow of incoming information, the need for processing and decision-making by commanders of all parts of the extremely limited time. Therefore, in future designs of the samples tank equipment necessary to implement some new ideas.

    On the one hand, we must raise to a qualitatively new level of traditional properties of armored vehicles: the firepower, mobility, security, and on the other hand, comes to the fore the need for its integration into the automated control system for tactical level. The solution to this problem can only be achieved comprehensive automation of management processes as a separate tank, and a division as a whole.

    Today in the development of main battle tanks, we identify four major trends. Первая: масса танков прекратила расти. First: a lot of tanks had ceased to grow. All future projects, except for upgraded Israeli tanks Merkava created for specific theaters of war are the total mass in the range of 60 tons. We strive to fit into 50 tons.

    The following trends have noted a slowdown firepower of tanks by increasing the caliber of the gun. For the next 20 years, the limit is seen the caliber of 140 mm, and the tanks will be mostly completed 120-125-mm guns. Growth firepower go the way of creating high-power ammunition.

    - There is much talk about the T-90AM, which the media called a tank of new generation.Tell us about it.

    -They improved on the traditional areas: upgrading of existing samples at their overhaul, creating and developing the production of promising designs.

    For example, set up as an object of T-90 tank. It implements the idea of ​​designers and layout decisions. He goes into production, they equip the Armed Forces. In the future creation of new technology, there are design and technical solutions that can significantly improve the combat characteristics of the machine set up, and begins the process of modernization. The main thing that the tank had a capacity of modernization, that is, the conditions for setting innovations.

    T-90 tank has such potential. Internal volume of the machine can produce significant change of its various components such as engine, fire control, armament and other aggregates, which greatly increase the combat capabilities. All this made it possible not only to complete the modernization of the tank in accordance with the requirements of foreign customers, but also to make three upgrades for the national army. By the way, the German tank Leopard 1 was seven modernizations, upgrades seventh place and a variant of Leopard 2A7.
    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 22, 2011 4:20 am

    The following trends have noted a slowdown firepower of tanks by
    increasing the caliber of the gun. For the next 20 years, the limit is
    seen the caliber of 140 mm, and the tanks will be mostly completed
    120-125-mm guns.  Growth firepower go the way of creating high-power
    ammunition.

    So the makers of tanks in Russia are saying the future trend for Russian tanks is in creating more powerful ammunition for their 125mm guns????

    But we know they have nothing newer than the BM-42M created in the late 1990s....   Rolling Eyes  Twisted Evil

    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 22, 2011 8:48 am

    GarryB wrote:So the makers of tanks in Russia are saying the future trend for Russian tanks is in creating more powerful ammunition for their 125mm guns????

    I have the butt feeling that the new tank under development will start with 125 mm gun with powerful ammunition to take care of current threats and in the future they would make minor adjustment to the chassis and would upgrade the gun to 140 mm to meet future threats.

    The current chassis designed in a way that it would take care of future growth potential in upgrading the gun from 125 mm to 140 mm without the need to design the chasis from scratch , they also have mentioned a tank for 50 ton category.
    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 22, 2011 9:33 am

    I think you mean a gut feeling.

    I also think that they mention the 140mm calibre because they do not what to reveal info about the 15xmm gun they have developed that may have been rejected because it reduces ammo supply for the vehicle.

    I think they will wait and see whether NATO goes for lighter tanks or if they continue with heavy armour... if they don't talk about their new bigger gun and NATO goes for lighter vehicle designs then they might be able to keep their current calibre which will save them an enormous amount of money and increase the available on board ammo reserve.

    The advantage of the larger calibre is obviously that more energy can be pushed down the tube for more penetration and better range and the larger diameter means larger more capable HEAT rounds, and tube launched missiles can be far more capable and of course the possibility of tube launched UAVs starts to enter the realm of possibility.

    The Smerch has a rocket launched UAV of 300mm calibre that can operate 90-120km away from the battery for about 40 minutes, obviously a tank launched system would not need to operate as far or for as long.

