Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Share
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3222
    Points : 3308
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  medo on Sun Mar 27, 2011 10:45 am

    Olimpic war in South Ossethia was interesting, because both side were equal on the ground in numbers. Georgian army was better and more modern equipped with C4ISR, equal tanks with better FCS with TI sights and C3I, modern air defense with Buk-M1 and Spyder, attack planes with israely upgraded Su-25K, etc. Javelin wouldn't do a big difference in the war, while Georga already have capable enough ATGMs like Fagot and Konkurs (they have the same result on those T-72 and T-62 tanks as Javelins). This war more show difference in russian and western philosophy and doctrine of war. Western is more oriented in fighting with enemy which is quantitatively and qualitatively weaker, while russian one is oriented in case, that you have to fight with enemy, which is quantitatively and qualitatively superior. I think here is more a reason, why Georgian army, although in superior position, fail.
    avatar
    runaway

    Posts : 348
    Points : 369
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  runaway on Sun Mar 27, 2011 10:36 pm

    medo wrote:Olimpic war in South Ossethia was interesting, because both side were equal on the ground in numbers. Georgian army was better and more modern equipped with C4ISR, equal tanks with better FCS with TI sights and C3I, modern air defense with Buk-M1 and Spyder, attack planes with israely upgraded Su-25K, etc.

    Yes certainly, the city jeeps the georgians used to transport infantry, is roughly equal to Bmp`s. A kind of ICV really.

    Who are you trying to fool?
    The Georgians gambled and didnt belive russia would intervene. I dont think they belived they had a fighting chance.
    Not with numbers, nor equipment and certainly not training and expertise.

    medo wrote: This war more show difference in russian and western philosophy and doctrine of war. Western is more oriented in fighting with enemy which is quantitatively and qualitatively weaker, while russian one is oriented in case, that you have to fight with enemy, which is quantitatively and qualitatively superior. I think here is more a reason, why Georgian army, although in superior position, fail.

    Maybe, but i doubt russians is oriented in fighting a quantitatively superior enemy. Its a part they always have played. But qualitatively superior, yes they have often fought against such enemies, although i dont classify the georgians superior in any respect to the russian army, navy or air force.

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16536
    Points : 17144
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  GarryB on Mon Mar 28, 2011 2:51 am

    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.

    I would suggest that making a thermobaric grenade 3mm smaller in calibre to fit the Balkan would be rather easier than making what is essentially a pump action grenade launcher into a semi automatic grenade launcher.

    I would also think that with such a weapon you are emphasising hitting a single specific target within a group of targets you don't want to hit... I would suggest that sometimes the whole group will be part of the threat and so full auto burst fire of 5-10 grenades would be useful... something the Balkan can do already.

    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.

    Actually I disagree. A thermobaric grenade... as you have already stated you know all about, is basically a blast weapon so while it is more powerful by weight... it also needs to be to be effective. A HE Frag round is generally more effective to a wider radius because fragments of metal retain energy better than a volume of air... like the difference between throwing a baseball at someone to hurt them and throwing a beach ball... the mass of the baseball allows it to travel through the air more efficiently, while the beach ball loses velocity and therefore energy rapidly because of its low mass and large volume.
    A well designed grenade with an effective fragmentation jacket can be much more effective at killing than a blast grenade. As I mentioned above an attacking grenade is a blast grenade and is safe to throw without taking cover yourself because of the way blast weapons lost effectiveness rapidly with range. A defensive grenade on the other hand can injure or kill at much greater ranges than most people can throw.
    Each has their place and each are better suited to different targets or situations.

    I would suggest that a large group of spaced soldiers charging over open ground would best be engaged with HE FRAG, while targets hiding in caves or rooms of buildings are best dealt with using Thermobaric rounds just as a rule of thumb.

    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.

    Scalpel is a bullsh!t western term to make is sound like their super precision guided and smart weapons turn the bloody mess of war into clean efficient surgery. If a 2,000lb LBG is a scalpel then the person wielding it is swinging it like an axe... If you swing it like an axe... it might as well be a hammer.

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

    That is a bit of a myth actually. It doesn't suck all the O2 out of the air and leave none at all. The thermobaric charge contains x amount of fuel and to burn x amount of fuel it takes y amount of oxygen. The y component will never be more than 3-4 times the volume of x unless it actually starts a fire. You could throw a tin of fuel into a room and set it on fire and it will burn up the oxygen in the room too. Unless the room is sealed then fresh air will rush in to replace the consumed O2.

    The point is that if it burned the O2 around your position... that means the air around you was ignited at a few thousand degrees so lack of O2 is not your biggest problem. In a tunnel or a largely sealed room then you will have problems, but generally the overpressure from the actual explosion has already killed you well before O2 deprivation is a problem. Bodies with lungs hanging out their mouths is not O2 deprivation... it is a sign of overpressure. Noticed after firebombing raids by the west on Europe during WWII. People in basements in firestorms suffocated because of all the concentrated fires above them consuming the O2 and the air moving in from the sides to replace the rising burning air just fanned the flames and stoked the fires... the O2 that came in was consumed as it arrived.


    It, in fact is a dick measuring contest, measure and counter measure.

    No, a dick measuring contest is... is my tank better than your tank. Is my gun bigger than your gun.
    A dick measuring contest is... the Russians are moving to a 152mm gun for their tanks we need to move to our 140mm gun to match them.
    A better way of thinking about it is... The armour of the new Russian tank is designed to protect it from the front from 120mm ammo... both new and projected, so we need to go to a larger calibre gun to retain the ability to defeat it.

    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?

    Because the US sells weapons like lollies, and the former soviet republics all had top attack cluster munitions before the soviet union broke up... so it would be safe to assume they still have them.

    Then another question comes, whether or not said APSs would be able to handle such attacks?

    Even assuming they don't right now they will deal with RPG attacks which consitutes about 90% of the worlds threats to tanks from infantry... not including IED and mines.
    Sounds pretty good to me.

    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?

    You design a tank to meet potential and near future threats. The technology is proven and mature so why not put it in production. Future iterations will expand capability and likely reduce costs. The MMW radar technology can be integrated into the sensor design to allow better performance too.

    To the former, can said APS reach the elevation required to disable or destroy a top attack ATGM?

    Looking specifically at ARENA, it is a fairly simple modification... at the moment the radar looks out horizontally for incoming threats. When it detects a threat that meets its parameters it checks range and direction and nominates a charge. It knows how high the charge goes and the direction down which it fires its shrapnel, so it determines the precise launch time for the munition to send a shower of fragments down in the path of the incoming target. It shouldn't be too hard to add more sensors to look upwards and to modify the munitions to fire fragments down and forward so it can be used against incoming rounds and also direct fragments into the path of a diving top attack missile like Javelin too. The increase in computing power and improvement in MMW radar sensors should allow the partial interception of sub munitions.

    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.

    It would however be very effective against most RPGs that are already widely deployed. It is all together quite possible that they have made some further improvements to the design of ARENA in the last 15 years.

    The best way to ensure it evolves with the threats is to spend money on it and get it into service in numbers so the company developing it will have funds to improve it.

    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.

    Ummmm... Georgia used cluster munitions against Russian forces in 2008. All former Soviet Republics have cluster munitions in artillery and rocket launchers.

    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.

    The Russian military wants new and high tech.... it will never get cheap weapons again.

    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.)

    I know Javelins wont win a war... F-22s wouldn't help Georgia beat Russia in a conflict. Javelin will increase Russian losses, and ARENA x will reduce losses. That is why I think they will have ARENA.

    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.

    You mean like the S-300 sales to Iran that were opposed by the US and Israel were for defence?

    Yes certainly, the city jeeps the georgians used to transport infantry, is roughly equal to Bmp`s. A kind of ICV really.

    Compared to the South Ossetian forces they might as well have been BMPs.

    The Georgians gambled and didnt belive russia would intervene. I dont think they belived they had a fighting chance.
    Not with numbers, nor equipment and certainly not training and expertise.

    There was a reason they attacked South Ossetia and not Abkhazia. They thought if they were quick enough and could take over South Ossetia and could control it that Russia would not intervene.
    Of course they prepared for months for this attack and it wasn't an accident that it was mounted during the Olympics opening ceremony (traditionally a time for ceasefires BTW).
    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 28, 2011 7:33 am

    GarryB wrote:
    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.

    I would suggest that making a thermobaric grenade 3mm smaller in calibre to fit the Balkan would be rather easier than making what is essentially a pump action grenade launcher into a semi automatic grenade launcher.

    I would also think that with such a weapon you are emphasising hitting a single specific target within a group of targets you don't want to hit... I would suggest that sometimes the whole group will be part of the threat and so full auto burst fire of 5-10 grenades would be useful... something the Balkan can do already.

    A grenade launcher is quite simple really. The only difference between a the GM-94 vehicle weapon v.s. for say, the Balkan would be the barrel and ammunition.

    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.

    Actually I disagree. A thermobaric grenade... as you have already stated you know all about, is basically a blast weapon so while it is more powerful by weight... it also needs to be to be effective. A HE Frag round is generally more effective to a wider radius because fragments of metal retain energy better than a volume of air... like the difference between throwing a baseball at someone to hurt them and throwing a beach ball... the mass of the baseball allows it to travel through the air more efficiently, while the beach ball loses velocity and therefore energy rapidly because of its low mass and large volume.
    A well designed grenade with an effective fragmentation jacket can be much more effective at killing than a blast grenade. As I mentioned above an attacking grenade is a blast grenade and is safe to throw without taking cover yourself because of the way blast weapons lost effectiveness rapidly with range. A defensive grenade on the other hand can injure or kill at much greater ranges than most people can throw.
    Each has their place and each are better suited to different targets or situations.

    I would suggest that a large group of spaced soldiers charging over open ground would best be engaged with HE FRAG, while targets hiding in caves or rooms of buildings are best dealt with using Thermobaric rounds just as a rule of thumb.

