Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16411
    Points : 17022
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

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

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

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

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

    The BMPT has been canceled.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

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

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

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

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

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

    The BMPT has been canceled.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    No, to shoot down the plane.

    Austin

    Posts : 6284
    Points : 6682
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

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

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

    Hence to just briefly sum up the response.

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

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

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

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

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

    Posts : 16411
    Points : 17022
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

    That depends on the range to the target...

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

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

    No, to shoot down the plane.

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

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

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

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

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

    That depends on the range to the target...

    We're not talking about guided mortar rounds here.

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

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

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

    Posts : 16411
    Points : 17022
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

    We're not talking about guided mortar rounds here.

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

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

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

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

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

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

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

    GarryB wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    We're not talking about guided mortar rounds here.

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

    Posts : 16411
    Points : 17022
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  GarryB on Tue Mar 22, 2011 4:12 am


    Tanks used Defensively are a terrible waste of good armor.

    But more often than not, if the enemy doesn't present it self for "fair" full frontal conflict then that is how it must be used...

    I wouldn't keep the 7.62 simply on the basis that it's coaxial, which
    means that the turret has to rotate along. Better to just throw away
    coaxes and just throw in an extra remote MG.

    If your problem is that 7.62 is no good then there is no reason why different calibres couldn't be used instead.
    The T-10 had a 12.7mm calibre gun as a coaxial weapon and was intended as a long range tank destroyer to sit back and pick off enemy, so the 12.7mm weapon made sense for both coaxial and roof mounted gun. The T-10M replaced both 12.7mm weapons for 14.5mm weapons... which is pretty much the equivelent of a light 20mm cannon.
    The French at one time had plans for a 20mm or 30mm gun mounted in a special coaxial mounting with the main gun on one of their tanks... AMX-30 or 40 or something. The design allowed the coaxial gun to elevate independantly of the main gun so while it could only elevate the normal -5 to +20 degrees or something like that the coaxial gun could elevate to 40 or 60 degrees to engage more difficult targets...

    A small gun like the GSh-30 as fitted to the Mig-29 and Su-27 is a short light compact weapon firing a full power 30 x 165mm round at 1,800 rpm. The barrel life is pretty short but its weight of about 45kgs could be increased to extend that easily enough.

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

    I agree... but that creates an obvious problem. Your heavy brigade now has less fire power than your medium brigade because the equivelent of the BMP-3M is missing so there is no high elevation 30mm auto cannon and rifled 100mm gun direct firing HE shells. That is why I am suggesting a BMPT, but not the BMPT we have seen, because I think it would be more effective with the BMP-3M armament, though with proper bow mounted turrets with decent fields of fire and tank levels of armour all round.

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

    They know the US has Javelins in service... that alone is a reason. Or are you suggesting the billions they have spent and the billions more they will spend on things like PAK FA and S-400/S-500 are for regional wars with Georgia?

    And it goes both ways too... TOW and Milan and HOT (wont mention Dragon) are overkill for the targets the US forces have actually come up against in the last 20-30 years and they would certainly continue to do the job for the foreseeable future... there was no real point to Javelin... except to defeat the T-90s defences.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16411
    Points : 17022
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  GarryB on Tue Mar 22, 2011 4:31 am

    BTW the terminal angle of Krasnopol and similar weapons is directly effected by the range and angle of launch... a laser guided shell like this can't just be fired off in any direction with the laser guidance brining it down on the target every time.

    You pre register an area for the artillery and position you laser target designator (LTD) to a position within the 5-10 km range of the LTD he is using. It will be a choke point where tanks have to traverse and where there is a clear line of sight for the illuminator.
    When tanks start moving into the target area a target will be selected within the effective field of view of the rounds... for example say there was a bridge across a seriously big river, you would have the artillery aim directly at the bridge and knowing the missiles field of view allows targets to be engaged within a 1km radius of the point of aim any tank within 2km diameter circle around the bridge can be fired upon. Targets actually on the bridge will have rounds landing near vertically and tanks 1km away from the bridge in the direction of the artillery firing the missiles might even be hit at a near 45 degree angle from the opposite direction to where the artillery is located.

    As such if a top attack is needed the LTD operator can engineer a top attack of a near vertical nature.

    If you look at the link I provided above it outlines this sort of stuff:

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

    The only error in it is that it assumes too much.

    Using Krasnopol and Krasnopol-M you don't lase the target for 15 seconds or so like western systems do.
    The Russian system has two modes for direct fire and indirect fire laser aimed weapons (this does not include beam riding missiles whose beams do work continuously). For direct fire weapons the target is lased for 1 second during which the missile uses side thruster rockets to get on target. For indirect laser guided weapons the target is lased for up to 3 seconds... lasing for 15 seconds is pointless as it only drops its cap covering the optic sensors in the last few seconds of flight to find the target anyway.
    During the firing sequence the time of flight to target is calculated so the LTD is pointed at the target to mark it but it isn't lasing the target till it gets the launch transmission from the artillery unit along with time of flight info to tell it when to lase the target. 3 seconds before impact the cap comes off the missile and the LTD lights up the target. For a round registered on a bridge being used against a target on that bridge the round will not need to make that many corrections to hit and it will hit nearly vertically.

    The point is that it would be pretty rare for all the targets to be exactly where the artillery is registered (ie aimed at), but targets near that will get near vertical fire too. A battery of 4 guns could be registered to different points so each gun could fire 20-30 seconds apart so a large spread of targets could be hit in succession.
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2179
    Points : 3067
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Vladimir79 on Tue Mar 22, 2011 6:05 am

    GarryB wrote:BTW the terminal angle of Krasnopol and similar weapons is directly effected by the range and angle of launch... a laser guided shell like this can't just be fired off in any direction with the laser guidance brining it down on the target every time.

    No it isn't and yes it can. It is just a laser guided bomb coming from an artillery tube. As long as the shell seeker is pointing in the general direction on its ascent phase, it will seek the illuminated point for impact.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16411
    Points : 17022
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  GarryB on Tue Mar 22, 2011 8:15 am

    No it isn't and yes it can. It is just a laser guided bomb coming from
    an artillery tube. As long as the shell seeker is pointing in the
    general direction on its ascent phase, it will seek the illuminated
    point for impact.

    What I meant is that it has a limit as to how far it can manouver during its guidance phase and it also has a seeker field of view that also limits what it can hit as well.

    Firing the shell in the opposite direction to where the target is when the shell is in flight it flys ballistically till it ejects the cap that protects the seeker in the nose and starts looking for the target during its descent.
    During its ascent after being fired it has the seeker cap on and can't see anything... and even if it ejected the cap 100m from the muzzle after launch it will be climbing upwards and just see sky anyway.


    He says he was personally involved with T-95 and if it got adopted it
    would have given Russian Army a 20 year advantage over Western system,
    there were refinments planned for T-95.

    Thanks for posting, and though I haven't read it yet keep in mind that of course he thinks this tank is wonderful... it is his baby. Remember that in the 1980s before the west had its hands on the R-73 they thought the then current model of Sidewinder was the worlds best short range AAM... but only because they didn't know anything about the R-73s real performance.

    Think of the T-95 as being like the Commanche... I rather doubt it was bad... requirements likely changed and undermined its main purpose... and using the latest technologies it was probably pretty expensive too.

    The same is likely to happen with the technology with the T-90 likely benefiting perhaps from new active defense systems developed for it, and the future replacement tank for the T-90 will likely get even more features where they make sense to do so.

    BTW the title of the translation:
    By the central board of ground forces it must fix connection with the defense industry, but not make the unconsidered statements


    Is pretty much what I am saying... the military need to communicate better what it wants, and the MIC need to listen and react to that information.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  IronsightSniper on Tue Mar 22, 2011 11:55 pm

    [quote="GarryB"]

    Tanks used Defensively are a terrible waste of good armor.

    But more often than not, if the enemy doesn't present it self for "fair" full frontal conflict then that is how it must be used...

    If the enemy isn't fair, don't play fair. Letting tanks sit around in a stationary OP is a bad idea. Better to hide it.

    I wouldn't keep the 7.62 simply on the basis that it's coaxial, which
    means that the turret has to rotate along. Better to just throw away
    coaxes and just throw in an extra remote MG.

    If your problem is that 7.62 is no good then there is no reason why different calibres couldn't be used instead.
    The T-10 had a 12.7mm calibre gun as a coaxial weapon and was intended as a long range tank destroyer to sit back and pick off enemy, so the 12.7mm weapon made sense for both coaxial and roof mounted gun. The T-10M replaced both 12.7mm weapons for 14.5mm weapons... which is pretty much the equivelent of a light 20mm cannon.
    The French at one time had plans for a 20mm or 30mm gun mounted in a special coaxial mounting with the main gun on one of their tanks... AMX-30 or 40 or something. The design allowed the coaxial gun to elevate independantly of the main gun so while it could only elevate the normal -5 to +20 degrees or something like that the coaxial gun could elevate to 40 or 60 degrees to engage more difficult targets...

    A small gun like the GSh-30 as fitted to the Mig-29 and Su-27 is a short light compact weapon firing a full power 30 x 165mm round at 1,800 rpm. The barrel life is pretty short but its weight of about 45kgs could be increased to extend that easily enough.

    My problem with a 7.62 coax is both it's power, range, and again, the fact that it's coaxial.

