Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Share

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  GarryB on Wed Nov 03, 2010 7:52 am

    I'm not going to quote you as you're a horrible person who over explains things

    My apologies... it is just that I often get in to very long discussions on internet forums and I find it is less complicated if I am clear about everything I say, not only for the person I am chatting with but also for others following the discussion.

    I know it makes me sound preachy and like I am talking down to people and it is not intended that way.

    I just find it saves a bit of typing and a lot of (misplaced) anger and frustration when I am clear about what I mean and why.


    Wrong, Nakidka reduces IR from the sides, as that's where it's layed over. Really not sure why you say it's impossible.

    It is layered at the sides because Russian T-72s have rear mounted engines that have their exhausts at the side. If it only worked on the sides it wouldn't be worth the bother because it was primarily designed to reduce radar signature and optical signature and IR signature from aerial recon platforms. If it was only supposed to work from the sides why have anything over the top of the vehicle when simply strapping a couple of sheets to the side like the rubber material the side ERA is attached to would be quicker and easier?

    "Chuck, why is that large white square moving quite fast with exhaust fumes everywhere?"
    "Looks like a T-90, Bob."

    Nope. It would look white if it was freezing cold or very hot depending upon the polarity of the sensor. The material tends to show up as the same temperature and the things around the tank rather than hotter or colder, so the gray background will have a blob the same colour/brightness that you can't tell from the background... that is how it works to defeat the auto target tracker in Javelin. With the auto target tracker defeated the only way to fire a Javelin at it is to manually guided it in SACLOS mode like a normal TOW where it will have to penetrate the armour like any other non top attack missile.

    As I mentioned above quite some time ago... there was a video of a test where a Javelin was fired at an old T-55. The T-55 was an old range target and had been sitting there for years and was not operational. That meant it was the same temperature as the background because it had no engine and it hadn't been driven anywhere so before they could fire their Javelin in fire and forget top attack mode they had a structure that held lots of hair dryers together and they heated the outside of the tank up till it stood out in the thermal imager so they could get a lock on it and fire at it in...

    To add to that, FPA (Focal Plane Arrays) are more advanced seekers that the are less susceptible to counter measures such as a simple cloak.

    It is not a matter of how advanced the FPA is... in fact looking at the image in the viewer a modern second generation Thermal Imager has a much better image than this, but was probably too expensive to put in the nose of a missile to blow up when used properly.
    An object that is the same temperature as the other things around it will not stand out enough to be auto tracked... even if it is moving.

    Yeah, T-90s can generally on survive a Javelin if the Javelin hits anywhere on the front of the tank. Which would be a highly unlikely scenario to say the least.

    Except if ARENA is operating because in SACLOS mode the Javelin is no longer diving top attack. Yes I know ARENA is not currently in service, but it shows how the different systems compliment each other.

    Didn't we discuss this before? K-5 v.s. M829A1 = K-f, K-5 v.s. M829A2 = Tie?, K-5 v.s. M829A3 = M829A3.

    K-5 isn't Relict or Kaktus. The war between protection and attack is ongoing so which is in the lead at the moment only matters if both sides go to war right now. As that is rather unlikely then there is no point making a big deal about it now. Just put into service what you have at the moment and work on the new stuff.

    Oh, 2 cm longer gonna hurt the An-124? It can carry the tonnage to support bigger tanks.

    What improvement will a 2cm length increase actually make?
    Why redesign a tank for 2cm?
    An-124s are going to be busy moving much heavier items BTW, the Il-76, Il-476, and An-70 will be moving the Tanks when they are moved by air. That is why their payloads are in the roughly 50 ton or heavier range.

    Which coincidentally has to do with size, as more size means more places to store it.

    Not at all. Storing all ammo and fuel externally would make the crew completely safe from a fuel or ammo explosion. Would also make it vulnerable to enemy fire of course and a tank without fuel or ammo or both is a heavily armoured pill box, an expensive heavy 3 man troop transporter or a paperweight. pirat

    And any proof of said system?

    I can't prove you exist yet I talk to you. Smile

    The program in question is top secret, but said to be revolutionary breaking new ground in several technology areas including the combination of existing technologies to create new capabilities. Lets face it... 30 years ago they took an aircraft mounted radar and a helmet mounted sight and an aircraft mounted IRST and combined the systems in their fighter aircraft so that the different sensors could use their advantages and minimise their disadvantages. For example the Radar emitted energy that could be detected, but the IRST could determine angle to a target with much better angular accuracy than any radar. By combining the two the IRST could detect and track targets and the radar could be slaved to the IRST lock. The IRST could only determine range within about 8km with a laser rangefinder, but with an IRST lock you also had a radar lock so a ranging pulse from the radar would flash for a milisecond on an enemies RHAWs and not really be noticed amongst the noise of the average battlefield but it would be enough to get the range to the target. Enough for an IR BVR missile launch if the target was in range.
    The helmet mounted sight could also be used to direct the IRST and Radar to targets too, and the high offboresight seeker of the R-73 could be directed by all three.
    Helmet mounted sights, radars, and IRSTs were not new in the early 1980s but the way the Soviets used them all together with a high off boresight IR guided missile was revolutionary... though seldom acknowledged in the west.

    One more thing, T-95 = dead.

    Rubbish. The guy cutting funds controls the funds not the last remaining tank factory in Russia. Russian Army funding for the T-95 has been cut for the 2010-2015 period but where else are they going to look for a replacement for the T-90? I rather doubt the French will sell them the Leclerc... you can hardly compare a simple vessel like Mistral and a MBT. The Russians didn't even share the composition of the T-90s frontal armour with the Indians... why would France share such things with Russia... even for a large amount of cash?
    There is still no evidence that the frontal armour design of the Leclerc is any stronger than that of the T-90 anyway.
    The Russians have 20,000 tanks in storage and the Navy has the priority for funds. Tanks and APCs have been given a low priority.

    When it comes to what replaces the T-90 however it will be based on the T-95 that will probably be lighter, cheaper and have more Russian components.

    And I see this where?

    I am just saying that if 360 degree coverage is a requirement that this would be simple to achieve.

    Whatever KBP develops to replace the ARENA might be similar to ARENA or fundamentally different. I rather doubt they would drop out of the APS making business.

    Russia has fine Military equipment, but it's easily agreeable that T-90s are just T-34s with tonnes of make up on. Start from scratch, maybe you'd impress some customers.