    But again, as I've also said before, a zerg rush of unarmored infantry isn't what's to be expected in wars of the future. What is to be expected, is short range, multiple varying targets of threats, friendlies, and neutrals, i.e. urban areas. A small collateral, high lethality grenade like a thermobaric one, trumps HE-FRAG grenades because as I've said already, "saves innocent civilians, kills bad guys".

    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.

    Scalpel is a bullsh!t western term to make is sound like their super precision guided and smart weapons turn the bloody mess of war into clean efficient surgery. If a 2,000lb LBG is a scalpel then the person wielding it is swinging it like an axe... If you swing it like an axe... it might as well be a hammer.

    That's why we have Excalibur. 7 kg HE-FRAG warhead with 4-20m CEP accuracy.

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

    That is a bit of a myth actually. It doesn't suck all the O2 out of the air and leave none at all. The thermobaric charge contains x amount of fuel and to burn x amount of fuel it takes y amount of oxygen. The y component will never be more than 3-4 times the volume of x unless it actually starts a fire. You could throw a tin of fuel into a room and set it on fire and it will burn up the oxygen in the room too. Unless the room is sealed then fresh air will rush in to replace the consumed O2.

    The point is that if it burned the O2 around your position... that means the air around you was ignited at a few thousand degrees so lack of O2 is not your biggest problem. In a tunnel or a largely sealed room then you will have problems, but generally the overpressure from the actual explosion has already killed you well before O2 deprivation is a problem. Bodies with lungs hanging out their mouths is not O2 deprivation... it is a sign of overpressure. Noticed after firebombing raids by the west on Europe during WWII. People in basements in firestorms suffocated because of all the concentrated fires above them consuming the O2 and the air moving in from the sides to replace the rising burning air just fanned the flames and stoked the fires... the O2 that came in was consumed as it arrived.

    That really doesn't change the situation.


    It, in fact is a dick measuring contest, measure and counter measure.

    No, a dick measuring contest is... is my tank better than your tank. Is my gun bigger than your gun.
    A dick measuring contest is... the Russians are moving to a 152mm gun for their tanks we need to move to our 140mm gun to match them.
    A better way of thinking about it is... The armour of the new Russian tank is designed to protect it from the front from 120mm ammo... both new and projected, so we need to go to a larger calibre gun to retain the ability to defeat it.

    No, a dick measuring contest is, "my x is better than your y". My Javelin will kill your Tanks. That there, is a dick measuring contest.

    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?

    Because the US sells weapons like lollies, and the former soviet republics all had top attack cluster munitions before the soviet union broke up... so it would be safe to assume they still have them.

    But roof-top Kontakt protects the tank from AT cluster munitions and the U.S. selling weapons doesn't mean the buyer uses weapons.

    Then another question comes, whether or not said APSs would be able to handle such attacks?

    [quite]Even assuming they don't right now they will deal with RPG attacks which consitutes about 90% of the worlds threats to tanks from infantry... not including IED and mines.
    Sounds pretty good to me.

    In fact, it does not! The only vehicles that require anti-RPG protection are light skinned vehicles, like the BMP series or BTR series. Tanks are tanks for a reason, their thick and advanced armor arrays. Adding APS to the tank is just less economically effective than putting said APSs on light skinned vehicles.

    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?

    You design a tank to meet potential and near future threats. The technology is proven and mature so why not put it in production. Future iterations will expand capability and likely reduce costs. The MMW radar technology can be integrated into the sensor design to allow better performance too.

    The T-90 wasn't designed to meet future threats. T-95/Black Eagle was.

    To the former, can said APS reach the elevation required to disable or destroy a top attack ATGM?

    Looking specifically at ARENA, it is a fairly simple modification... at the moment the radar looks out horizontally for incoming threats. When it detects a threat that meets its parameters it checks range and direction and nominates a charge. It knows how high the charge goes and the direction down which it fires its shrapnel, so it determines the precise launch time for the munition to send a shower of fragments down in the path of the incoming target. It shouldn't be too hard to add more sensors to look upwards and to modify the munitions to fire fragments down and forward so it can be used against incoming rounds and also direct fragments into the path of a diving top attack missile like Javelin too. The increase in computing power and improvement in MMW radar sensors should allow the partial interception of sub munitions.

    That doesn't answer if ARENA can defend against top attacks.

    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.

    It would however be very effective against most RPGs that are already widely deployed. It is all together quite possible that they have made some further improvements to the design of ARENA in the last 15 years.

    The best way to ensure it evolves with the threats is to spend money on it and get it into service in numbers so the company developing it will have funds to improve it.

    Perhaps, but as I've said before, a tank is a tank for a reason. The T-90's baseline armor array is sufficient v.s. the PG-7V round from all sides save the ass. The Govt. could always just fund the company themselves without actually having to make purchases.

    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.

    [quoteUmmmm... Georgia used cluster munitions against Russian forces in 2008. All former Soviet Republics have cluster munitions in artillery and rocket launchers.[/quote]

    BM-21s? It's AT cluster munition only has 120 mm penetration, which is not enough to penetrate the T-90's top armor.

    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.

    The Russian military wants new and high tech.... it will never get cheap weapons again.

    The Russian economy may not be able to handle high tech.

    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.)

    I know Javelins wont win a war... F-22s wouldn't help Georgia beat Russia in a conflict. Javelin will increase Russian losses, and ARENA x will reduce losses. That is why I think they will have ARENA.

    In that case, would it not be more economical to standardize Nakidka for all T-90Ms? Nakidka is very cheap in comparison to ARENA.

    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.

    You mean like the S-300 sales to Iran that were opposed by the US and Israel were for defence?

    Air power is the key to modern warfare, except nukes. S-300s threaten air power, thus, can threaten the outcome of a conflict, thus, can be considered an Offensive weapon.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16536
    Points : 17144
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  GarryB on Mon Mar 28, 2011 9:09 am

    The only difference between a the GM-94 vehicle weapon v.s. for say, the Balkan would be the barrel and ammunition.

    Actually I would suggest the difference between a pumpaction shotgun and a general purpose machine gun would be a more accurate comparison... and the difference is reasonably significant... the ammo and barrel are the least of the differences... the Balkan is a gas operated belt fed automatic grenade launcher, the GM-94 is a tube fed manually operated pump action weapon with the tube magazine above the barrel.

    But again, as I've also said before, a zerg rush of unarmored infantry isn't what's to be expected in wars of the future.

    The Balkan has a range of 2,500m so pretty much any infantry grouping inside that radius are vulnerable... the fairly steep trajectory means that at some distances steep plunging fire could be used... particularly useful against enemy forces behind walls with no overhead cover... just as an example. This makes it significantly longer ranged than an MG and of course the munitions it could fire would be far more effective in many roles.

    As long ago as Desert Storm it was found the US troops were using more 40mm grenades than 7.62 x 51m ammo. Give a soldier something that makes the enemy go boom and they will prefer it to something that just punches holes in them one at a time.

    A small collateral, high lethality grenade like a thermobaric one,
    trumps HE-FRAG grenades because as I've said already, "saves innocent
    civilians, kills bad guys".

    In the conflicts the US finds itself involved in... yes... in all conflicts... no. Developing a new grenade launcher from scratch because it uses a particular round seems a little extreme. And of course assumes that the makers of an existing new grenade launcher have not already developed such a grenade.

    AFAIK the GM-94 is made by KBP Tula which is a very good company that also makes lots of other good stuff. The Balkan is made by Pribor... the company that already makes the 40mm grenades for the GP series of under barrel grenade launchers and the tips of the rounds shown for the Balkan are the same as the tips for the bounding grenades of the GP series. I expect the Pribor company could easily develop a wide range of ammo types if its grenade launcher enters service to replace the AGS-17 and AGS-30.


    That's why we have Excalibur. 7 kg HE-FRAG warhead with 4-20m CEP accuracy.

    7kg warhead? Or do you mean 7kgs of HE? A 152mm calibre guided round like Krasnopol is a 50kg round and has a warhead of 20+kgs of HE.

    No, a dick measuring contest is, "my x is better than your y". My
    Javelin will kill your Tanks. That there, is a dick measuring contest.

    A dick measuring contest is comparing two things in ways that really don't matter.
    My tanks are vulnerable to Javelin... how do I alter the design, or add jammers or other technology to defend my tank. is practical design in the measure countermeasure conflict.
    My tank is better than your tank because my tank has a larger calibre gun/ or is heavier so therefore it must be better protected/ or it cost more so it must have better technology... these are arguments in a dick measuring contest.

    BTW with regarding to DIRCMs the Russians seem to offer a wide range of laser based systems designed to defeat IR and IIR guided weapons for their aircraft. The current one seems to use a laser system with a wide field of regard and doesn't need a turret to engage incoming weapons. Such a design would be ideal for something like Shtora 2 that would allow engagements from a wide range of angles... including above. A laser dazzler would be rather more effective than the spotlight beam of Shtora 1, and would likely be effective against Javelin and the IR component of guided cluster munitions.

    Regarding some way of defeating MMW radar homing missiles would be beneficial against both cluster munitions and Brimstone.

    In fact, it does not! The only vehicles that require anti-RPG protection
    are light skinned vehicles, like the BMP series or BTR series. Tanks
    are tanks for a reason, their thick and advanced armor arrays.

    Every tank has weak points and there is no guarantee that existing armour will stop everything. There is always a chance hit on the turret ring or other soft point. The ARENA protects all these... and protects those expensive optics on the roof from damage too.

    Adding APS to the tank is just less economically effective than putting said APSs on light skinned vehicles.

    For each tank there will be hundreds of light skinned vehicles.
    A tank is expensive enough to warrant protecting it properly.

    The T-90 wasn't designed to meet future threats. T-95/Black Eagle was.

    The T-90 upgrade is designed to solve existing problems (ammo in crew compartment et al) and also to get systems designed decades ago but not put into service into service.

    The whole point of reducing the tank park size is so you can afford to fit it with all sorts of expensive performance improvements.