    It wouldn't surprise me if the T-90AM has moved into the 50 ton class as it will have a larger turret and ARENA adds weight too plus of course the turret bustle autoloader will add extra weight, though that is good weight as it counter balances the weight of the main gun so that will actually improve the balance of stress on the turret ring.

    I suspect the Armada chassis that replaces the T-90AM may have the propulsion at the front of the hull and have the turret at the rear with a very long very shallow sloped front hull armour to maximise protection from the front. I would think if they ever change to a larger calibre that an external gun with a larger turret ring would make the transition relatively straight forward.

    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 22, 2011 9:39 am

    Oh yes I mean gut , though they sound so similar a strong gut means a lighter butt Laughing

    Yes he did mentioned engine on front and thats a very distinct possibility , the T-90AM would be in 50 T class for sure , 50 T class would be any where between 51 to 59 Ton and a 40 T would be 41 to 49 T and I doubt they would exceed beyond 49 T with all the changes considering Bhishma is 46 T
    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 22, 2011 1:28 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Let me rephrase that, no Russian 125mm round that we know of?

    During the 1990s... a period of very little funding they developed the BM-42M.
    Is it logical to assume they stopped working on penetrators in the late 1990s?
    If you could prove that we knew everything about everything they are working on you would have a very good point. Problem is that we know there are lots of things they are working on we don't have a clue about so your argument that because we don't know what they are working on now means they must not be working on anything does not hold water.

    Analyzing Defense technologies is not akin to analyzing Space anomalies. Just because it can happen doesn't mean it has. Like I've asked, is there any Russian 125 mm round that has been developed after the BM-42M that we know of?

    Precisely. You shoulda read the whole page before you thought you knew what you were talking about.

    The length of the projectile is 730mm.[/quote]

    The whole length of the round is 730 mm. The whole length of the penetrator is 570 mm.

    In any case, I think that the BS-long discussion about Russian arty has elongated itself far too much, I shall do the duty of simplifying my side of the discussion.

    1. The M270 can fire both guided Rockets (M-30) and long range tactical missiles (ATACMS)
    2. To accomplish this task, you will need 1 Uragan and 1 Tochka
    3. Since we do not know the cost of 1 Uragan or 1 Tochka, you cannot assume that the M270 costs more
    4. The Smerch and Grad are not comparable systems of tube arty
    5. The M270 is also more modular; which is 'fixed' with the future Tornado MLRS
    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 23, 2011 6:07 am

    Analyzing Defense technologies is not akin to analyzing Space anomalies.
    Just because it can happen doesn't mean it has. Like I've asked, is
    there any Russian 125 mm round that has been developed after the BM-42M
    that we know of?

    That we know of? No.
    Does that mean there isn't a new round, or several new rounds developed in the last 10 years since the BM-42M was developed? No.
    The company that makes 125mm main gun ammo has probably just taken a decade long holiday... after all the period of 1990 to 1999 was so well funded.

    Did a quick search of Tanknet and found this comment:

    A comment on the current state of the art of Russian rounds. There are
    two rounds currently in trials, one that is limited by the dimensions of
    current autoloaders and another that isn't. Dimensions of the first,
    22x630, weight and velocity unknown, penetrator ratio about 85%. Of the
    second, 22x726, weight with sabot 8.1kg, velocity unknown, penetrator
    ratio about 92%. Both rounds' penetrators appear monoblock.

    This comment was from the 9th of July 2009 and was made by Vassily Fofanov.

    Remember that in addition to tanks there are towed 125mm smoothbore anti tank guns still used in Russia so long rod penetrators that are too long to handle in auto loaders can still be produced and used.

    The whole length of the round is 730 mm. The whole length of the penetrator is 570 mm.

    The projectile length is 730mm but the rear of the projectile contains tracer material and does not aide in penetration.

    You were talking about projectiles.

    In any case, I think that the BS-long discussion about Russian arty has
    elongated itself far too much, I shall do the duty of simplifying my
    side of the discussion.