    Why? The M1 Abrams... with its British Armour and Belgian coaxial Machine gun and its German smoothbore main gun and its electronics designed by Americans but probably made in China or Taiwan is fundamentally the same as the Sherman... it still even has a human loader.

    The change from the M60 to the M1 was made clear because of the design of the composite armour used in the M1 made it look different but it is basically the same layout and design... though twice the weight.
    The Soviets started using composite armour in the T-64 and its effect on the external appearance is rather less pronounced, yet the combination of armour and ERA it manages to approximate the protection level of the much larger M1A2 while being almost 30 tons lighter.

    BTW I have read the US is unhappy with the weight of the M1 Abrams and is looking at a tank... in the 40 ton range... who should replace what now?

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  IronsightSniper on Thu Nov 04, 2010 12:36 pm

    Oh lord, you've done it again. angry




    It is layered at the sides because Russian T-72s have rear mounted engines that have their exhausts at the side. If it only worked on the sides it wouldn't be worth the bother because it was primarily designed to reduce radar signature and optical signature and IR signature from aerial recon platforms. If it was only supposed to work from the sides why have anything over the top of the vehicle when simply strapping a couple of sheets to the side like the rubber material the side ERA is attached to would be quicker and easier?

    No, it's used on the sides for typical combat purposes. When enemy aerial recon becomes prevalent, it is supposed to just be used and drape it over the entire tank, while it's immobile.


    Nope. It would look white if it was freezing cold or very hot depending upon the polarity of the sensor. The material tends to show up as the same temperature and the things around the tank rather than hotter or colder, so the gray background will have a blob the same colour/brightness that you can't tell from the background... that is how it works to defeat the auto target tracker in Javelin. With the auto target tracker defeated the only way to fire a Javelin at it is to manually guided it in SACLOS mode like a normal TOW where it will have to penetrate the armour like any other non top attack missile.

    As I mentioned above quite some time ago... there was a video of a test where a Javelin was fired at an old T-55. The T-55 was an old range target and had been sitting there for years and was not operational. That meant it was the same temperature as the background because it had no engine and it hadn't been driven anywhere so before they could fire their Javelin in fire and forget top attack mode they had a structure that held lots of hair dryers together and they heated the outside of the tank up till it stood out in the thermal imager so they could get a lock on it and fire at it in...

    Again, tanks can only use Nakidka to full top-attack effectiveness when the tank in question is stationary and avoiding detection. Whilst moving, a top-attack IRR ATGM like Javelin will see the tank no problem, even with Nakidka, if Nakidka even gets deployed, that is.



    It is not a matter of how advanced the FPA is... in fact looking at the image in the viewer a modern second generation Thermal Imager has a much better image than this, but was probably too expensive to put in the nose of a missile to blow up when used properly.
    An object that is the same temperature as the other things around it will not stand out enough to be auto tracked... even if it is moving.

    Problem is the thing in question isn't the same temperature.



    Except if ARENA is operating because in SACLOS mode the Javelin is no longer diving top attack. Yes I know ARENA is not currently in service, but it shows how the different systems compliment each other.

    If it's not in service than it's not worth mentioning.



    K-5 isn't Relict or Kaktus. The war between protection and attack is ongoing so which is in the lead at the moment only matters if both sides go to war right now. As that is rather unlikely then there is no point making a big deal about it now. Just put into service what you have at the moment and work on the new stuff.

    But they're all just the same ERAs in different proportions. Not much really you can add to that.


    What improvement will a 2cm length increase actually make?
    Why redesign a tank for 2cm?
    An-124s are going to be busy moving much heavier items BTW, the Il-76, Il-476, and An-70 will be moving the Tanks when they are moved by air. That is why their payloads are in the roughly 50 ton or heavier range.

    Did you really think I meant 2 cm taller and that's it? For one thing, a longer turret means more space for the crew, equipment, and ammunition.



    Not at all. Storing all ammo and fuel externally would make the crew completely safe from a fuel or ammo explosion. Would also make it vulnerable to enemy fire of course and a tank without fuel or ammo or both is a heavily armoured pill box, an expensive heavy 3 man troop transporter or a paperweight. pirat

    Lol, a tank without it's fuel or ammo is just a sitting duck. We wouldn't even have to shoot Hellfires at T-90s, just carry them out on a plane. Stupider suggestion then any of mine. censored


    I can't prove you exist yet I talk to you. :smile:

    The program in question is top secret, but said to be revolutionary breaking new ground in several technology areas including the combination of existing technologies to create new capabilities. Lets face it... 30 years ago they took an aircraft mounted radar and a helmet mounted sight and an aircraft mounted IRST and combined the systems in their fighter aircraft so that the different sensors could use their advantages and minimise their disadvantages. For example the Radar emitted energy that could be detected, but the IRST could determine angle to a target with much better angular accuracy than any radar. By combining the two the IRST could detect and track targets and the radar could be slaved to the IRST lock. The IRST could only determine range within about 8km with a laser rangefinder, but with an IRST lock you also had a radar lock so a ranging pulse from the radar would flash for a milisecond on an enemies RHAWs and not really be noticed amongst the noise of the average battlefield but it would be enough to get the range to the target. Enough for an IR BVR missile launch if the target was in range.
    The helmet mounted sight could also be used to direct the IRST and Radar to targets too, and the high offboresight seeker of the R-73 could be directed by all three.
    Helmet mounted sights, radars, and IRSTs were not new in the early 1980s but the way the Soviets used them all together with a high off boresight IR guided missile was revolutionary... though seldom acknowledged in the west.

    So, no.



    Rubbish. The guy cutting funds controls the funds not the last remaining tank factory in Russia. Russian Army funding for the T-95 has been cut for the 2010-2015 period but where else are they going to look for a replacement for the T-90? I rather doubt the French will sell them the Leclerc... you can hardly compare a simple vessel like Mistral and a MBT. The Russians didn't even share the composition of the T-90s frontal armour with the Indians... why would France share such things with Russia... even for a large amount of cash?
    There is still no evidence that the frontal armour design of the Leclerc is any stronger than that of the T-90 anyway.
    The Russians have 20,000 tanks in storage and the Navy has the priority for funds. Tanks and APCs have been given a low priority.

    When it comes to what replaces the T-90 however it will be based on the T-95 that will probably be lighter, cheaper and have more Russian components.

    Heard of a Leopard? Yeah, full of Russian compenents, right, just straight copied from THALES.



    I am just saying that if 360 degree coverage is a requirement that this would be simple to achieve.

