Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Share
    avatar
    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 476
    Points : 494
    Join date : 2010-09-26
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sun May 01, 2011 5:57 pm

    [quote="GarryB"]

    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.

    Oh yes, so if they're in testing they aren't in service. We're not here to predict the future we're here to discuss facts.

    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.

    That was a definition problem. What should of been established was the Round assembly and the Penetrator, the former has a length of 730 mm and the latter has a length of 570 mm. They are also designated BM-44M and BM-42M respectively. Any problems?

    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.

    But like I've discussed, Tochka/Tender only adds to the cost.

    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...)

    I do see how you are confused. If you can hit the target with one rocket instead of destroying the grid square than you can thus, destroy 12 targets with your rocket load compared to having to use 144 rockets for the same task. It's all about maximizing efficiency. As I've said before, the Grad is crap, paper rockets, dumb paper rockets, and long reload. Might as well buy a Smerch.

    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?

    So if you don't know the costs why are you even talking...like I've said before, more equipment means more money, that is quite simple. Because the M270 packs all that equipment on a common frame, it's actually quite cheap, compared to placing equipment on multiple frames, which means more and more maintenance.

    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).

    "If it looks like a duck it has to be a duck".

    Like I've said, I want actual figures, not pictorial guesstimates, when it comes to cost.

    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?

    No. The difference with the ATACMS is that it's capable of being fired from the same platform, thus it's apart of the unitary system. The difference with the BM-30 and BM-21 is that they are not on the same platform, they are based on different trucks, thus you'd require more than 1 truck to do the same task as the M270.


    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.

    Not so. The Smerch is designed to kill squares. The M270 can do the same, with accuracy. The Iskander is designed to hit stationary targets at long range with accuracy. The ATACMS does the same thing. When you isolate your systems, like what the Russians did with their BM-series and "large" caliber rockets-series, a strategic strike will effectively neutralize your capability to do one or the other. With the M270, a multi-role, flexible platform, take one out and the other can do it's job. It's spreading your beans out instead of putting them in single baskets. It's smarter, safer, and overall, more cost effective. The Russians have realized this and thus they've created the Tornado, a step closer to the M270.

    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.

    But like I've said, the M270 won't be the same distance from the Smerch, it'd be farther from the Smerch than the Smerch can fire from. Thus the Smerch becomes useless. I've also stated that you can fit 3 configurations for the M270, 12 rockets, 2 missiles, or 6 rockets and 1 missile. Jack of all trades, it is, kill a Grad, bomb the Smerch, safe from all BM-series. Like I've said, Russia will not use Smerch or Tender if a Chinese tank rush occurs in Far Eastern Siberia. They'd use Tornado and it's rapid reload capability to spam guided AT munitions in and around where the Chinese tanks are. That rapid reload capability is something the BM-series nor the Tochka/Tender has, but the M270 does have. The M270 is like a Swiss knife and the BM-series/Tochka/Tender are like everything in it. Multi-purpose, flexible, gold-plated tube arty; but still best arty.
    avatar
    Stealthflanker
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 802
    Points : 886
    Join date : 2009-08-05
    Age : 29
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  Stealthflanker on Mon May 02, 2011 12:46 am

    Armor Penetration ... well i would really like to know what kind of "complex formula" discussed above ..

    So far i found around 3 available, starting from ol friend Zraver's extension of Kinetic energy/11.000 till the one i found from "Tactical Missile Design 1st Edition by Eugene Fleeman" dealing with Kinetic energy warhead.

    Well let's start by ol friend Zraver's fun

    P=1/2M*V^2/11000

    P=Penetration (mm)
    M=Mass of Penetrator (Kg)
    V=Velocity in m/s


    So.. let's say we have a penetrator with mass of 8,9 Kg travelling at speed of 1750 m/s

    plugging the variables above would give penetration result of 1236.9 mm

    Another formula is from old discussion in world affair board (Zraver is mod there..)

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

    T = plate thickness (cm) or equvalent thickness (RHAe)
    @ = angle
    u = Penetrator Material constant (Depeleted Uranium is 3400, Steel is 4200)
    L = penetrator length (cm)
    M = penetrator mass (g)
    D = penetrator diameter (cm)
    v = penetrator velocity (m/s)


    more complex but consider more variables ..like obliquity and penetrator materials .However the one who come up with this does not state where did he get this magnificent work of maths .. so i can't trace it .. and that for me..just BAD..BAD and BAD

    Well however i did some "improvements" at the u variables so other materials can be calculated too as long as it have density (Kg/ meter cubic).

    here is my table of material constant .. how do i get the value ? Excel give a good feature of extra and interpolation Very Happy



    Well for Real world use.. ignore the Ragnite, Special Treated Ragnite and Alfon Heavy Alloy.. as they're from Valkyria Chronicles Anime and my own material, used for RP (Role Playing) only .


    The last one is this ..from Tactical Missile Design.. haven't try this one but i think it's good






    So which one give most realistic result ?

    or perhaps there are other, better formula out there which i could add to my collection ? Very Happy
    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 May 02, 2011 12:22 pm

    Oh yes, so if they're in testing they aren't in service. We're not here to predict the future we're here to discuss facts.

    I have shown you two rounds you previously knew nothing about and assumed did not exist.

    It puts in perspective your claims they have not and will not create penetrators that are longer than those they currently use.

    But like I've discussed, Tochka/Tender only adds to the cost.

    And ATACMS is free?

    Precision missile attack capability is separate in role and requirement from barrage Rocket artillery and the Russians have kept it seperate.
    This means that its precision missile attack capability is completely independant from their rocket artillery and can be positioned where it is most useful and also a safer distance from the front line.

    By putting ATACMs on the M270 you have created the problem that your precision missile attack capability has to operate well forward with your rocket artillery if you want to be able to use both. Using one or the other reveals the position of both so a move is needed which totally negates the reloading advantage of either.

    I do see how you are confused. If you can hit the target with one rocket
    instead of destroying the grid square than you can thus, destroy 12
    targets with your rocket load compared to having to use 144 rockets for
    the same task. It's all about maximizing efficiency. As I've said
    before, the Grad is crap, paper rockets, dumb paper rockets, and long
    reload. Might as well buy a Smerch.

    And if the target is spread out and dug in... a barrage of rockets is just what the doctor ordered.

    And you are showing your ignorance... GRAD is a delivery system. Its dumb paper rockets deliver smart GUIDED anti armour top attack sub munitions that use radar and IR sensors to find armour targets and specifically target their top armour with a self forging fragment... a payload superior in performance to any anti armour payload the M270 can deliver.