    1. The M270 can fire both guided Rockets (M-30) and long range tactical missiles (ATACMS)
    2. To accomplish this task, you will need 1 Uragan and 1 Tochka
    3. Since we do not know the cost of 1 Uragan or 1 Tochka, you cannot assume that the M270 costs more
    4. The Smerch and Grad are not comparable systems of tube arty
    5. The M270 is also more modular; which is 'fixed' with the future Tornado MLRS
    My reply would be that the Smerch is designed for area targets and counter battery fire use for which its range and accuracy are excellent.
    Point 2 doesn't make sense because having short range guided rounds and long range guided rounds is not a task.
    Point 3 Of course Uragan is a fraction of the cost of M270... just the same as if the M270 was mounted on a cheap mobile truck chassis and didn't have any expensive long range guided rounds it would be much cheaper too.
    Point 4... trick point because Smerch and Grad are not tube artillery, they are rocket artillery.
    Point 5 M270 is multi role but less flexible than a choice of three significantly different unguided rocket calibres.
    As I have pointed out unless the M270 can reload while moving its rapid reload capacity is not that important tactically.
    avatar
    Andy_Wiz
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 28
    Points : 38
    Join date : 2010-10-12
    Location : South-West Fringe of the Empire

    T-90 MBT: News

    Post  Andy_Wiz on Tue Apr 26, 2011 7:29 pm

    There is 0 information from the MoD that it is even interested in T-90AM.
    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 27, 2011 5:07 am

    There is 0 information from the MoD that it is even interested in
    T-90AM.

    So the MOD stance is that the T-90A is crap because of all the problems it listed... weak to top attack, likely to explode when penetrated because main gun ammo is stored in crew compartment, uses levers to drive with manual gears like a T-34... and now that all those problems and more have been addressed in the T-90AM they show no interest in it?

    Perhaps UVZ should just build trains... I am sure they wouldn't get all this Sht from the customers they sell trains to.

    The point is that if they want to meet their goal of 70% new stuff by 2020 they will be pushing Sht up hill if that doesn't include armour.

    Their plans as far as I can tell aim for about 1,500 T-90 or up to date tanks, with a reserve of anywhere between 4,500 and about 6,000 tanks of similar design.

    To get 70% of those to be new... well they simply can't do it unless they start building new vehicles soon and upgrading vehicles in storage.

    They are talking about new tanks in 2015 or so based on new technology with electric drive etc, but until they are ready the question becomes do you start producing T-90AMs now and eventually make 4,500 of them so it is the second tank in the deployed and in storage setup, or do you p!ss around talking sht about T-34s and about how wonderful and incredibly cheap Leopards are for 5 years and then have upgraded T-72s and the new tank and skip the T-90s all together.

    The problem is that the T-72s upgraded are cheap and share most of their components with the T-90 which is great for an inventory of T-90s and T-72s, but this new tank will be different so the commonality advantage goes away.

    It seems the cheapest option is to do nothing till the new tanks are ready in 5 years time and then just make expensive but capable and cheaper but still useful versions of the new tank to replace everything.

    The problem with that solution means that UVZ gets very little actual work for the next 5 years which will make reactivating them to produce the 6,000-7,000 new tanks they will need to build pretty difficult, and of course production capacity of that level is expensive to keep available with no orders... not to mention that orders in other areas like licence production of foreign and domestic small armoured vehicles and development and production of other armoured types that wont take 5 years to develop will mean that skilled workers will leave for jobs where they are actually building stuff rather than twiddling their thumbs.

    Personally I think the only solution is to introduce the T-90AM as the new production standard T-90 and for orders of 100-200 new tanks a year for the next 5 years will create a reserve force of T-90s, which in addition to proper overhauls of existing T-90s to T-90AM standard and of course the upgrade of T-72s to the standard created for them will generate income in UVZ and allow more technologies to be bought and tested and developed.
    When the new tank starts production then the upgraded T-72s in the best condition can be gifted to allies low on funds that could use them like Cuba or Vietnam or whoever and they can be replaced with the cheaper model of the new tank.

    The new tanks design should be modular with perhaps a cheap turret and an expensive turret... the cheap turret is fitted for but not with expensive stuff and has cheaper domestic products fitted as long as they can do the job. The expensive turret could have licence produced domestic stuff and state of the art domestic stuff fitted.

