Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16293
    Points : 16924
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    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?
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 454
    Points : 468
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    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.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16293
    Points : 16924
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    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.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16293
    Points : 16924
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    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.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 454
    Points : 468
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    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.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16293
    Points : 16924
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    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.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 454
    Points : 468
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    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.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16293
    Points : 16924
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    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.
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2180
    Points : 3072
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    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.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16293
    Points : 16924
    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.

    Austin

    Posts : 6232
    Points : 6638
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Τank Warfare: Russian vs NATO tanks

    Post  Austin on Mon Feb 21, 2011 1:12 pm

    BTW what would it take for the current Russian Tank to penetrate the Front and most hardened part of Western tank.

    From what I have read the reason T-95 went for a 152 mm main gun is because the projectile would penetrate any armour and one would end up building a 80 T tank to withstand a direct hit from 152 mm projectile.

    The current 125 mm projectile lacks the punch to penetrate a western armour , considering the western tank are not even ERA equipped like Russian Tank are , some say the new long rod ammo in T-90M should make is possible to penetrate western armour.

    So as far i I have read the current gun in T-90 can fire a projectile at a speed of 1750 m/s , so if they keep the same 125 mm gun and make a better propellent that can fire a projectile at say 2500 m/s will that suffice or is it impossible ?

    What trends can be expected from future Russian MBT , will they go for 152 mm gun to defeat any Western armour or will they increase the muzzle velocity of 125 mm round to keep rounds common but increase the velocity to say 2500 m/sec

    Any idea ? Also what are the future trends in Western Armour with MBT ?
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 454
    Points : 468
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  IronsightSniper on Mon Feb 21, 2011 11:59 pm

    Austin wrote:BTW what would it take for the current Russian Tank to penetrate the Front and most hardened part of Western tank.

    Western tanks are so well protected from HEAT projectiles that estimates show you'll need at least a 200 mm caliber HEAT round to penetrate that (for reference, Abrams has up to 1,600 mm of RHAe v.s. HEAT and Leopard has almost 2,000 mm of RHAe v.s. HEAT on the Front turret.) The most logical and linear approach to AT rounds for a tank would be a Longer, slimmer, and denser Kinetic Energy round (or of course, Russia could produce a Top-Attack munition and replace the AT-11 with it.) Current Russian APFSDS projectiles are estimated to penetrate up to 650 mm of RHAe at 2 km. Current M1A2 Abrams turret armor is protected by up to 900 mm RHAe v.s. KE on the turret. For reference, the M829A3 APFSDS round used by the M1A2 Abrams is estimated to penetrate 800 mm of RHAe. The M829A3 is, at current knowledge, the best APFSDS round in service today.

    Therefore, to simply all that, you'd need 1 or more of 3 things:

    1. A Top-Attack ATGM fired by the T-90.
    2. Longer, Slimmer, Denser (perhaps DU?) APFSDS rounds
    3. A bigger gun


    So as far i I have read the current gun in T-90 can fire a projectile at a speed of 1750 m/s , so if they keep the same 125 mm gun and make a better propellent that can fire a projectile at say 2500 m/s will that suffice or is it impossible ?

    That will be highly unlikely. T-72 barrels could handle less pressure than the Rheinmetall 120 mm L/44 or L/55, which are used by the Abrams and the Leopard 2. That means that even if Russia does invent or produce some sort of hyper-velocity propellant, they'd also need to upgrade the gun to handle the pressure or else the T-90s would just blow up everytime they shoot.

    Currently, the most modern Russian APFSDS projectile, the 3BM-42M, is able to penetrate about 650 mm of RHAe at 2 km and 710 mm of RHAe at point blank range. If the Russians were to convert the 3BM-43M from a Tungsten projectile into a Depleted Uranium projectile, that would increase penetration to about 680 mm of RHAe at 2 km and 735 mm of RHAe at point blank range. Depleted Uranium also has a special effect that allows it to not to puff up like a mushroom upon impact but to keep it's shape throughout penetration. DU also is flammable.

    What trends can be expected from future Russian MBT , will they go for 152 mm gun to defeat any Western armour or will they increase the muzzle velocity of 125 mm round to keep rounds common but increase the velocity to say 2500 m/sec

    Any idea ? Also what are the future trends in Western Armour with MBT ?

    We Westerners don't exactly see the point in Tanks nowadays (although some will say otherwise.) America in general is prepping for Asymmetrical warfare so we are not expecting our adversaries to use contemporary equipment. Future U.S. and probably NATO tanks will be more or less modeled after the Soviet philosophy of "Smart Armor", i.e. APS would be proliferated heavily. But I do suspect that instead of going at it Light and Small like the Soviet T-series of tanks, future Western tanks will keep a nice and thick hull armor. Weapons wise, the future U.S. tanks will utilize Electrothermal-Chemical guns which will produce the high velocities you're looking for.

    In regards to Russia, I do suspect they will start producing Longer and Slimmer APFSDS rounds, but of course they'll need to modify their Turrets accordingly to fit those in. They might also improve on the ATGMs their tanks can fire. But if you're talking about the far future, Russian tanks will most likely also equip a ETC gun, but in order to penetrate Western armors, a bigger and smarter gun will be required.


    I should note that in the 80s, Swiss tankers modified a Leopard 2 to use a 140 mm L/47 Gun. That gun was able to launch a 1 meter APFSDS round that could penetrate over 1 meter of RHAe.