    Comparing individual vehicles the Grad can take out an armoured unit with 5-6 rockets from 40km range and then move and then take out another unit with another 5-6 rockets from 30km range and then move and then take out another armoured unit with another 5-6 rockets from 35km range and then move... and guess what... it still has 22-25 rockets left.
    In actual practise a Grad unit would be used and each vehicle would fire one or two rockets each so after taking out 3 armoured units each vehicle will still have more than 35 rockets left...

    More importantly when the Grad units are reloading... the Russians will still have their tube artillery as well as other rocket assets that can deal with problems that come up because they didn't replace their tube artillery with rocket artillery... they recognise that rocket artillery has good features and bad features and tube artillery has good features and bad features and together you get the choice that can result in the Russian Army being able to do a better job because when they need a hammer they have several types, and if they need a scalpel then they have those too.

    Because the M270 packs all that equipment on a common frame, it's
    actually quite cheap, compared to placing equipment on multiple frames,
    which means more and more maintenance.

    Fine for the US but no other NATO country uses Bradleys do they? So it means an extra chassis and engine type added. If they could put it in a truck chassis it would be much cheaper... but they would make less profit.

    So if you don't know the costs why are you even talking...like I've said
    before, more equipment means more money, that is quite simple.

    Like I have said before... American made = gold plated but not necessarily a better tool.
    The purpose of rocket artillery is a cheap barrage weapon system that can deluge an area with HE or something more insidious (ie chem or bio). It is also useful for laying quick remote minefields.
    For either role an ATACMS or Tender doesn't make sense. Grad, Smerch, and Uragan on the other hand are ideal.

    Like I've said, I want actual figures, not pictorial guesstimates, when it comes to cost.

    The pictures are not about cost. They are about Russian rocket platforms becoming much more flexible and capable and also unification of the heavy rocket and precision missile vehicles, and finally the precision missile vehicles getting improved capabilities. Adding land attack cruise missile and of course anti ship capability. If it can use Kh-101/-102 then that extends the range to 5,500km for land targets.

    No. The difference with the ATACMS is that it's capable of being fired
    from the same platform, thus it's apart of the unitary system. The
    difference with the BM-30 and BM-21 is that they are not on the same
    platform, they are based on different trucks, thus you'd require more
    than 1 truck to do the same task as the M270.

    The photos I posted above show a Smerch replacement that can fire 122mm, 220mm, and 300mm rockets in fast reloading pallets with the same chassis as the Tender/iskander... which can also use the USUK vertical launch system which means it can also fire in addition to Iskander and Tender ballistic missiles, the Brahmos/Onix/Yakhont land attack and anti ship missiles, the Klub series of land attack and anti ship cruise missiles, and the torpedo armed and sub missiles similar to ASROC, and of course the Kh-101 and Kh-102 strategic cruise missiles.

    How about that for multi tasking/extra capability?

    Not so. The Smerch is designed to kill squares. The M270 can do the same, with accuracy.

    That is their claim but can you prove that M270s unguided rockets are more accurate than Smerchs unguided rockets?

    I think the reverse is actually true... the unguided Smerch rockets should be rather more accurate than the M270s unguided rockets. With unguided rockets I am talking about concentration of HE and I think the Smerch rockets with their built in gyros will group rather better than M270 especially at extended ranges.

    The Smerch is designed to kill squares. The M270 can do the same, with
    accuracy. The Iskander is designed to hit stationary targets at long
    range with accuracy. The ATACMS does the same thing.

    Except Smerch with unguided rockets has more than twice the range of M270 with unguided rockets, and Tender has a longer range than ATACMS.

    When you isolate your systems, like what the Russians did with their
    BM-series and "large" caliber rockets-series, a strategic strike will
    effectively neutralize your capability to do one or the other. With the
    M270, a multi-role, flexible platform, take one out and the other can do
    it's job.

    The range advantage of the Russian systems means they are less vulnerable to attack. The separation of missions means the support vehicles needed for one role are not duplicated in every unit. A strike that takes out Smerch will still have to look for the Uragan and Grad units closer to the front line. A strike that takes out an M270 battery just greatly reduced the US Armies capabilities in that sector because there is no Pershing battery or Honest John battery or tube artillery battery there because the M270 battery replaced them all.

    It's spreading your beans out instead of putting them in single baskets. It's smarter, safer, and overall, more cost effective.

    Don't keep all your eggs in one basket is the saying and it is the opposite of what you are trying to say. It is certainly cheaper, but if something goes wrong it is not safer or smarter or better... it was just cheaper.

    The Russians have realized this and thus they've created the Tornado, a step closer to the M270.

    The purpose of Tornado is the same as the purpose of Grad. Grad was cheap and light and could be bought in large numbers... and rocket artillery is most effective when used in large numbers.
    Tornado is a modern more capable replacement for Grad and will be widely deployed and used. It is more flexible than Grad because there is a much wider choice of rocket types, but its low cost (especially with 122mm rockets) and light weight will allow it to be deployed in large numbers and used in places where bigger heavier systems will have trouble operating.

    But like I've said, the M270 won't be the same distance from the Smerch,
    it'd be farther from the Smerch than the Smerch can fire from.

    What? How will the M270 battery even know where the Smerch battery is till it opens fire?
    If the Smerch battery is operating 20km behind the Russian armoured units it is supporting that means that the M270 will be operating 70km or more away from the Russian armoured unit... to remain outside Smerch battery range.

    That makes the M270 a useless piece of crap because operating 70km away from the Russian units it is supposed to be attacking means even the 60km GPS guided rocket it fires is useless. The only effective rocket it would have is 2 ATACMS... that is hopeless.
    The purpose of the M270 is to provide fire support to the armoured units it is supposed to be supporting... that means it must get to less than 40km range from the enemy... preferably less than 30km really for a proper barrage.
    It will be well within range of Smerch... but big deal... Smerch batteries wont detect it till it fires or it is spotted by recon.

    It seems you think the US Army fights from a safe distance... and I am sure they would like to... but reality is something different.

    This threat to the M270 is largely ignored by the US Army because they have never fought a decent enemy before.

    Like I've said, Russia will not use Smerch or Tender if a Chinese tank
    rush occurs in Far Eastern Siberia. They'd use Tornado and it's rapid
    reload capability to spam guided AT munitions in and around where the
    Chinese tanks are.

    Of course they would use Smerch and Tender and Tornado. Tender would be hitting SAM sites and HQs and ammo dumps and front line airfields... and enemy rocket artillery batteries. Smerch and Tornado would be hitting enemy troop and armour concentrations and mining the ground in front of the chinese forces.

    hat rapid reload capability is something the BM-series nor the Tochka/Tender has, but the M270 does have.