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

    I agree... but that creates an obvious problem. Your heavy brigade now has less fire power than your medium brigade because the equivelent of the BMP-3M is missing so there is no high elevation 30mm auto cannon and rifled 100mm gun direct firing HE shells. That is why I am suggesting a BMPT, but not the BMPT we have seen, because I think it would be more effective with the BMP-3M armament, though with proper bow mounted turrets with decent fields of fire and tank levels of armour all round.

    Hey now, that's only for the Heavy APC role. Your MBTs can provide the defensive fire if need be.

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

    I would think by this time that an adaptation of ARENA and Shtora will have been developed to make them each more effective. So far it seems to have been two years of testing for the T-90M so in addition to the net centric stuff their might be other things that needed work as well. Remember they will need to test for compatibility... no good finding the MMW radar sensors of ARENA actually jam communications or datalinks... or air defence vehicles like Tunguska.

    That would be possible, but I have yet to see a picture of the T-90M with anything that resembles a MMW or read anything such so.

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

    They know the US has Javelins in service... that alone is a reason. Or are you suggesting the billions they have spent and the billions more they will spend on things like PAK FA and S-400/S-500 are for regional wars with Georgia?

    And it goes both ways too... TOW and Milan and HOT (wont mention Dragon) are overkill for the targets the US forces have actually come up against in the last 20-30 years and they would certainly continue to do the job for the foreseeable future... there was no real point to Javelin... except to defeat the T-90s defences.

    Actually, TOW, Milan and Hot aren't overkill. They were designed to punch through the advanced composite arrays of the T-72Bs (and T-90's Glacis). Most likely, we aren't going to face T-72M1s or T-90s, but there's a distinct possibility we will face T-72Bs or T-80Us, both of which have very advanced arrays which would render the majority of our hand-held AT weapons useless. Just because the US has Javelins doesn't mean that Georgians will. If Georgians have Javelins doesn't mean it will do as it says, who knows, we may have a self-defeating timer on the missiles we sold them...
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16411
    Points : 17022
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  GarryB on Wed Mar 23, 2011 3:00 am

    If the enemy isn't fair, don't play fair. Letting tanks sit around in a stationary OP is a bad idea. Better to hide it.

    Hiding tanks? Why have them at all? Often the ground troops find the accuracy and power of a direct fire 100mm+ calibre weapon to be rather useful. A tank protecting a base makes the enemy focus on the tank rather than the base, which in itself is a good thing.

    My problem with a 7.62 coax is both it's power, range, and again, the fact that it's coaxial.

    Well let me just disagree with you then. The elevation limits are not that big a deal when you consider the main gun has the same limits and so when the gunner is aiming at something that doesn't need a 125mm shell but still needs to be hit a coaxial MG seems to be popular... I can't think of any tank or APC with a turret that doesn't have a coaxial weapon... except artillery, which of course should run away if it finds itself up against enemy infantry because most artillery have no direct fire capability.

    Hey now, that's only for the Heavy APC role. Your MBTs can provide the defensive fire if need be.

    But without BMP-3M type high elevation cannon or 100mm rifled guns the units are going to lack the firepower of the medium brigades that do have BMP-3M type weapons... on their BMP-3Ms.

    In fact adopting the BTRT concept will mean that all of their IFVs can be fitted with 12.7mm weapons in small external gun mounts, or maybe the BTR-82 turret setups, and the fire support vehicles can be based on each light, medium, and heavy family of vehicles. This will remove 40 rounds of 100mm HE rounds and 500 rounds of 30mm ammo from the vehicles you use to carry your infantry. This will make the infantry vehicles much less prone to explosions if penetrated, so even a successful hit with an RPG that penetrates an infantry transport might kill and or injure one or two men rather than potentially hit the ammo stored in the turret and blow up the whole vehicle and kill the entire crew.
    The BMPTs could be fitted with external guns and separate the ammo from the crew compartment... and I think decent external mounts for MG turrets rather than the bow guns fitted to the current BMPT in addition to replacing the twin 30mm guns with a single twin barrel 2A38M gun with burst fire options of single shot, 5, 10, and 20 round bursts and full auto at its standard rate of 2,500 rpm would make it capable against ground and air targets, and co mount it with a 100mm rifled gun from the BMP-3 in an external mount with a turret bustle autoloader with 40 rounds and blow out panels. Elevation to +70 degrees and depression of -15 degrees should make it flexible regarding digging it in and shouldn't be too hard with externally mounted weapons. With no crew in the turret above the turret ring (like BMPT) the turret above the turret ring can be rather large.

    That would be possible, but I have yet to see a picture of the T-90M
    with anything that resembles a MMW or read anything such so.

    There aren't that many pictures of T-90M around full stop. I have photos of BMP-3s with the tower for ARENA with MMW sensors... by now it is probably half the size. For Drodz 2 the radar sensors were separate and mounted above the rocket launchers. With a requirement for laser sensors there is no reason why a module could not be developed that included Laser sensors with MMW radar elements that scan for incoming rounds. The laser detection modules would need 360 FOV so by mounting radar elements there too should give similar coverage as long as there were enough MMW elements to provide the same coverage as the Laser sensors.

    The Russian military should hire me as a consultant... I would be happy to do the job, and could use the extra money... Cool

    Actually, TOW, Milan and Hot aren't overkill.

    Desert Storm: a few hundred T-72s that any of the above missiles could penetrate from any angle. The vast majority of Iraqi tanks were T-55s which were even more vulnerable.
    Iraq invasion # 2... more of the same.
    Afghanistan: very little armour to speak of.
    Kosovo... see above.
    et al.
    The US has yet to face an enemy tank that has armour strong enough to worry any of the missiles above I mentioned. In fact the missiles above have 3-4 times the penetration needed to defeat the vehicles the US has met in combat in the last 2 decades. Milans range is nothing to crow about but HOT and TOW can both pretty much hit all the above armour day or night at ranges the above vehicles will know little about till it is barbecue time.
    If you magically time warped all the Javelins out of service and replaced them with Milans the operational difference would be that the Milan is a bit heavier and really needs 2-3 men to operate properly.

    If Georgians have Javelins doesn't mean it will do as it says, who
    knows, we may have a self-defeating timer on the missiles we sold
    them...

    Yeah, because the US really cares about the lives of Russians. BTW How much drugs produced openly in Afghanistan went to Russia last year?

    Of course the irony is... what does the US think is funding the Taleban... apart from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia of course.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  IronsightSniper on Wed Mar 23, 2011 7:24 am

    [quote="GarryB"]
    If the enemy isn't fair, don't play fair. Letting tanks sit around in a stationary OP is a bad idea. Better to hide it.

    Hiding tanks? Why have them at all? Often the ground troops find the accuracy and power of a direct fire 100mm+ calibre weapon to be rather useful. A tank protecting a base makes the enemy focus on the tank rather than the base, which in itself is a good thing.

    That's the thing, when you start trying to do that, all that matters is range. How to get more range? Use your gun like a howizter, which is what Saddamm did, and his barrels turned to dust in a matter of a couple dozen shots.

    My problem with a 7.62 coax is both it's power, range, and again, the fact that it's coaxial.

    Well let me just disagree with you then. The elevation limits are not that big a deal when you consider the main gun has the same limits and so when the gunner is aiming at something that doesn't need a 125mm shell but still needs to be hit a coaxial MG seems to be popular... I can't think of any tank or APC with a turret that doesn't have a coaxial weapon... except artillery, which of course should run away if it finds itself up against enemy infantry because most artillery have no direct fire capability.

    Exactly, the gun used is usually low power, relatively short range, and can only traverse and elevate with the turret. An independent turret, like a remote 12.7, would have more power, more range, and more traverse/elevation. Of course, if there is a need for a low-power AP weapon, you can mount a remote 12.7 and another remote 7.62, but overall, mounting more than one MG turret seems to be more efficient than having a coax.

    Hey now, that's only for the Heavy APC role. Your MBTs can provide the defensive fire if need be.

    But without BMP-3M type high elevation cannon or 100mm rifled guns the units are going to lack the firepower of the medium brigades that do have BMP-3M type weapons... on their BMP-3Ms.

    In fact adopting the BTRT concept will mean that all of their IFVs can be fitted with 12.7mm weapons in small external gun mounts, or maybe the BTR-82 turret setups, and the fire support vehicles can be based on each light, medium, and heavy family of vehicles. This will remove 40 rounds of 100mm HE rounds and 500 rounds of 30mm ammo from the vehicles you use to carry your infantry. This will make the infantry vehicles much less prone to explosions if penetrated, so even a successful hit with an RPG that penetrates an infantry transport might kill and or injure one or two men rather than potentially hit the ammo stored in the turret and blow up the whole vehicle and kill the entire crew.
    The BMPTs could be fitted with external guns and separate the ammo from the crew compartment... and I think decent external mounts for MG turrets rather than the bow guns fitted to the current BMPT in addition to replacing the twin 30mm guns with a single twin barrel 2A38M gun with burst fire options of single shot, 5, 10, and 20 round bursts and full auto at its standard rate of 2,500 rpm would make it capable against ground and air targets, and co mount it with a 100mm rifled gun from the BMP-3 in an external mount with a turret bustle autoloader with 40 rounds and blow out panels. Elevation to +70 degrees and depression of -15 degrees should make it flexible regarding digging it in and shouldn't be too hard with externally mounted weapons. With no crew in the turret above the turret ring (like BMPT) the turret above the turret ring can be rather large.