    Whatever KBP develops to replace the ARENA might be similar to ARENA or fundamentally different. I rather doubt they would drop out of the APS making business.

    So 360 degree protection isn't a requirement? Either Russia is dumb or the people designing are.



    Why? The M1 Abrams... with its British Armour and Belgian coaxial Machine gun and its German smoothbore main gun and its electronics designed by Americans but probably made in China or Taiwan is fundamentally the same as the Sherman... it still even has a human loader.

    The change from the M60 to the M1 was made clear because of the design of the composite armour used in the M1 made it look different but it is basically the same layout and design... though twice the weight.
    The Soviets started using composite armour in the T-64 and its effect on the external appearance is rather less pronounced, yet the combination of armour and ERA it manages to approximate the protection level of the much larger M1A2 while being almost 30 tons lighter.

    BTW I have read the US is unhappy with the weight of the M1 Abrams and is looking at a tank... in the 40 ton range... who should replace what now?

    Difference between the Sherman and the Abrams is philosophy. The Shermans were designed to envelop, sacrifice, and destroy a Panzer or a Tiger. Abrams are designed to take on a T-90 one on one and win. T-90s are still designed off the same philosophy as the T-34, light, mobile, gun platforms. Besides, Abrams is irrelevant here. It's clear that the "small silhouette" of the T-72 family has not paid off, as just because it's shorter and smaller doesn't mean my sights can't see you, and coincidentally, my sights are even better than yours. Just build your tanks like how we did it, the Black Eagle was looking good until it was either not even real or just canceled.

    BTW, reading an article doesn't mean it's related to the entire country.

    The Abrams is still set to be here until the 2050s, in which time, we would probably dissolve our MBT divisions as we're not fighting conventional wars anymore.

    It's already happened now, we have 10 armor divisions in the Army at the moment, 7 light divisions composed of light armors and 3 historical divisions full of MBTs like the A2 Abrams.

    Russia should do the same, 10 Divisions of BMPTs.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  GarryB on Fri Nov 05, 2010 7:04 am

    No, it's used on the sides for typical combat purposes. When enemy aerial recon becomes prevalent, it is supposed to just be used and drape it over the entire tank, while it's immobile.

    And it would be impossible to modify to cover the signature of the tank from above when mobile why?

    It is the sides that a Javelin operator will be trying to get a lock to launch in automatic mode. If it can't get a lock from the side it can't lock on to launch in the first place.

    Again, tanks can only use Nakidka to full top-attack effectiveness when the tank in question is stationary and avoiding detection. Whilst moving, a top-attack IRR ATGM like Javelin will see the tank no problem, even with Nakidka, if Nakidka even gets deployed, that is.

    If Javelin can't lock on from the side how can it be launched at the tank in the first place... it is not a lock on after launch weapon.

    Problem is the thing in question isn't the same temperature.

    Why wouldn't it be? Thermal imagers have trouble in tropical regions where the ground can get up to 30 degrees or more during the day. Looking for humans with skin temperatures of 36 degrees on a background of 30-35 degrees makes a thermal imager not much use till the ground cools down... problem of course in some places it doesn't cool down all that much. My brother lives in Thailand and he has sent me emails telling me it is 10pm at night and 44 degrees. In such conditions a human would be colder than the ground they are standing on and almost impossible to find on a thermal imager because most are calibrated to show body heat targets as white blobs on a black background. A human target at 10pm in the dark with an air temperature of 44 degrees would be a white blob on a while background. In other words the thermal sight would be useless for finding targets unless you knew exactly where to look.

    If it's not in service than it's not worth mentioning.

    Hahahahaha. That is funny. So everything that is in service is it... if the Russian AF can't defeat an F-22 now there is no point and Russia should just sell all its airplanes and find another hobby?

    ARENA is available and it works in its designed function of defeating the most common threat on the battlefield... that of anti tank missiles and anti tank rockets. To reject it because it doesn't in its current form defeat Javelins or for that matter land mines is ridiculous. Putting it in service improve the performance of current vehicles and future growth of the system can be applied to deal with its current weaknesses. It doesn't matter what its performance is, by their very nature rival countries will devise methods to defeat it so it will need to be improved during its lifetime anyway. There is not such thing as an all perfect thing that will do everything. Having lots of little add-ons lead to a system that is much harder to defeat, simply because to defeat it you need to defeat more than one defensive measure.

    But they're all just the same ERAs in different proportions. Not much really you can add to that.

    Yeah, of course there is no more scope for improvement in ERA designs... they might as well stop right now. After all if the US doesn't use something like Relict then it can't be any good right? Twisted Evil

    Funny, they get criticised for copying and then criticised when they don't copy and start developing what America is developing.

    Maybe they could wait till Trophy is perfected and then steal it.

    Did you really think I meant 2 cm taller and that's it? For one thing, a longer turret means more space for the crew, equipment, and ammunition.

    The T-90M for export has a longer turret for more electronics and a new gun mount, while the Burlak upgrade that has had its funding cancelled had this longer turret and a turret bustle autoloader so there would be no ammo in the crew compartment.

    [qutoe]Lol, a tank without it's fuel or ammo is just a sitting duck. We wouldn't even have to shoot Hellfires at T-90s, just carry them out on a plane. Stupider suggestion then any of mine.[/quote]

    Clearly the solution is to seperate the crew from the fuel and ammo, while at the same time protect the fuel and ammo from external attack. BTW if you think a tank without ammo is a sitting duck you should check the armour protection for the top and rear of the Abrams turret. Those top blow out panels can be easily penetrated by any RPG ever made and there goes all the ready to use ammo. Fortunately so far the layout of the tank seems to be a bit of a mystery of those fighting American vehicles and so far it hasn't been targeted. In Chechnia on the other hand the enemy served in the Soviet Army and were quite familiar with where the ammo and fuel is stored, which leads to such things being targeted.

    So, no.

    Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

    Heard of a Leopard? Yeah, full of Russian compenents, right, just straight copied from THALES.

    ? Leopards were designed well before THALES had access to Russian vehicles.

    The Panther was a German copy of the T-34 if that is what you mean, though it doesn't explain you mentioning THALES.

    So 360 degree protection isn't a requirement? Either Russia is dumb or the people designing are.

    The 360 degree coverage was provided by the sensor tower... if a target appeared outside the 270 degrees covered by the munitions then the turret was traversed to meet the threat which also moved the munitions so they could engage the threat. Being turret mounted the munitions faced where the turret faced so by having a unit of tanks with turrets facing in different directions there was 360 degree coverage already. It was considered good enough...