    You make it sound like the BM series takes a week to reload. When it comes to putting down minefields 20 minutes either way is not that important. The low cost of the Tornado will mean they will likely have large numbers of these vehicles, but the Smerch is still potent anyway.

    The M270 is like a Swiss knife and the BM-series/Tochka/Tender are like
    everything in it. Multi-purpose, flexible, gold-plated tube arty; but
    still best arty.

    Swiss Knifes are crap. The scissors are rubbish and WTF do you need a nail file for? The reality is that you would be much better off with a decent sharp fixed blade knife with a decent edge. If you find you can't use this knife to get the job done use it to make a tool that will do the job better.
    Swiss Army Knives are junk and are best left for Boy Scouts.
    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 May 02, 2011 12:28 pm

    I seem to remember reading somewhere that during actual practical testing that it was found that there is a speed limit for penetrators that is about 2.5km/s.

    They found that at speeds above 2.5km/s it was more efficient, energy wise, to increase the mass of the projectile than to increase the speed.

    Something about the projectile losing strength at the tip from aerodynamic heating so that when it hit the target the point is squashed and has to be reformed which reduces its penetration performance in addition to the fact that increasing the propellent didn't increase velocity by the same rate.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5998
    Points : 6400
    Join date : 2010-05-09
    Location : India

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  Austin on Fri Sep 23, 2011 9:06 pm

    Mindstorm two questions Smile

    1) The Frontal Armour of M1A2 SEP is stated at 900 - 950 mm KE and 1500 mm CE , is there any round internally available that would penetrate the frontal armour for such tanks ? Or the frontal armour of Western tanks remain immune to any known weapon ?

    2 ) Do you have any update on Armata Tank development or it just reamains too classified ? Thanks

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 763
    Points : 944
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  Mindstorm on Fri Sep 23, 2011 11:43 pm

    The Frontal Armour of M1A2 SEP is stated at 900 - 950 mm KE and 1500 mm CE


    The central point here is: stated by who ?

    The same gang of ignorant mercenaries strangely avoiding like the death simple ,even intuitive concepts, as specific armoured mass to volume index ?
    The same strangely ignoring that even only the physical LOS of frontal turrett armour in T-90A is significantly higher than Leo-2A5 ?
    The same selling ,comically ,to theirs interlocutors ridiculous ,low level platitudes such as : western tank more heavy = more heavily armoured Laughing Laughing Laughing ?


    Those comical,amateurish, figures for frontal armour level of M12A2(useful ,at maximum, for make some laughters with your friends) circulating on the net remind to me those circulating on the engagement range of AIM-120 series ,triggered ,ostly by the infamous "article" on designation-system site

    [url=http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-120.html ]www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-120.html [/url]

    Observing those "magical" figures ,cited even as acquired data on internet Shocked Shocked by part the horde of blind, ignorant fanaticals, (try only to remember how much times you have heard them ...) someone could argue that missile engine technology and aerodynamic solutions in USA scientifical community had reached alien-like level 20 years ago considering the unescapable size and weigth constraints within which the AIM-120 series was designed ,exactly how someone could infer that english composite armor technology has reached alien-like level and absurd level in the mass efficiency factor if was capable not only to compensate for a so penelizing internal volume to mass index but even to produce results superior to MBT which can count on an armour's physical LOS significantly gretaer in theirs frontal projection .

    Sadly for them ,however, when someone begin to talk seriously of those subject employing serious,professional, sources the Hollywood-like myths immediately shatter and reality quickly realign itself around much less sensational facts, perfectly in line with rational parametrical boundaries of its components.

    [url=http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.181/pub_detail.asp ]www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.181/pub_detail.asp [/url]

    Austin you are an Indian citizen, you have seen an USAF colonel "selling" in a very mean way, closed between four walls,to its brothership friends (among squall,laugthers,SU-30MKI equiped with Tumansky engines and Mig-21 Bison equiped with Elta radar Laughing Laughing Laughing ) a creative "version" of the events at Red Flag 2008 completely overturning the results and the stunning achievements which IAF's officials and pilots had brought to home thanks to hard,serious work and very high level professionalism and that them rightly was celebrating in those same instants in open media in India and you have observed this ridiculous, totally imaginative, private speech become ,for over an year and half ,an official debriefing of Red Flag 2008 !! and even cited as a source by majority of brainless fan-boys in search of any type of pretext to take a revenge for the humiliation of Cope India 2004.

    Just the behaviour and ,let me say that, the incredible technical ignorance, of this colonel in its speech in front of its team-mates give to you a pale idea of the blind mindset at the basis of the perverse mechanisms i have previously described .

    When you see this type of data,ask to yourself :
    Are those data rationally compatibles with irreducible parametrical informations at our disposition ?
    Are them compatibles with unescapables physical constarints in which them operate ?
    Is present any motivation or side interest for which those data should be not coorect....very often even in a self embarassing measure ? (try only to image what would happen if someone would attempt to form an opinion on MiG-35 capabilities on the basis of the comically corrupted figures of its parameters present at pag 77 of "Dogfight!: India’s Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft" by Ahley Tellis ... Laughing Laughing Laughing )

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5998
    Points : 6400
    Join date : 2010-05-09
    Location : India

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  Austin on Fri Sep 23, 2011 11:59 pm

    Actually I know about the Colonel statement and his mindset and had the IAF had not rebuffed it , it would have been a gospel truth amongst all Western Trade Magazines like Janes and other , if memory serves me right in reality the USAF did not win a single combat against the IAF Su-30MKI and lost all Laughing

    But coming back to the topic of Longer Slender APFSDS or Shorter Thicker APFSDS , some one would argue why not a longer thicker APFSDS then to take care of ERA + Composite armour.

    I think the issue is neither a Longer Slender or a Shorter Thicker or a Longer Thicker APFSDS is a solution to the problem but a right L/D ratio APFSDS against a given Armour/ERA is a solution.

    If a longer slender APFSDS penetration is reduced by ERA and a Shorter Thicker APFSDS is defeated by composite armour then its very much possible that Longer Thicker APFSDS might just prove ineffective against both.

    I think the Russians are no fools to not have a longer slender APFSDS as a solution to all problem western armour neither are West foolish enough to keep on increasing length in the hope it will penetrate better.

    Both parties are limited in their knowledge of Armour composition of the other and same goes for ERA , so they keep developing APFSDS based on what they know will work based on their own research and their experience from older model ERA and composite armour obtained from either parties including APFSDS.