    That doesn't answer if ARENA can defend against top attacks.

    ARENA in its known current form offered for export since 1995 can defeat top attack weapons that overfly the tank like BILL 2. What it can't defend against is the steeply diving top attack weapons like Javelin. It also can't defend against some types of cluster munitions.

    The Govt. could always just fund the company themselves without actually having to make purchases.

    If the government is paying the company why not get the product they are paying for? By getting the product the safety of the tanks is improved, the troops learn to use the system, which will make introducing new changes easier as they can be properly tested and field use will likely lead to modifications to improve performance and ease of use as well.

    Remember that ARENA can be manually fired to engage targets close to the tank like enemy infantry... which are an extreme danger to a tank as at close range targets are difficult to engage because of the gun elevation required to hit them.

    BM-21s? It's AT cluster munition only has 120 mm penetration, which is not enough to penetrate the T-90's top armor.

    The hatch of a T-90 is not 12cm thick... and PTAB munitions can penetrate 200mm.

    The Russian economy may not be able to handle high tech.

    The Russian economy is in a good place with the price of oil high and of course the vast natural resources of the country putting it in a reasonably good position globally. Its economy will likely expand, but I doubt it will explode... as long as it can keep selling on the international market I think it will threaten European sales around the place, though it has lost its eastern european market and its old cold war market is disappearing because of the price increases. It can probably meet the needs of its old cold war market with its surplus older material for a few decades yet, but when that stock and building capacity is gone I think their might be a market gap where all the countries that could afford Russian stuff wont buy it because it is Russian stuff.

    In that case, would it not be more economical to standardize Nakidka for
    all T-90Ms? Nakidka is very cheap in comparison to ARENA.

    Go for both. The mass production of ARENA should bring its price down and I think the work done on MMW radars in Russian Helos and air defence systems could be applied to improve performance and offer a wider range of features.

    Even if ARENA and Nakidka is only for command tanks... getting it into production and service is the first step that they started to take at the end of the 1980s but stopped because of the economic collapse.

    Air power is the key to modern warfare, except nukes. S-300s threaten
    air power, thus, can threaten the outcome of a conflict, thus, can be
    considered an Offensive weapon.

    Iranian S-300s would only threaten aircraft that are in places they have no right to be. It is very unlikely that the Iranians would position them on the Iraq border to support an invasion, which is about the only offensive use they could be put to.
    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 28, 2011 10:10 am

    [quote="GarryB"]
    The only difference between a the GM-94 vehicle weapon v.s. for say, the Balkan would be the barrel and ammunition.

    Actually I would suggest the difference between a pumpaction shotgun and a general purpose machine gun would be a more accurate comparison... and the difference is reasonably significant... the ammo and barrel are the least of the differences... the Balkan is a gas operated belt fed automatic grenade launcher, the GM-94 is a tube fed manually operated pump action weapon with the tube magazine above the barrel.

    ...But I just told you, "GM-94 vehicular weapon", that means it has all of that already.

    But again, as I've also said before, a zerg rush of unarmored infantry isn't what's to be expected in wars of the future.

    The Balkan has a range of 2,500m so pretty much any infantry grouping inside that radius are vulnerable... the fairly steep trajectory means that at some distances steep plunging fire could be used... particularly useful against enemy forces behind walls with no overhead cover... just as an example. This makes it significantly longer ranged than an MG and of course the munitions it could fire would be far more effective in many roles.

    As long ago as Desert Storm it was found the US troops were using more 40mm grenades than 7.62 x 51m ammo. Give a soldier something that makes the enemy go boom and they will prefer it to something that just punches holes in them one at a time.

    Range gets really irrelevant in modern warfare, 50-150m is what's to be expected. Unless you're in Afghanistan.

    A small collateral, high lethality grenade like a thermobaric one,
    trumps HE-FRAG grenades because as I've said already, "saves innocent
    civilians, kills bad guys".

    In the conflicts the US finds itself involved in... yes... in all conflicts... no. Developing a new grenade launcher from scratch because it uses a particular round seems a little extreme. And of course assumes that the makers of an existing new grenade launcher have not already developed such a grenade.

    AFAIK the GM-94 is made by KBP Tula which is a very good company that also makes lots of other good stuff. The Balkan is made by Pribor... the company that already makes the 40mm grenades for the GP series of under barrel grenade launchers and the tips of the rounds shown for the Balkan are the same as the tips for the bounding grenades of the GP series. I expect the Pribor company could easily develop a wide range of ammo types if its grenade launcher enters service to replace the AGS-17 and AGS-30.

    I really doubt Russia will get itself involve in a symmetrical war. It probably will get itself in an asymmetrical one, in which case, close fighting is to be expected, to which, a thermobaric grenade for a tank would be a great asset compared to a 7.62 coax.


    That's why we have Excalibur. 7 kg HE-FRAG warhead with 4-20m CEP accuracy.

    7kg warhead? Or do you mean 7kgs of HE? A 152mm calibre guided round like Krasnopol is a 50kg round and has a warhead of 20+kgs of HE.

    Generally speaking, I refer to the explosives only.

    No, a dick measuring contest is, "my x is better than your y". My
    Javelin will kill your Tanks. That there, is a dick measuring contest.

    In fact, it does not! The only vehicles that require anti-RPG protection
    are light skinned vehicles, like the BMP series or BTR series. Tanks
    are tanks for a reason, their thick and advanced armor arrays.

    Every tank has weak points and there is no guarantee that existing armour will stop everything. There is always a chance hit on the turret ring or other soft point. The ARENA protects all these... and protects those expensive optics on the roof from damage too.

    That's why tanks are compromises...you can't expect all around protection and if you can it's going to cost a lot.

    Adding APS to the tank is just less economically effective than putting said APSs on light skinned vehicles.

    For each tank there will be hundreds of light skinned vehicles.
    A tank is expensive enough to warrant protecting it properly.

    But IFVs do the dirty work, tanks are just RPG magnets. Most of the time your tank can survive said RPG, but if an IFV gets hit it's a gonner, a long with all those troops inside. It's simply more tactical and economical to provide protection to things that don't have it rather than things that do.

    That doesn't answer if ARENA can defend against top attacks.

    ARENA in its known current form offered for export since 1995 can defeat top attack weapons that overfly the tank like BILL 2. What it can't defend against is the steeply diving top attack weapons like Javelin. It also can't defend against some types of cluster munitions.

    Precisely. Everything has a chink in it's armor, the ass of a tank, the top of APSs, etc. You can't expect protection from everything and if you can, it's going to cost a lot.

    The Govt. could always just fund the company themselves without actually having to make purchases.

    If the government is paying the company why not get the product they are paying for? By getting the product the safety of the tanks is improved, the troops learn to use the system, which will make introducing new changes easier as they can be properly tested and field use will likely lead to modifications to improve performance and ease of use as well.

    Remember that ARENA can be manually fired to engage targets close to the tank like enemy infantry... which are an extreme danger to a tank as at close range targets are difficult to engage because of the gun elevation required to hit them.

    Because the product does what the tank already can do? As you've said before, the T-90 can't defend against Javelin, ARENA can't either, so why not just fund them until an APS comes along that can?

    BM-21s? It's AT cluster munition only has 120 mm penetration, which is not enough to penetrate the T-90's top armor.

    The hatch of a T-90 is not 12cm thick... and PTAB munitions can penetrate 200mm.

    Here's a list of Russian submunitions.

    NAME
    COUNTRY
    CALIBER / DELIVERY SYSTEM
    TARGETING SENSOR
    SEARCH ALTITUDE
    ARMOR PENETRATION
    TYPE WARHEAD
    RANGE
    STATUS / PROLIFERATION

    Motiv-3M
    Russia
    300mm rocket
    2 color IR sensor
    100m
    (est) 70-mm RHA penetration @ 150 meters and 30°
    Copper penetrator, Ball slug
    90km
    Full Production

    Universal Submunition
    Russia
    120mm mortar, 122mm, 220mm, and 300mm rockets
    W-band MMW Sensor (Active and Passive), 1-2μ and 8-14μ IR sensor
    100m
    (est) 60-70-mm RHA penetration @ 100 meters and 30°
    Copper penetrator, Ball slug
    33km (122mm) 35km (220mm) 90km (300mm)
    Limited Production

    MCS-E1
    Russia
    152mm cannon
    35 Ghz MMW (Active), 3-5μ IR sensor
    100m
    (est) 90mm RHA penetration
    Copper penetrator, Ball slug
    24km
    EIOC 2003-2004

    MCS-E2 152mm
    Russia
    152mm cannon
    W-band MMW Sensor (Active and Passive), 1-2μ and 8-14μ IR sensor
    150m
    (est) 80mm RHA penetration @ 125 meters and 30°
    Copper penetrator, Ball slug
    20km
    Developmental
    EIOC 2007-2008

    MCS-E2 155mm
    Russia
    155mm cannon
    W-band MMW Sensor (Active and Passive),
    1-2μ and 8-14μ IR sensor
    150m
    (est) 80-mm RHA penetration @ 125 meters and 30°
    Copper penetrator, Ball slug
    25km
    Developmental
    EIOC 2007-2008

    Admittedly I do not know the thickness of T-90 turret roofs, but I do know that they use a mix of Steel/Lead/Boron carbide for whatever thickness it has.

    The Russian economy may not be able to handle high tech.

    The Russian economy is in a good place with the price of oil high and of course the vast natural resources of the country putting it in a reasonably good position globally. Its economy will likely expand, but I doubt it will explode... as long as it can keep selling on the international market I think it will threaten European sales around the place, though it has lost its eastern european market and its old cold war market is disappearing because of the price increases. It can probably meet the needs of its old cold war market with its surplus older material for a few decades yet, but when that stock and building capacity is gone I think their might be a market gap where all the countries that could afford Russian stuff wont buy it because it is Russian stuff.

    $300,000 a piece would mean $120m to give every T-90 ARENA. Not even including T-80s.