    All will have thermal sights and proper communications systems and battle management systems etc but there are 5 years between now and when the new tanks are ready which should be plenty of time to determine what features of each system is important and what should just be an optional extra... a nice to have feature that makes things easier but the tank could get by without it sort of thing.

    Of course if they want capable and high tech then the Russian military just has to get used to the fact that high tech costs money and their new tanks and planes will never be cheap again.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  Austin on Wed Apr 27, 2011 6:45 am

    I am of the opinion MOD will buy the T-90AM due to industry pressure ,export prospects and the fact that they tried to address issue with T-90AM tank and came with an excellent solution.

    I dont think the tank manufacturer are just developing the T-90AM and Armata/Boomerang because they have nothing better to do in life and are slushed with money.

    All are state funded program and would be ordered by state.

    With the recent criticism of T-90 ( though most were just wrong ) the prospects of T-90AM buy in good numbers is much better.
    avatar
    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3129
    Points : 3221
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  medo on Wed Apr 27, 2011 11:21 am

    Do the production line for T-90AM need retooling from T-90 production line? Maybe here could also be the answer why they didn't buy new tanks this year. If they buy new machinery, than MoD will for sure buy new tanks. No one is buying new production lines, which will never work and pay money back.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  Austin on Wed Apr 27, 2011 11:28 am

    Why would you need retooling for an upgrade version of existing tank , its not a radical new tank like T-95 , so existing factories can build with with manufacturing improvements.

    T-90AM was not ready and it was on trials , it just completed state trials , so ordering it was not an option , neeedless to say they desperately do not need a new tank right now hence they could afford to cancel T-95.
    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 28, 2011 2:16 am

    I had assumed there were no new tank orders this year because of the trials of the T-90AM were taking place and the T-90AM was intended to be the new standard T-90.
    It doesn't make sense to build 60-70 new T-90As this year if the T-90AM passes and T-90AMs become the production standard.
    AFAIK the changes to the T-90AM like the larger turret and turret bustle autoloader should not require new machine tools, but will require new turrets be made to upgrade existing older models.

    I think an issue will be that because those suppliers that make things like Kaktus ERA will have been working like crazy to meet the needs of the Indian Army will have production capacity becoming available, but for example that new Russian air conditioner that was recently developed may have problems going from prototype and testing to full scale production and of course production of thermal sights will need to be boosted because so many air defence and other armoured vehicles and even aircraft are going to be wanting thermal sights.

    If they buy new machinery, than MoD will for sure buy new tanks. No one
    is buying new production lines, which will never work and pay money
    back.

    UVZ is a huge organisation with a cold war capacity to build thousands of tanks per year, but for the last 20 years they have been surviving on railway car production to keep going.
    Retooling and building new production lines is not really an option unless you know what you are actually building. A production line is just that... a line. Now currently they have lines to make T-90As but to make T-90AMs they will need to change that line. First the part of the line that makes turrets will need to change the turret design to make the turret bigger and to add a rear turret bustle to the construction and assembly line.
    The enlarged turret hatches will make things like installing equipment easier and if they do a good job they might effect other aspects of tank operation like making reloading main gun tank ammo easier and quicker, or the rear turret area where the autoloader feeds ammo in could also double as a convenient way to remove the main guns breach components if that were necessary for example.
    New electronics will mean new wiring layouts etc etc, but lots of stuff will be very similar... though Kaktus will largely be built in ERA so it will be different.

    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 28, 2011 1:34 pm

    New Tank "Armada" may appear in the Russian army in 2015

    MOSCOW, April 28 - RIA Novosti. Tank next-generation code-named "Armada" will appear in the Russian army in 2015, told reporters in Moscow on Thursday, former first deputy chief control of the Defense Ministry Yuri Kovalenko.

    "The new machine will be in the Army in 2015, if all goes smoothly," - said Maj. Gen. Kovalenko. According to him, in the tank "Armada" will be the new automation, new ammunition, he can shoot on the move, in motion, the crew will be separated from ammunition inside the tower.

    "Such development is already" - the general said. Kovalenko said that this machine will be used achievements of previous generations, particularly the tank, "Black Eagle", which was planned to install automatic loader 32 shells per tower.