    There is some serious gray area where no body known how their APFSDS will react to specific armour unless they face each other in real combat and they will never know.

    That leave room for PR from both sides , I for think both sides might be knowing how some things work which they may not be entirely aware how other thinks dont work , O am sure atleast one will be proven more wrong then the other.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 763
    Points : 944
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  Mindstorm on Sat Sep 24, 2011 8:15 am

    But coming back to the topic of Longer Slender APFSDS or Shorter Thicker APFSDS , some one would argue why not a longer thicker APFSDS then to take care of ERA + Composite armour.

    For two main reasons :

    1) A greater diameter obviously increase the interaction surface between the rod and the armour, with the effect of a greater dispersion of the finite kinetic energy delivered by the penetrator at the instant of the contact and during the tunnelling action over a far wider area.

    2) A long rod with an increased diameter ,moreover,would result in a round with a much,much greater mass with the obvious effect in acceleration capability by part of the main gun, average speed and stability problems both during the fire sequence and in fly.


    I think the Russians are no fools to not have a longer slender APFSDS as a solution to all problem western armour neither are West foolish enough to keep on increasing length in the hope it will penetrate better.

    Western designers are all except fools, them have simply selected the solution more rational.
    An APFSDS ,indipendently from presence or absence of ERA, must at the end confront the passive armour of the target; what sense should have design a round including features aiding it at defeat dynamic protectyion of heavy ERA when those same features would renders it uncapable to penetrate the armour of the standard MBT available in its same time frame? (above all taking also into account that ERA don't cover the entire target area of a MBT and almost always work only for one hit in a certain point).

    Increasing L/D ratio ,a trend constant in APFSDS's design from well before the introduction of second generation ERA, has allowed western designers to mantain a certain capability and chance to penetrate, at useful operational ranges, frontal passive armour of the main contemporary russian tanks operative in the same span of time, in particular those not covered by ERA tiles or even some weak spots covered by ERA ; any deviation from this conceptual route would have produced a round effectively uncapable to penetrate opponent's MBT frontal protection in any spot.

    There is some serious gray area where no body known how their APFSDS will react to specific armour unless they face each other in real combat and they will never know.

    I agree perfectly with you on that.


    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5998
    Points : 6400
    Join date : 2010-05-09
    Location : India

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  Austin on Sat Sep 24, 2011 4:30 pm

    Mindstorm , so let me ask you a follow on question what has then prevented the Russian designer from developing a longer slender APFSDS considering till date none of the Western tank have deployed ERA in significant number ?

    Developing a longer slender APFSDS is not a rocket science and what the russian need is just a modified autoloader which they could have developed.

    Why has russia chosen to develop a some what shorter APFSDS with thicker sabot and did not join the race for longer and longer APFSDS like US is developing with M829A3 and now underdevelopment A4 ?

    Check the US APFSDS round
    http://tkfiles.storage.msn.com/x1pi7ndPRYteRu6EPHxcjpJ6w356rm-gITpKKV9fbp3AwNBRuBFNeBjebzkPafpcPHEWK-JcVf0vVxPmVcgfftbJGm6FeF38DRb99PCbrR9JpFvHNVp3F0RaQ

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5998
    Points : 6400
    Join date : 2010-05-09
    Location : India

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  Austin on Sat Sep 24, 2011 5:51 pm

    Mindstorm wrote:10) In several tests conducted in front of Indian delegation using latest foreign munitions of the M829A2 type conducted from 250 meters against T-90S devoid of the normal built-in reactive armor the turrett resulted completely impentrable !!

    From what i have read on other boards on this issue ,US never exported M829A2 DU rounds but only Tungesten rounds , so what is more likely to have been tested is 120mm KEW-A2 round.

    Here are the details of it http://defense-update.com/products/digits/120ke.htm

    KEW-A2 (General Dynamics)
    The 120mm KEW-A2 cartridge is uses a tungsten penetrator, and is proposed as an alternative for depleted uranium based KE projectiles. KEW-A2 uses 8.6kg of JA-2 propellant, accelerating the 7.6kg projectile to a muzzle velocity of 1,700 m/sec. The projectile uses the tungsten rod, steel fin and sabot fabricated from composite materials. ot, fired at a muzzle velocity of 1,740 m/sec generating chamber pressre of 5,800 bar.


    11) Even only tyhr physical thickness of T-90 turrrett armor is in therange of 70-95 cm ,with 45 cm in the firing port area, a Leopard -2A5 show a physical thickness for the same area of 65 cm and 35 cm in the area of gun mantlet

    This part of Leo 2A5 too is disputed ,This is what Damian told me about leo 2 armour

    link

    Some pictures that he had sent me on Leo 2 armour

    http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/231/p1190540q.jpg/
    http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/5435/p1190535.jpg
    http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/3633/p1190532.jpg




    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5998
    Points : 6400
    Join date : 2010-05-09
    Location : India

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  Austin on Sat Sep 24, 2011 5:54 pm

    Mindstorm wrote:
    Increasing L/D ratio ,a trend constant in APFSDS's design from well before the introduction of second generation ERA, has allowed western designers to mantain a certain capability and chance to penetrate, at useful operational ranges, frontal passive armour of the main contemporary russian tanks operative in the same span of time, in particular those not covered by ERA tiles or even some weak spots covered by ERA ; any deviation from this conceptual route would have produced a round effectively uncapable to penetrate opponent's MBT frontal protection in any spot.

    Yes that makes sense now.

    Is K-6 made with different pinciple compared to K-5 ?

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 763
    Points : 944
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  Mindstorm on Sun Sep 25, 2011 10:39 pm

    This part of Leo 2A5 too is disputed ,This is what Damian told me about leo 2 armour

    DamianThis is obvious lie.

    We have messures made on real Leopard 2 tank, front armor on the left side of turret is at least 800mm, armor behind main sight is 650mm + 200mm in front of main sight in Leopard 2A5/A6 tanks, below sight we again have ~800mm

    Some pictures that he had sent me on Leo 2 armour

    http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/231/p1190540q.jpg/
    http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/5435/p1190535.jpg
    http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/3633/p1190532.jpg


    I am surprised any day more on the capacity to do litterally anything in order to mantain alive beloved metropolitan legends (even when obviously ,totally out of line and devoid of any type of rational and factual foundation), coming even to a selective blindness capable to let the acceptance of twisted or inconsistent proofs while ,contestually ,completely forgetting crushing ones.