    In that case, would it not be more economical to standardize Nakidka for
    all T-90Ms? Nakidka is very cheap in comparison to ARENA.

    Go for both. The mass production of ARENA should bring its price down and I think the work done on MMW radars in Russian Helos and air defence systems could be applied to improve performance and offer a wider range of features.

    Even if ARENA and Nakidka is only for command tanks... getting it into production and service is the first step that they started to take at the end of the 1980s but stopped because of the economic collapse.

    ARENA should be used for C2 tanks but I wouldn't expect the Russians to give every tank both. It's just economics.

    Air power is the key to modern warfare, except nukes. S-300s threaten
    air power, thus, can threaten the outcome of a conflict, thus, can be
    considered an Offensive weapon.

    Iranian S-300s would only threaten aircraft that are in places they have no right to be. It is very unlikely that the Iranians would position them on the Iraq border to support an invasion, which is about the only offensive use they could be put to.

    It has quite the reach for a strategic SAM, it can be used to support invasions.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16536
    Points : 17144
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  GarryB on Mon Mar 28, 2011 12:00 pm

    ...But I just told you, "GM-94 vehicular weapon", that means it has all of that already.

    But why would they make a vehicle mounted automatic model of a grenade launcher that has a max range of up to 600m?
    Especially when the Balkan could be more easily adapted and a new thermobaric grenade designed... if one isn't developed for it already?
    Moreover if a small blast radius is a good thing and shrapnel is a problem then redesigning the grenade with smaller lighter fragments could be used to minimise the effective radius while increasing the lethality at very short range.

    Range gets really irrelevant in modern warfare, 50-150m is what's to be expected. Unless you're in Afghanistan.

    Or Kazakhstan, or any of the other stans of the former Soviet Union, or on the flat open planes of the steppes, or the flat open terrain on the border with China...

    I really doubt Russia will get itself involve in a symmetrical war. It
    probably will get itself in an asymmetrical one, in which case, close
    fighting is to be expected, to which, a thermobaric grenade for a tank
    would be a great asset compared to a 7.62 coax.

    I agree, but how else can you explain its investment in ICBMs and strategic bombers... weapons designed to fight symmetric wars should be useful in asymmetrical ones. The conflict in Georgia was quite symmetric regarding force numbers and equipment types in many respects.

    Generally speaking, I refer to the explosives only.

    I was a little confused as you called it a HE Frag warhead yet a HE Frag warhead is generally the entire construction including both HE and pre-fragmented metal weight.

    That's why tanks are compromises...you can't expect all around protection and if you can it's going to cost a lot.

    Of course any design choice means compromise, but I would suggest that ARENA is a choice that adds enough to make it worth while. A minor increase in weight and complexity, for protection over a wide arc from a wide range of enemy fire power including ATGMs and rocket propelled grenades.

    But IFVs do the dirty work, tanks are just RPG magnets. Most of the time
    your tank can survive said RPG, but if an IFV gets hit it's a gonner, a
    long with all those troops inside. It's simply more tactical and
    economical to provide protection to things that don't have it rather
    than things that do.

    The cost of fitting it to all the IFVs would dwarf the extra cost of fitting it to the tanks as well.

    Precisely. Everything has a chink in it's armor, the ass of a tank, the
    top of APSs, etc. You can't expect protection from everything and if you
    can, it's going to cost a lot.

    It is still going to be cheaper than western tanks. What do you have against ARENA?

    Because the product does what the tank already can do? As you've said
    before, the T-90 can't defend against Javelin, ARENA can't either, so
    why not just fund them until an APS comes along that can?

    Because designing and producing a product is one thing. Keeping it operational and listening to the user about improvements is a totally different skill set that requires different people.
    We have no reason to believe that an improved or modified ARENA is not available for mass production.
    If they are spending the money to create a SHTORA 2, then why not also spend on ARENA 2. In many ways Shtora and Arena were complimentary and worked together to create a defensive system better than either on their own.

    Admittedly I do not know the thickness of T-90 turret roofs, but I do
    know that they use a mix of Steel/Lead/Boron carbide for whatever
    thickness it has.

    You are listing penetration figures only for the guided cluster munitions that use self forging plate penetrators.
    I mentioned the PTAB cluster munition that is also a standard submunition widely deployed in cluster bombs, cluster dispensors and rocket and gun tube artillery.
    The PTAB uses a shaped charge warhead.

    The difference is that the guided munitions can fire at fairly shallow angles... most of the estimated penetration figures you give are from angles of 30 degrees which is a very shallow angle of attack and the estimates don't match the penetration figures give by the Russians themselves for these systems.

    A single SMERCH vehicle can fire 12 rockets each with 616 PTAB HEAT fragmentation submunitions to a range of 90km.
    With a battery of 12 vehicles that means if they all have PTAB submunitions that an area of about half a square kilometre will have about 88,000 HEAT sub munitions falling on it... each able to penetrate 200mm of armour.
    (7392 munitions per vehicle x 12 = 88,704 munitions in a volley).

    $300,000 a piece would mean $120m to give every T-90 ARENA. Not even including T-80s.

    The Russians are withdrawing or retiring most of their 20,000 tank fleet. Their goals are to end up with about 1,500 operational tanks with about 5,000-6,000 in reserve. At $300,000 per operational tank that works out at $450 million. Of course the cost of the new thermal sights would be more than that. And of course mass production and improvements in technology since 1995 would no doubt reduce the costs and increase performance.

    ARENA should be used for C2 tanks but I wouldn't expect the Russians to give every tank both. It's just economics.

    Actual tanks will only be present in heavy brigades. In medium brigades there will be a BMP like vehicle... no doubt something like Sprut, though with slightly better armour I would think. And of course light brigades will likely have something like a BTR-80 with a 125mm gun for fire support.

    It has quite the reach for a strategic SAM, it can be used to support invasions.

    Who are they invading? The US and Israel are not afraid Iran will invade anyone... in fact they probably secretly hope they do do something stupid like invade someone so they can bully them some more.
    What the US and Israel are afraid of is that Iran might be able to defend its own airspace and deny US or Israeli aircraft the ability to blow things up in Iran when they want to.
    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 28, 2011 2:22 pm

    [quote="GarryB"]
    ...But I just told you, "GM-94 vehicular weapon", that means it has all of that already.

    But why would they make a vehicle mounted automatic model of a grenade launcher that has a max range of up to 600m?
    Especially when the Balkan could be more easily adapted and a new thermobaric grenade designed... if one isn't developed for it already?
    Moreover if a small blast radius is a good thing and shrapnel is a problem then redesigning the grenade with smaller lighter fragments could be used to minimise the effective radius while increasing the lethality at very short range.

    Like I said, until a thermobaric 40 mm grenade is developed, I stand by my statement. Moreover, improved HE-FRAG grenades don't have the "demolition" features of a thermobaric grenade (granted, the GM-94 can't demolish much.)

    Range gets really irrelevant in modern warfare, 50-150m is what's to be expected. Unless you're in Afghanistan.

    Or Kazakhstan, or any of the other stans of the former Soviet Union, or on the flat open planes of the steppes, or the flat open terrain on the border with China...

    No, only mountainous regions like Afghanistan.

    I really doubt Russia will get itself involve in a symmetrical war. It
    probably will get itself in an asymmetrical one, in which case, close
    fighting is to be expected, to which, a thermobaric grenade for a tank
    would be a great asset compared to a 7.62 coax.

    I agree, but how else can you explain its investment in ICBMs and strategic bombers... weapons designed to fight symmetric wars should be useful in asymmetrical ones. The conflict in Georgia was quite symmetric regarding force numbers and equipment types in many respects.

    AFAIK, the Georgian air force collapsed faster than the Iraqi air force. Air dominance is a major advantage for whoever has it, and at that point, the Georgians were either in full retreat or full guerrilla mode.

    Generally speaking, I refer to the explosives only.

    That's why tanks are compromises...you can't expect all around protection and if you can it's going to cost a lot.

    Of course any design choice means compromise, but I would suggest that ARENA is a choice that adds enough to make it worth while. A minor increase in weight and complexity, for protection over a wide arc from a wide range of enemy fire power including ATGMs and rocket propelled grenades.

    To be quite honest, I wouldn't invest in APS systems like ARENA until they can provide 360 degree protection, rapid reloading, and maybe even a shooter detection system. Until then, ARENA isn't worth the cost.

    But IFVs do the dirty work, tanks are just RPG magnets. Most of the time
    your tank can survive said RPG, but if an IFV gets hit it's a gonner, a
    long with all those troops inside. It's simply more tactical and
    economical to provide protection to things that don't have it rather
    than things that do.

    The cost of fitting it to all the IFVs would dwarf the extra cost of fitting it to the tanks as well.

    Quite so, that's another reason why not to fit tanks with ARENA, they don't need it as badly as other armored vehicles do, giving it to them would only mean greatly protected tanks but poor support vehicles.

    Precisely. Everything has a chink in it's armor, the ass of a tank, the
    top of APSs, etc. You can't expect protection from everything and if you
    can, it's going to cost a lot.

    It is still going to be cheaper than western tanks. What do you have against ARENA?

    I have nothing against ARENA? I'm simply stating that unit for unit, it's not worth the cost to the Russian MIC.

    Because the product does what the tank already can do? As you've said
    before, the T-90 can't defend against Javelin, ARENA can't either, so
    why not just fund them until an APS comes along that can?

    Because designing and producing a product is one thing. Keeping it operational and listening to the user about improvements is a totally different skill set that requires different people.
    We have no reason to believe that an improved or modified ARENA is not available for mass production.
    If they are spending the money to create a SHTORA 2, then why not also spend on ARENA 2. In many ways Shtora and Arena were complimentary and worked together to create a defensive system better than either on their own.

    Yet we have no reason to believe that a modified ARENA exists. To say one or the other is pure conjecture, so for now, it's only logical to assume that ARENA is ARENA.

    Admittedly I do not know the thickness of T-90 turret roofs, but I do
    know that they use a mix of Steel/Lead/Boron carbide for whatever
    thickness it has.

