Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

Asf wrote:

Armata chassis will be expensive, cutting MBT's for purpose built BMPT's just doesn't seem smart. 

Armata IFV will be a vehicle with autocannon and ATGMs. BMPT is a questionable concept

BMPT and IFV have different roles. IFV carry infantry squad and support it in the battlefield. BMPT was originally created to replace AA guns in ground combat, because they are too expensive and valuable, in urban and in hills / mountains environment and in escorting convoys. BMPT doesn't carry infantry, so they could easily operate with tanks in the first line and protect tanks from infantry AT teams and from helicopters.

Werewolf wrote:That is a horrible way to destroy any tank, especially Abrams tanks in iraq.

And yet it proved to be the most effective in Iraq . A tank minus it's main gun is Zilch .

Werewolf wrote:why not hitting turret side.

That's only possible from an elevated position , something that Hezbollah did to Israeli tanks .

Werewolf wrote:Actually if they were using old weak PG-7 warheads which are existing in masses why not shooting two at same spot

That's a cop out . By the time you fire the second RPG the tank will engage you with it's 12.7mm Browning M2 or 7.62mm M240 machine gun . BTW - RPG 30 is available in large numbers across the Mid East .

Werewolf wrote:I don't even know any genuine MBT using cage armor at all, except those Syrians that are missing ERA they try to compensate it with self build cage armor and bricks and steel plates to compensate the missing ERA tiles.

Here you go

http://static.ylilauta.org/files/mp/orig/1387143372331851/TCpj9ia.jpg

Abrams use similar armor cage

RTN wrote:
And yet it proved to be the most effective in Iraq . A tank minus it's main gun is Zilch .

The most effective way in iraq was to hit the sides that is why ERA was implemented into TUSK system.

RTN wrote:
That's only possible from an elevated position , something that Hezbollah did to Israeli tanks .

If you can see the turret you can hit it, you do not need to shot from buildings onto the turret, the sides of turrets are rather weak compared with what todays RPGs can penetrate.

RTN wrote:
That's a cop out . By the time you fire the second RPG the tank will engage you with it's 12.7mm Browning M2 or 7.62mm M240 machine gun . BTW - RPG 30 is available in large numbers across the Mid East .

The tank won't be able to respond quicly you could fire from 3-4 men at same time or with 1 second inbetween each shot without the tank crew being able to understand what is happening. And no sane person would stick his head out of the tank right after a RPG hit the tank so he could arm the 12.7mm gun. US has no RWS. And unlike in video games or the big perception people have during day time they do not use TIS, they mainly watch the battlefield with daylight only.

RTN wrote:
Here you go

http://static.ylilauta.org/files/mp/orig/1387143372331851/TCpj9ia.jpg

Abrams use similar armor cage

Cage armor is not as reliable as ERA, actually ERA is the most reliable defensive applique armor that exists currently, and the only reason to use such cage armor is either low budget or out of necessity because of lack of ERA technology or supply.

RTN wrote:

This has been proved in both Iraq and Syria .

Syria and Iraq today shows that tanks are invaluable assets and their losses are quite low in both conflicts.

GarryB wrote:Which would be directly in the gunners field of view so in the 10 seconds the Kornet takes to get there he can turn the turret slightly

Fair enough . Even if the gunner spots the individual armed with the KORNET or RPG 30  how will the gunner know which part of the Tank is being aimed at ?

In place like Iraq and Syria where tanks have to fight battles inside cities the job is even more difficult . The Gunner is completely clueless about  the areas from which the attack might originate .

Militias have fired RPGs / ATGMs at the Main Gun of Abrams , T 72 from buildings ( directly overlooking the tank ) or approaching the tank from the side completely ripping off the Main Gun .

GarryB wrote:With active protection systems like ARENA?

YES ! Coz any APS anywhere in the world is used to intercept Anti Tank Rounds , RPGs and  ATGMs .

They are useless against PGMs and Stand Off Missiles .

This explains why BMPT 72 and Panstir accompanies Russian MBTs in the battlefield .

Regular wrote:Syria and Iraq today shows that tanks are invaluable assets and their losses are quite low in both conflicts.

Except that it isn't . Tanks suffered heavy losses in Iraq & Syria .