    A document about a German 140 mm ETC gun:

    http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:NIIsFo2bvXgJ:www.fprado.com/armorsite/Leo2_Files/tanks.140mm-gun.kruse.pdf+140+mm+gun+tanknet&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShVbcoG0wDSZJbpnc5owfYwuUqmFydnWMF6_HshRivj7FFMv7NZ-0OEtnaUP3ZDfyCXlreYV0ULDdsRQXXr01uv0RZYE4RI1YL8oUILtsfm8H5HgJCjXPLoe-Ka1wHydcblSyvp&sig=AHIEtbTNRRjR80-r54eEphLJABDgO0mGQg
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16293
    Points : 16924
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  GarryB on Tue Feb 22, 2011 3:07 am

    BTW what would it take for the current Russian Tank to penetrate the Front and most hardened part of Western tank.

    If you are in a sword fight against a man with a sword and a shield you don't focus your energy trying to penetrate the shield... you focus on getting around the shield.

    A diving top attack round that is MMW radar guided to the target would be much easier to achieve and can be retrofitted to all vehicles with 125mm guns including Sprut. You could even make a long version with two tandem 125mm calibre HEAT warheads that fire near simultaneously at the same point of roof armour... and if they fail they can fall onto the ground and self right themselves and become anti tank mines.

    From what I have read the reason T-95 went for a 152 mm main gun is
    because the projectile would penetrate any armour and one would end up
    building a 80 T tank to withstand a direct hit from 152 mm projectile.

    With rounds that calibre the HEAT warheads would be very powerful and the volume inside the round would make guidance system with optical or radar seekers much easier. It would greatly reduce the amount of ammo each vehicle could carry and require auto loading as rounds would become very heavy.

    So as far i I have read the current gun in T-90 can fire a projectile at
    a speed of 1750 m/s , so if they keep the same 125 mm gun and make a
    better propellent that can fire a projectile at say 2500 m/s will that
    suffice or is it impossible ?

    That would require huge leaps in propellent technology and gun metalurgy and is rather unlikely without a lot of investment.
    The 125mm gun fitted to the T-90 has plenty of growth potential in it and the gun the upgraded T-90 is said to be some 15% better with regards to ammo performance etc... and for most things it is used for it is already overkill.

    Personally I think if Russian tanks come up against these super well armoured western tanks that it will be easier to use airpower and artillery to deal with them than other tanks.
    The Soviets had a long tradition of lots of direct fire big guns like ISU-152s etc, but unlike the west and Germany these weren't tank killers, they were primarily direct fire support for infantry and tank units... much like the 100mm guns on the BMP-3 today.

    What trends can be expected from future Russian MBT , will they go for
    152 mm gun to defeat any Western armour or will they increase the muzzle
    velocity of 125 mm round to keep rounds common but increase the
    velocity to say 2500 m/sec

    2.5km/s would be the upper limit... there is no point going faster than that. I have seen penetration studies from the late 1980s where increasing velocity beyond 2.5km/s didn't increase penetration very much, whereas increasing projectile weight continued to improve penetration well. Because energy is mass x velocity squared an increase in velocity is an easy way to increase the energy delivered to the target, however there comes a point where extra energy does not go into penetration and is wasted.
    2.5km/s would be a very high velocity to get to without exotic technologies like coil guns or plasma propellants.

    1. A Top-Attack ATGM fired by the T-90.
    2. Longer, Slimmer, Denser (perhaps DU?) APFSDS rounds
    3. A bigger gun

    The point of a bigger gun is that the larger a barrel bore the more the energy you can push down it. I really don't think the 120mm barrel has reached its limits and the 125mm gun is nowhere near its limits either.

    A guided high speed top attack munition makes the most sense especially if it is fire and forget like Brimstone.

    That means that even if Russia does invent or produce some sort of
    hyper-velocity propellant, they'd also need to upgrade the gun to handle
    the pressure or else the T-90s would just blow up everytime they shoot.

    Developing a new higher pressure gun standard is not impossible. Especially if it is a fundamentally different design.

    For instance they could go for a new 125mm gun that operates at pressures much higher than the 120mm L55 gun and use a binary propellent. This binary propellent can be made up of two or more chemicals that on their own wont explode, but when mixed together and have an electric current run through them violent turn directly into a plasma. The chemicals can be stored in opposite parts of the tank so even a vehicle penetration will not mix them and on their own they might be poisonous but not flammable. When combined in the chamber behind a round of ammo they will detonate rapidly without solid or liquid residue. The volume of propellent could be varied for different rounds... extra for high velocity armour piercing rounds and less for HE or missiles or jamming rounds or whatever...

    I do agree that with conventional propellents and conventional guns 2,500m/s is a long way off.

    Depleted Uranium also has a special effect that allows it to not to puff
    up like a mushroom upon impact but to keep it's shape throughout
    penetration. DU also is flammable.

    It is also genotoxic and likely to contaminate training areas and war zones for the half life of the material... about a billion years.

    In regards to Russia, I do suspect they will start producing Longer and
    Slimmer APFSDS rounds, but of course they'll need to modify their
    Turrets accordingly to fit those in.

    Longer yes... slimmer... no. The T-90 upgrade being worked on includes a turret bustle autoloader for long rod penetrators.