    You are listing penetration figures only for the guided cluster munitions that use self forging plate penetrators.
    I mentioned the PTAB cluster munition that is also a standard submunition widely deployed in cluster bombs, cluster dispensors and rocket and gun tube artillery.
    The PTAB uses a shaped charge warhead.

    The difference is that the guided munitions can fire at fairly shallow angles... most of the estimated penetration figures you give are from angles of 30 degrees which is a very shallow angle of attack and the estimates don't match the penetration figures give by the Russians themselves for these systems.

    A single SMERCH vehicle can fire 12 rockets each with 616 PTAB HEAT fragmentation submunitions to a range of 90km.
    With a battery of 12 vehicles that means if they all have PTAB submunitions that an area of about half a square kilometre will have about 88,000 HEAT sub munitions falling on it... each able to penetrate 200mm of armour.
    (7392 munitions per vehicle x 12 = 88,704 munitions in a volley).

    30 degree penetration means you multiple the figure by 1.5 to get the 90 degree penetration. In that, the figures match Russian claims to a few mm deviation.

    Also, I really don't know where you got that 200 mm figure.

    http://warfare.ru/?lang=&catid=355&linkid=2379

    Says 120 mm there.

    In regards to EFP v.s. HEAT, EFPs are superior in a top attack role as you get huge stand off distances. The older ones detonate 50 m above their target while newer ones detonate 150 m above their targets. That's enough stand off to negate all APS systems.

    $300,000 a piece would mean $120m to give every T-90 ARENA. Not even including T-80s.

    The Russians are withdrawing or retiring most of their 20,000 tank fleet. Their goals are to end up with about 1,500 operational tanks with about 5,000-6,000 in reserve. At $300,000 per operational tank that works out at $450 million. Of course the cost of the new thermal sights would be more than that. And of course mass production and improvements in technology since 1995 would no doubt reduce the costs and increase performance.

    Precisely. With all the recent budget cutting, adding ARENA is just extra bucks for a system that doesn't really do much for the tank as the tanks in question are quite safe regardless.

    ARENA should be used for C2 tanks but I wouldn't expect the Russians to give every tank both. It's just economics.

    Actual tanks will only be present in heavy brigades. In medium brigades there will be a BMP like vehicle... no doubt something like Sprut, though with slightly better armour I would think. And of course light brigades will likely have something like a BTR-80 with a 125mm gun for fire support.

    Sprut also got cancelled. IMO, only the Light and some of the Medium brigades would require ARENA. The Heavy brigades will do fine with Nakidka.

    It has quite the reach for a strategic SAM, it can be used to support invasions.

    Who are they invading? The US and Israel are not afraid Iran will invade anyone... in fact they probably secretly hope they do do something stupid like invade someone so they can bully them some more.
    What the US and Israel are afraid of is that Iran might be able to defend its own airspace and deny US or Israeli aircraft the ability to blow things up in Iran when they want to.

    Iraq perhaps? Iraq is becoming the U.S. Navy's middle east stopping point and the home to a couple thousand U.S. soldiers. 150-200 km missiles would provide a fairly large safety umbrella for Iranian planes to bomb as they wish if they were to try to capture the oil rich persian gulf regions of Iraq/Kuwait. Admittedly, Oil has become a necessary resource. Iran already controls a bunch, taking Iraq and Kuwait would be bad for anybody who requires mid east oil exports.
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3222
    Points : 3308
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  medo on Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:47 pm

    Yes certainly, the city jeeps the georgians used to transport infantry, is roughly equal to Bmp`s. A kind of ICV really.

    Who are you trying to fool?
    The Georgians gambled and didnt belive russia would intervene. I dont think they belived they had a fighting chance.
    Not with numbers, nor equipment and certainly not training and expertise.

    They have land rovers. Very Happy Russian army got equal number of tanks and BMPs and BTRs only in last days, because they could not sent the whole units through Roki tunnel in one day and ther were also a lot of civilians, which went in opposite direction, so in the first days Georgia was superior and was better equipped. After all Georgian BMP-1U is still better than Russian BMP-1, BMP-2 on both sides were equal. Georgian army also use Otokar Cobra vehicles. Georgia planed, that they will close Roki tunnel fast enough, that Russian army could not go through in any significant number, but they fail. Don't forget, that Vostok battalion replace their MT-LBs with BMP-2s, which they capture from Georgians and Russian army also capture a whole company of BMP-1U.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16536
    Points : 17144
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  GarryB on Tue Mar 29, 2011 2:02 am

    No, only mountainous regions like Afghanistan.

    There are plenty of places where there is little or no cover and enemy forces can be seen from quite a distance.

    The Arctic steppe is one.

    AFAIK, the Georgian air force collapsed faster than the Iraqi air force.
    Air dominance is a major advantage for whoever has it, and at that
    point, the Georgians were either in full retreat or full guerrilla mode.

    Russian air dominance was non-existent initially and even later on consisted mostly of strikes by Fencers and CAS by Frogfeet. It was hardly the bombing of Dresden and the Georgians had Frogfeet as well... they clearly weren't well used.

    Symmetric doesn't mean totally even forces, it means comparable forces, and in numbers and types of equipment the forces involved was quite comparable.

    To be quite honest, I wouldn't invest in APS systems like ARENA until
    they can provide 360 degree protection, rapid reloading, and maybe even a
    shooter detection system. Until then, ARENA isn't worth the cost.

    And if you don't buy their current models how do you think they will improve them?
    ARENA doesn't need a rapid reloading capability... the munition blocks overlap each other by a significant margin and repeated attacks from the same direction can be countered with several munition blocks.

    Quite so, that's another reason why not to fit tanks with ARENA, they
    don't need it as badly as other armored vehicles do, giving it to them
    would only mean greatly protected tanks but poor support vehicles.

    ARENA creates a danger area around the vehicle where an incoming threat can set off ARENA and lead to a munition covering an area in high velocity fragments. No point in fitting it to an APC if the system kills the deployed troops.

    I have nothing against ARENA? I'm simply stating that unit for unit, it's not worth the cost to the Russian MIC.

    The purpose of reducing the number of vehicles in the Russian armed forces was so that they could afford to give them regular upgrades and introduce new technologies. Mass production of ARENA will lead to its improvement in performance and most likely a reduction in costs.

    You have pointed out that in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan that western tanks tend to get hit in a specific place. Perhaps you might concede that the Russians do similar research into the results of combat for their vehicles and perhaps they have found that 360 degree APS coverage is not worth the extra cost and design complication...

    Yet we have no reason to believe that a modified ARENA exists. To say
    one or the other is pure conjecture, so for now, it's only logical to
    assume that ARENA is ARENA.

    We have reason to believe there is a new version of Shtora... and the reason they would make a new version of Shtora is a potential improvement in technology or requirements or both regarding IR dazzling systems... along with a need for such systems.

    Is it that far fetched that we might think that if the makers of Shtora are still working on their system to improve it to meet the needs of the Army that the makers of Arena are doing the same?

    Says 120 mm there.

    It also says it is an estimate.

    Precisely. With all the recent budget cutting, adding ARENA is just
    extra bucks for a system that doesn't really do much for the tank as the
    tanks in question are quite safe regardless.

    $450 million is peanuts compared to the cost of replacement sights or other equipment damaged by an RPG rocket that gets to the armour of a T-90.

    The money spent would most likely reduce the cost of the system by a significant factor, generate work that might promote export sales of the system, and further support the developer in working to create a better system.
    On top of the MMW sensor tower they could mount the microphones of a small arms detection system that could track the enemy fire to its source to enable enemy fire to be effectively suppressed.

    Sprut also got cancelled.

    Further funding was cancelled. It is in service in small numbers already and featured in the last May day parade. Its role as fire support vehicle for BMP level protection vehicles probably just means its armour needs an upgrade as it was based on the BMD-3 chassis which is less well armoured than the BMP-3 chassis.

    The Heavy brigades will do fine with Nakidka.

    All mobile forces need protection from air power so I would expect all vehicles would get such attention.

    Iraq is becoming the U.S. Navy's middle east stopping point and the
    home to a couple thousand U.S. soldiers. 150-200 km missiles would
    provide a fairly large safety umbrella for Iranian planes to bomb as
    they wish if they were to try to capture the oil rich persian gulf
    regions of Iraq/Kuwait.

    Hahahahaha... I think you are confusing Iran... with the US. They can take over Iraq via the ballot box in a free and fair election as the Shia are a clear majority there. There is no reason to bomb anyone. Why give the US an excuse to attack Iran? They aren't stupid.
    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 30, 2011 1:24 am

    GarryB wrote:
    No, only mountainous regions like Afghanistan.

    There are plenty of places where there is little or no cover and enemy forces can be seen from quite a distance.

    The Arctic steppe is one.

    If the place has no cover Infantry wouldn't even dare, unless they dig tunnels.

    AFAIK, the Georgian air force collapsed faster than the Iraqi air force.
    Air dominance is a major advantage for whoever has it, and at that
    point, the Georgians were either in full retreat or full guerrilla mode.

    Russian air dominance was non-existent initially and even later on consisted mostly of strikes by Fencers and CAS by Frogfeet. It was hardly the bombing of Dresden and the Georgians had Frogfeet as well... they clearly weren't well used.

    Symmetric doesn't mean totally even forces, it means comparable forces, and in numbers and types of equipment the forces involved was quite comparable.

    I'd disagree. Russia had Air Dominance (Air Superiority if you want), Russia had modern ballistic missiles, Russia used modern MLRSs, Russia sent in more AFVs, etc. It was quite uneven.

    To be quite honest, I wouldn't invest in APS systems like ARENA until
    they can provide 360 degree protection, rapid reloading, and maybe even a
    shooter detection system. Until then, ARENA isn't worth the cost.

    And if you don't buy their current models how do you think they will improve them?
    ARENA doesn't need a rapid reloading capability... the munition blocks overlap each other by a significant margin and repeated attacks from the same direction can be countered with several munition blocks.