    He also noted that the Defense Ministry refused to produce the T-95. Now, he says, goes further modernization of the T-90AM.
    avatar
    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3129
    Points : 3221
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  medo on Thu Apr 28, 2011 6:01 pm

    After all, T-90 was modified from T-72 and if production line is from times of T-72, than maybe they need to buy newer machines to replace old ones to get needed quality and quantity of tanks.
    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 29, 2011 1:12 am

    This is quite true, they have been exporting T-90s but not in huge numbers and from what I have read it has been its rail business that has been subsidising its tank business and keeping it alive for some time.
    This can't continue for ever and the Tank side of the business has to start paying for itself.
    A decent order from the Russian Army of say 200 T-90AM tanks per year for the next 5 years plus upgrades of 800 T-72s per year for 5 years will mean that by 2015 they will have just under 1,500 T-90 tanks (assuming about 420 or so existing T-90s of various models already in service), plus 4,000 upgraded T-72s for their reserve force would set them up to the force they wanted and it would be good for UVZ as well.
    With that sort of order they could update their tools and retrain and keep working a skilled work force and would be ready for producing Armata in 2015.
    They would also have their own funds to spend on Armata and subsidise their train segment of their business too.

    The electric drive system would be beneficial technology to trains and armoured vehicles... and ship design too.
    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 30, 2011 11:22 pm

    [quote="GarryB"]
    Analyzing Defense technologies is not akin to analyzing Space anomalies.
    Just because it can happen doesn't mean it has. Like I've asked, is
    there any Russian 125 mm round that has been developed after the BM-42M
    that we know of?

    That we know of? No.
    Does that mean there isn't a new round, or several new rounds developed in the last 10 years since the BM-42M was developed? No.
    The company that makes 125mm main gun ammo has probably just taken a decade long holiday... after all the period of 1990 to 1999 was so well funded.

    Did a quick search of Tanknet and found this comment:

    A comment on the current state of the art of Russian rounds. There are
    two rounds currently in trials, one that is limited by the dimensions of
    current autoloaders and another that isn't. Dimensions of the first,
    22x630, weight and velocity unknown, penetrator ratio about 85%. Of the
    second, 22x726, weight with sabot 8.1kg, velocity unknown, penetrator
    ratio about 92%. Both rounds' penetrators appear monoblock.

    This comment was from the 9th of July 2009 and was made by Vassily Fofanov.

    Remember that in addition to tanks there are towed 125mm smoothbore anti tank guns still used in Russia so long rod penetrators that are too long to handle in auto loaders can still be produced and used.

    So like I've said, we can't assume it's capabilities until we e-detectives get more pictures to analyze, deduce some facts, and then input them into some complex mathematical formulas and come out with an RHAe. As for now, the BM-42M is the best Russian projectile that we know of, RHAe at 2km is estimated at 650 mm.

    The whole length of the round is 730 mm. The whole length of the penetrator is 570 mm.

    The projectile length is 730mm but the rear of the projectile contains tracer material and does not aide in penetration.

    You were talking about projectiles.

    You were talking about round lengths, I was talking about penetrator lengths. Refer to post #22, when you copied and pasted a paragraph from Vasiliy:

    "This round has a total length of 740mm"

    To which I replied in post #33,

    "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. "

    To which you replied in post #37,

    "The ammo is two piece so its total length (round and stub propellent case) is irrelevant."

    Which boils down to that you were referring to the entire round (penetrator + sabot + tracer) being 740 mm long, while I was referring to the penetrator specifically being 570 mm long.

    In any case, I think that the BS-long discussion about Russian arty has
    elongated itself far too much, I shall do the duty of simplifying my
    side of the discussion.


    1. The M270 can fire both guided Rockets (M-30) and long range tactical missiles (ATACMS)
    2. To accomplish this task, you will need 1 Uragan and 1 Tochka
    3. Since we do not know the cost of 1 Uragan or 1 Tochka, you cannot assume that the M270 costs more
    4. The Smerch and Grad are not comparable systems of tube arty
    5. The M270 is also more modular; which is 'fixed' with the future Tornado MLRS


    My reply would be that the Smerch is designed for area targets and counter battery fire use for which its range and accuracy are excellent.