    You can only balance a vehicle so much. Personally, I think Russia needs a Heavy Armored APC, with minimal weapons if possible. Self defense can be delivered by exterior sources, such as a MBT or perhaps a BMP-3M.

    That would be possible, but I have yet to see a picture of the T-90M
    with anything that resembles a MMW or read anything such so.

    There aren't that many pictures of T-90M around full stop. I have photos of BMP-3s with the tower for ARENA with MMW sensors... by now it is probably half the size. For Drodz 2 the radar sensors were separate and mounted above the rocket launchers. With a requirement for laser sensors there is no reason why a module could not be developed that included Laser sensors with MMW radar elements that scan for incoming rounds. The laser detection modules would need 360 FOV so by mounting radar elements there too should give similar coverage as long as there were enough MMW elements to provide the same coverage as the Laser sensors.

    The Russian military should hire me as a consultant... I would be happy to do the job, and could use the extra money... Cool

    I have seen that BMP-3M too. But I've only heard of ARENA-E being available for export BMP-3s. Variants of the T-90 and T-80 with hard-kill APSs have been around, but I have not heard that they will be mass produced, for good reason too. T-90Ms can cost as much as $4,000,000 USD a piece, PROBABLY less, but that's quite expensive by Russian standards already, putting an ARENA on it would only mean more expenses.

    Actually, TOW, Milan and Hot aren't overkill.

    Desert Storm: a few hundred T-72s that any of the above missiles could penetrate from any angle. The vast majority of Iraqi tanks were T-55s which were even more vulnerable.
    Iraq invasion # 2... more of the same.
    Afghanistan: very little armour to speak of.
    Kosovo... see above.
    et al.
    The US has yet to face an enemy tank that has armour strong enough to worry any of the missiles above I mentioned. In fact the missiles above have 3-4 times the penetration needed to defeat the vehicles the US has met in combat in the last 2 decades. Milans range is nothing to crow about but HOT and TOW can both pretty much hit all the above armour day or night at ranges the above vehicles will know little about till it is barbecue time.
    If you magically time warped all the Javelins out of service and replaced them with Milans the operational difference would be that the Milan is a bit heavier and really needs 2-3 men to operate properly.

    Those missiles were designed during the Cold War to counter, again, advanced composite armor arrays on Soviet tanks, which had RHAes of over 700 mm alone, without ERA.

    If Georgians have Javelins doesn't mean it will do as it says, who
    knows, we may have a self-defeating timer on the missiles we sold
    them...

    Yeah, because the US really cares about the lives of Russians. BTW How much drugs produced openly in Afghanistan went to Russia last year?

    Of course the irony is... what does the US think is funding the Taleban... apart from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia of course.

    Perhaps it's not who we care about, but rather what we want? Javelins cost a lot of money.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16411
    Points : 17022
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  GarryB on Thu Mar 24, 2011 12:46 am


    That's the thing, when you start trying to do that, all that matters
    is range. How to get more range? Use your gun like a howizter, which is
    what Saddamm did, and his barrels turned to dust in a matter of a
    couple dozen shots.

    Don't quite follow you... Putting a tank in a base to help defend it is normally a good thing... you can string up wire fences to stop Rockets and Missiles aimed at the tank and its optics and fire power are generally quite useful in supporting the defenders in case of an attack.

    An independent turret, like a remote 12.7, would have more power, more range, and more traverse/elevation.

    An independent turret would not have better traverse unless it was mounted on top of the tanks turret.

    I would think the best alternative to a 7.62mm MG with 2,000 rounds of linked ready to fire ammo mounted next to the main gun on a tank could be a Balkan 40mm grenade launcher in a mount that allows extra elevation independent of the main gun, so say it can elevate independently of the main gun to say 70 degrees up and -15 degrees down perhaps, with a load of perhaps 500 grenades linked and ready to fire. The 2.5km range would be very useful and being a fixed mounted weapon dispersion at max range should be better than the dismounted model.

    Of course, if there is a need for a low-power AP weapon, you can mount a
    remote 12.7 and another remote 7.62, but overall, mounting more than
    one MG turret seems to be more efficient than having a coax.

    The only times I have seen this sort of thing is on the old Lee tanks, and of course on the M60, and of course the really old T-32 and T-35 type tanks with multi turrets.
    The problem is do you mount the extra MG turrets at the front so they can't fire backwards, or like the M60 do you mount a MG turret on the commanders cuppola with 360 degree Field of fire traversing independantly of the main turret. Is it worth it? Unless you mount a 360 degree panorama sight for the commander on top of that it will interfere with the commanders view... and make the tank taller and easier to spot.

    You can only balance a vehicle so much. Personally, I think Russia needs
    a Heavy Armored APC, with minimal weapons if possible. Self defense can
    be delivered by exterior sources, such as a MBT or perhaps a BMP-3M.

    That is pretty much what I am suggesting. BMP-3M level armament in the Heavy Brigades APC takes up too much internal space and also places a lot of HE in with the troops... which makes the vehicle vulnerable if penetrated. Separating the fire support role of the BMP-3M from the infantry transport role creates a BMPT requirement, though with the changes I mention above over the well known BMPT design.

    But I've only heard of ARENA-E being available for export BMP-3s.

    That would make sense as the E stands for Export...

    Variants of the T-90 and T-80 with hard-kill APSs have been around, but I
    have not heard that they will be mass produced, for good reason too.

    Would that be because the Russian military has not spent real money on its heavy armour till... well soon.

    Perhaps they want to finalise the upgrades before they spend money because existing newbuilds will need to get the upgrade anyway... which will include an APS.
    Part of the reason of reducing the force sizes is so that new stuff can be afforded and upgrades applied regularly like they were during cold war times.

    T-90Ms can cost as much as $4,000,000 USD a piece, PROBABLY less, but
    that's quite expensive by Russian standards already, putting an ARENA on
    it would only mean more expenses.

    Do you not think that the reason the T-90M suddenly got so expensive is because it has all those expensive new things like ARENA? The 2.2 million price of the T-90S includes French Thermals so what do you think might almost double the price?

    Those missiles were designed during the Cold War to counter, again,
    advanced composite armor arrays on Soviet tanks, which had RHAes of over
    700 mm alone, without ERA.

    Indeed they were, and with the US and NATO bravely taking on third world countries with T-55s and old model T-72s these missiles are probably far more powerful than what is needed at the moment... which is why I called them over kill.


    Perhaps it's not who we care about, but rather what we want? Javelins cost a lot of money.

    So you need Javelins, not because previous missiles can't do the job, but because Javelins are expensive???
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  IronsightSniper on Thu Mar 24, 2011 12:57 am

    [quote="GarryB"]

    That's the thing, when you start trying to do that, all that matters
    is range. How to get more range? Use your gun like a howizter, which is
    what Saddamm did, and his barrels turned to dust in a matter of a
    couple dozen shots.

    Don't quite follow you... Putting a tank in a base to help defend it is normally a good thing... you can string up wire fences to stop Rockets and Missiles aimed at the tank and its optics and fire power are generally quite useful in supporting the defenders in case of an attack.

    A stationary tank is a dead tank. As you've discussed before, why bother with getting bigger tank guns when everything's going to get hit by Air power?

    An independent turret, like a remote 12.7, would have more power, more range, and more traverse/elevation.

    An independent turret would not have better traverse unless it was mounted on top of the tanks turret.

    I would think the best alternative to a 7.62mm MG with 2,000 rounds of linked ready to fire ammo mounted next to the main gun on a tank could be a Balkan 40mm grenade launcher in a mount that allows extra elevation independent of the main gun, so say it can elevate independently of the main gun to say 70 degrees up and -15 degrees down perhaps, with a load of perhaps 500 grenades linked and ready to fire. The 2.5km range would be very useful and being a fixed mounted weapon dispersion at max range should be better than the dismounted model.

    MG turrets are usually mounted on top of the turret, I wouldn't know why you thought I meant elsewhere. That wouldn't be a terrible idea. Better yet, make an semi-automatic GM-94 with an independent turret turret, that would solve the over penetration and under penetration problems that the 12.7 mm and 7.62 mm faces.

    Of course, if there is a need for a low-power AP weapon, you can mount a
    remote 12.7 and another remote 7.62, but overall, mounting more than
    one MG turret seems to be more efficient than having a coax.

    The only times I have seen this sort of thing is on the old Lee tanks, and of course on the M60, and of course the really old T-32 and T-35 type tanks with multi turrets.
    The problem is do you mount the extra MG turrets at the front so they can't fire backwards, or like the M60 do you mount a MG turret on the commanders cuppola with 360 degree Field of fire traversing independantly of the main turret. Is it worth it? Unless you mount a 360 degree panorama sight for the commander on top of that it will interfere with the commanders view... and make the tank taller and easier to spot.

    If the independent turrets can't rotate 360 it isn't worth it. Mountain a 360 degree hunter sight for T-90 tanks is one improvement that will enhance it's capabilities by many times. And really, making the tank a few cm taller isn't going to make it that much easier to spot.

    You can only balance a vehicle so much. Personally, I think Russia needs
    a Heavy Armored APC, with minimal weapons if possible. Self defense can
    be delivered by exterior sources, such as a MBT or perhaps a BMP-3M.

    That is pretty much what I am suggesting. BMP-3M level armament in the Heavy Brigades APC takes up too much internal space and also places a lot of HE in with the troops... which makes the vehicle vulnerable if penetrated. Separating the fire support role of the BMP-3M from the infantry transport role creates a BMPT requirement, though with the changes I mention above over the well known BMPT design.