    Russia should do the same, 10 Divisions of BMPTs.

    Why should Russia do the same as the US?

    The US doesn't face a military alliance with over 20,000 tanks like Russia does.

    Difference between the Sherman and the Abrams is philosophy. The Shermans were designed to envelop, sacrifice, and destroy a Panzer or a Tiger. Abrams are designed to take on a T-90 one on one and win.

    The Sherman and the T-34 were designed to concentrate firepower to breakthrough points in enemy lines. Once through they were to use their mobility to attack supply and support vehicles and units as well as command and control centres. The most common target for both vehicles was bunkers and mg positions and buildings and unarmoured vehicles. HE firepower was much more use to them than their armour piercing ammo because there were less than 2 thousand German heavy tanks built during the war (Tigers) and less than 7 thousand medium tanks (Panthers). The vast majority of engagements were much lesser tanks that really didn't warrant a better tank. The 85mm gun was introduced to the T-34 but they could just as easily have developed a much higher velocity 76.2mm gun like the Panthers 75mm if it was for enemy tanks. The simple fact is that the 85mm gun had a better HE shell than any higher velocity smaller calibre guns and that is why they chose it.
    The M1 Abrams is based more on the Panther than the Sherman, but I was refering to the design... ie driver in the front, turret in the centre with a three man crew and an engine to the rear. The only major change from the sherman is that there is just a driver in the front hull so the radioman/bow machinegunner is gone. Wow.
    For the T-90 the bow gunner and the loader are gone, so more change there I guess. Otherwise both have large guns and both have composite armour etc etc.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  GarryB on Fri Nov 05, 2010 7:21 am

    BTW the Sherman was not designed to sacrifice.

    The old cherry that it took 4-5 Shermans to kill a Tiger should not be taken literally. 4-5 Shermans were not destroyed for every Tiger.

    It took a force of 4-5 Shermans working together to defeat a single Tiger... several of those Shermans would move from cover to cover to distract the Tiger. The Tiger could not fire while moving so while those shermans were keeping the attention of the Tiger the other Shermans would work their way around for a side shot at close range.

    Sometimes the Tigers killed the distracting Shermans and could move away before the closer shermans could fire. Sometimes the Shermans made a kill without a loss of Shermans.

    Obviously when in a meeting engagement with lots of Tigers and lots of Shermans the Shermans were in trouble, but at least they could use tactics with their radios... unlike the T-34s... but then with the early unreliability of the German heavies there was a good chance the T-34 might never see a Tiger or Panther anyway.
    The Russians knew how the Tiger crews felt because their KV-1 was in a similar position, in that when it first appeared it was not the best mechanically, but with heavy armour and a decent gun it was a formidible vehicle. The mobility of the T-34 made it more effective, but then the KV led to the IS series tanks with the IS-3M being better armoured and better armed than either the Tiger or Panther.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sun Nov 07, 2010 2:21 am

    My whole point in this argument was Russia needs a new, better tank design, not just some refits and remodeling, simply scratch it all off the table or face buying foreign tanks which is something they're considering anyways.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  GarryB on Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:17 am

    First of all no one will sell them a tank that is better than the current T-90.

    Second they already have plenty of tanks, there is no current shortage.

    Third they have already stated that armour (tanks and APCs) is not a high priority for the budget period up to 2015.

    Fourth they have also said that they rejected the new T-95 design on mobility and cost issues so a much heavier western tank is not going to cut it as it will no doubt not only be more expensive but also much heavier.

    And fifth the foreign purchases are aimed at improving Russian military industrial complex levels to an equivelent western standard. What will likely happen is that they will look at new western engines and transmissions and licence produce something that can go into a T-90. In 2-3 years time they will restart production of the T-90 but it will be the new T-90M with enlarged turret and rear turret bustle autoloader and new improved armour and improved ERA and probably ARENA-3 and SHTORA-4 and Russian made Thermal sights of French design, plus comms and navigation system based on the new Russian C4IR system that hopefully will be rather more mature by then etc etc.

    By 2015 the T-95 will have been made cheaper and lighter and more of it will be Russian made and they will introduce it in small numbers to compliment the main force of upgraded T-72s and T-90Ms.

    Personally I think the T-90 with the proposed Burlak upgrade actually deals with most of the problems in a way that can also be applied to the T-72s and T-90s already in service. This is the cheapest and simplest way of upgrading the Russian Armour force in the shortest possible time IMHO.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sun Nov 07, 2010 6:30 pm

    First of all, just because no one would doesn't mean they should.

    Second of all, they have plenty of outdated crap, lets be honest, a couple thousand Cold War era tanks won't stand toe to toe with any competent invasion force.

    Third of all, that statement contradicts your fifth statement. If Armored vehicles are of no priority until 5 years time, then Russia is just a sitting duck, waiting for PAK FAs to come.

    Fourth of all, it wasn't all because of mobility issues, but also design issues. It's really simple, Russia hasn't changed from a single design philosophy in regards to MBTs for a while now and adapting Western designs are comparable if not superior to Russian designs.

    Finally, many people have said this before, it doesn't matter how much ERA, how much Shtora (even though Indians think it's crap), how much ARENA (even though only S.K. seems to like it) or even Russian copy cat electronics you put on a T-90, it's still a T-90, and a single hellfire will blow it up, kill the crew, and make excellent propaganda for us Western Devils.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  GarryB on Mon Nov 08, 2010 12:08 am

    First of all, just because no one would doesn't mean they should.

    I can't say you are wrong here... after all a British Labour government did sell Stalin the Rolls Royce Nene and Derwent jet engines that were at the time rather than any other jet engine available at the time... even uncle Joe couldn't believe it... in fact I think he said something along the lines of "who would be stupid enough to sell us the brand new jet technology".
    Because many who went to look in the Rolls Royce factory wore shoes with special soles that allowed them to step on metal shavings near where component parts were made the production of Soviet engines started in record time because they already knew the alloys required to make the parts.

    Having said all that there is only one tank making factory left in Russia and there is no way the military can afford to kill it or the next Russian tank will be made in either the Ukraine or China.

    Second of all, they have plenty of outdated crap, lets be honest, a couple thousand Cold War era tanks won't stand toe to toe with any competent invasion force.