    They might also improve on the ATGMs their tanks can fire. But if you're
    talking about the far future, Russian tanks will most likely also equip
    a ETC gun, but in order to penetrate Western armors, a bigger and
    smarter gun will be required.

    The Russians are happy to continue using a variety of technologies rather than focussing on one. Even if they built a powerful ETC gun they will likely develop missiles that can be fired through it. Most western expert fixate on the tank as an anti tank weapon, but for the Russians and Soviets you just need to look at the fact that over half the ammo they load in their tanks is HE shows they expect to engage all sorts of targets with enemy tanks being a relatively minor likelyhood. Less than one quarter is APFSDS ammo with most either HE or HEAT.

    I should note that in the 80s, Swiss tankers modified a Leopard 2 to use
    a 140 mm L/47 Gun. That gun was able to launch a 1 meter APFSDS round
    that could penetrate over 1 meter of RHAe.

    The Kh-29T and Kh-29L are two air to ground missiles with HEAT warheads of over 300kgs. They are designed to undermine the thick concrete foundations of bridges and large structures and also for anti shipping use but could also be used against armour. There are similar though less impressive models in the Kh-25 family with shaped charge warheads in the 90kg range.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 454
    Points : 468
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  IronsightSniper on Tue Feb 22, 2011 3:46 am

    Funny thing is that WHA is also radioactive, so tungsten and DU is pretty much "eco-harmful". censored

    I don't understand this:

    Longer yes... slimmer... no. The T-90 upgrade being worked on includes a turret bustle autoloader for long rod penetrators.

    You do know that Longer and Slimmer APFSDS rounds will almost always improve penetration? Right now Russian APFSDS rounds are quite "fat" compared to long and skinnier US/German APFSDS rounds.

    The Kh-29T and Kh-29L are two air to ground missiles with HEAT warheads of over 300kgs. They are designed to undermine the thick concrete foundations of bridges and large structures and also for anti shipping use but could also be used against armour. There are similar though less impressive models in the Kh-25 family with shaped charge warheads in the 90kg range.

    And I can talk about the Maverick here but I won't because this isn't Air-to-Ground warefare this is Tank-to-Tank warfare.

    I highly doubt Russia will dissolve their Armor warfare doctrine and replace it with the one the U.S. had in WW2, which was, "Tanks don't fight tanks, Tank destroyers fight tanks", but of course, replace Tank destroyers with whatever pilot able aircraft that can be armed with competent AGM weapons.

    The Russians are happy to continue using a variety of technologies rather than focussing on one. Even if they built a powerful ETC gun they will likely develop missiles that can be fired through it. Most western expert fixate on the tank as an anti tank weapon, but for the Russians and Soviets you just need to look at the fact that over half the ammo they load in their tanks is HE shows they expect to engage all sorts of targets with enemy tanks being a relatively minor likelyhood. Less than one quarter is APFSDS ammo with most either HE or HEAT.

    The problem with ATGMs is interceptability. APS systems are starting to proliferate into Standing armies today and I don't find any articles about Russian missile designers designing a fire-and-forget tank round, thus I must ignore this idea until such an article or at least a story exists. ATGMs, for example, the ones fired from the T-90, is only transonic and only goes about 340 mps. While a tank round, not even one fired from an ETC gun (which are higher in velocity), will go at least 1,500 mps, others go to about 1,800 mps. It's definitely much harder to shoot down a APFSDS round then a ATGM, especially since German and Israeli APS systems operate in milliseconds to microseconds, which is far faster than what ARENA is capable of.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16293
    Points : 16924
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  GarryB on Tue Feb 22, 2011 5:09 am

    Funny thing is that WHA is also radioactive, so tungsten and DU is pretty much "eco-harmful".

    Is it genotoxic though?

    The very fine powder created penetrator hitting target is easily taken in to the human body, but DU radiation while unable to penetrate skin when inside the body damages genetic material inside cells. The result is that your offspring start developing genetic defects that are passed on to all your offspring even though they had no contact with the initial DU dust.

    You do know that Longer and Slimmer APFSDS rounds will almost always
    improve penetration? Right now Russian APFSDS rounds are quite "fat"
    compared to long and skinnier US/German APFSDS rounds.

    A thin penetrator increases the risk of "bending" forces defeating the round and increases vulnerability to ERA elements.


    And I can talk about the Maverick here but I won't because this isn't Air-to-Ground warefare this is Tank-to-Tank warfare.

    Except there wont be tank on tank warfare in the future where no other platforms are involved. That is part of what Netcentric fighting is all about... using all the tools in the tool box.

    I highly doubt Russia will dissolve their Armor warfare doctrine and
    replace it with the one the U.S. had in WW2, which was, "Tanks don't
    fight tanks, Tank destroyers fight tanks", but of course, replace Tank
    destroyers with whatever pilot able aircraft that can be armed with
    competent AGM weapons.

    Russia and the Soviet Union never had a policy of tanks fight tanks... they had a policy that tanks constitute a concentration of protection and firepower that is to be focussed on the enemies weakest point for the purposes of penetrating their line and rapidly hitting their rear area units that support front line operations like artillery, HQ, and supply and support units.

    Kursk was first and foremost barbed wire, mines, anti tank guns, and anti tank ditches... the tanks were kept in reserve to exploit the situation when the German tanks had been ground down and were near to collapse. In the event the northern force was over estimated in strength and the southern force was underestimated and tanks were used on both fronts but the majority were in the south to blunt the german attack. The plan for the anti tank defences did not include using tanks till the force had been pretty much stopped. In effect they were used because the preparations were for use against a weaker force.