    So we've been chasing each other's tail's due to a misunderstanding? Razz

    Variants of the T-90 and T-80 with hard-kill APSs have been around, but I
    have not heard that they will be mass produced, for good reason too.

    Would that be because the Russian military has not spent real money on its heavy armour till... well soon.

    Perhaps they want to finalise the upgrades before they spend money because existing newbuilds will need to get the upgrade anyway... which will include an APS.
    Part of the reason of reducing the force sizes is so that new stuff can be afforded and upgrades applied regularly like they were during cold war times.

    Like many critics of the Russian armored forces, Uralzo-something rarely "finalizes" their designs, in that, they'll probably make a new upgraded version 3-5 years from now.

    T-90Ms can cost as much as $4,000,000 USD a piece, PROBABLY less, but
    that's quite expensive by Russian standards already, putting an ARENA on
    it would only mean more expenses.

    Do you not think that the reason the T-90M suddenly got so expensive is because it has all those expensive new things like ARENA? The 2.2 million price of the T-90S includes French Thermals so what do you think might almost double the price?

    The T-90S doesn't have Shtora, the T-90S doesn't have APU, the T-90S doesn't have a rear-turret autoloader, etc. And again, what pictures I have seen of the T-90M, does not have a MMW radar device needed for hard-kill APSs.

    Those missiles were designed during the Cold War to counter, again,
    advanced composite armor arrays on Soviet tanks, which had RHAes of over
    700 mm alone, without ERA.

    Indeed they were, and with the US and NATO bravely taking on third world countries with T-55s and old model T-72s these missiles are probably far more powerful than what is needed at the moment... which is why I called them over kill.

    What's expected and what comes along are different things.


    Perhaps it's not who we care about, but rather what we want? Javelins cost a lot of money.

    So you need Javelins, not because previous missiles can't do the job, but because Javelins are expensive???

    On the contrary, we should sell Javelins, and make them empty on purpose, and make lots of money.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16411
    Points : 17022
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  GarryB on Thu Mar 24, 2011 9:34 am

    A stationary tank is a dead tank. As you've discussed before, why bother
    with getting bigger tank guns when everything's going to get hit by Air
    power?

    When was the last time the US or Russia faced an enemy where enemy air power was a real threat for very long to ground forces?

    Tanks are supposed to fight all sorts of wars... there is not point designing them for Kursk... rolling tank battles... alone.

    MG turrets are usually mounted on top of the turret, I wouldn't know why you thought I meant elsewhere.

    Apart from the M60 and General Lee tanks I can't think of any others. On the other hand there were lots of pre WWII tanks with multiple turrets.

    A MG turret like that increases the height of the vehicle without increasing the range at which the gunner can see and shoot targets.

    Personally I would think low flat turrets mounted in the bow position of the BMPT with the main turret moved back and the front extended forward to make the front armour thicker and better angled while creating room for two turrets that cover the front of the vehicle and are able to elevate to at least 70 degrees for high angle threats and not be effected by the main turret turning around a bit.

    Better yet, make an semi-automatic GM-94 with an independent turret
    turret, that would solve the over penetration and under penetration
    problems that the 12.7 mm and 7.62 mm faces.

    I couldn't see the GM-94 being modified to belt feed and semi auto operation being smaller or lighter than the Balkan. The high velocity grenades of the Balkan would give a much wider field of fire and enable a wider range of targets to much greater distances be engaged.

    If the independent turrets can't rotate 360 it isn't worth it.

    The front armour of the T-90 is what you want facing at the threat, and the same applies to any BMPT design. Having the extra gun turrets at the front give better firepower in the threat direction... and most of the time that is where you want it. For threats in other directions... the commander keeps his 360 vision and can direct his driver to turn the vehicle to bring the front minor turrets to bear on a threat or group of threats while designating a separate threat that can be anywhere 360 degrees around the tank for the gunner to deal with.

    A soft threat can be dealt with 40mm grenade launchers with coaxial 30 cal MGs, while a hard threat can be dealt with using the main tank gun.

    Like many critics of the Russian armored forces, Uralzo-something rarely
    "finalizes" their designs, in that, they'll probably make a new
    upgraded version 3-5 years from now.

    No design is ever finalised and regular upgrades will keep it a potent system. New system introductions can require fundamental changes which might be able to be coped with or might require a from scratch approach.

    The system they show for export is not the system they are showing to their military to get them to adopt.


    The T-90S doesn't have Shtora, the T-90S doesn't have APU, the T-90S
    doesn't have a rear-turret autoloader, etc. And again, what pictures I
    have seen of the T-90M, does not have a MMW radar device needed for
    hard-kill APSs.

    I have seen a few pictures of the PAK-FA... first and second flying prototype... I have not seen the side mounted AESA radars on the nose of the aircraft yet. They claim it will be there on the final aircraft though.

    I posted above... the 1,000hp engine quote that mentioned active defence systems. I take that over lack of photo evidence.

    BTW it could be a completely new system... what does a MMW radar antenna look like?
    The ones of DRODZ and ARENA just looked like painted metal blocks... array them like ERA and I doubt anyone could tell one from the other...


    What's expected and what comes along are different things.

    I agree if you can afford it... get the best that is available. Problem of course is if you give the troops a 10 MW laser they will use it for everything.

    On the contrary, we should sell Javelins, and make them empty on purpose, and make lots of money.

    I doubt the makers of Javelin would want that on their record...
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16411
    Points : 17022
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  GarryB on Thu Mar 24, 2011 9:38 am

    This is the 40mm automatic grenade launcher I am talking about... either as a coaxial weapon for a tank, or as a weapon for gun turrets on a BMPT like vehicle. Note its compact design:



    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  IronsightSniper on Thu Mar 24, 2011 10:58 am

    [quote="GarryB"]
    A stationary tank is a dead tank. As you've discussed before, why bother
    with getting bigger tank guns when everything's going to get hit by Air
    power?

    When was the last time the US or Russia faced an enemy where enemy air power was a real threat for very long to ground forces?

    Tanks are supposed to fight all sorts of wars... there is not point designing them for Kursk... rolling tank battles... alone.

    Ah, but that is the purpose of a MBT, take hits, give hits, move along. Having a tank face another tank stationary is akin to trench warfare, something not favorable in a world of maneuvers.

    MG turrets are usually mounted on top of the turret, I wouldn't know why you thought I meant elsewhere.

    Apart from the M60 and General Lee tanks I can't think of any others. On the other hand there were lots of pre WWII tanks with multiple turrets.

    A MG turret like that increases the height of the vehicle without increasing the range at which the gunner can see and shoot targets.

    Personally I would think low flat turrets mounted in the bow position of the BMPT with the main turret moved back and the front extended forward to make the front armour thicker and better angled while creating room for two turrets that cover the front of the vehicle and are able to elevate to at least 70 degrees for high angle threats and not be effected by the main turret turning around a bit.

    Just so we can get our definitions straight, when I said MG turrets, I didn't mean mini-pill boxes akin to WW1 and early WW2 tanks. I meant independent pivot mounts, which are already employed already, I'm just saying get more of those and get less of coaxials.

    Better yet, make an semi-automatic GM-94 with an independent turret
    turret, that would solve the over penetration and under penetration
    problems that the 12.7 mm and 7.62 mm faces.

    I couldn't see the GM-94 being modified to belt feed and semi auto operation being smaller or lighter than the Balkan. The high velocity grenades of the Balkan would give a much wider field of fire and enable a wider range of targets to much greater distances be engaged.

    Ah, but I'd disagree. A 40 mm grenade is very dangerous, even in confined conditions. The situations I'm referring to here are Urban combat ones, where the tank, and or convoy is ambushed from Insurgents or regulars that are hiding in civilian buildings 25-100 m away. A 40 mm grenade would cause lots of shrapnel which could penetrate the walls of the houses thus having another over penetration problem. A thermobaric grenade would just level the house, take whoever's inside, and that'll be that.

    If the independent turrets can't rotate 360 it isn't worth it.

    The front armour of the T-90 is what you want facing at the threat, and the same applies to any BMPT design. Having the extra gun turrets at the front give better firepower in the threat direction... and most of the time that is where you want it. For threats in other directions... the commander keeps his 360 vision and can direct his driver to turn the vehicle to bring the front minor turrets to bear on a threat or group of threats while designating a separate threat that can be anywhere 360 degrees around the tank for the gunner to deal with.

    A soft threat can be dealt with 40mm grenade launchers with coaxial 30 cal MGs, while a hard threat can be dealt with using the main tank gun.

    Most of the time, the threat isn't where you want it, thus you'd want a maneuverable turret. In Urban combat situations, you will seldom find the space for a tank to turn a full 360 or even a 180 to face the threat. Most of the time, you will get hits from the side, which is why independent turrets are important.

    Like many critics of the Russian armored forces, Uralzo-something rarely
    "finalizes" their designs, in that, they'll probably make a new
    upgraded version 3-5 years from now.

    No design is ever finalised and regular upgrades will keep it a potent system. New system introductions can require fundamental changes which might be able to be coped with or might require a from scratch approach.

    The system they show for export is not the system they are showing to their military to get them to adopt.

    The system they show for export is another system they build. The system the military adopts is still actually behind the system they sell. Until the T-90M is actually produced, that'll change, but for now, the Indians get the better tank.