    I want to start from the pics ,which it declare to have received from "friends of an its friend", Smile ; the first one is obviously NOT a Leopard 2 A4/A5 left side turret armoured section for no other than simple, crushing, self evident geometrical reasons. [see down]

    Austin i image that you have already noted,moreover, that, except in the third (which naturally perfectly confirm the Leo-2A4's armour LOS figures and the ratio between that and the other section) ,very strangely no other turrett's visible constructive elements are present for reference.

    Do you remember mine first suggestion about the acceptance and reliability of suspect informations ?
    "Are those data rationally compatibles with irreducible parametrical informations at our disposition ?"

    Well give a look at THIS very illustrative photo of a Leopard-2 A4 turrett in construction without the armour module blocks inserts







    You will note ,over the absolute inconsistency of the left turrett armour module (that virtually with more LOS ) with that "thing" in the first image envoyed to you, also that this photo allow to execute precise measurements of the ratio with other Leo-2A4 well know visible structural elements employing established, unescapable parametrical measures .

    From that fact result absolutely clear that a measure of 800mm (80 cm) for the left side armour side would be not only totally irreconcilable with LOS of side of turrett but also with the width's figure of the whole MBT (3,75 meters) ,conversely the figure of 65 cm collimate perfectly with the ratio of all the previously mentioned well established dimensional figures.
    At this point become even more interesting observe another time the third pic envoied to you; a part for the comical, even clumsy attempt to increase the LOS measuring from ...the centre of the periscope area !!! and... in oblique !!! Laughing Laughing Laughing this image with a visibles structural element render even more clearly evident as also the figure of 60 cm for LOS of this armour section ,taked correctly from the right of the periscope to the base is perfectly sound and in line with the dimensional ratio with any other constructive element of the Leo-2 A4 MBT.






    Just for reference that is a comparative draw maked by Harkonnen (alias ....Andrey Tarasenko !) on the real ratio between LOS armour level of the Leopard-2A4 a T-80U and T-72B ; note the difference in overall armoured surface area ,size of turrett's frontal protection and angle at which enemy fire are uncapable to hit the side in T-80U and T-72B and on western like design







    Note the perfect consistency of all those elements with what previously asserted on the problem of armoured mass to surface index and on overall mass of a MBT and its internal volume ;those grossly "inflated" LOS for western MBTs (a desperate operation for attempt to mantain alive a childish irrational platitude) would not only collide with structural positioning of other elements and with the same ratio with the well known figures of theirs platform's size, but would bring the weight factor at level even more ridiculous than that already caused by the necessity to protect a MBT's structure horrible plagued by a titanic fraction of internal volume.


    To be continued....


    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 763
    Points : 944
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  Mindstorm on Mon Sep 26, 2011 2:53 am

    Even more intersting is that what presented until now ,a great fraction of which debated in particular in this topic at Tank net, the following


    http://208.84.116.223/forums/index.php?showtopic=14592&st=0


    started just by the same Andrej Tarasenko to debunk one time for all the ridiculous idiocies commonly circulating on frontal armour level of western "heavy" tanks ,claimed to be more thick than corrispective of Russian-built MBTs (please read it entirely ,in particular read with attention the "interventions" of pfcem and Sebastian Balos and you will realize how those idiocies and comical claims originate and spread even with the use of completely invented data !!).

    What is even more interesting is that those elements was so factually and rationally well grounded that ...the same Damian was employing them in a debate just on this same subject !!!


    http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?158677-Tanks-with-urban-survivability-kits./page4 Laughing Laughing



    As you see Leo2 isn't best armored tank, in some areas some russian tanks are better armored, in some other western tanks have better protection.

    Now should become even more intesting to hear from him where "vanish" the remaining Leo-2A4 s' armoured mass weigth if, its total mass was absolutely comparable with that of M1 Abrams ,for its own admission Leopard-2 turrett was even smaller than that of M1 Abrams ...and ,for some strange reason, i perceive that ,in its intention, that element was named as it was a disadvantage !!!..... and it claim for M1 Abrams not only a greater armour's LOS overall but also "~300mm LOS thick on full side armor lenght" Smile Smile Smile




    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5998
    Points : 6400
    Join date : 2010-05-09
    Location : India

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  Austin on Mon Sep 26, 2011 3:12 am

    Mindstorm thank you for taking the effort to respond , I wanted to know your views on the following

    1> Why has russian APFSDS turned to be shorter and thicker compared to western APFSDS when Longer Slimer APFSDS are known to penetrate better for composite armour better then shorter thicker APFSDS ? Why dont Russian develop longer slimmer APFSDS any reason for this ?

    2> What is Russian Idea for Armata Universal Combat Vehical ? Do they want to streamline logistics by using common chasis or is it something else.

    3> What is the development on APFSDS front , why dont Russian use DU round to the extent US uses ?
    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 Sep 26, 2011 6:33 pm

    1> Why has russian APFSDS turned to be shorter and thicker compared to western APFSDS when Longer Slimer APFSDS are known to penetrate better for composite armour better then shorter thicker APFSDS ? Why dont Russian develop longer slimmer APFSDS any reason for this ?

    Basic physics.

    When you have a circle the width of the turret ring to store 22 rounds of ammo then the length of the rounds is dependant on the distance from the centre of the circle to the outside of the circle minus several cms because if you think of cutting a pizza into slices... when you cut 22 slices in the centre the width of the slices will be too narrow for anything but the thinnest needle of a penetrators nose.
    If the length is limited then to increase the weight you have to make the penetrator thicker.
    There is a limit to how thin a penetrator can be... a fine needle is OK for penetrating skin, but to penetrate metal plate it will bend and not penetrate at all. It needs mass as well as hardness and velocity to penetrate well.
    Long penetrators concentrate more mass onto the same area which improves penetration. Increasing the mass by making it thicker will increase the energy the rod has to penetrate with but the increased width means the effort needed to penetrate the armour is also increased.

    Up until the unlimited funds suddenly dried up (mid 1980s) the penetrators they were using were effective enough, and their primary anti armour round was actually the HEAT warheads as the terminal effects were better and they could be effective against a wider range of targets with blast damage as well as penetration.

    Hitting a truck with an APFSDS round might lead to the round punching a 40mm calibre hole right through the back of the truck, whereas a hit with a HEAT round will likely do far more damage and likely start a fire.

    2> What is Russian Idea for Armata Universal Combat Vehical ? Do they want to streamline logistics by using common chasis or is it something else.

    It is basic common sense that tanks can't fight infantry very well and they need support, but as they found in Chechnia BMPs don't last very long in combat in built up areas operating with tanks.