    The problem with ATGMs is interceptability. APS systems are starting
    to proliferate into Standing armies today and I don't find any articles
    about Russian missile designers designing a fire-and-forget tank round,
    thus I must ignore this idea until such an article or at least a story
    exists.

    Man portable ATGMs don't require expensive extravagant fire and forget capability.
    RPGs including RPG-7/RPG-29/RPG-32 launchers and disposable rocket models are all fire and forget but without guidance.

    As I have mentioned however:

    MAIN SPECIFICATIONS
    HERMES System
    Maximum firing range max. 100 km
    Guidance:
    target
    area
    radio-command
    terminal
    path
    homing
    Missile load max. up to 16
    pcs.
    HERMES Missile
    Maximum velocity 1300 m/s
    Warhead weight 28 kg
    Warhead type HEF
    Missile weight (in tube) 130 kg
    Caliber:
    booster stage 210 mm
    sustainer stage 130 mm
    Tube length 3500 mm
    http://kbptula.ru/eng/multi/hermes.htm


    Shows they are clearly working on it... and as you can see the main booster rocket accelerates the weapon to 1.3km/s and for the rest of the path a sustainer motor will likely burn to reduce drag as used on most KBP missiles with solid rocket boosters. The Helicopter model has a smaller booster with a 1km/s burn out speed and a flight range of 15-20km. The missile itself is very similar to the missile used on the Tunguska system which is credited with a decelleration of 40m/s/s... so assuming a similar performance for the HERMES for the first second the missile will be accelerated to 1km/s and will cover 1km and for the next second it will cover 40m less and for each second after that 40 m less again.

    For the first 15 seconds of flight therefore the speed should be approximately:

    1 = 1,000m/s
    2 = 960m/s
    3 = 920m/s
    4 = 880m/s
    5 = 840m/s
    6 = 800m/s
    7 = 760m/s
    8 = 720m/s
    9 = 680m/s
    10 = 640m/s
    11 = 600m/s
    12 = 560m/s
    13 = 520m/s
    14 = 480m/s
    15 = 440m/s

    And in those 15 seconds it should have covered:

    1,000 + 960 + 920 + 880 + 840 + 800 + 760 + 720 + 680 + 640 + 600 + 560 + 520 + 480 + 440= just over 10km

    Now clearly as the missile travels its deceleration will not be linear like this and as it slows down it should actually improve with the drag dropping and deceleration decreasing. The sustainer rocket will also influence the performance as I have not even taken it into account. If it completely counters drag for 10 seconds then this 10 second period above could be for the distance 10-20km from the launcher.

    (Note the performance of the missile above which is the ground launched weapon fired on a ballistic trajectory to reach 100km range targets only accelerates to 300m/s faster than the air launched version.)

    It's definitely much harder to shoot down a APFSDS round then a ATGM,
    especially since German and Israeli APS systems operate in milliseconds
    to microseconds, which is far faster than what ARENA is capable of.

    ARENA-1 was designed for HEAT warhead equipped targets including those overflying the tank like BILL.
    To criticise it for not reacting fast enough to defeat APFSDS rounds is like complaining that Patriot PAC-2 missiles were useless against ballistic weapons like modified Scuds.

    ATGMs, for example, the ones fired from the T-90, is only transonic and only goes about 340 mps.

    Ready and in operational service for over 20 years. Trophy et all are new systems so it will take time before a definitive counter for them is developed and deployed.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 454
    Points : 468
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  IronsightSniper on Tue Feb 22, 2011 5:21 am

    [quote="GarryB"]
    You do know that Longer and Slimmer APFSDS rounds will almost always
    improve penetration? Right now Russian APFSDS rounds are quite "fat"
    compared to long and skinnier US/German APFSDS rounds.

    A thin penetrator increases the risk of "bending" forces defeating the round and increases vulnerability to ERA elements.

    Good thing none of Russia's possible adversaries depend on ERA for Armor protection!


    And I can talk about the Maverick here but I won't because this isn't Air-to-Ground warefare this is Tank-to-Tank warfare.

    Except there wont be tank on tank warfare in the future where no other platforms are involved. That is part of what Netcentric fighting is all about... using all the tools in the tool box.

    But we're comparing Tanks v Tanks...if you want to discuss the future of Russian tanks like Austin asked then it's 25% chance of being hit by a Maverick from 8 km away, 50% chance of being hit by a M829A3 from 2 km away, and 25% chance of being forgotten in a dump. Same is true for every other tank, which is why it's pointless to compare system v.s. system because everything ends up being nuked anyways.

    I highly doubt Russia will dissolve their Armor warfare doctrine and
    replace it with the one the U.S. had in WW2, which was, "Tanks don't
    fight tanks, Tank destroyers fight tanks", but of course, replace Tank
    destroyers with whatever pilot able aircraft that can be armed with
    competent AGM weapons.

    Russia and the Soviet Union never had a policy of tanks fight tanks... they had a policy that tanks constitute a concentration of protection and firepower that is to be focussed on the enemies weakest point for the purposes of penetrating their line and rapidly hitting their rear area units that support front line operations like artillery, HQ, and supply and support units.