    The T-90S doesn't have Shtora, the T-90S doesn't have APU, the T-90S
    doesn't have a rear-turret autoloader, etc. And again, what pictures I
    have seen of the T-90M, does not have a MMW radar device needed for
    hard-kill APSs.

    I have seen a few pictures of the PAK-FA... first and second flying prototype... I have not seen the side mounted AESA radars on the nose of the aircraft yet. They claim it will be there on the final aircraft though.

    I posted above... the 1,000hp engine quote that mentioned active defence systems. I take that over lack of photo evidence.

    BTW it could be a completely new system... what does a MMW radar antenna look like?
    The ones of DRODZ and ARENA just looked like painted metal blocks... array them like ERA and I doubt anyone could tell one from the other...

    But the thing is, if you already know the cost of a tank, which the guy in one of those articles Austin posted before, than you'd know that the prototype is "finished". The photo I have, in fact, does not have any thing that even remotely reminds me of ARENA, to which btw, a MMW radar basically looks like a commander's site but without the optics.

    As you know, the T-90M does not have a 1,000 HP engine, it has a 1,250 HP engine. As you also know, Shtora-2 is fitted for the T-90M. And finally, as you know, Shtora is an APS system, although soft-kill. It's far more reasonable to believe that the APS in mention is Shtora-2 than ARENA.


    What's expected and what comes along are different things.

    I agree if you can afford it... get the best that is available. Problem of course is if you give the troops a 10 MW laser they will use it for everything.

    Admittedly Russia cannot afford the diamond molded behemoths we roll out, so why would they increase the cost with ARENA?

    On the contrary, we should sell Javelins, and make them empty on purpose, and make lots of money.

    I doubt the makers of Javelin would want that on their record...

    Why not? Profits first!
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16411
    Points : 17022
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  GarryB on Fri Mar 25, 2011 4:29 am

    Ah, but that is the purpose of a MBT, take hits, give hits, move along.
    Having a tank face another tank stationary is akin to trench warfare,
    something not favorable in a world of maneuvers.

    Not all warfare is manoeuvre warfare. The role of the tank is mobile protected fire power, more specifically mobile protected direct fire fire power... as opposed to artillery, which is mobile indirect fire fire power that can often be substituted by air power. Tanks cannot be substituted by air power most of the time. A ground force needs tanks like an air force needs fighters.

    I meant independent pivot mounts, which are already employed already,
    I'm just saying get more of those and get less of coaxials.

    You mean like on Israeli tanks with 3 machine gun mounts on top of turrets to suppress infantry?

    I am thinking of a proper mini turret that has minimal protection for the gun and its ammo feed back into the vehicle. It gives better elevation and traverse than say a bow mounted weapon as shown on the BMD or BMPT vehicles.

    Proper little turrets on the BMPT would be relatively low mounts, and I would give them more clearance by raising the weapons in the turret by using an external 100mm rifled gun from the BMP-3 and a turret bustle autoloader for it to keep the 100mm HE shells out of the crew compartment for safety.
    This will mean the front turret mounts should be able to cover the front and sides of the vehicle and with 40mm grenade launchers should be much more powerful than 30 cal weapons.

    In many ways I am suggesting the revival of the T-28 with its three turret arrangement where the main turret is the standard placement for turrets today, but with two small turrets in front of it and lower down to give the main turret a clear field of view. The two front MG turrets on the T-28 were huge because they were manned, which meant the main gun in the central turret was up quite high. I am suggesting much smaller unmanned MG turrets fitted with an AGL instead of a MG.



    The main problem of course is space because there are three crew seated in the front hull of the BMPT so two turrets will mean only one roof hatch above the driver. I think moving the turret back in the hull or extending the hull forward... or reducing the size of the turret ring would all be viable solutions.
    The turret ring is designed to absorb the recoil of a 125mm gun so it could be considerably reduced with a long recoil absorber for the 100mm rifled medium pressure gun offering the most recoil.

    Ah, but I'd disagree. A 40 mm grenade is very dangerous, even in
    confined conditions.

    Any explosive weapon is made more effective in confined conditions... explosive weapons have several ways they can kill and that includes blast and fragmentation... confined conditions make blast more effective.

    The situations I'm referring to here are Urban
    combat ones, where the tank, and or convoy is ambushed from Insurgents
    or regulars that are hiding in civilian buildings 25-100 m away.

    This is a rather specific situation to design a tanks features around... the best solution is to not use tanks.

    A 40 mm
    grenade would cause lots of shrapnel which could penetrate the walls of
    the houses thus having another over penetration problem.

    The 40mm grenade of the Balkan is actually big enough to enable the use of plastic cased rounds for the HE grenade. (what I mean is that some smaller grenades rely on fragmentation for effectiveness like the 30mm grenade the Russians/Soviets used). This means the blast wave from the grenade will kill you at longer ranges than the plastic bits as fragments will kill
    you because the plastic bits are so light they rapidly decelerate and become ineffective.
    This means over penetration is not a problem, the only problem is finding the target and getting the grenade on target before they can do what they were planning to do.

    A thermobaric
    grenade would just level the house, take whoever's inside, and that'll
    be that.

    A thermobaric grenade is not a tactical nuke. If you take plastic explosive and look at it by volume about three quarters of it by weight generates huge amounts of O2 and heat, while the remaining one quarter is the fuel that uses that heat and that O2 to burn at highly supersonic speed. A thermobaric round has a small dispersal charge to blow the thermobaric compound into the air around the target and then ignites it using the air around the target. In many ways thermobaric explosive is just fuel... like Petrol (Gasoline). In liquid form it will likely burn, but it needs certain conditions before it will explode. Boil petrol to well beyond its flash point and it wont burn... it will explode, using a small HE charge to vapourise petrol into the air and then have some ignition source to ignite it at just the right time and that explosion will be like a thermobaric blast.
    HE detonates faster, but thermobaric material tends to push harder and longer and hotter... and of course it consumes the oxygen in the area around the target too.
    What I am trying to say is that a 40mm thermobaric grenade will deal with an average room... to take out the floor of a building you need something like RPO.

    Most of the time, the threat isn't where you want it, thus you'd want a maneuverable turret.

    Totally agree, that is why I am suggesting the removal of the bow guns on the BMPT and replace them with external guns in mini turrets.

    Until the T-90M is actually produced, that'll change, but for now, the Indians get the better tank.

    Why shouldn't they get the better tank... they pretty much kept UVZ alive for the last 20 years. I hope when the T-90M is ready that the Indians will benefit too... though I suspect they wont want a completely new upgrade as that might threaten their own tank design.

    The photo I have, in fact, does not have any thing that even remotely
    reminds me of ARENA, to which btw, a MMW radar basically looks like a
    commander's site but without the optics.

    What? The MMW radar of ARENA is all those little box antennas fixed on that drum shaped tower on a pole above the turret. The MMW radar antenna on Drodz is circled in green in this image (fitted to a T-55AD which was used to test the system operationally in Afghanistan in the 1980s):



    As you know, the T-90M does not have a 1,000 HP engine, it has a 1,250 HP engine.

    I know they are working on a 1,250HP engine, but the quote above suggests they are currently using the 1,000hp engine.

    As you also know, Shtora-2 is fitted for the T-90M. And finally, as you
    know, Shtora is an APS system, although soft-kill. It's far more
    reasonable to believe that the APS in mention is Shtora-2 than ARENA.

    I haven't seen Shtora-2. If they have upgraded Shtora, then why wouldn't they upgrade ARENA as well? The two systems compliment each other.

    Admittedly Russia cannot afford the diamond molded behemoths we roll out, so why would they increase the cost with ARENA?

    Because by far the most common threat for tanks in the world currently is not Javelin or Spike... it is simple dumb RPG rockets flying at sonic speeds rather than hypersonic speeds, and even the old fully developed ARENA deals with those sorts of threats just fine. In the near future or perhaps as we speak its performance can be enhanced to increase the range of targets it can defeat and these features can be added when the vehicles get upgrades.

    Why not? Profits first!

    Because the sales figures will drop when the users find during training that the weapons they spent a fortune on don't go bang because they are empty.

    @ nightcrawler
    I have read cases where Soviet officials that go to inspect tests of tanks often used to play tricks, like demand the vehicles drive a few thousand kms to another location before they fire on targets to show they can hit what they are supposed to hit. The officials fly to the new location, but the tanks involved in the tests have to drive there. A good idea in my opinion... keeps them on their toes. Smile
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  IronsightSniper on Fri Mar 25, 2011 10:40 am

    [quote="GarryB"]
    Ah, but that is the purpose of a MBT, take hits, give hits, move along.
    Having a tank face another tank stationary is akin to trench warfare,
    something not favorable in a world of maneuvers.

    Not all warfare is manoeuvre warfare. The role of the tank is mobile protected fire power, more specifically mobile protected direct fire fire power... as opposed to artillery, which is mobile indirect fire fire power that can often be substituted by air power. Tanks cannot be substituted by air power most of the time. A ground force needs tanks like an air force needs fighters.

    Exactly, but a stationary tank is still easier to hit compared to a moving tank, T-64 gun trials showed this.

    I meant independent pivot mounts, which are already employed already,
    I'm just saying get more of those and get less of coaxials.

    You mean like on Israeli tanks with 3 machine gun mounts on top of turrets to suppress infantry?

    I am thinking of a proper mini turret that has minimal protection for the gun and its ammo feed back into the vehicle. It gives better elevation and traverse than say a bow mounted weapon as shown on the BMD or BMPT vehicles.