    The solution is to give tank level armour to all the vehicles that will operate with tanks.

    Rather than develop 20 different new vehicles with tank level armour they are going to develop two... one with the engine at the front and one with the engine at the back.

    The MSTA already uses a tank chassis, as does the BTR-T and BMPT, and the various bridging vehicles and the BREM recovery vehicle... so it really isn't that new.

    Even the BMPT is not totally a new idea as the Bradley M3 was designed to not carry troops but to carry a double ammo load for its weapons and to act as a fire support vehicle. It did not have tank level armour however.

    3> What is the development on APFSDS front , why dont Russian use DU round to the extent US uses ?

    In the past they have been able to get the required performance from Tungsten alloy rounds.
    The new DU round is of improved design with new materials alloyed to enable a step up in performance. The problems with DU dust and the expensive clean ups mean the round will likely rarely be used and will be kept aside for emergencies to minimise clean up costs.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 763
    Points : 944
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  Mindstorm on Tue Sep 27, 2011 10:59 am

    Mindstorm thank you for taking the effort to respond , I wanted to know your views on the following

    1> Why has russian APFSDS turned to be shorter and thicker compared to western APFSDS when Longer Slimer APFSDS are known to penetrate better for composite armour better then shorter thicker APFSDS ? Why dont Russian develop longer slimmer APFSDS any reason for this ?

    2> What is Russian Idea for Armata Universal Combat Vehical ? Do they want to streamline logistics by using common chasis or is it something else.

    3> What is the development on APFSDS front , why dont Russian use DU round to the extent US uses ?



    What said on those subjects by GarryB in its post is ,as always, all correct and rationally well centred ; i can only stress some points.

    1) In half of '80 and beginning of '90 years Soviets was sure to enjoy ,in the armoured sector ,in a possible high mobile multi-front offensive in the Great European Plain ,a crushing advantage on NATO not only quantitative but also qualitative ; this element was crucial in slow-down R&D efforts in the field of tank round design and evolution.
    This belief was founded on some cardinal elements of Soviet MBT's classical structural design mixed to some "new" developed (for the time) capabilities, signally :

    1) Wide stand-off fire capability ,assured by theirs gun launched ATGM capable, moreover, to pose also a very serious danger to CAS aircraft and combat helicopters.
    2) Ever improving multilayered passive armour already capable to stop, in the turrett's frontal projection, vast majority of KE and CE round of western MBT of the time , passive armor which combined with the effects of second generation ERA rendered them incredibly resilient to almsot all anti-tanks weapons present in NATO arsenal in those years (as realized by NATO experts of the sectors only after live tests on original Soviet specimens at half of '90 years)
    3) The very compact structure ,with slow silhouette ,small internall volume, reduced target area projection and low weight ,over the obvious advantages in terms of : armoured mass to volume index, lower fuel consuption ,shortened logistical footprint,ease of rail and aircraft trasport of the forces, improved off road mobility, faster capability to reach force concentration etc..etc... was capable also to assure a significantly higher percentage of enemy miss-fire in the high mobile engagements that Soviets expected to characterize a conventional conflict in Europe.
    4) Could count on the pernicious effects achieved ,both at a tactical and a strategical level, by theirs strctured disinformation campaign aimed both to western military operatives and the the analyst community ; very successful,in the period,at corrupt the same foundations (employing very often empyrical purposely crafted "proofs" to reiforce technical beliefs totally out of line....) of western strategic and tactical models of representation and obviously tactical and startegical solutions and doctrine.
    5) Soviet experts was sure that the round operative with armoured forces was more than capable to penetrate NATO's typical MBT of the time

    On the last sentence can be interesting red what writed Viktor Murakhovsky on the tests of 3BM42 APFSDS "Mango", in service on Russian tanks since 1986 :

    " 125-mm 3VBM17 round with 3BM42 APFSDS projectile «Mango» was put into service in 1986. The advanced power projectile is designed to modern updated armored vehicles with combined armor protection. It has complicated structure, which includes solid ballistic and armor-piercing cap, armor-piercing damper and two penetrators made of high-duty tungsten alloy.
    The penetrators are fixed in the hull by a steel body made of low-melting- temperature alloy. When it penetrates, the steel body melts and the penetrators move to the penetrating pipe without consuming energy to leave the hull.The sabot is madeof V-96C1 alloy with advanced characteristics.

    When the projectile was tested the projectile engaged a multilayered armor, which simulates the armor of than cutting-edge tanks: seven- layer armor at an angle of 30 and 60 degrees; three-layer armor at an angle of 65 degrees; steel homogenous armor plate. The tests proved that the 3BM42 APFSDS projectile penetrated the armor which is the same as used in the main battle tanks M1, M1A1 «Abrams» etc. "


    It continue specifying that the round had a guaranteed piercing performance, at a distance of 2000 m and 0/60 degrees, of 450/230 mm and an average piercing performance at a Distance of 2000 m always at 0 degrees of 500 mm.

    From all those elements ,combined witht the "blacks" '90 years, we can deduct that ,at the exact contrary of western scientifical community of the sector ,alarmed by the sudden discovery of the level of resiliency reached by original MBT's specimen with seven layer composite armors (for avoid the enrmous problem represented by the new, second generation,heavy dynamic protections) before SU's collapse in the sector lacked even the technical motivations for engage in an urgent evolutive R&D effort in the APFSDS /HEAT round field.




    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5998
    Points : 6400
    Join date : 2010-05-09
    Location : India

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  Austin on Tue Sep 27, 2011 8:22 pm

    Thanks Mindstorm , Garry for putting up to my questions and patiently answering them Very Happy

    So 3BM42 APFSDS projectile with a guranteed penetration of 450 mm at 0 degrees and an average of 500 mm was guranteed to penetrate NATO tanks of that time which is quite good.

    But since then the APFSDS development has remained static , I have also heard that the 3BM42M APFSDS was never put into production due to bureaucratic reason ?

    Coming to back to the next two decade of development , as we can see from the video and even from Chief Designer statement , the T-90MS affords a frontal protection figure of 850 mm for KE and 1200 for CE and is stated to be similar to modern Western but heavier tank.

    So we must assume that in future any apfsds should be able to penetrate ~ 900 mm of RHA and 1300 mm of CE for high probability of frontal penetration at 0 degrees.

    Since the current best APFSDS we know is 3BM42 ( we really do not know the figure for new 740 mm APFSDS ) and the best CE figure for Reflex missile is 900 mm CE.