    Kursk was first and foremost barbed wire, mines, anti tank guns, and anti tank ditches... the tanks were kept in reserve to exploit the situation when the German tanks had been ground down and were near to collapse. In the event the northern force was over estimated in strength and the southern force was underestimated and tanks were used on both fronts but the majority were in the south to blunt the german attack. The plan for the anti tank defences did not include using tanks till the force had been pretty much stopped. In effect they were used because the preparations were for use against a weaker force.

    Which would I guess explain the T-90's inferiority in AT warfare I persume?


    The problem with ATGMs is interceptability. APS systems are starting
    to proliferate into Standing armies today and I don't find any articles
    about Russian missile designers designing a fire-and-forget tank round,
    thus I must ignore this idea until such an article or at least a story
    exists.

    Man portable ATGMs don't require expensive extravagant fire and forget capability.
    RPGs including RPG-7/RPG-29/RPG-32 launchers and disposable rocket models are all fire and forget but without guidance.

    As I have mentioned however:

    MAIN SPECIFICATIONS
    HERMES System
    Maximum firing range max. 100 km
    Guidance:
    target
    area
    radio-command
    terminal
    path
    homing
    Missile load max. up to 16
    pcs.
    HERMES Missile
    Maximum velocity 1300 m/s
    Warhead weight 28 kg
    Warhead type HEF
    Missile weight (in tube) 130 kg
    Caliber:
    booster stage 210 mm
    sustainer stage 130 mm
    Tube length 3500 mm
    http://kbptula.ru/eng/multi/hermes.htm


    Shows they are clearly working on it... and as you can see the main booster rocket accelerates the weapon to 1.3km/s and for the rest of the path a sustainer motor will likely burn to reduce drag as used on most KBP missiles with solid rocket boosters. The Helicopter model has a smaller booster with a 1km/s burn out speed and a flight range of 15-20km. The missile itself is very similar to the missile used on the Tunguska system which is credited with a decelleration of 40m/s/s... so assuming a similar performance for the HERMES for the first second the missile will be accelerated to 1km/s and will cover 1km and for the next second it will cover 40m less and for each second after that 40 m less again.

    For the first 15 seconds of flight therefore the speed should be approximately:

    1 = 1,000m/s
    2 = 960m/s
    3 = 920m/s
    4 = 880m/s
    5 = 840m/s
    6 = 800m/s
    7 = 760m/s
    8 = 720m/s
    9 = 680m/s
    10 = 640m/s
    11 = 600m/s
    12 = 560m/s
    13 = 520m/s
    14 = 480m/s
    15 = 440m/s

    And in those 15 seconds it should have covered:

    1,000 + 960 + 920 + 880 + 840 + 800 + 760 + 720 + 680 + 640 + 600 + 560 + 520 + 480 + 440= just over 10km

    Now clearly as the missile travels its deceleration will not be linear like this and as it slows down it should actually improve with the drag dropping and deceleration decreasing. The sustainer rocket will also influence the performance as I have not even taken it into account. If it completely counters drag for 10 seconds then this 10 second period above could be for the distance 10-20km from the launcher.

    (Note the performance of the missile above which is the ground launched weapon fired on a ballistic trajectory to reach 100km range targets only accelerates to 300m/s faster than the air launched version.)

    You aren't reading what I'm saying.

    By ATGM, I mean fired FROM tanks.

    Also, I said, TANK FIRED fire-and-forget ATGM, I have seen no plans for the Hermes to be shot from a T-series tank.

    It's definitely much harder to shoot down a APFSDS round then a ATGM,
    especially since German and Israeli APS systems operate in milliseconds
    to microseconds, which is far faster than what ARENA is capable of.

    ARENA-1 was designed for HEAT warhead equipped targets including those overflying the tank like BILL.
    To criticise it for not reacting fast enough to defeat APFSDS rounds is like complaining that Patriot PAC-2 missiles were useless against ballistic weapons like modified Scuds.

    So I ask why not allocate the ARENA to be able to hit faster projectiles?

    ATGMs, for example, the ones fired from the T-90, is only transonic and only goes about 340 mps.

    Ready and in operational service for over 20 years. Trophy et all are new systems so it will take time before a definitive counter for them is developed and deployed.

    They're already being deployed on Merkava IVs as we speak, which is why I said earlier, "proliferated heavily into Standing armies".

    Austin

    Posts : 6232
    Points : 6638
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Austin on Tue Feb 22, 2011 6:35 am

    IronsightSniper , Garry much apprectiated for the detail response.

    So essentially a Tandem Warhed should be good enough to penetrate any Armour Western or Heavy in Top Attack mode ?

    It seems the most easier way to take the next leap is to go for a Supersonic Missile like Hermes with a MMW seeker a range of 4-6 km depending on trajectory should suffice, the Tank might just need a MMW FC radar small enough to track targets with high resolution to atleast 10 km.

    I think what it would do is get F&F capability so lacking in present missile fired from tank and give it supersonic speed and attack the vulnerable area which is the turret.

    I personally think a 152 mm MG was a mistake as that would mean they would end up with bigger rounds and to carry that in decent number end up with bigger tanks like western heavies , probably that would explain the size of T-95.


    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16293
    Points : 16924
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  GarryB on Wed Feb 23, 2011 12:55 am

    Good thing none of Russia's possible adversaries depend on ERA for Armor protection!

    Look at their navy. Even their small patrol craft have one or two AK-630s compared to western vessels where even frigates might only have one or two Phalanxs. Their own experience with anti ship missiles leads them to take defence against anti ship missiles very seriously it seems.