    I told you...direct funding. Overlapping blocks is not a redundant method. After 3 or 4 interception that area would be open for attack.

    Quite so, that's another reason why not to fit tanks with ARENA, they
    don't need it as badly as other armored vehicles do, giving it to them
    would only mean greatly protected tanks but poor support vehicles.

    ARENA creates a danger area around the vehicle where an incoming threat can set off ARENA and lead to a munition covering an area in high velocity fragments. No point in fitting it to an APC if the system kills the deployed troops.

    Troops go inside the APC AFAIK. Unless Russia still do outdated foot marches.

    I have nothing against ARENA? I'm simply stating that unit for unit, it's not worth the cost to the Russian MIC.

    The purpose of reducing the number of vehicles in the Russian armed forces was so that they could afford to give them regular upgrades and introduce new technologies. Mass production of ARENA will lead to its improvement in performance and most likely a reduction in costs.

    You have pointed out that in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan that western tanks tend to get hit in a specific place. Perhaps you might concede that the Russians do similar research into the results of combat for their vehicles and perhaps they have found that 360 degree APS coverage is not worth the extra cost and design complication...

    I wouldn't have read any Russian analysis that said 360 degree APS coverage is not worth it.

    Yet we have no reason to believe that a modified ARENA exists. To say
    one or the other is pure conjecture, so for now, it's only logical to
    assume that ARENA is ARENA.

    We have reason to believe there is a new version of Shtora... and the reason they would make a new version of Shtora is a potential improvement in technology or requirements or both regarding IR dazzling systems... along with a need for such systems.

    Is it that far fetched that we might think that if the makers of Shtora are still working on their system to improve it to meet the needs of the Army that the makers of Arena are doing the same?

    Yes...it is far fetched, as you discussed already, Shtora gets funding because it's actually deployed, ARENA doesn't. Perhaps the company making ARENA has reverted to some other manufacturing endeavor.

    Says 120 mm there.

    [quoteIt also says it is an estimate.

    I'd take an estimate over a random number.

    Precisely. With all the recent budget cutting, adding ARENA is just
    extra bucks for a system that doesn't really do much for the tank as the
    tanks in question are quite safe regardless.

    $450 million is peanuts compared to the cost of replacement sights or other equipment damaged by an RPG rocket that gets to the armour of a T-90.

    The money spent would most likely reduce the cost of the system by a significant factor, generate work that might promote export sales of the system, and further support the developer in working to create a better system.
    On top of the MMW sensor tower they could mount the microphones of a small arms detection system that could track the enemy fire to its source to enable enemy fire to be effectively suppressed.

    $450m is a lot of money, especially for Russia. Adding a BOOMERANG type system to Russian tanks would only add to the already growing price tag of a T-90. Sights don't always get damaged as the tank doesn't always get hit from there.

    Sprut also got cancelled.

    Further funding was cancelled. It is in service in small numbers already and featured in the last May day parade. Its role as fire support vehicle for BMP level protection vehicles probably just means its armour needs an upgrade as it was based on the BMD-3 chassis which is less well armoured than the BMP-3 chassis.

    2 or 3 dozen isn't exactly what I called a Brigade fire support force.

    The Heavy brigades will do fine with Nakidka.

    All mobile forces need protection from air power so I would expect all vehicles would get such attention.

    Pantsyr.

    Iraq is becoming the U.S. Navy's middle east stopping point and the
    home to a couple thousand U.S. soldiers. 150-200 km missiles would
    provide a fairly large safety umbrella for Iranian planes to bomb as
    they wish if they were to try to capture the oil rich persian gulf
    regions of Iraq/Kuwait.

    Hahahahaha... I think you are confusing Iran... with the US. They can take over Iraq via the ballot box in a free and fair election as the Shia are a clear majority there. There is no reason to bomb anyone. Why give the US an excuse to attack Iran? They aren't stupid.

    There's quite a lot of reasons for Iran to try to annex Iraq, winning by ballot box only makes Iraq their puppet but that doesn't mean Iran gets direct access and control of Iraqi oil. They want that oil, they'll need Iraq in their control.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16536
    Points : 17144
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  GarryB on Wed Mar 30, 2011 6:50 am

    If the place has no cover Infantry wouldn't even dare, unless they dig tunnels.

    In the Arctic tundra it would be easier to train your soldiers to fly than dig tunnels in frozen soil.

    Russia had Air Dominance (Air Superiority if you want), Russia had
    modern ballistic missiles, Russia used modern MLRSs, Russia sent in more
    AFVs, etc. It was quite uneven.

    If Russia had air dominance why did it lose so many aircraft? Its use of modern ballistic missiles was fairly limited and was mainly used for limited all weather "air strikes" where the air situation was in the balance or uncertain. The Georgians had no shortage of artillery and had more soldiers on the ground and much better access to the battlefield. The types of weapons used were totally comparable... both used BMP-1 and BMP-2s widely and I would suggest the Georgian BMP-1s were upgraded to a better standard to the Russian BMP-1s which were not upgraded at all.

    The Georgian guys you saw photos of driving round in utes were special forces... not standard infantry units.

    I told you...direct funding. Overlapping blocks is not a redundant
    method. After 3 or 4 interception that area would be open for attack.

    The vehicle and turret will be moving... 3-4 interceptions would be tricky. Lets say the tank is stationary and only the turret is moving (which is BS because after the initial attack any normal tank will move to a better protected position and return fire). The first shot is directly from the side, but the tank commander doesn't see the rocket launch and his first warning is ARENA sending a munition to intercept... when it intercepts it warns the commander of the attack... he will at the very least turn his turret to face the threat... which means your second shot has to come from the rear to initiate a munition near the munition already fired. Now the commander might turn to deal with the new threat or he might merely start using his roof mounted HMG remotely to deal with the incoming threats. If he turns the turret to the rear and gets fired on again, this time directly from the opposite side the initial attack came from then that would be three munitions gone but to hit that area again... would require a rocket launched from the front.
    Are you starting to see a problem?
    Unless the tank is operating on its own there is little chance of shooting and setting off the same area of munitions. What if the commander turns the turret 45 degrees to get a view with his sight and uses the roof mounted HMG to deal with the threats? What angle do you fire at?

    ARENA is not perfect, but defeating it is not as easy as you suggest... BTW it can be manually reloaded in the field and any infantry will be looking for enemy forces too.

    Troops go inside the APC AFAIK. Unless Russia still do outdated foot marches.

    Troops inside an APC in contact with the enemy is pretty stupid... troops will generally deploy from the vehicle and the vehicle will provide fire support from a short distance.

    I wouldn't have read any Russian analysis that said 360 degree APS coverage is not worth it.

    The turret of a tank moves around alot and is generally looking for threats. This directs ARENA towards the biggest threat to the vehicle at the time. It seems it is good enough.

    Yes...it is far fetched, as you discussed already, Shtora gets funding
    because it's actually deployed, ARENA doesn't. Perhaps the company
    making ARENA has reverted to some other manufacturing endeavor.

    KBM make Igla, Igla-S, ATAKA, Krisantema, Iskander, and Tochka... they are not short of orders or work.

    Note the $300,000 cost of ARENA was a 1995 export cost, so I rather doubt it would cost the Russian Army that much.

    I would say again the difference of 2.2 million to 4 million per tank suggests they have added some expensive stuff.
    The Soviets had the Drozd system in service in the late 1980s with T-55AD vehicles in service with the Soviet Naval Infantry. The problem was the Drozd uses fragmentation rockets to intercept the incoming munition which caused too much collateral damage so the ARENA was devised and shown in 1995.
    Its design greatly improved the radar detection performance and greatly reduced the collateral damage issue by directing the fragments intercepting the target down into the ground. In the 15 years since it was revealed publicly I am sure they have looked at how the design could be improved.

    I'd take an estimate over a random number.

    You are taking an estimate over the number given by the manufacturer of the PTAB.

    Adding a BOOMERANG type system to Russian tanks would only add to the already growing price tag of a T-90.

    A slightly enlarged turret with new radios and electronics and a turret bustle autoloader is hardly going to make the price almost double. What would make the price almost double is if they put the best of everything they could put on there including Shtora 2 and Arena 2.

    Sights don't always get damaged as the tank doesn't always get hit from there.

    And unguided rockets don't always hit... not a good reason to not bother with ERA though.

    2 or 3 dozen isn't exactly what I called a Brigade fire support force.

    I would suggest they were designed and built for a reason and the likely reason for their production being halted as it was would likely be a fairly significant change in their design.

    Personally I think they will reintroduce it based on a more heavily armoured vehicle chassis.


    Pantsyr.

    All brigades will have air defence vehicles on the chassis base of the relevant brigade. This means BTR-80, BMP, and T-90 like chassis for Pantsir-S1 turrets most likely for light, medium, and heavy forces respectively.



    There's quite a lot of reasons for Iran to try to annex Iraq,
    winning by ballot box only makes Iraq their puppet but that doesn't mean
    Iran gets direct access and control of Iraqi oil. They want that oil,
    they'll need Iraq in their control.

    Taking the oil by force would be pointless. The US would certainly intervene and give the US justification for regime change in Iran... something the US has wanted for some time.

    Iran doesn't need more oil, it would benefit from the oil refinement capacity of Iraq... Iran currently exports crude oil and imports fuels like petrol and diesel.

    Iran will be happy to have Shia regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan... just like the US likes to have its own chosen dictators in power in central and south america... it makes them feel safer.

    Austin

    Posts : 6335
    Points : 6735
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Austin on Wed Mar 30, 2011 8:03 am

    I came across this post at mp.net which claimed that the Soviets designed those T tank in the way it is with all its short coming and pluses becuase they were designed for maneuver warfare doctrine with NATO , Is this true ? Can some one explain what manouver warfare is ? Thanks
    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 30, 2011 8:16 am

    [quote="GarryB"]
    Russia had Air Dominance (Air Superiority if you want), Russia had
    modern ballistic missiles, Russia used modern MLRSs, Russia sent in more
    AFVs, etc. It was quite uneven.