    It is quite clear that none of the Russian tank based KE and CE would penetrate the frontal armour of modern Western Tank like M1A2SEP or Leo 2A7 ?

    is there any significant development work going on in APFSDS and CE sphere in Russia to deal with NATO threats ( i am excluding bigger rounds like kornet and focussing on tank based capability )

    Thanks.
    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 Sep 27, 2011 8:41 pm

    But since then the APFSDS development has remained static , I have also heard that the 3BM42M APFSDS was never put into production due to bureaucratic reason ?

    Whether it was put in production or not is not the issue.
    The Western tanks that western experts thought were invinsible from the front were not, and the Soviet tanks that were weak and pathetic as shown by the Iraqi performance in Desert Storm is also rubbish.

    Considering all this time it was economics and not skill or physics that prevented Russian tank designers out performing western tank designers is amusing... especially when one considers how much money the west spends a year on "defence".

    Since the current best APFSDS we know is 3BM42 ( we really do not know the figure for new 740 mm APFSDS ) and the best CE figure for Reflex missile is 900 mm CE.

    It is quite clear that none of the Russian tank based KE and CE would penetrate the frontal armour of modern Western Tank like M1A2SEP or Leo 2A7 ?

    Can we assume the same in reverse? I am an expert in Russian designs and equipment and know nothing about any western vehicle newer than the mid 1980s and Soviet and Russian weapons could easily penetrate western vehicles of that time period so can I say that Russian tank based KE and CE could penetrate any western vehicle?

    Of course I couldn't, such a statement would be based on ignorance.

    The weapons made by the Russians were designed to defeat the western vehicles of the period and based on the information we have it is pretty clear they succeeded.

    That is not to say their upgraded T-54s and T-62s could do it, only those vehicles that could fire the new 125mm ammo.

    To compare apples with apples we will need to wait till we find out a little more about the new DU APFSDS round developed for the domestic T-90AM.

    BTW these protection figures you give are front turret figures... with modern fire control systems it is perfectly possible to add a little bias into the software in the aiming algorithm to make the rounds hit low...

    is there any significant development work going on in APFSDS and CE sphere in Russia to deal with NATO threats ( i am excluding bigger rounds like kornet and focussing on tank based capability )

    The article that mentioned new rounds talked about 4 rounds being tested last year and a total of 16 new rounds across the large calibre gun and artillery range.

    I would expect at the very least two new rounds for export with the MS and two new rounds for the domestic of AP and HEAT design, and I would also expect a new HE Frag round suitable for use with the ANIET system and likely at least a new tube launched missile... perhaps two... with one for export.

    Just all speculation of course...

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 763
    Points : 944
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Air power against Tanks and Ground Forces

    Post  Mindstorm on Wed Sep 28, 2011 6:56 am

    Modern real world experience also tells us the greatest threat to armour is not other tanks, it is air power.

    I am sorry for say that so harshly ,but that is one of those cheaply selled misconceptions absolutely devoid of any factual foundation at which i always refere ; at the exact opposite, if possible, any pasted operational theater of war has systematically proved, in an irrefutable way, that air forces are totally uncapable to inflict significative losses to ground forces (in particular armoured ones) even in heavenly favourable scenario,taking into account very prolongued time windows, against enemies devoid of any serious/modern AD network and lacking any capability to attack the airfields from which opposing air attacks come from  !!

         
    Take, at example, Gulf War:  at the beginning (in plain war) Coalition Air Force Command had declared to have destroyed in the month and half of dedicated operations before G-day (start of ground operations) about 50% of Iraqi ground forces ( 47% of Iraqi armoured forces ).
    That figure, already disowned as completely wronged by the same Coalition Forces assessing in first person what was the reality on the ground..., shrinked more and more ,at an unbelievable pace, as the results and version of battle damage assessment studies and data was updated .

    At the end of this process we have the verdict of the last CENTCOM data, certifying that less than 10% of the iraqi armoured losses -9,6 %- was inflicted by Air Forces in over a month and half after litterally several hundreds dedicated operations ,while all the remaining losses was inflicted, in less than 3 days, by the Coalation ground forces ; in particular the majority of losses to iraqi armoured divisions was inflicted by Coalition artillery and infantry/IFV TOW missiles ,often against not manned MBTs (both elements well attestd by the same survey of M. Held "Warhead hit distribution on main battle tanks in the Gulf War").

    You can read on this subject "Gulf War: The Complete History" by Thomas Houlahan - director of the Military Assessment Program of the William R. Nelson Institute for Public Affairs at James Madison University -,i suggest this book because ,if from a side, it is truly complete and provide a very detailed,integral description of the weapons and tactics employed by Coalition forces in the ground engagements from the eyes of an operative,it represent,contemporaneously, also a perfect example of the high degree of misconceptions and totally false informations which Soviets managed to inject copiously in the minds even of western military insiders, just thanks to the "supporting" factor represented by theirs purposely designed export models),but naturally,by now ,any serious publication report those definitive data.

    -Interesting are also the declarations of captured Iraqi ground forces commanders : almost all of them asserted to being full of hopes before the ground offensive assessing that NATO Air Forces was capable to inflict in a month and half very minor losses only to see Coalition artillery,mechanized infantry and MBTs obliterate majority of theirs pieces in a pair of hours (at example the chief of 48th iraqi artillery division,captured by the UK 4th armoured brigade, declared that its division had lost just eleven pieces in all the month and half of Air Force's attacks and....eighty-seven pieces in less than 40 minutes from the artillery attack of US VII Corps !!!

       
    Let me spare to you the example ,even more disastrous, of Kosovo War .....also here initial claims by part of Air Forces Command of several hundreds of Serbian MBTs destroyed 500 artillery pieces ,thousands of infantry troops killed, shrinked progressively more and more (mostly for the "annoying" element represented by European war commission and theirs survey's data) up to...14 tanks destroyed , 18 APC and 23 artillery pieces ! ! !  ; and naturally also the last conflict in Lybia is a clear proof od what said up to this point.

    Is important to stress that ,over the absence of any type of serious AD (an element already capable to overturn completely the equilibrium in similar conflicts), none of those opponents owned any military mean capable to attack air bases used by enemy Air Forces in the theater of operation , in presence of this class of weapons (the proliferation of which is normally strictly controlled by international arms control treaties and usually present only in the arsenals of major world powers) even only attempt prepare an air campaign become absolutely impossible if not a true suicide act.  