    But we're comparing Tanks v Tanks...if you want to discuss the
    future of Russian tanks like Austin asked then it's 25% chance of being
    hit by a Maverick from 8 km away, 50% chance of being hit by a M829A3
    from 2 km away, and 25% chance of being forgotten in a dump. Same is
    true for every other tank, which is why it's pointless to compare system
    v.s. system because everything ends up being nuked anyways.

    Actually for Russian tanks I would say odds are 99% will never see a Maverick or M829A3 in their entire service life based on experience to date... however as tank forces shrink then air threats are only going to increase over time to the point where the primary threat will be enemy air power. Russia spends rather more on defeating air power because the Russian Army is used to fighting without air support. The west on the other hand tend to rely on it and tend to assume air control for their operations. Not judging. Just stating facts.

    Which would I guess explain the T-90's inferiority in AT warfare I persume?

    Not even nearly.
    Without the financial collapses and the end of the cold war the Soviets would have put the T-95 into service in the mid 90s with a gun easily able to defeat any enemy tank on the battlefield.
    If the cold war had ended at the start of the 80s instead of the 90s and the US decided that the M60 in its upgraded form was good enough and that the new expensive Abrams was not needed imagine what chats on the internet now would be like...

    You aren't reading what I'm saying.
    By ATGM, I mean fired FROM tanks.
    Also, I said, TANK FIRED fire-and-forget ATGM, I have seen no plans for the Hermes to be shot from a T-series tank.

    Of course... the company that will make the 130mm calibre seeker for the HERMES would never bother to use that seeker on any of its other products like KRASNOPOL 152mm guided artillery shells because who wants a terminally guided self homing 152mm artillery shell? BTW they applied the same SALH guidance for the KRASNOPOL in 152mm to the 122mm KITOLOV shell and the 120mm GRAN.
    BTW The 125mm optically guided SOKOL is already being developed BTW and it can be cued by a laser target marker or it can detect moving targets on its own.

    Check this:  http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/ARM/atgm/ammo.html

    Note the last column... in development... and self targeting.

    So I ask why not allocate the ARENA to be able to hit faster projectiles?

    That might be something they are doing, but the faster projectiles are not currently the problem for T series tanks in Russian service... it is the low speed RPGs with HEAT warheads that are the most common threat so it makes rather more sense to defend against that first.

    They're already being deployed on Merkava IVs as we speak, which is why I
    said earlier, "proliferated heavily into Standing armies".

    So how many standing armies have Merkava IVs let alone active defence systems like Trophy?

    So essentially a Tandem Warhed should be good enough to penetrate any Armour Western or Heavy in Top Attack mode ?

    The roof armour of most tanks is pathetic... usually less than 60mm. There is a reason the 30mm gatling on the A-10 seems to be so effective... at 800m its armour penetration is only about 69mm. And of course there are crew hatches that are less than 6cm thick too.   It is a reason urban combat is so dangerous as enemy forces can get on the roof of tall buildings and shoot down at the thin tops of tanks. Even the belly of most tanks has thicker armour to protect from mines.

    Even in Afghanistan the Soviets found the 125mm gun was over powered for most common targets and T-55s and T-62s were commonly used because the targets didn't seem to notice the difference in HE power.

    It seems the most easier way to take the next leap is to go for a
    Supersonic Missile like Hermes with a MMW seeker a range of 4-6 km
    depending on trajectory should suffice, the Tank might just need a MMW
    FC radar small enough to track targets with high resolution to atleast
    10 km.

    Considering the ground based HERMES will have a range of 100km perhaps they will not need a tank based HERMES missile at all. T-90s will be used for all the things a tank is used for... ie direct fire support for infantry ops, and if enemy tanks appear that ground based HERMES vehicles will fire volleys at them from 20km behind the lines with data from UAVs or Ka-52s and tank on tank warfare might be a thing of the past. Why risk an expensive tank when long range missiles can do the job better. Has the tank become the battleship?

    Certainly if you can get good intel and detect when an enemy is forming up an armoured force for an attack it makes rather more sense to fire a volley of SMERCH rockets with anti tank submunitions and then HERMES missiles to deal with what remains than to form up your own armoured forces and hope he does not do to your armour what you could have done to his. In desert storm when Saddams forces were running away in long columns on roads it wasn't tanks that were used to clean them up... it was air power. Of course that was a US operation. A Russian force might prefer to use Army assets like SMERCH and HERMES.

    In addition, the air defense troops the Army will have upgraded
    the S-300V4, Buk-M2 and Buk-M3, anti-aircraft missile systems,
    short-range Tor-M2U (M), portable anti-aircraft missile complexes
    "Igla-S" and "Willow".


    I guess Willow is what I have been calling Verba.

    S-300V4 sounds interesting... an upgrade of S-300VM?


    self-propelled guns" Host "and" Nona-SVK "


    Nona-SVK is the BTR-80 based 120mm gun/mortar system with a turret with 70 degrees traverse.
    Host is a 2S1 with the 122mm gun replaced with a 120mm gun/mortar... also been called Hosta.

    I wonder what this means for Vena?


    anti-tank missile system Chrysanthemum-S and guns" Octopus -SD.

    Yah... a MMW radar guided anti tank missile vehicle and Sprut too.

    special armored vehicles carrying capacity up to 2,5 tons (Iveco, "Tiger," "Wolf")

    Cool, Iveco, Tiger... and Wolf... excellent.