    To which I will further reply that because the M270 can fire the ATACMS, it outranges the Smerch and it's smaller BM series brethren in counter battery fire.


    Point 2 doesn't make sense because having short range guided rounds and long range guided rounds is not a task.

    I don't see how you're confused? Having medium range guided rockets means that you can land cluster munitions closer to where you need them or land a unitary charge where you want it. To do this you'd require a Uragan to spam-fire a grid-square to ensure that the target(s) are hit. To compete with what the ATACMS brings to the M270 you need to bring the Tochka into the game.


    Point 3 Of course Uragan is a fraction of the cost of M270... just the same as if the M270 was mounted on a cheap mobile truck chassis and didn't have any expensive long range guided rounds it would be much cheaper too.

    But like I've said, you don't know the cost of the Uragan + Tochka so you're simply assuming. Also, like I've said, you need the Tochka along with the Uragan to be competitive with the M270, to which means more vehicles, more manpower, more logistics, etc, etc, which boils down to more cost, to which, like I've said, you still don't know.


    Point 4... trick point because Smerch and Grad are not tube artillery, they are rocket artillery.

    It's a simple matter of fact, one is 300 mm caliber the other is 122 mm caliber. Lets compare similar calibers of tube arty, 227 mm v.s. 220 mm.


    Point 5 M270 is multi role but less flexible than a choice of three significantly different unguided rocket calibres.
    As I have pointed out unless the M270 can reload while moving its rapid reload capacity is not that important tactically.

    I honestly don't think you understand the idea of multi-role then. If it's multi-role it means that it's flexible. Being specifically designed, the BM-series can only hit targets from 0.3-90 km. With the M270, you can hit targets from 3-300 km. Warhead options are similar save the thermobaric and UAV options for the BM series. As I have further pointed out, because the reload is still 6 or 7 times faster than their Russian counterparts, they M270 can fire another volley after relocating faster than their Russian counterparts, which basically means more power in less time.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  GarryB on Sun May 01, 2011 6:50 am


    So like I've said, we can't assume it's capabilities until we
    e-detectives get more pictures to analyze, deduce some facts, and then
    input them into some complex mathematical formulas and come out with an
    RHAe. As for now, the BM-42M is the best Russian projectile that we know
    of, RHAe at 2km is estimated at 650 mm.

    But you also said that these new penetrators didn't exist and only the BM-42M exists.
    I am sure you can now suggest that the two new penetrators in testing almost 2 years ago (July 2009) will be the same as the BM-42M and will not be longer or have better performance or improved materials etc etc... and you are entitled to that opinion.

    You were talking about round lengths, I was talking about penetrator
    lengths. Refer to post #22, when you copied and pasted a paragraph from
    Vasiliy:

    "This round has a total length of 740mm"

    To which I replied in post #33,

    "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. "

    To which you replied in post #37,

    "The ammo is two piece so its total length (round and stub propellent case) is irrelevant."

    Which
    boils down to that you were referring to the entire round (penetrator +
    sabot + tracer) being 740 mm long, while I was referring to the
    penetrator specifically being 570 mm long.

    Nope.

    We were both talking about projectile length. Now you mention penetrator length.
    In your comments about longer western rounds I don't remember you distinguishing between penetrator and projectile length.

    To which I will further reply that because the M270 can fire the ATACMS,
    it outranges the Smerch and it's smaller BM series brethren in counter
    battery fire.

    If ATACMS range and accuracy make it better than Smerch then Tenders range and accuracy makes it better than ATACMS.

    I don't see how you're confused? Having medium range guided rockets
    means that you can land cluster munitions closer to where you need them
    or land a unitary charge where you want it. To do this you'd require a
    Uragan to spam-fire a grid-square to ensure that the target(s) are hit.
    To compete with what the ATACMS brings to the M270 you need to bring the
    Tochka into the game.