    If Russia had air dominance why did it lose so many aircraft? Its use of modern ballistic missiles was fairly limited and was mainly used for limited all weather "air strikes" where the air situation was in the balance or uncertain. The Georgians had no shortage of artillery and had more soldiers on the ground and much better access to the battlefield. The types of weapons used were totally comparable... both used BMP-1 and BMP-2s widely and I would suggest the Georgian BMP-1s were upgraded to a better standard to the Russian BMP-1s which were not upgraded at all.

    The Georgian guys you saw photos of driving round in utes were special forces... not standard infantry units.

    Friendly fire, mismanagement, and maybe the Buks.

    I told you...direct funding. Overlapping blocks is not a redundant
    method. After 3 or 4 interception that area would be open for attack.

    The vehicle and turret will be moving... 3-4 interceptions would be tricky. Lets say the tank is stationary and only the turret is moving (which is BS because after the initial attack any normal tank will move to a better protected position and return fire). The first shot is directly from the side, but the tank commander doesn't see the rocket launch and his first warning is ARENA sending a munition to intercept... when it intercepts it warns the commander of the attack... he will at the very least turn his turret to face the threat... which means your second shot has to come from the rear to initiate a munition near the munition already fired. Now the commander might turn to deal with the new threat or he might merely start using his roof mounted HMG remotely to deal with the incoming threats. If he turns the turret to the rear and gets fired on again, this time directly from the opposite side the initial attack came from then that would be three munitions gone but to hit that area again... would require a rocket launched from the front.
    Are you starting to see a problem?
    Unless the tank is operating on its own there is little chance of shooting and setting off the same area of munitions. What if the commander turns the turret 45 degrees to get a view with his sight and uses the roof mounted HMG to deal with the threats? What angle do you fire at?

    ARENA is not perfect, but defeating it is not as easy as you suggest... BTW it can be manually reloaded in the field and any infantry will be looking for enemy forces too.

    Most tanks literally stop moving once hit, regardless of shot placement, the sheer shock literally stops the driver for a bit. I can fire 2 RPGs from my vantage point with another guy at the same spot of the turret and then have a guy downstairs fire his when he sees my firing, 3 PG-7Vs, within 15 cm of each other, that section of the tank is now ARENA-null.

    Troops go inside the APC AFAIK. Unless Russia still do outdated foot marches.

    Troops inside an APC in contact with the enemy is pretty stupid... troops will generally deploy from the vehicle and the vehicle will provide fire support from a short distance.

    Not unless an APS is active. Then it'd be stupid to go outside.

    I wouldn't have read any Russian analysis that said 360 degree APS coverage is not worth it.

    The turret of a tank moves around alot and is generally looking for threats. This directs ARENA towards the biggest threat to the vehicle at the time. It seems it is good enough.

    That's not how it works in asymmetrical wars. With a panoramic sight, the TC doesn't have to move the turret around to acquire threats. With a Remote weapons system, the TC doesn't have to rotate the main turret to see targets. The majority of the movement of a tank, that tank's turret will be looking at generally the same direction.

    Yes...it is far fetched, as you discussed already, Shtora gets funding
    because it's actually deployed, ARENA doesn't. Perhaps the company
    making ARENA has reverted to some other manufacturing endeavor.

    KBM make Igla, Igla-S, ATAKA, Krisantema, Iskander, and Tochka... they are not short of orders or work.

    Note the $300,000 cost of ARENA was a 1995 export cost, so I rather doubt it would cost the Russian Army that much.

    I would say again the difference of 2.2 million to 4 million per tank suggests they have added some expensive stuff.
    The Soviets had the Drozd system in service in the late 1980s with T-55AD vehicles in service with the Soviet Naval Infantry. The problem was the Drozd uses fragmentation rockets to intercept the incoming munition which caused too much collateral damage so the ARENA was devised and shown in 1995.
    Its design greatly improved the radar detection performance and greatly reduced the collateral damage issue by directing the fragments intercepting the target down into the ground. In the 15 years since it was revealed publicly I am sure they have looked at how the design could be improved.

    As you know, they are also working on projects to improve the listed missiles.

    I'd take an estimate over a random number.

    You are taking an estimate over the number given by the manufacturer of the PTAB.

    Where would I find those?

    Adding a BOOMERANG type system to Russian tanks would only add to the already growing price tag of a T-90.

    A slightly enlarged turret with new radios and electronics and a turret bustle autoloader is hardly going to make the price almost double. What would make the price almost double is if they put the best of everything they could put on there including Shtora 2 and Arena 2.

    There's new ERA, there's a larger profile, there's an extra 5.5 tonnes of weight, there's so many things the T-90M has compared to the T-90A, having ARENA installed would probably increase cost by 2.5 times.

    Sights don't always get damaged as the tank doesn't always get hit from there.

    And unguided rockets don't always hit... not a good reason to not bother with ERA though.

    But if unguided rockets do hit the tank can survive it, not a good reason to bother with ARENA.


    Pantsyr.

    All brigades will have air defence vehicles on the chassis base of the relevant brigade. This means BTR-80, BMP, and T-90 like chassis for Pantsir-S1 turrets most likely for light, medium, and heavy forces respectively.

    And thus, another nail in the coffin of ARENA.



    There's quite a lot of reasons for Iran to try to annex Iraq,
    winning by ballot box only makes Iraq their puppet but that doesn't mean
    Iran gets direct access and control of Iraqi oil. They want that oil,
    they'll need Iraq in their control.

    Taking the oil by force would be pointless. The US would certainly intervene and give the US justification for regime change in Iran... something the US has wanted for some time.

    Iran doesn't need more oil, it would benefit from the oil refinement capacity of Iraq... Iran currently exports crude oil and imports fuels like petrol and diesel.

    Iran will be happy to have Shia regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan... just like the US likes to have its own chosen dictators in power in central and south america... it makes them feel safer.

    Of course, Iran either does no this but don't care or don't know this and don't care. Ahmadinejad pretty much doesn't like juice so it'd be in his favor to see the juice get thrown down the toilet. Of course, he'd have to deal with the U.S. armed forces, which, lets admit it, is not something he can do well.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16536
    Points : 17144
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tank protection

    Post  GarryB on Thu Mar 31, 2011 1:58 am

    Friendly fire, mismanagement, and maybe the Buks.

    Lack of C4ISR and of course a lack of planning... the latter quite understandable considering it was a surprise attack... it doesn't matter, what matters is that no one had air superiority for the first few days of the conflict.


    Most tanks literally stop moving once hit, regardless of shot
    placement, the sheer shock literally stops the driver for a bit. I can
    fire 2 RPGs from my vantage point with another guy at the same spot of
    the turret and then have a guy downstairs fire his when he sees my
    firing, 3 PG-7Vs, within 15 cm of each other, that section of the tank
    is now ARENA-null.

    The ARENA munitions are not ERA blocks... launched up into the air they fire a spread of fragments which each cover a fairly wide area at line of sight level for an incoming rocket. Having to fire 3-4 rockets just to start getting past ARENA means it is already doing its job... after firing 2 rockets your position will be well and truely compromised... normal operating procedure for RPG attack is to fire and then move... it became procedure to keep the person launching the rockets alive...

    Not unless an APS is active. Then it'd be stupid to go outside.

    Obviously with APS the tactics will change and troops will be supported from further back.

    That's not how it works in asymmetrical wars. With a panoramic sight,
    the TC doesn't have to move the turret around to acquire threats. With a
    Remote weapons system, the TC doesn't have to rotate the main turret to
    see targets. The majority of the movement of a tank, that tank's turret
    will be looking at generally the same direction.

    And a formation of tanks will have each vehicle directing its main weapon in a different direction where that makes sense.

    As you know, they are also working on projects to improve the listed missiles.

    Indeed they are, which means as programs finish... like ATAKA, that more engineers and designers can be moved to new programmes like Krisanetma. Notice the pattern? Igla... and improved Igla-S. Tochka-U and improved Iskander-E. Arena...


    Where would I find those?

    My source is "Russias Arms 2004".

    In the section on the RBK-500U which is a standard cluster bomb able to use the standard cluster munitions carried by cluster bombs and cluster bomb munition dispensors (ie KGMU-2) and of course tube and rocket artillery.

    The specs for the RBK-500U loaded with PTAB submunitions is:

    Diameter: 450mm
    Length: 2,495mm
    Weight: 520kg
    Number of submunitions: 352
    Armor penetration: 200mm
    Drop conditions:
    altitude: 80m-16,000m
    speed: 500km/h-2,000km/h
    Fuse: built in fuse unit.


    But if unguided rockets do hit the tank can survive it, not a good reason to bother with ARENA.

    ARENA will also stop a range of other threats including Milan and TOW et al.

    And thus, another nail in the coffin of ARENA.

    Why? Air defence vehicles will not operate in amongst armour no matter what vehicle they are based on and Pantsir is no protection from ATGMs. Igla-S could shoot down relatively high flying ATGMs (has been tested successfully against AT-3s) but there needs to be some warning time and if that is the case why prepare for an Igla shot when firing at the ATGM launcher would be more productive.

    Of course, Iran either does no this but don't care or don't know this
    and don't care. Ahmadinejad pretty much doesn't like juice so it'd be in
    his favor to see the juice get thrown down the toilet. Of course, he'd
    have to deal with the U.S. armed forces, which, lets admit it, is not
    something he can do well.

    Continued support for Israels enemies is enough for Iran to be able to lord it over most middle east arab countries... the persians are doing more to help the palestinians than all the made up royal families of all the arab nations.

    Austin

    Posts : 6335
    Points : 6735
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Austin on Mon Apr 11, 2011 5:38 am

    Armata certainly seems to be a very interesting family vehicle and would be very keen to see how it comes up and what technological solution they apply.