    Proper little turrets on the BMPT would be relatively low mounts, and I would give them more clearance by raising the weapons in the turret by using an external 100mm rifled gun from the BMP-3 and a turret bustle autoloader for it to keep the 100mm HE shells out of the crew compartment for safety.
    This will mean the front turret mounts should be able to cover the front and sides of the vehicle and with 40mm grenade launchers should be much more powerful than 30 cal weapons.

    In many ways I am suggesting the revival of the T-28 with its three turret arrangement where the main turret is the standard placement for turrets today, but with two small turrets in front of it and lower down to give the main turret a clear field of view. The two front MG turrets on the T-28 were huge because they were manned, which meant the main gun in the central turret was up quite high. I am suggesting much smaller unmanned MG turrets fitted with an AGL instead of a MG.

    Pretty much. Mini-turrets IMO are quite useless unless you're protecting medium caliber munitions, like 30 mm cannon rounds and 30/40 mm grenades.

    Ah, but I'd disagree. A 40 mm grenade is very dangerous, even in
    confined conditions.

    Any explosive weapon is made more effective in confined conditions... explosive weapons have several ways they can kill and that includes blast and fragmentation... confined conditions make blast more effective.

    True, but thermobaric grenades don't offer as much shrapnel than a HE-Frag one, admittedly, the blastwave will pretty much suffocate everyone in the room or even take down the entire room/house. But, in situations like Iraq, it's better to take down one house then to still take down that house but spread shrapnel up and around the same house and throwing shrapnel at other houses.

    The situations I'm referring to here are Urban
    combat ones, where the tank, and or convoy is ambushed from Insurgents
    or regulars that are hiding in civilian buildings 25-100 m away.

    This is a rather specific situation to design a tanks features around... the best solution is to not use tanks.

    In fact, it is not specific, as it's very common nowadays. IED, roadside bombs, and maybe even roadside Kornet snipers may be still dangerous, but tanks in urban areas are always going to get hit from the sides. Not using a tank is even worst for the crew.

    A 40 mm
    grenade would cause lots of shrapnel which could penetrate the walls of
    the houses thus having another over penetration problem.

    The 40mm grenade of the Balkan is actually big enough to enable the use of plastic cased rounds for the HE grenade. (what I mean is that some smaller grenades rely on fragmentation for effectiveness like the 30mm grenade the Russians/Soviets used). This means the blast wave from the grenade will kill you at longer ranges than the plastic bits as fragments will kill
    you because the plastic bits are so light they rapidly decelerate and become ineffective.
    This means over penetration is not a problem, the only problem is finding the target and getting the grenade on target before they can do what they were planning to do.

    A plastic cased HE grenade is basically like a HE bomb. A thermobaric grenade is well, like a thermobaric bomb. The latter has shown to offer more bang for the same weight as the former. Although, as a compromise, I wouldn't be surprised if they made 40 mm thermobaric grenades for the Balkan.

    A thermobaric
    grenade would just level the house, take whoever's inside, and that'll
    be that.

    A thermobaric grenade is not a tactical nuke. If you take plastic explosive and look at it by volume about three quarters of it by weight generates huge amounts of O2 and heat, while the remaining one quarter is the fuel that uses that heat and that O2 to burn at highly supersonic speed. A thermobaric round has a small dispersal charge to blow the thermobaric compound into the air around the target and then ignites it using the air around the target. In many ways thermobaric explosive is just fuel... like Petrol (Gasoline). In liquid form it will likely burn, but it needs certain conditions before it will explode. Boil petrol to well beyond its flash point and it wont burn... it will explode, using a small HE charge to vapourise petrol into the air and then have some ignition source to ignite it at just the right time and that explosion will be like a thermobaric blast.
    HE detonates faster, but thermobaric material tends to push harder and longer and hotter... and of course it consumes the oxygen in the area around the target too.
    What I am trying to say is that a 40mm thermobaric grenade will deal with an average room... to take out the floor of a building you need something like RPO.

    I know how they work. :rolleyes:

    Admittedly, I did overstate the 43 mm thermobaric grenade's power, but it was used in a metaphorical sense. Very Happy

    Most of the time, the threat isn't where you want it, thus you'd want a maneuverable turret.

    Totally agree, that is why I am suggesting the removal of the bow guns on the BMPT and replace them with external guns in mini turrets.

    Oh then, that's agreeable.

    Until the T-90M is actually produced, that'll change, but for now, the Indians get the better tank.

    Why shouldn't they get the better tank... they pretty much kept UVZ alive for the last 20 years. I hope when the T-90M is ready that the Indians will benefit too... though I suspect they wont want a completely new upgrade as that might threaten their own tank design.

    It's quite traditional for the manufacturer's country to get the best models.

    The photo I have, in fact, does not have any thing that even remotely
    reminds me of ARENA, to which btw, a MMW radar basically looks like a
    commander's site but without the optics.

    What? The MMW radar of ARENA is all those little box antennas fixed on that drum shaped tower on a pole above the turret. The MMW radar antenna on Drodz is circled in green in this image (fitted to a T-55AD which was used to test the system operationally in Afghanistan in the 1980s):


    Yes, that's what I was talking about, it basically looks like a commander's site but without the optics (i.e. you don't see glass)

    As you know, the T-90M does not have a 1,000 HP engine, it has a 1,250 HP engine.

    I know they are working on a 1,250HP engine, but the quote above suggests they are currently using the 1,000hp engine.

    This mystery has been solved.

    He said more than a few countries buy Russian tanks, and the T-90A got a positive evaluation from testing in difficult climatic conditions, including in Saudi Arabia, India, and Malaysia. In Saudi Arabia, according to Karavayev, the T-90A was the only tank to destroy more than 60 percent of its targets after a road march. Karavayev continues:

    “The tests conducted in Saudi Arabia as part of an open tender fully and completely contradict the Glavkom’s [Postnikov’s] assertions.”

    This T-90 modification supposedly has a new turret, a 1,000-hp engine, an improved thermal sight, new active defense measures, and a number of other improvements. Karavayev flatly said neither the German Leopard, French LeClerc, nor American Abrams is equal to the T-90.

    I believe when they said, "This T-90 modification", they were referring to the T-90A, which was discussed prior. Backchecking, the T-90A does in fact have a 1,000 HP engine, and a new turret (welded).

    As you also know, Shtora-2 is fitted for the T-90M. And finally, as you
    know, Shtora is an APS system, although soft-kill. It's far more
    reasonable to believe that the APS in mention is Shtora-2 than ARENA.

    I haven't seen Shtora-2. If they have upgraded Shtora, then why wouldn't they upgrade ARENA as well? The two systems compliment each other.

    That's probably because Shtora-2's on the ever elusive T-90M. If they did upgrade ARENA, you or I should of at least heard of some new designation for it, I haven't, have you?

    Admittedly Russia cannot afford the diamond molded behemoths we roll out, so why would they increase the cost with ARENA?

    Because by far the most common threat for tanks in the world currently is not Javelin or Spike... it is simple dumb RPG rockets flying at sonic speeds rather than hypersonic speeds, and even the old fully developed ARENA deals with those sorts of threats just fine. In the near future or perhaps as we speak its performance can be enhanced to increase the range of targets it can defeat and these features can be added when the vehicles get upgrades.

    In that regards, the T-90 is fully protected from the PG-7V from the Front and Sides. The rear is different, but as of now, no tank has all around, including ass protection.

    Why not? Profits first!

    Because the sales figures will drop when the users find during training that the weapons they spent a fortune on don't go bang because they are empty.

    Being as costly as $100,000 per missile, they won't use it for live fire training, they'll buy simulators from us.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16411
    Points : 17022
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  GarryB on Fri Mar 25, 2011 9:08 pm

    Exactly, but a stationary tank is still easier to hit compared to a moving tank, T-64 gun trials showed this.

    Against a modern enemy with modern tanks using modern Fire Control Systems with auto trackers et al hitting moving targets is no problem. For a limited enemy like those forces the US faces in Afghanistan and Iraq a stationary target with chain link fences and other protective measures will be easily enough protection for them.

    True, but thermobaric grenades don't offer as much shrapnel than a
    HE-Frag one, admittedly, the blastwave will pretty much suffocate
    everyone in the room or even take down the entire room/house. But, in
    situations like Iraq, it's better to take down one house then to still
    take down that house but spread shrapnel up and around the same house
    and throwing shrapnel at other houses.

    Why do you think HE rounds only come in HE FRAG forms? A thin non pre fragmented shell case and the maximum HE charge makes it a HE round, as opposed to a smaller HE charge and thick prefragmented wall shells. The design of the munition can control the fragmentation pattern and effect. For instance the RGO and RGN hand grenades are the same size but one is for defensive use and has heavier fragments with a longer effective range so you really need to throw it from behind cover. The other is an offensive grenade with smaller lighter fragments that lose velocity rapidly so outside about 5 metres or so the fragments are ineffective... which is ideal if you are rushing forward in the open throwing grenades at the enemy.
    Plastic walls or thin non prefragmented shell walls removes the problem of shrapnel and over penetration/collateral damage.


    In fact, it is not specific, as it's very common nowadays. IED,
    roadside bombs, and maybe even roadside Kornet snipers may be still
    dangerous, but tanks in urban areas are always going to get hit from the
    sides. Not using a tank is even worst for the crew.