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-03-29-abrams-tank-a_x.htm?POE=click-refer

http://www.syrianews.cc/syria-losses-tanks/

RTN wrote:
Fair enough . Even if the gunner spots the individual armed with the KORNET or RPG 30  how will the gunner know which part of the Tank is being aimed at ?

Please what?`The tank crew and gunner does not give a sh*t! His thought is "That guy is aiming at me. Me or him! That is his only thought.

RTN wrote:In place like Iraq and Syria where tanks have to fight battles inside cities the job is even more difficult . The Gunner is completely clueless about  the areas from which the attack might originate .

This situation is demoralizing for everyone, regardless if you sit in a tank or just a foot soldier, the only one with high moral should be snipers, because they tend to have safer places than tanks and infantry.

RTN wrote:Militias have fired RPGs / ATGMs at the Main Gun of Abrams , T 72 from buildings ( directly overlooking the tank ) or approaching the tank from the side completely ripping off the Main Gun .

I really doubt that in most of those happenings it was intented by those PRG users. If you really want to make a firepower kill to your enemy, than you would be better using weapons with higher HE charge than the little charge in shaped charges, or even better FAE/Thermobaric weapons, but those are rather rare.

If they truelly aim for the gun and actually can hit it with skill and not through luck, than my respect.

RTN wrote:
YES ! Coz any APS anywhere in the world is used to intercept Anti Tank Rounds , RPGs and  ATGMs .

They are useless against PGMs and Stand Off Missiles .

That is a really flawed statement.

APS do not care even if you launch a missile from 1000km away, APS systems are bound to their reaction time, meaning if a missile is faster than the APS can react to it, it will go through, if the Missile is slow enough it will launch a small explosive charge towards the incoming target.

It doesn't matter if you launch Kornet from 2km or from 10km it will be defeated, or at least the chance that APS can defeat is in its possible window, but like weapons that fly with Mach5 is unlikely to be defeated.

RTN wrote:This explains why BMPT 72 and Panstir accompanies Russian MBTs in the battlefield .

I don't even know how you jump from APS to BMPT-72 and Panzirs, they have really not much in common and makes me doubt about if you really understand what you are talking about.

BMPTs can't track PMGs to protect tanks, they are just vehicles of first echolon that have a brighter spectrum of targets they can engage more effective and quicker than normal tanks, like helicopters,UAVs, tanks, and most important infantry like RPG,ATGM teams or anything similiar that is a threat to tanks it is designed to protect.

Panzirs on other hand have quite good performance to track PMGs, but wouldn't be even anywhere close to any tank to protect them in urban warfare, which you started to take as an example like Syria or Iraq.

Werewolf wrote:I don't even know how you jump from APS to BMPT-72 and Panzirs, they have really not much in common and makes me doubt about if you really understand what you are talking about.

BMPTs can't track PMGs to protect tanks, they are just vehicles of first echolon that have a brighter spectrum of targets they can engage more effective and quicker than normal tanks, like helicopters,UAVs, tanks, and most important infantry like RPG,ATGM teams or anything similiar that is a threat to tanks it is designed to protect.

Panzirs on other hand have quite good performance to track PMGs, but wouldn't be even anywhere close to any tank to protect them in urban warfare, which you started to take as an example like Syria or Iraq.

PGMs and stand-off missiles will fly high in the sky down to tanks, so even Pantsir or Tor, which will be 5 to 6 km behind will be still able to shot them down. In urban battlefield helicopters and CAS planes have to come quite close to see tanks between objects, so they will be well in the range of Tors, Pantsirs and even Buks around the towns. Inside the town BMPT will do the job.

In Urban warfare the least of my problem are targets flying in the sky, when i am sitting in a tank. The problem i see are all the "empty" buildings around me, and especially those with several floors that could RPG the very thin armor of my turret.

GarryB wrote:If the gunner sees the launch he will immediately turn the gun towards the target an engage it... Kornet with a 125mm HE round, and RPG with 30 cal PKT... either way the turret turns a little so the original aiming point is no longer valid.

The Kornet / RPG will be travelling at 300m/sec . By the time the gunner detects it , it is already too late . Also , as I have explained in my previous post that Gunners will engage the shooter with the Tank’s Machine gun , not the Main Gun .