    Indeed they do have a lot of outdated crap, but any force they will fight with better stuff is in NATO so in the case of an invasion force the solution is tactical nuclear weapons to show you can't be pushed around and any nuclear response to that will result in a full strategic nuclear attack. There is nothing NATO would attack Russia for that is worth starting a full scale nuclear war over... or a small scale nuclear war plus any tactical nuke use will put everyone on a hair trigger anyway... so I rather doubt this attack will come. Japan? Not likely... it is mostly fishermen and oil companies that are interested in the Kuril Islands. China? Nah... it is easier to buy land than take it by force.

    The reality is that the T-80s and late model T-72s and T-90s are fine and everything else is obsolete as a front line tank but fine for mobile firepower in a lower scale conflict.
    The Russians need to sort out their C4IR before they worry about what tanks or APCs they want in their front line units.

    Third of all, that statement contradicts your fifth statement. If Armored vehicles are of no priority until 5 years time, then Russia is just a sitting duck, waiting for PAK FAs to come.

    Sitting duck to whom? And where did those tactical nukes all disappear to? In the Georgian conflict the Russian Army used Iskander missiles to make up for lack of all weather ground attack capability. The airforce is getting worked on, new upgraded planes and much much more importantly they are actually buying modern guided munitions to go with them.
    As I said getting the C4IR sorted out first with the navy for better global reach (and because it was the most neglected service) and the airforce getting sorted out too it seems like the ground pounders are being neglected, but the C4IR needs to be sorted out first and tanks can wait... they have some weaknesses, sure, but then they also have some advantages too like the Aniet fusing system for standard HE Frag rounds and tube fired guided missiles that can be used against helos and tanks at fairly long range are just two examples.

    Fourth of all, it wasn't all because of mobility issues, but also design issues. It's really simple, Russia hasn't changed from a single design philosophy in regards to MBTs for a while now and adapting Western designs are comparable if not superior to Russian designs.

    The T-95 is a radical rethink in tank design, western tanks are simply Russian tanks taken slightly further down the same path.
    In fact if there was no 2 decade funding gap current T-90s would probably be quite comparable to M1 Abrams today.

    Finally, many people have said this before, it doesn't matter how much ERA, how much Shtora (even though Indians think it's crap), how much ARENA (even though only S.K. seems to like it) or even Russian copy cat electronics you put on a T-90, it's still a T-90, and a single hellfire will blow it up, kill the crew, and make excellent propaganda for us Western Devils.

    Funny, T-90s take multiple hits and survive in Chechnia and others are destroyed by multiple hits and the tank is rubbish.
    Hellfires are fired at Abrams tanks and all of a sudden the Abrams is a super tank but no one suggests that Hellfires might be crap...

    I think the real difference is the story teller and I just think Americans are great story tellers.

    Funny thing is that when Israeli tanks come up against the same weapons that the T series tanks came up against in Chechnia... and what do you know... some tanks get knocked out.

    The Russians found out the hard way that it was loose ammo in the crew compartment that was catching fire and exploding if the vehicle was penetrated and in the second Chechen conflict they only carried ammo in the armoured autoloader under the turret ring. This greatly reduced casualties and led to the decision with the upgrade to add a rear turret bustle autoloader. In addition to 22 rounds in the armoured underfloor ammo magazine the rear turret bustle auto loader has about 30-32 rounds ready to load, so the vehicle not only had the ammo protected and separate from the crew compartment but also it carries about 10 rounds more than the standard vehicle and can use longer penetrators in the rear loader.
    The T-95 completely separates crew from gun and autoloader and fuel storage.

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  Vladimir79 on Mon Nov 08, 2010 3:32 am

    The Russians need to sort out their C4IR before they worry about what tanks or APCs they want in their front line units.

    C4ISR can be retrofitted to anything. No need to build a platform around it. It can be added later. We need armour that can slug it out with the best the PLA can throw at it for the next 20 years.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Agreed with most points from Vlad except 2.

    Post  GarryB on Tue Nov 09, 2010 12:35 am

    I don't think they will delay armour improvements for work on C4IR, I think they will delay armour improvements while more of the components are foreign made.
    I think the funding and development and thinking effort will be focused on C4IR while the armour gets more Russian content.

    I see that the Russian Army has ordered the Tiger-M but will not actually take deliveries till 2011. It seems that a Russian engine will be ready at the end of this year which explains why production and delivery wont start till next year... they don't want the American engine.
    For export the Tiger-M will continue to be sold with the American engine, though after 2011 it might have the Russian engine as an option.

    Apart from French components that Russia can licence produce in Russia, then I think the upgrade of the T-90 will be delayed till it is all Russian before they make more tanks. It doesn't make sense right now to make T-90s if you are nearly finished development of a new standard design for the T-90 and it is made of a lot of foreign parts at the moment. Set up licence production of the comms and the anything else you need and then start producing T-90x's. In the mean time however it would make sense to start upgrading some T-72s because of the 7-8,000 tanks Russia is planning to have more than 2/3rds are going to be upgraded T-72s so starting on upgrading those makes a lot of sense to keep the UVZ working with those... say a start of 100-200 but building up to 500 per year till they are ready to start on the new T-90 models with all their changes and new stuff.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Russian Tanks protection

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sat Mar 19, 2011 5:22 am

    Austin wrote:I think a taller turret will also make it a jucier target , in the sense the opposite gunner would see it much earlier then say it would sight a t-90

    I wouldn't say so. Iraqi T-72s did terrible in the Iraq war for a multitude of reasons. One of them was that they were employed in the Hull down, or defensive position. The problem for T-72s and basically any modern Russian tank in that regard is that because their profile is so short, they can't take advantage of many hull down positions.

    Another thing about short tanks is that their height limits the elevation and depression they can reach. The current gun on the T-90 can only elevate 12+ and -5 degrees. The elevation for the gun on the Abrams is +15 and -7 degrees. Depression matters in combat environments, when tanks are forced to hug the enemy, and a RPG team somewhere up high or somewhere down low can ambush you and not expect you to fire on them (although a guy following behind would handle it).

    GarryB wrote:Odds are that targets are detected using a number of sensors and the taking out of one of those sensors will effect performance, but will not take the tank out of action.

    Besides it would be logical for the gunner to recognise the target and realise their is little point in firing on the turret so he might aim for the hull.

    "taking out a tank" by hitting its main gun or ammo would be much easier on an Abrams because its ready to use ammo is in the turret bustle, but how often has that happened in real combat?

    I would suspect the top of the turret likely contains some form of protection from top attack weapons and may include an APS to protect the top of the tank from submunitions and top attack weapons.