    Well it is clear that the Russian idea of heavy brigades with tank level protection for all vehicles makes a bit of sense, especially if there is a fire support vehicle like the BMPT as such a vehicle would be ideal for the use you suggest for tanks... for which their current armament is ill suited to.

    A plastic cased HE grenade is basically like a HE bomb. A thermobaric
    grenade is well, like a thermobaric bomb. The latter has shown to offer
    more bang for the same weight as the former. Although, as a compromise, I
    wouldn't be surprised if they made 40 mm thermobaric grenades for the
    Balkan.

    They already make them for the GM-94. They could make a whole range of grenade types for the Balkan... but only if it enters service I would expect.


    Admittedly, I did overstate the 43 mm thermobaric grenade's power, but it was used in a metaphorical sense.

    I didn't miss the point, but I think if you want to hit one person... a 30 cal bullet is better than any grenade of any type. If a sniper or MG team is in a room and there are "innocent civilians" also in that room then obviously a 30 cal could take out the bad guys and leave the neutrals safe, but I would suggest that the fact that they are in the room and not running away and hiding tells me they are not so innocent, and while they shouldn't be directly targeted it is hard to suggest an injury or death amongst them is cause for concern.
    Those innocent civilians might just as easily be directing the fire of the sniper or MG team.

    It's quite traditional for the manufacturer's country to get the best models.

    No. What is traditional is that the people who pay for the product... get the product. Russia up to date has not put its money where its mouth is. It has funded the T-95 for more than 15 years and now it is funding a complete upgrade of the T-90, but so far the big money has been spent in production by India.

    Yes, that's what I was talking about, it basically looks like a
    commander's site but without the optics (i.e. you don't see glass)

    Strange. I would describe them as looking like small boxes painted over like mini ERA blocks.

    That's probably because Shtora-2's on the ever elusive T-90M. If they
    did upgrade ARENA, you or I should of at least heard of some new
    designation for it, I haven't, have you?

    I have had a look around and have seen no reference to Shtora-2. The criticisms of the T-90 included its vulnerability to diving top attack missiles (ARENA can engage missiles that over fly the tank like BILL 2) and cluster munitions. I would expect if there is an assumption that they are upgrading Shtora then an assumption that they would also adopt a hard kill system like a potential DROZD 3 or ARENA 2 is a fair assumption too.


    In that regards, the T-90 is fully protected from the PG-7V from the
    Front and Sides. The rear is different, but as of now, no tank has all
    around, including ass protection.

    Any tank has weak spots, so another layer of protection is always useful... especially if the munitions can be fitted to the turret bustle autoloader to give 360 degree protection without turning the turret.

    Being as costly as $100,000 per missile, they won't use it for live fire training, they'll buy simulators from us.

    Even with simulators it is normal practise in most armies to check stock performance by allocating a small number of live weapon launches to selected personel... usually as a reward for something... like best performed unit on the simulator. Besides to the American taxpayer these missiles are very expensive... to the Georgian taxpayer... they are a gift from the US taxpayer... Wink
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  IronsightSniper on Fri Mar 25, 2011 11:38 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Exactly, but a stationary tank is still easier to hit compared to a moving tank, T-64 gun trials showed this.

    Against a modern enemy with modern tanks using modern Fire Control Systems with auto trackers et al hitting moving targets is no problem. For a limited enemy like those forces the US faces in Afghanistan and Iraq a stationary target with chain link fences and other protective measures will be easily enough protection for them.

    Ah but that's the thing, even Modern tanks miss many shots from 2km, even closer. Gets worst when moving.

    True, but thermobaric grenades don't offer as much shrapnel than a
    HE-Frag one, admittedly, the blastwave will pretty much suffocate
    everyone in the room or even take down the entire room/house. But, in
    situations like Iraq, it's better to take down one house then to still
    take down that house but spread shrapnel up and around the same house
    and throwing shrapnel at other houses.

    Why do you think HE rounds only come in HE FRAG forms? A thin non pre fragmented shell case and the maximum HE charge makes it a HE round, as opposed to a smaller HE charge and thick prefragmented wall shells. The design of the munition can control the fragmentation pattern and effect. For instance the RGO and RGN hand grenades are the same size but one is for defensive use and has heavier fragments with a longer effective range so you really need to throw it from behind cover. The other is an offensive grenade with smaller lighter fragments that lose velocity rapidly so outside about 5 metres or so the fragments are ineffective... which is ideal if you are rushing forward in the open throwing grenades at the enemy.
    Plastic walls or thin non prefragmented shell walls removes the problem of shrapnel and over penetration/collateral damage.

    I didn't? I'm simply stating that the majority of the 40 mm grenade rounds used will be inherently HE-FRAG, and using HE-Plastic is inferior to using Thermobaric.

    A plastic cased HE grenade is basically like a HE bomb. A thermobaric
    grenade is well, like a thermobaric bomb. The latter has shown to offer
    more bang for the same weight as the former. Although, as a compromise, I
    wouldn't be surprised if they made 40 mm thermobaric grenades for the
    Balkan.

    [quote\They already make them for the GM-94. They could make a whole range of grenade types for the Balkan... but only if it enters service I would expect.

    No, the GM-94 uses a 43 mm grenade.


    Admittedly, I did overstate the 43 mm thermobaric grenade's power, but it was used in a metaphorical sense.

    I didn't miss the point, but I think if you want to hit one person... a 30 cal bullet is better than any grenade of any type. If a sniper or MG team is in a room and there are "innocent civilians" also in that room then obviously a 30 cal could take out the bad guys and leave the neutrals safe, but I would suggest that the fact that they are in the room and not running away and hiding tells me they are not so innocent, and while they shouldn't be directly targeted it is hard to suggest an injury or death amongst them is cause for concern.
    Those innocent civilians might just as easily be directing the fire of the sniper or MG team.

    That's the thing, in Urban environments, a round capable of penetrating cover that is common place in urban areas will usually have enough power to go through 1 or 2 walls, kill the guy, go through another wall, hit some kid in the leg, and turn a family against us. Bullets in general have a tendency to either overpenetrate or underpentrate, if we were to use say, frangiables, than it'd have no penetration power, and if we were to use simple ball ammo, it'd still have enough energy due to the short ranges involved to go through a few walls. A thermobaric grenade is simpler and more effective, as the tank thus becomes a "well" armored room-clearing team.

    It's quite traditional for the manufacturer's country to get the best models.

    No. What is traditional is that the people who pay for the product... get the product. Russia up to date has not put its money where its mouth is. It has funded the T-95 for more than 15 years and now it is funding a complete upgrade of the T-90, but so far the big money has been spent in production by India.

    True enough, but you'd think that Ural-something would be "country first" so to say.

    That's probably because Shtora-2's on the ever elusive T-90M. If they
    did upgrade ARENA, you or I should of at least heard of some new
    designation for it, I haven't, have you?

    I have had a look around and have seen no reference to Shtora-2. The criticisms of the T-90 included its vulnerability to diving top attack missiles (ARENA can engage missiles that over fly the tank like BILL 2) and cluster munitions. I would expect if there is an assumption that they are upgrading Shtora then an assumption that they would also adopt a hard kill system like a potential DROZD 3 or ARENA 2 is a fair assumption too.

    Cluster munition's power is overstated, they're simply overhead EFPs, penetration figures are usually about 150 mm, nothing the T-90's roof can't survive. If there was criticism over the T-90's top attack survivability, they should ask themselves what tank can survive a top attack from Javelin or TOW-2? None. I've read about Shtora-2 in a few tank discussion of the past, might try to dig it up.


    In that regards, the T-90 is fully protected from the PG-7V from the
    Front and Sides. The rear is different, but as of now, no tank has all
    around, including ass protection.

    Any tank has weak spots, so another layer of protection is always useful... especially if the munitions can be fitted to the turret bustle autoloader to give 360 degree protection without turning the turret.

    MBTs are about compromise. Spending $300,000 on ARENA (which isn't 360 degrees) to compensate for ass and side protection isn't worth the bucks. I'd say just slap on some NERA on the ass and have it go.

    Being as costly as $100,000 per missile, they won't use it for live fire training, they'll buy simulators from us.

    Even with simulators it is normal practise in most armies to check stock performance by allocating a small number of live weapon launches to selected personel... usually as a reward for something... like best performed unit on the simulator. Besides to the American taxpayer these missiles are very expensive... to the Georgian taxpayer... they are a gift from the US taxpayer... Wink

    This is capitalism not hugism!
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16411
    Points : 17022
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  GarryB on Sat Mar 26, 2011 5:39 am

    No, the GM-94 uses a 43 mm grenade.

    I know, the difference of 3mm in calibre is not that important. They have a 43mm thermobaric grenade and also a 43mm plastic HE Blast grenade, so doing the same for a 40mm grenade is not hard.

    That's the thing, in Urban environments, a round capable of penetrating
    cover that is common place in urban areas will usually have enough power
    to go through 1 or 2 walls, kill the guy, go through another wall, hit
    some kid in the leg, and turn a family against us.

    Then use 40mm HE blast grenades to blow your way through the cover and get the bad guy. And the family of the kid will likely turn against you for blowing down walls in their house anyway. The secret is to make sure that kid gets real medical treatment and to ask why they let the militant into their house in the first place.

    Bullets in general have a tendency to either overpenetrate or
    underpentrate, if we were to use say, frangiables, than it'd have no
    penetration power, and if we were to use simple ball ammo, it'd still
    have enough energy due to the short ranges involved to go through a few
    walls.