    Don't you see how you are confused? Rocket artillery is not supposed to be used against pin point targets, it is a volume fire system that fills the air very quickly with dangerous splinters and fire and death.
    If you want long range precision you need missiles ie ATACMs, Tender, Tochka.
    If you want to rail death and destruction on a forming area for an armoured battalion getting ready to mount an attack you get Smerch or M270 or Uragan or even Grad. (BTW Grad can deliver 80 guided anti armour top attack submunitions to a range of 40km in 20 seconds and be rolling about 10 seconds later to a new position... but I guess it is still crap in your opinion...)

    But like I've said, you don't know the cost of the Uragan + Tochka so you're simply assuming.

    I don't need to know the purchase cost to know the difference between the operational costs of a BMP chassis and a light truck and how they compare. The operational costs will be 5-10 times the purchase price... why do you think the BTR series exists and why LAVs are used instead of Bradleys despite the clearly inferior armour performance of the Lav over the Bradley?

    Also, like I've said, you need the Tochka along with the Uragan to be
    competitive with the M270, to which means more vehicles, more manpower,
    more logistics, etc, etc, which boils down to more cost, to which, like
    I've said, you still don't know.

    Have a look at these photos:





    and this one:



    Notice how the top truck looks small and light?
    Notice how the second truck looks like the third truck?
    Is the penny dropping yet?
    The top light truck with a single pallet of 6 x 300mm rockets is the Tornado and is a replacement for the Grad.
    The second truck is based on the third truck used with the Iskander/Tender system and can be fitted with two pallets of 6 x 300mm rockets... the same as Smerch.
    Have you seen the version of Iskander that instead of having two long range ballistic missiles it has 8 long thin tubes that look like the vertical launch tubes on the USUK naval vertical launch system?

    I am beginning to suspect that Grad, Uragan, and Smerch will be replaced with two platforms... one a cheap light truck and the other the same truck the Iskander is based on.
    The Iskander vehicle can also be fitted with Iskander/Tender missiles or the USUK naval vertical launch tubes... which means it could fire the members of the Club family of land attack cruise missiles, plus Onix, Yakhont, and Brahmos, and also the Kh-101 and Kh-102 conventionally armed cruise missiles.

    Makes the system quite capable and interesting while still keeping the different roles separate (ie rocket artillery and precision missile targeting).

    It's a simple matter of fact, one is 300 mm caliber the other is 122 mm
    caliber. Lets compare similar calibers of tube arty, 227 mm v.s. 220 mm.

    Each calibre was developed for a specific role with the 220mm and 300mm being used in roles the US uses 227mm rockets for.... BTW if we ignore 300mm and 122mm because they are different calibres shall we also ignore ATACMS because it is certainly not 227mm calibre either?


    I honestly don't think you understand the idea of multi-role then. If it's multi-role it means that it's flexible.

    Except that it isn't. Iskander forces don't operate with Smerch batteries because their roles are different. Their targets are largely different.

    Being specifically designed, the BM-series can only hit targets from 0.3-90 km.

    The BM series like most artillery units operate with friendly units though not right on the front line.
    The 90 km range of the Smerch means it can operate a little further back than other rocket artillery units and still reach deep inside enemy territory.
    This makes them safer but also means they can still do their job.

    An M270 battery operating the same distance back from the front line could only use ATACMS against enemy artillery units. Operating a normal distance from the front line will make them vulnerable to attack from Smerch without necessarily being able to hit the Smerch battery with more than ATACMs. It should be able to hit enemy armour but not Smerch batteries with the rocket barrage it is supposed to be able to deliver.

    It has turned from a Rocket artillery battery to a missile artillery battery with two missiles per vehicle.... and to be honest in that role Tender kicks its butt.

    Jack of all trades but master of none... the problem is that it is inferior in the extreme as Rocket artillery.

    There is an old saying... if the only tool you have is a hammer... treat every problem as if it were a nail.
    But then another saying is the difference between an amateur and a professional is that the professional uses the right tool for the job.

    Different tools for different armies... I am sure if the Chinese become a problem a hoards of armour start moving into Russian territory that Smerch and Tender together will be rather more use than M270 would be to them.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  Sponsored content


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