    Air Forces in the last 20 years became more and more popular ,against the typical immensely inferior enemy ,simply because it is a military mean ,in spite to be immensely expensive and time-inefficient, allowing to mantain friendly losses very low ,often even to zero ( with the obvious implications in terms of inpact on internal public opinion and media) ,allowing a fast response to international emergences and to limit the civil losses through the employment of PGM and don't force to invade another country (an important factor in mantaining international community support to the military operation ) ; Ground Forces in a tiny fraction of the time required to aircraft to take off from its airbase , deliver theirs ordances and return at the airfield, can deliver litterally ,in the same area, dozen of thousands times the destruction power delivered by Air Forces.
    Simply them are less suited for minor local conflicts characterizing the actual international political scenario.
    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 Sep 28, 2011 2:06 pm

    Stats don't lie, but I would suggest that Russian Air Power, as degraded as it was led to the destruction or abandonment of far more armour in Georgia than actual ground forces achieved.

    The use of ground forces approaching an enemy force will force the enemy force to do one of two things... run away, or form up into a force powerful enough to meet the enemy force.

    If they run away the ground force takes ground, if they form up air power can punish them.

    In the US they like to think air power can win wars on its own.

    In Russia the Army does not expect to be supported by air power and provides its own air defence.

    The irony is that working together like the Germans did makes them both far more powerful, but then the Germans lost.

    The thing is that the modern air forces don't want to become a branch of the army and so they pretend they can do it all on their own.

    Sad really, but the truth is that a single Su-25 armed with 8 x 500kg cluster bombs with top attack bomblets is likely a much greater threat to enemy armour than a single T-90, yet in many ways the hidden truth is that an Su-25 and a T-90 are much more capable together, because an Su-25 can't hold the ground it clears the enemy from.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5998
    Points : 6400
    Join date : 2010-05-09
    Location : India

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  Austin on Wed Sep 28, 2011 4:15 pm

    GarryB wrote:Sad really, but the truth is that a single Su-25 armed with 8 x 500kg cluster bombs with top attack bomblets is likely a much greater threat to enemy armour than a single T-90, yet in many ways the hidden truth is that an Su-25 and a T-90 are much more capable together, because an Su-25 can't hold the ground it clears the enemy from.

    Depends on the quality of AD network the single Su-25 faces , it wouldnt take more than couple of Igla-S to beat the brat if they come in low and fast to beat the armour and if Igla-S forces them not to fly low then the ability to attack ground elements like armour degrades , now mulitply that more capable AD like Tunguska or Tor or others.
    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 Sep 28, 2011 4:47 pm

    The installation of President-M on the Su-25 will make it fairly resistent to MANPADS... note I am not talking about a T-90 or Su-25 against US Army Abrams tanks, that is so unlikely as to be not worth consideration.

    Although they lost a couple of Su-25s in the Georgian conflict, the aircraft destroyed enough ground targets to make the majority of the Georgian army abandon their vehicles and run.

    You don't climb out of a perfectly good vehicle and run when tanks are coming... you turn the vehicle around and drive away at top speed.

    The only reason you would park your vehicle neatly at the side of the road and leg it is if the threat was air power.

    The introduction of Mi-28Ns and Ka-52s will only make the air power more effective.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5998
    Points : 6400
    Join date : 2010-05-09
    Location : India

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  Austin on Wed Sep 28, 2011 5:12 pm

    Persident-S or any thing like that is not a fool proof system and there are laser guided and radar guided missiles too.

    Like I said it depends on the kind of AD network with the accompained by armour one faces will determine how effective air power is , ultimately if they want to do serious damage they will have to fly low and slow be it aircraft or even chopper and they could fall prey to a robust AD
    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 Sep 28, 2011 5:55 pm

    It is certainly not a fool proof system, but MANPADS are not fool proof either, and laser guided SAM are not widely deployed, while radar guided missiles can be dealt with using anti radiation missiles.

    The Su-25 was designed to take hits from small arms and continue to operate.

    With President-M... which is a defence suite BTW, deals with a range of ground launched threats and not just IR guided missiles, though they are the most common threat.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 763
    Points : 944
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  Mindstorm on Thu Sep 29, 2011 1:29 am


    You don't climb out of a perfectly good vehicle and run when tanks are coming... you turn the vehicle around and drive away at top speed.

    The only reason you would park your vehicle neatly at the side of the road and leg it is if the threat was air power.


    In the 2008 South Ossetia war , Georgia forces beginned the famous quick retreat (or we should say ,more correctly, the route), with abandoned APC, MBT and supply vehicles, after the russian counteroffensive in response to the third attempt by part of Georgian forces to enter in Tskhinvali ;that counteroffensive was conducted mostly with very dense artillery barrage , MLRS flank saturating attack, and a "two-heads" IFV/MBT and infantry conducted counteroffensive; the result of that is in the words of one of the Georgian officials involved in the last fatal offensive :

    "I had never even only envisioned something similar.... it was something like the hell".

    To obtain what russian forces have achieved in 5 days, employing very limited number of forces ,at very low costs and ,even more important, avoiding to employ any strategically crucial or up-to-date weaponry or command and control systems , an approach completely centred around Air Forces (in opposition to Air force as nothing more than one of the components of the multi-branch operation) would have required some months and dozen of times the costs - without taking into account the surrending of important data on modern up-to date weapon systems , a thing that Russians ,for theirs tradition, attempt to avoid like the death - .

    In Gulf War vast majority of iraqi vehicles was abandoned in the 72 hours of ground offensive and not in the month and half of NATO air attacks -when ,at maximum, them was leaved ummanned for some time,witht eh crew going for some time under anti-bomb shelters, waiting the end of the attack to collect damaged equipment to be repaired-.

    I repeat for the umpteenth time , a squadron of aircraft in an offensive mission based on an airfield at 600 km from the area of operation, in order to complete its task, must : mount the weapons for the mission ,much more costly than theirs ground counterparts greatly limited by the obvious volumetric and weigth constraints imposed by the same platform, refuel , and all of us know perfectly what enormous quantity of fuel is required by a vehicle that need to costantly fight force of gravity and manoeuvre for hundreds of kilometers ,cover the space up to its targets ,station for some time in the place and return to its base ,with its clear implications in term of the time window involved.
    Now in the same time required to this squadron to conduct a single mission an artillery brigade can deliver 70-80 times the destructive power delivered by the aricraft squadronand at a tiny fraction of the costs .
    For provide only an idea : a single salvo (38 seconds) from a single BM-30 Smerch with cluster warhead missile can cover 672000 m2 (a square of about 820 meters of side !!! ) a typical brigade of Smerch include 18 launchers and ,in the last version of launcher/recharger vehicles, can shoot a salvo each 18 minutes ...clear the concept ?




    Sponsored content

    Re: Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu May 25, 2017 3:35 am