    Kill the bad guy first and then deal with any other problems afterwards. There is no magic guided bullets yet that only kill or injure the bad guys.

    The secret is don't go into cities unless you have to and get the population on your side. That often means walking amongst them and taking the same risks they do everyday. Hey if they are worth fighting for they should be worth dying for. If there is a zero tollerance for casualties then you are in the wrong game or this war should never have been started in the first place. Dont start what you don't have the balls to finish.

    A thermobaric grenade is simpler and more effective, as the tank thus becomes a "well" armored room-clearing team.

    Like any explosive its detonation is spherical and completely indiscriminate. The blast wave can be concentrated and focused to go round corners or it can be deflected by a piece of furniture... kill one person and leave the person next to them unhurt. It is certainly no panacea.

    True enough, but you'd think that Ural-something would be "country first" so to say.

    Actually I would think they make more money from export orders than they do domestic production but I am sure UVZ would prefer to see the current standard operational tank for the Russian Army as the T-90M.

    Cluster munition's power is overstated, they're simply overhead EFPs,
    penetration figures are usually about 150 mm, nothing the T-90's roof
    can't survive.

    The Russian models can target engine compartments too and are relatively cheap.

    If there was criticism over the T-90's top attack survivability, they
    should ask themselves what tank can survive a top attack from Javelin or
    TOW-2? None.

    This isn't a dick measuring contest... the question at hand is what are the current threats to our MBTs and Javelin and cluster munitions appear on the list. Both threats are already in significantly wide spread service.

    MBTs are about compromise. Spending $300,000 on ARENA (which isn't 360
    degrees) to compensate for ass and side protection isn't worth the
    bucks. I'd say just slap on some NERA on the ass and have it go.

    Why not do both? Even ARENA 1 gives significant coverage angles already and an upgraded model could easily deal with 360 degree threats and top attack munitions too no doubt.

    This is capitalism not hugism!

    Hard core capitalism has no morals. Everyone has to draw a line.
    The US can certainly arm Georgia with anything they want to... but they should keep a couple of things in mind. First... nothing they can give them will equip them to do what they really want, which is to take South Ossetia and Abkhazia by force. (I believe it was you mentioning something about imperialism after 1945 was bad).
    And Second arming Georgia to inflict more pain on Russia in the event of another conflict will likely result in a lot more unnecessary deaths of Georgian citizens and ultimately lead to Russia blaming the US for funding and arming that idiot...
    Having said all that of course you can support your own defence industry by giving Georgia free money and then telling them they can only spend it on US weapons because the money actually comes from a Board game.
    Just expect it to be used poorly and quickly captured... remember that while the Russian forces were criticised for lack of C4ISR the Georgians enjoyed NATO air defence data direct from Turkey and an up to date battle management system which they failed to use effectively at all.
    I am sure the money your MIC makes on any sales and the friendship that will buy with Georgia more than makes up for any negative effect arming Russias enemies might have. I mean Georgia has Oil pipelines...
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sun Mar 27, 2011 9:22 am

    [quote="GarryB"]
    No, the GM-94 uses a 43 mm grenade.

    I know, the difference of 3mm in calibre is not that important. They have a 43mm thermobaric grenade and also a 43mm plastic HE Blast grenade, so doing the same for a 40mm grenade is not hard.

    Correctly so, but until a 40 mm thermobaric one comes along, I'll stand by my thought of putting a semi-automatic GM-94 on a independent rotating mount.

    That's the thing, in Urban environments, a round capable of penetrating
    cover that is common place in urban areas will usually have enough power
    to go through 1 or 2 walls, kill the guy, go through another wall, hit
    some kid in the leg, and turn a family against us.

    Then use 40mm HE blast grenades to blow your way through the cover and get the bad guy. And the family of the kid will likely turn against you for blowing down walls in their house anyway. The secret is to make sure that kid gets real medical treatment and to ask why they let the militant into their house in the first place.

    Of course, but then you get to questions of lethality, a HE grenade is deadly, but is it more deadly than a thermobaric grenade? No, it's not, thus, the thermobaric one has both the lethality and then some of a HE grenade, while retaining the small collateral radius of said grenade.

    Bullets in general have a tendency to either overpenetrate or
    underpentrate, if we were to use say, frangiables, than it'd have no
    penetration power, and if we were to use simple ball ammo, it'd still
    have enough energy due to the short ranges involved to go through a few
    walls.

    [quote]Kill the bad guy first and then deal with any other problems afterwards. There is no magic guided bullets yet that only kill or injure the bad guys.

    The secret is don't go into cities unless you have to and get the population on your side. That often means walking amongst them and taking the same risks they do everyday. Hey if they are worth fighting for they should be worth dying for. If there is a zero tollerance for casualties then you are in the wrong game or this war should never have been started in the first place. Dont start what you don't have the balls to finish.[quote]

    Of course there isn't. That's why you use hammers instead of scapels. Take down the house (or room) of the bad guy and you got him either way.

    A thermobaric grenade is simpler and more effective, as the tank thus becomes a "well" armored room-clearing team.

    Like any explosive its detonation is spherical and completely indiscriminate. The blast wave can be concentrated and focused to go round corners or it can be deflected by a piece of furniture... kill one person and leave the person next to them unhurt. It is certainly no panacea.

    Not to mention nearly suffocating the guy. If guy 2 isn't dead, he certainly won't be returning fire for a bit.

    Cluster munition's power is overstated, they're simply overhead EFPs,
    penetration figures are usually about 150 mm, nothing the T-90's roof
    can't survive.

    The Russian models can target engine compartments too and are relatively cheap.

    It'd be a mobility kill at least and a catastrophic kill at worst, if the fuel catches on fire. Generally, engine blocks make great impromptu armor.

    If there was criticism over the T-90's top attack survivability, they
    should ask themselves what tank can survive a top attack from Javelin or
    TOW-2? None.

    This isn't a dick measuring contest... the question at hand is what are the current threats to our MBTs and Javelin and cluster munitions appear on the list. Both threats are already in significantly wide spread service.

    It, in fact is a dick measuring contest, measure and counter measure. Javelins, if proliferated to countries whom Russia deems a threat, would warrant proliferations of modern APSs to Russian tanks, but, the question comes again to, why protect a tank against the off chance of something like over top cluster munitions or top attack ATGMs? Then another question comes, whether or not said APSs would be able to handle such attacks? To the former question, if threatening country does acquire Javelin ATGMs, how much did they acquire and what are the possibilities of an engagement with said country? To the former, can said APS reach the elevation required to disable or destroy a top attack ATGM? It would seem that the chances of another Russo-Georgian war is small, the chance that Georgia will use Javelins are also small, and that ARENA, as it stands, would not be able to intercept the Javelin. In regards to cluster munitions, really, I don't think Russia has any threatening country that has an air force competent enough to win air dominance in case of a Russian invasion or have even rockets for their MLRS that can release cluster munitions.

    MBTs are about compromise. Spending $300,000 on ARENA (which isn't 360
    degrees) to compensate for ass and side protection isn't worth the
    bucks. I'd say just slap on some NERA on the ass and have it go.

    Why not do both? Even ARENA 1 gives significant coverage angles already and an upgraded model could easily deal with 360 degree threats and top attack munitions too no doubt.

    It's about cost. Again as it stands, Russian tanks aren't as cheap as they used to be, smart armor is better armor but having a thick hull with smart armor means big bucks.

    This is capitalism not hugism!

    Hard core capitalism has no morals. Everyone has to draw a line.
    The US can certainly arm Georgia with anything they want to... but they should keep a couple of things in mind. First... nothing they can give them will equip them to do what they really want, which is to take South Ossetia and Abkhazia by force. (I believe it was you mentioning something about imperialism after 1945 was bad).
    And Second arming Georgia to inflict more pain on Russia in the event of another conflict will likely result in a lot more unnecessary deaths of Georgian citizens and ultimately lead to Russia blaming the US for funding and arming that idiot...
    Having said all that of course you can support your own defence industry by giving Georgia free money and then telling them they can only spend it on US weapons because the money actually comes from a Board game.
    Just expect it to be used poorly and quickly captured... remember that while the Russian forces were criticised for lack of C4ISR the Georgians enjoyed NATO air defence data direct from Turkey and an up to date battle management system which they failed to use effectively at all.
    I am sure the money your MIC makes on any sales and the friendship that will buy with Georgia more than makes up for any negative effect arming Russias enemies might have. I mean Georgia has Oil pipelines...

    Maybe. If Georgia decides to reannex those regions, than the arms dealer would indeed be NATO and more so, the U.S. But, there's one thing called Defense and another called Imperialism. The 2008 South Ossetian war shows that the Georgian ground forces, as trained and equipped as they were, fell back to their old ways, which was crumbled up into a donut and thrown around by the Russian forces. You can argue that Javelins will only help Georgia win a ground war, but you'd have to give Georgia a lot more than 3rd generation ATGMs for them to actually annex those regions (air dominance required.) So, in that retrospect, selling Javelins to Georgia can be considered arming them for Defense, but selling say, F-35s to Georgia would be arming them for Imperialism. Thus, that's the line.

    I.E.

    It's okay to sell me a .22 rifle as I'm not going to kill the local police force with that.

    But it's not okay to sell me a 30 mm autocannon, as I can kill the local police force with that.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Sep 26, 2017 4:04 am