    Garry I hope things are fine at your end , I saw on TV there was a major earthquake at Christchurch NZ.

    I am fine. I live about 300km to the south of CHCH, but I did feel the EQ. It seems it was much worse this time and a lot of people were killed this time around. Last time it was about 430 in the morning so most people were in bed, but this time people were up and around and a lot of people killed were in buildings that collapsed or in cars that the fronts of buildings fell on. Very scary to live in the ring of fire.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 454
    Points : 468
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  IronsightSniper on Wed Feb 23, 2011 1:27 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Good thing none of Russia's possible adversaries depend on ERA for Armor protection!

    Look at their navy. Even their small patrol craft have one or two AK-630s compared to western vessels where even frigates might only have one or two Phalanxs. Their own experience with anti ship missiles leads them to take defence against anti ship missiles very seriously it seems.

    So, let me get this straight, this is how Russian armor designers think:

    Vlascezk, we need better penetration of Polish T-72s!
    No problem mate! We'll just let these M1A2 Abrams sit and wait!


    But we're comparing Tanks v Tanks...if you want to discuss the
    future of Russian tanks like Austin asked then it's 25% chance of being
    hit by a Maverick from 8 km away, 50% chance of being hit by a M829A3
    from 2 km away, and 25% chance of being forgotten in a dump. Same is
    true for every other tank, which is why it's pointless to compare system
    v.s. system because everything ends up being nuked anyways.

    Actually for Russian tanks I would say odds are 99% will never see a Maverick or M829A3 in their entire service life based on experience to date... however as tank forces shrink then air threats are only going to increase over time to the point where the primary threat will be enemy air power. Russia spends rather more on defeating air power because the Russian Army is used to fighting without air support. The west on the other hand tend to rely on it and tend to assume air control for their operations. Not judging. Just stating facts.

    That's besides the point. The point is that if you want to compare system v.s. system then take it to another thread, this thread is about tanks.

    Which would I guess explain the T-90's inferiority in AT warfare I persume?

    Not even nearly.
    Without the financial collapses and the end of the cold war the Soviets would have put the T-95 into service in the mid 90s with a gun easily able to defeat any enemy tank on the battlefield.
    If the cold war had ended at the start of the 80s instead of the 90s and the US decided that the M60 in its upgraded form was good enough and that the new expensive Abrams was not needed imagine what chats on the internet now would be like...

    Measure-Countermeasure.

    But at this point in time you do agree that T-90 tanks are inferior to Western MBTs in terms of AT warfare no?

    You aren't reading what I'm saying.
    By ATGM, I mean fired FROM tanks.
    Also, I said, TANK FIRED fire-and-forget ATGM, I have seen no plans for the Hermes to be shot from a T-series tank.

    Of course... the company that will make the 130mm calibre seeker for the HERMES would never bother to use that seeker on any of its other products like KRASNOPOL 152mm guided artillery shells because who wants a terminally guided self homing 152mm artillery shell? BTW they applied the same SALH guidance for the KRASNOPOL in 152mm to the 122mm KITOLOV shell and the 120mm GRAN.
    BTW The 125mm optically guided SOKOL is already being developed BTW and it can be cued by a laser target marker or it can detect moving targets on its own.

    Check this: http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/ARM/atgm/ammo.html

    Note the last column... in development... and self targeting.

    You should note that Vasiliy Folfanov takes his information from a rather popular Tank forum.

    And Garry, you must understand the difference between a Paper and Conjecture. Just because they can doesn't mean they will. Show me proof that there is a Fire-and-Forget ATGM being developed to be fired from the gun of a Tank and maybe we can put this to rest.

    So I ask why not allocate the ARENA to be able to hit faster projectiles?

    That might be something they are doing, but the faster projectiles are not currently the problem for T series tanks in Russian service... it is the low speed RPGs with HEAT warheads that are the most common threat so it makes rather more sense to defend against that first.

    Ah, I see, putting a Tank in an Infantry fight, brilliant political move.

    They're already being deployed on Merkava IVs as we speak, which is why I
    said earlier, "proliferated heavily into Standing armies".

    So how many standing armies have Merkava IVs let alone active defence systems like Trophy?

    As of now, only the Israelis, which is actually more than the APS Russians have in their standing army.
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2180
    Points : 3072
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Vladimir79 on Wed Feb 23, 2011 3:57 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Good thing none of Russia's possible adversaries depend on ERA for Armor protection!

    Look at their navy. Even their small patrol craft have one or two AK-630s compared to western vessels where even frigates might only have one or two Phalanxs. Their own experience with anti ship missiles leads them to take defence against anti ship missiles very seriously it seems.

    Patrol craft are armed with the AK-306. It looks like the AK-630 but it has little anti-ASM capability. It is directed from a gunner mount with iron crosshairs that is hardly an accurate aiming system.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16293
    Points : 16924
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  GarryB on Thu Feb 24, 2011 1:32 am

    Patrol craft are armed with the AK-306. It looks like the AK-630 but it
    has little anti-ASM capability. It is directed from a gunner mount
    with iron crosshairs that is hardly an accurate aiming system.

    Quite right, I didn't mean patrol craft as most of them are operated by the FSB and MVD. I meant missile and torpedo craft of similar size which have AK-630... and the new designs which often have Kashtan-M drawn on them (because most are still largely undecided regarding armament).