    Or it could be a new form of protection as used by postal services and marketing departments all over the world... you've bought that MP3 player that comes in a box the size of a shoebox for a product the size of a matchbox. How many times will they hit it before they work out where the vital components are...

    Studies of tank hits in the Gulf war showed that 65% of tank rounds will land 1.5 meters above the ground. Western tanks having the best protected tank turrets in the world, means that most rounds will hit it in it's safest part. For Russian tanks, that means most rounds will hit on it's 2nd safest part.

    I highly doubt Russia will field any APS en masse to be honest. Simply said, too expensive and ARENA has fallen behind western APSs like TROPHY.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  GarryB on Sat Mar 19, 2011 7:14 am

    All said that still does not disqualify my reasoning that T-95 will be
    detected much earlier due to its higher profile compared to other tanks ,
    so first look and first kill advantage might not be that of T-95
    ,irespective of its sensors or APS

    Really?

    Did the fact that M1 Abrams tanks are larger than T-72s help Iraqi Tanks find Abrams tanks first?

    Anybody can spot a moving tank. A stationary tank is much harder to detect... especially with optical and other types of camouflage. A 20m tall tank is invisible... when sitting behind a 22m tall building.

    When firing at a target don't believe the bullshit... you don't aim for the drivers hatch... you aim for centre of mass and that results quite often in a turret front hit... it is not an accident that 90% of modern tanks have their heaviest armour on the front of their turret. It is not a new thing either.

    BTW have read your comments on mpnet and I think you are a little confused about Armata... Armata is a FAMILY, not a single vehicle.

    Right now the T-90 is the chassis for the MBT, it is also the chassis for the MSTA 152mm artillery vehicle.

    Armata will be the same, in fact it is quite likely that all air defence and artillery vehicles will use the Armata chassis, so when they talk about Armata being up to 65 tons they are probably talking about a Coalition type vehicle (that twin gunned MSTA) on an Armata Chassis that weighs 65 tons... with a huge turret and significant on board 152m calibre ammo. The development money was cut but it was a joint Army Navy program so it is likely the Navy will still get a new system of much longer range perhaps.

    Depression matters in combat environments, when tanks are forced to hug
    the enemy, and a RPG team somewhere up high or somewhere down low can
    ambush you and not expect you to fire on them (although a guy following
    behind would handle it).

    The remote control 12.7mm calibre HMG is for engaging infantry or helos, but for most roles they don't want enemy infantry near their tanks... tanks are stand off firepower. BMPs are armed with 100mm HE frag shells fired in direct fire mode that are very accurate and have 60 degree plus elevation plus a 30mm automatic cannon and 7.62mm coaxial mgs for all sorts of infantry targets... hard or soft... and of course they have their own infantry too.

    Tanks alone amongst enemy infantry are in trouble. The purpose of the BMPT was as a fire support vehicle to deal with targets tanks are not very good at dealing with... sort of a failed attempt to put BMP firepower in a tank protection level package.

    I highly doubt Russia will field any APS en masse to be honest. Simply
    said, too expensive and ARENA has fallen behind western APSs like
    TROPHY.

    I agree it wont be ARENA, but after all the blubbing about T-90s not being able to deal with Javelin and top attack submunitions I would expect they will have an upgraded APS system that can defend against those sorts of threats... ARENA 4 perhaps?

    I suspect the complaints heard about the cost of T-90s compared with the cost of Leopards suggests strongly that Russian tank crews are finally getting APS systems... after testing them first in combat they might get some into service.
    $4 million a vehicle... not likely for a Russian company to gold plate their tanks... something I hope they never learn from the west.

    runaway
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 351
    Points : 372
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  runaway on Sat Mar 19, 2011 2:33 pm

    GarryB wrote:Really?

    Did the fact that M1 Abrams tanks are larger than T-72s help Iraqi Tanks find Abrams tanks first?

    Anybody can spot a moving tank. A stationary tank is much harder to detect... especially with optical and other types of camouflage. A 20m tall tank is invisible... when sitting behind a 22m tall building.

    When firing at a target don't believe the bullshit... you don't aim for the drivers hatch... you aim for centre of mass and that results quite often in a turret front hit... it is not an accident that 90% of modern tanks have their heaviest armour on the front of their turret. It is not a new thing either.

    Comparing T-72M1:s with Iraq crew against M1A1:s with professional soldiers, doesnt.
    In fact, the M60 and M48 tanks in Vietnam suffered because of their heights. It sometimes is infantry firing, and yes, larger targets are easier to hit.

    Yes, when firing antitank missiles and such, you aim in the middle. If you have a Carl Gustav or RPG, you can aim for the soft spots. And i am talking of close combat, not over 400m.
    Veteran Tank crews certainly aims for the soft spots when its possible.

    GarryB wrote:I agree it wont be ARENA, but after all the blubbing about T-90s not being able to deal with Javelin and top attack submunitions I would expect they will have an upgraded APS system that can defend against those sorts of threats... ARENA 4 perhaps?

    Truth is, you can never defend a tank from top attacks. Because at the moment you have a defence system that can deal with it, the offensive systems is being improved and enhanced.

    As of now, the STRIX and EXCALIBUR systems can destroy any known tank.

    Warfare is a very complex thing, not just one system against one other, its every system against almost everything.

    And about gun depression, it played some part in the Golans, T-55, T-62 vs Centurian and Shermans. But overall other things decided the battle. Like crew training and tactics. Like support and aircover. Like professionalship and hmm, lots of things.






    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5672
    Points : 6078
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  Austin on Sat Mar 19, 2011 6:21 pm

    GarryB wrote:Did the fact that M1 Abrams tanks are larger than T-72s help Iraqi Tanks find Abrams tanks first?

    Thats not a fair comparision , considering even of T-72 managed to hit the Abrams they would been by and large inffective , ofcourse the Abrams in most occasion never gave a chance or the chopper did that for them.

    When firing at a target don't believe the bullshit... you don't aim for the drivers hatch... you aim for centre of mass and that results quite often in a turret front hit... it is not an accident that 90% of modern tanks have their heaviest armour on the front of their turret. It is not a new thing either.

    you are still missing the point , lets says if you let a T-90 and T-95 approach a Abrams , chances are Abrams will see the T-95 before it sees the T-90, that was my point. I read in some board that T-95 was 3m tall.