    So if they stick to 125 mm MG as likely be the case but if they manage to say fire a Sabot at about 2,200 m/s from new gun of armata will that we enough to blow the frontal of current armour like Abrams ?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16536
    Points : 17144
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  GarryB on Mon Apr 11, 2011 5:47 am

    With the new autoloaders they can use longer rod penetrators, which should improve performance.

    Also a new gun is fitted as well, which will further improve performance.

    Regarding:

    So if they stick to 125 mm MG as likely be the case but if they
    manage to say fire a Sabot at about 2,200 m/s from new gun of armata
    will that we enough to blow the frontal of current armour like Abrams ?

    They could easily fire Sabot rounds at 2,200m/s now... the question is is it worth it. Velocity alone is not a good indicator of performance.
    By changing the weight of the projectile they can change the muzzle velocity, but making very light projectiles with very high mvs is pointless for the purposes of armour penetration, because lighter projectiles can be launched faster than heavier ones, but lighter projectiles lose velocity faster and might actually be travelling slower by the time it hits the target which means much lower performance on armour.

    I am sure with work on new propellents and new projectiles they will become competitive. It might be that work on the Hermes ATGM that new MMW radar homing seekers or IIR homing seekers might be developed and adopted for use in 125mm calibre missiles for diving top attack use.

    Most of the projectiles I know about for the 125mm are over a decade old... I doubt they have not been working on new ammo all this time.

    Equally work on the 15xmm gun for the T-95 has probably led to some new development in propellents and projectile designs too.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

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

    Increasing muzzle velocity is harder than it looks

    Post  IronsightSniper on Mon Apr 11, 2011 3:25 pm

    Increasing muzzle velocity is harder than it looks. Already, Russian tanks are limited in the length of their KE penetrators (long and skinny penetrators get higher penetration figures) due to their small turret. The T-90A has a slightly longer turret but that is only to accommodate the newest Russian APFSDS rounds (which do about 650 mm RHAe penetration at 2km). In order to get more muzzle velocity, you can do what Garry discussed which is get a lighter projectile, but that is unlikely to happen (denser projectiles usually get more penetration). There are 3 more ways to get more muzzle velocity; 1. Use higher efficiency powders 2. Get a longer barrel or 3. Get more powder.

    Options 1 and 2 are unpractical as the Russian military already uses some of the most cost-efficient and weight-efficient powders that's available, and increasing the propellant load means that per each Russian tank there is just that much more combustible material to get blown up should a penetration occur. I'd also argue that a longer barrel is impractical, as the current 125mm gun on the T-90 is L/48, which means that the barrel is 48 times longer than the bore caliber, or about 6m long. Making it longer only adds to weight and slows turret traverse.

    Like I've discussed before, the M1A2 Abram's and Leopard 2A6's Front turrets are invulnerable to all in-service APFSDS rounds there are. All of them.

    Austin

    Posts : 6335
    Points : 6735
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Austin on Mon Apr 11, 2011 4:30 pm

    IronsightSniper wrote:Like I've discussed before, the M1A2 Abram's and Leopard 2A6's Front turrets are invulnerable to all in-service APFSDS rounds there are. All of them.

    So let me ask you this keeping 125 MG and Long Rod as Sabot , what kind of muzzle velocity would be needed to penetrate frontal turrets of Abrams 2 ?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16536
    Points : 17144
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  GarryB on Mon Apr 11, 2011 6:08 pm

    Already, Russian tanks are limited in the length of their KE penetrators
    (long and skinny penetrators get higher penetration figures) due to
    their small turret.

    The restriction on lengths of penetrators is the diameter of the turret ring limiting the length of projectile that can be stored in the underfloor autoloader.

    The T-90AM has a extra turret bustle autoloader that allows penetrators as long as you want to be stored and loaded.

    The second point is just aim lower and don't hit the target in the turret front where the armour is heaviest.

    The new gun fitted to the T-90AM is said to be 15% more accurate and "more powerful" whatever that means.

    Austin

    Posts : 6335
    Points : 6735
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Austin on Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:43 pm

    where did you get 15% figure from ?
    avatar
    runaway

    Posts : 348
    Points : 369
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  runaway on Mon Apr 11, 2011 9:32 pm

    GarryB wrote:[ the T-90AM has an extra autoloader attached to the rear of the turret that is separated from the crew compartment and holds an extra 20-30 rounds with the added bonus that these rounds are simply rammed straight into the breach so long penetrators can be used and in theory it should be faster to reload.

    Thanks, but doesnt this qualify as a security measure? It would be easy done to have a strong armoured box, with weak top armor. So if it explodes, the force will go upwards and away from the tank.

    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 Apr 12, 2011 1:03 am

    Austin wrote:
    IronsightSniper wrote:Like I've discussed before, the M1A2 Abram's and Leopard 2A6's Front turrets are invulnerable to all in-service APFSDS rounds there are. All of them.

    So let me ask you this keeping 125 MG and Long Rod as Sabot , what kind of muzzle velocity would be needed to penetrate frontal turrets of Abrams 2 ?

    Muzzle velocity is not everything. But complying by your wishes:

    Current Muzzle velocity of the BM-42M projectile: 1,750 mps
    Current Penetration at 2km of the BM-42M projectile: 650 mm RHAe

    Using Willi Odermatt's penetrator calculator, the 125mm L/48 gun in service with the T-90 today needs:
    • A 670 mm long penetrator (100 mm longer than current ones)
    • A Depleted Uranium penetrator
    • A 45 kg propellant charge


    To achieve a muzzle velocity of: 2,619 mps
    While having a projectile that weighs: 4.618 kg
    Which means a muzzle energy of: almost 16 mj
    Which will penetrate: 965 mm of RHAe at 2km


    And if you don't remember, the M1A2 Abram's front turret has 960 mm of RHAe v.s. KE.


    Impractical by a large margin if you ask me.

    Austin

    Posts : 6335
    Points : 6735
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Austin on Tue Apr 12, 2011 6:17 am

    IronsightSniper wrote:Muzzle velocity is not everything. But complying by your wishes:

    Current Muzzle velocity of the BM-42M projectile: 1,750 mps
    Current Penetration at 2km of the BM-42M projectile: 650 mm RHAe

    Using Willi Odermatt's penetrator calculator, the 125mm L/48 gun in service with the T-90 today needs:
    • A 670 mm long penetrator (100 mm longer than current ones)
    • A Depleted Uranium penetrator
    • A 45 kg propellant charge


    To achieve a muzzle velocity of: 2,619 mps
    While having a projectile that weighs: 4.618 kg
    Which means a muzzle energy of: almost 16 mj
    Which will penetrate: 965 mm of RHAe at 2km


    And if you don't remember, the M1A2 Abram's front turret has 960 mm of RHAe v.s. KE.


    Impractical by a large margin if you ask me.

    Thanks for explaining this to me , which now makes me wonder their decision to go for 152 mm round was not a bad choice if they wanted very high first round kill probability then the 152 mm round would have done that for them no matter what the frontal armour protection was , plus the isolation if crew etc make T-95 a very lethal machine.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16536
    Points : 17144
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  GarryB on Tue Apr 12, 2011 7:32 am

    where did you get 15% figure from ?

    http://igorrgroup.blogspot.com/2010/01/90-new-specs.html

    ==Do you know what improvements the 2A82 has over the current guns in service?==

    -
    It's officially declarated ('Plant N9' site) as the 'gun with increased
    might'/ Has Better accurateness, longer service life, lighter, 25%
    more powerfull relative 2A46, but the info is not 100% reliable.

    Sorry, 25% more powerful.

    Thanks, but doesnt this qualify as a security measure? It would be easy
    done to have a strong armoured box, with weak top armor. So if it
    explodes, the force will go upwards and away from the tank.

    Yes, its primary purpose is to remove main gun ammo from the crew compartment... the faster speed and longer penetrator potential are added bonuses.

    A 670 mm long penetrator (100 mm longer than current ones)

    http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/
    "Lekalo" (3BM-42M? projectile; 3BM-44M? projectile assembly) (DOI 199-?)

    Research topic "Svinets-1". A brand new round with extremely high
    elongation tungsten alloy penetrator, utilizing a 4-petal finned
    composite sabot with two areas of contact, and subcaliber stabilizing
    fins. This round has a total length of 740mm and so does not fit in
    traditional T-72 autoloaders. The autoloader upgrade is straightforward
    and is assumed to have been carried out on newly built T-90 tanks that
    are therefore compatible with this round. The indications
    3BM-42M/3BM-44M are unconfirmed: even though this is what is written on
    the body of the round in the released picture, it is unclear if the
    round has been fielded and therefore already awarded a GRAU designation;
    Rosoboronexport sales literature still refers to it simply as
    "high-performance APFSDS round".

    Thanks for explaining this to me , which now makes me wonder their
    decision to go for 152 mm round was not a bad choice if they wanted very
    high first round kill probability then the 152 mm round would have done
    that for them no matter what the frontal armour protection was , plus
    the isolation if crew etc make T-95 a very lethal machine.

    In addition to a kinetic improvement an increase in calibre to over 150mm would allow much more volume for guided projectiles and missiles to be used including dedicated anti tank and anti helo rounds with terminal seeking and fairly long flight range.

    The problem is a serious reduction in on board ammo and probably an increase in ammo costs.

    I rather suspect that initially new 125mm ammo will be used and the decision to change calibre might result in a reduction of calibre rather than an increase in one in about 2020.

    More exotic propellents and new penetrators will likely make armour penetration more effective with smaller calibre weapons. An EM gun that uses superheated plasma as a propellent with electromagnetic boosting of the projectile should lead to enormous increases in muzzle velocity... and an electric tank would be ideal for such a gun setup.

    I have said before and will say again... it will not be far away that electricity management will be an issue for a tank commander and transferring power from the camouflage system (cloaking tech) to the main gun and then shifting it to frontal armour (electric armour and shields) and then transfering some power to propulsion to move position will be normal banter in the internal intercom of a modern tank.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Oct 24, 2017 4:13 am