    So, let me get this straight, this is how Russian armor designers think:

    Vlascezk, we need better penetration of Polish T-72s!
    No problem mate! We'll just let these M1A2 Abrams sit and wait!

    No. Like any designers they look at the range of potential threats and they design their ammunition to meet those threats. Of course the ammunition we have seen and know about entered service in the early 1990s and has not been updated because of lack of funds. What they don't do as you are suggesting is just look at what the US is making now and try to just copy it. They will certainly look at what everyone is making right now and determine what features will be useful and what will not.
    You have to keep in mind that they are using different materials which have different properties so this makes some solutions not an option for them.

    That's besides the point. The point is that if you want to compare
    system v.s. system then take it to another thread, this thread is about
    tanks.

    Well actually this thread is about production orders for tanks for the Russian military so I guess you should stop mentioning foreign tanks and the ammo used by foreign tanks?

    But at this point in time you do agree that T-90 tanks are inferior to Western MBTs in terms of AT warfare no?

    No. I also think the T-34 was a superior tank to all the tanks the Germans made. It didn't have a better gun or better armour or turret crew layout or optics... it did tend to have better mobility and reliability and it was made in far larger numbers... the closest the Germans came was the Panzer IV which in many ways was as good as the T-34 and in some ways was actually better and overall for the first half of the war was clearly better used.

    You should note that Vasiliy Folfanov takes his information from a rather popular Tank forum.

    Correction... he provides information to that rather popular tank forum.


    And Garry, you must understand the difference between a Paper and
    Conjecture. Just because they can doesn't mean they will. Show me proof
    that there is a Fire-and-Forget ATGM being developed to be fired from
    the gun of a Tank and maybe we can put this to rest.

    You must understand the stupidity of what you are saying?
    You want hard proof of a weapon system in development?
    Would a photo of it in operational service suffice or do I need to show you production figures for last year for the round they are still DESIGNING!

    How about this:


    Russian concept of impulse correction

    The 3VOF63 (66) 152-mm rounds with the 3OF38 guided high-explosive/fragmentation Santimetr/Santimetr-M projectile

    The Santimetr-M1 guided artillery projectile

    The Smelchak 240-mm guided mortar shell

    The Beta 2S12 120-mm mortar laser-guided artillery system

    The Firn-1 130-mm M46 gun laser-guided artillery system

    The Ugroza-1M BM-21

    Grad MLRS laser-guided artillery system

    The Sokol-1 125-mm D-81 tank gun laser-guided artillery munition
    A list of new rounds that use side thruster rockets for manoeuvring large distances for short periods during the last seconds to impact with the target that includes the SOKOL-1 that is fired from the 125mm calibre D-81 TANK GUN.
    http://www.orteh.com/eng/products/catalogue/books/12.php

    As I said it uses laser target marking assistance but can hit moving targets without laser target marking.


    Ah, I see, putting a Tank in an Infantry fight, brilliant political move.

    What do politics have to do with it?
    I guess the US is as dumb as I am because they seem to have lots of Armour in Afghanistan... how many tanks have the Taleban used against the coalition of the poppy?

    As of now, only the Israelis, which is actually more than the APS Russians have in their standing army.

    So for the Russians it really isn't an issue then.

    Austin

    Posts : 6232
    Points : 6638
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Austin on Sun Feb 27, 2011 11:31 am

    M1 Abrams vs T-72 Ural: Operation Desert Storm 1991 by Steven Zaloga
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16293
    Points : 16924
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  GarryB on Mon Feb 28, 2011 5:03 am

    Page 26 of the book you posted...

    The M1A1 had 34 of its 40 rounds of main gun ammunition in a protected bustle
    in the rear turret overhang and the remainder in protected ready racks inside the
    turret.

    So even the M1A1 carries 6 live rounds in the crew compartment... with the new upgrade the T-90 will have all its ammo in the armoured underfloor autoloader and the turret bustle auto loader... which means no ammo in the crew compartment.
    avatar
    ahmedfire

    Posts : 704
    Points : 876
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  ahmedfire on Tue Mar 01, 2011 1:40 am

    So even the M1A1 carries 6 live rounds in the crew compartment... with the new upgrade the T-90 will have all its ammo in the armoured underfloor autoloader and the turret bustle auto loader... which means no ammo in the crew compartment.
    what about M1A2 ,is there any ammo in crew comp ??

    t90 has 125 mm gun that can reach 5km
    abrams has 120 mm gun 3 km range...

    but i think the tank compat now and in the near future will be in the range 3 km by maximum..
    developments now added to eleectonics and better detecting hardware and better IR ,,and focusing in make agood and fast crew to take the enemy from the first shot.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16293
    Points : 16924
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  GarryB on Tue Mar 01, 2011 5:07 am

    The 5km range for the T-90 is for guided missiles, and with the new SOKOL-1 guided round it can engage helos at 8km while the range limit for ground targets is 5km.

    I suspect the 3km range limit for the Abrams is "effective" range for AP rounds... they could probably hit targets at much longer range but penetration at longer range would not be enough to defeat the target reliably.

    Most modern tanks can fire HE frag rounds out to 8-9km in daylight clear conditions.

    Obviously if you could park them on a slope to increase their gun elevation the shells would fly much further but I rather doubt the tanks would know where the shells would land as they are not designed for indirect fire.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Aug 18, 2017 6:29 pm