    BTW have read your comments on mpnet and I think you are a little confused about Armata... Armata is a FAMILY, not a single vehicle.

    Right now the T-90 is the chassis for the MBT, it is also the chassis for the MSTA 152mm artillery vehicle.

    Armata will be the same, in fact it is quite likely that all air defence and artillery vehicles will use the Armata chassis, so when they talk about Armata being up to 65 tons they are probably talking about a Coalition type vehicle (that twin gunned MSTA) on an Armata Chassis that weighs 65 tons... with a huge turret and significant on board 152m calibre ammo. The development money was cut but it was a joint Army Navy program so it is likely the Navy will still get a new system of much longer range perhaps.

    Yes thats what I think too , that Armata project could be an attempt to develop common chassis for different platform.

    I would still wait and see how the new tanks develop , the jury is open after the generals latest statement on this issue.

    I would personally be happy to see a 65T tank with either 125 mm or 152 mm gun if not initially atleast at future date for higher caliber gun , considering they do have those guns developed for T-95 it would be a waste not to use it for some project


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  GarryB on Sat Mar 19, 2011 11:12 pm

    Comparing T-72M1:s with Iraq crew against M1A1:s with professional soldiers, doesnt.
    In
    fact, the M60 and M48 tanks in Vietnam suffered because of their
    heights. It sometimes is infantry firing, and yes, larger targets are
    easier to hit.

    I quite agree that larger targets are easier to hit, but with modern fire control systems getting a hit on a tank isn't currently a problem is it?

    And your first point is your best... in real combat the height of the T-72M1 or lack of it was not significant enough to save it. In real combat it was C4IR and the thermal optics of the M1s that meant the T-72s weren't given a chance to get good close shots at them... ignoring the fact that their ammo was rubbish.

    If you have a Carl Gustav or RPG, you can aim for the soft spots. And i am talking of close combat, not over 400m.
    Veteran Tank crews certainly aims for the soft spots when its possible.

    You certainly do aim manually aimed weapons at soft spots... but as range increases and target speed increases the chances of actually hitting what you aim at decreases. In a strong cross wind at more than 150m range you will be happy just to get a hit with most unguided weapons. Volley shots are common with such weapons for a reason as a good hit in a soft area is more often a case of luck than intent.

    Certainly the chance of hitting soft spots with RPGs and CGs is greatly increased by firing at tanks from the side or rear or from above at the side, rear, and top armour respectively.


    Truth is, you can never defend a tank from top attacks. Because at
    the moment you have a defence system that can deal with it, the
    offensive systems is being improved and enhanced.

    The measure/countermeasure war is a circle. The point is that if the rival has a measure in widespread service then a counter to that measure is worth it. For example the RPG-7 is widely used in Russian and other forces so a counter makes sense. Trying to counter the effect of a tactical nuclear weapon is a waste of time on two fronts... it is too powerful to protect something from, and the likelyhood of it being used against a tank is so low as to consider it to be zero.
    With Javelins in widespread US service however it makes sense to develop and deploy a counter to it... even if it is not a perfect 100% shield.

    As of now, the STRIX and EXCALIBUR systems can destroy any known tank.

    And Hermes and Kh-29L and Kh-29T could probably do the same.

    There is no point developing armour for western tanks to stop a 317kg HEAT warhead of the Kh-29 simply because the blast will kill the crew even if the weapon hits the ground 5m beside the tank.

    Warfare is a very complex thing, not just one system against one other, its every system against almost everything.

    Indeed... the US could deploy a 1950s fighter bomber to bomb the Taleban in Afghanistan and Pakistan... if that 1950s fighter is wired to carry satellite guided bombs... they are already using the B-52 from the 1950s and it does its job fine without needing stealth or supersonic speed.

    Thats not a fair comparision , considering even of T-72 managed to hit
    the Abrams they would been by and large inffective , ofcourse the Abrams
    in most occasion never gave a chance or the chopper did that for them.

    It is not a fair comparison... but it is a real comparison. The fairest fight of the last 50 years was probably the conflict in Georgia in 2008. Very similar sized forces very similar equipment, except the Georgians has a sophisticated C4IR system with UAVs etc and the Russian forces used cellphones for communications...
    It is not just skill and training... the Russians wanted to help their neighbours while the Georgians didn't seem interested in dying to take a little slice of land called South Ossetia.

    you are still missing the point , lets says if you let a T-90 and T-95
    approach a Abrams , chances are Abrams will see the T-95 before it sees
    the T-90, that was my point. I read in some board that T-95 was 3m tall.

    And lets follow that analogy and say it fires first on the T-95 and the round penetrates the turret... no crew in there and no ammo so it is a clean hit that goes straight through the turret... without anything critically hit that will stop the tank and knock it out... which is fuel, crew, or ammo, the tank continues to function. It will fire back at that M1 and most likely with a 152mm gun will kill it. If its main gun is damaged then it can pass on target data to other vehicles in its unit to do the same and monitor the results.
    Now lets take the T-90... it gets closer... but is still spotted by the M1 and fired upon. The engagement will continue till one of the vehicles destroys the other but the better protection of the T-95 means it is more likely to be able to take a hit and keep fighting.

    Yes thats what I think too , that Armata project could be an attempt to develop common chassis for different platform.

    Armata is a standard chassis for a new tank and the rest of the family of vehicles that operates with the tank.

    If they want tank based IFVs for the heavy brigade it will be based on the Armata chassis too, as will all the air defence vehicles and the artillery etc etc.

    The medium brigade will be the same... there will be a medium weight vehicle... Boomerang or something wasn't it? And all the vehicles... ie tank/direct fire support vehicle, APC, Artillery, Air defence, etc etc will be based on that chassis.

    The light Brigade will be the same with a new chassis design... though they might go for a mix of 8 wheeled and 4 wheeled vehicles... so that would be in todays vehicles... the tank/fire support vehicle would be based on the BTR with a 125mm gun, while the APC might be Volk or PVP or SP3 or whatever, while air defence might be on a Vodnik or something and artillery might be the 2S23 with a 120mm mortar on a BTR-80 chassis.

    I would still wait and see how the new tanks develop , the jury is open after the generals latest statement on this issue.

    He is complaining about the price per vehicle... when they start with orders of 100 or 200 a year once the design is finalised then the price will likely go down... especially if it is an impressive new upgrade that might appeal to export customers... though Indian might not want it because it might want the T-90 to remain the cheap numbers tank.

    I would personally be happy to see a 65T tank with either 125 mm or 152
    mm gun if not initially atleast at future date for higher caliber gun ,
    considering they do have those guns developed for T-95 it would be a
    waste not to use it for some project

    The game of measure and countermeasure means the sooner you deploy it into service and the wider you get it into service the quicker the rival will develop measures to defeat it.


    So what he is saying is they can deliver the T-90A at 1.5 times lower price than what the Chief said which was $4million.

    1.5 times lower cost will be $2.6 million unit cost of T-90A

    I suspect that the 4 million is for the T-90M and that the Chief is getting this out into the public to try to force them to drop the price.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sun Mar 20, 2011 1:02 am

    Depression matters in combat environments, when tanks are forced to hug
    the enemy, and a RPG team somewhere up high or somewhere down low can
    ambush you and not expect you to fire on them (although a guy following
    behind would handle it).

    The remote control 12.7mm calibre HMG is for engaging infantry or helos, but for most roles they don't want enemy infantry near their tanks... tanks are stand off firepower. BMPs are armed with 100mm HE frag shells fired in direct fire mode that are very accurate and have 60 degree plus elevation plus a 30mm automatic cannon and 7.62mm coaxial mgs for all sorts of infantry targets... hard or soft... and of course they have their own infantry too.

    Tanks alone amongst enemy infantry are in trouble. The purpose of the BMPT was as a fire support vehicle to deal with targets tanks are not very good at dealing with... sort of a failed attempt to put BMP firepower in a tank protection level package.

    The funny thing is that combat experience in Iraq has proved the ineffectiveness of the 12.7 mm TC's gun and the 7.62 coax. The latter doesn't have the penetration power to hit past the houses and cause lethal wounds while the former over penetrates (stories in Iraq of families finding 12.7 mm ammo passing through 4 houses). The main gun has shown to be the most effective urban anti-personal weapon. Shrapnel rounds have enough velocity to punch through a wall and kill the guy but not enough mass to punch through more than one wall, thus reducing collateral.

    The BMPT has been canceled.

    I highly doubt Russia will field any APS en masse to be honest. Simply
    said, too expensive and ARENA has fallen behind western APSs like
    TROPHY.

    I agree it wont be ARENA, but after all the blubbing about T-90s not being able to deal with Javelin and top attack submunitions I would expect they will have an upgraded APS system that can defend against those sorts of threats... ARENA 4 perhaps?

    I suspect the complaints heard about the cost of T-90s compared with the cost of Leopards suggests strongly that Russian tank crews are finally getting APS systems... after testing them first in combat they might get some into service.
    $4 million a vehicle... not likely for a Russian company to gold plate their tanks... something I hope they never learn from the west.

    It depends on what Russian tank needs. Top attack isn't a critical problem for tanks in general as no top attack weapon has been used against any modern tank force yet. Only top attack tactics have been employed. In that sense, what the T-90 needs would be something similar to the Trophy, in that it's an external module that can rotate 360 and elevate at least 60 degrees. Whatever they decide to come out with, it of course needs a better reload mechanism. And it should at least edge on being relatively affordable by Russian standards.


    And Hermes and Kh-29L and Kh-29T could probably do the same.

    There is no point developing armour for western tanks to stop a 317kg HEAT warhead of the Kh-29 simply because the blast will kill the crew even if the weapon hits the ground 5m beside the tank.

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

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

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

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

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

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

    The BMPT has been canceled.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

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

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

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

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

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

    The BMPT has been canceled.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    No, to shoot down the plane.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5672
    Points : 6078
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

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

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

    Hence to just briefly sum up the response.

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

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

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

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

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

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

    That depends on the range to the target...

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

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

    No, to shoot down the plane.

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

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

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

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

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

    The saying is goose bumps... Smile And personally I would love to see a more potent T-90 in service in India too.

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

    I have read the high cost is largely because of the small order size and a decent order of tanks would dramatically reduce the price per unit. New APS systems and possibly a new model of Shtora could easily increase the price, but it would be worth it.

    But the chief designer of the tank mentioned that technologies developed
    and experienced gathered for T-95 will be incorporated in the new tank
    which is under development.

    I have read that there are several companies that have put their hat in the ring for designs of new tanks even though only UVZ has the production capacity to actually make them. It should be interesting.

    Have heard the T-90M will have been through all its tests by 2012 and that production should start then too if everything is OK.

    Then begins the contest for the replacement of the T-90 which likely wont go into production till 2020.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

    That depends on the range to the target...

    We're not talking about guided mortar rounds here.

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

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

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

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Obviously? The T-90M will have a 1,000hp engine... they are working on a 1,250hp engine but there is no confirmation that will be ready.

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

    note:
    In work:

    - Mono-block power unit on 1200 hp V-99 engine.
    - Steering wheel control.

    Emphasis on "In Work"... ie in development. Obviously the steering wheel control is a direct result of complaints that the T-90 is a T-34 and still uses levers to steer. That was only a year ago so it is hardly surprising they having completed that change just yet. The BMP-1 had a steering wheel for control so it is not like they can't do it. It was just never considered a problem in the past.
    They said the T-95 was ready for trials and I would suggest that it probably had a new APS system designed for it... ARENA is from the mid 1990s and Drodz is from the late 1980s so I would guess they have progressed beyond what has been revealed so far publicly.
    The PAK FA and T-95 shows they can keep a secret.

    We're not talking about guided mortar rounds here.

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

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

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

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

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

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

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

    [quote="GarryB"]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Obviously? The T-90M will have a 1,000hp engine... they are working on a 1,250hp engine but there is no confirmation that will be ready.

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

    note:
    In work:

    - Mono-block power unit on 1200 hp V-99 engine.
    - Steering wheel control.

    Emphasis on "In Work"... ie in development. Obviously the steering wheel control is a direct result of complaints that the T-90 is a T-34 and still uses levers to steer. That was only a year ago so it is hardly surprising they having completed that change just yet. The BMP-1 had a steering wheel for control so it is not like they can't do it. It was just never considered a problem in the past.
    They said the T-95 was ready for trials and I would suggest that it probably had a new APS system designed for it... ARENA is from the mid 1990s and Drodz is from the late 1980s so I would guess they have progressed beyond what has been revealed so far publicly.
    The PAK FA and T-95 shows they can keep a secret.

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

    We're not talking about guided mortar rounds here.

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

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


    Tanks used Defensively are a terrible waste of good armor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 11:35 am


      Current date/time is Wed Dec 07, 2016 11:35 am