GarryB wrote:
Drozd was tested in Afghanistan in the late 1980s and was found to be 76% effective... in other words 3 out of 4 anti armour weapons fired at the tank were stopped

APS fires small metal pellets like buckshot . Given the small size of these pellets they do not make any impact on Large stand off cruise missiles like the Brimstone .

Besides this the topography (especially vehicles in an urban environment) reflect radio waves, thus creating radar clutter, which adversely affects radar-detection and radar-lock performance.

Drozd was tested against Tank ammo and RPGs . Not against missiles like Brimstone .

GarryB wrote:Pantsir is looking for helos and aircraft, not RPGs.

I said Pantsir accompanies MBTs to shoot down PGMs

RTN wrote:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-03-29-abrams-tank-a_x.htm?POE=click-refer

http://www.syrianews.cc/syria-losses-tanks/

For some reason I doubt numbers in Syria

RTN wrote:
APS fires  small metal pellets like buckshot . Given the small size of these pellets they do not make any impact on Large stand off cruise missiles like the Brimstone .

Besides this the topography (especially vehicles in an urban environment) reflect radio waves, thus creating radar clutter, which adversely affects radar-detection and radar-lock performance.

well APS with anti-APFSDS capability may use solid unitary projectiles as interceptors so your brimstone becomes a hollow cylinder that goes boom a couple of microseconds later.

also APS will use close range doppler radar and maybe tankfire detector .the radar is optimized for the role and whatever clutter is rejected, ie it only registers as legit threats those of a specific size and speed and whether it will approach the tank. the tankfire detector is light sensors picking up the intense bright flash of a tank gun going off and then cueing the APS radar so that it fires a powerful burst that would drastly improve detection of the small and fast apfsds.

RTN wrote:Main Battle Tanks are basically a useless investment .

    


Are you serious or, more simply, you have developed a peculiar form of fetishism for spelling assertions and defending positions representing the exact opposite of factual reality ?

MBTs represent still today not only ......and by a very margin...... the most survivable and cost efficient single element of any branch of any military structure worldwide, but also the absolute centerpiece of the conventional offensive and counter-offensive military capabilities of ANY Armed Force around the world ....taking into accout a large scale military conflict against first tier enemies ; naturally if instead we take into account the less challenging (but much more likely and frequent) minor/regional conflict against 3th and 4th tier enemies, devoid of any effective and up-to-date air-space defense and also totally incapable to mount any kind of selective attack on the enemies main military infrastructures outside multilayered IAD defenses, investements on much less survivable and cost-efficient systems ,such as aircraft ,can obviously become more attractive and advantageous .

RTN wrote:Except that it isn't . Tanks suffered heavy losses in Iraq & Syria .

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-03-29-abrams-tank-a_x.htm?POE=click-refer

http://www.syrianews.cc/syria-losses-tanks/

Oh yes sure.....   so wrote the little Ukrainiam blogger on the payroll of US agencies ; it is so sad to observe those ossessively repeated and equally failed attempts to sell, in any way, those ridiculously staged "data" (through the very old mechanism of the recyprocal citation and arbitrary self-validation      ) .
Come to mind the major western newpapers and TV citing without the minimal shame the comical figures coming out from ...equally completely controled and financed by foreign agencies....SOHR       

It do not work anymore since a very long while.................

RTN wrote:Given the small size of these pellets they do not make any impact on Large stand off cruise missiles like the Brimstone .

.......do not make any impact on Large stand off cruise missiles like ......the Brimstone ?

      

Do you have even the minimum clue of what you talk about ?

Brimstone is in the same exact class of AGM-114, a missile that even first version of Arena was capable and designed to intercept since day one .


Protection also against helicopter delivered ATGM was one of the main requirement of Arena development program.

Anyway you will find some corect informations on its development and new iterations in this serious article.


http://coollib.com/b/258757/read#t1

Mindstorm wrote:

    

Are you serious or, more simply, you have developed a peculiar form of fetishism for spelling assertions  and defending positions representing the exact opposite of factual reality ?

I said MBT are useless because their MAIN GUN is extremely vulnerable .

There have been numerous cases in both Iraq & Syria where the MAIN GUN of the MBT was specifically targeted by the militias who were armed with RPGs . Once the Main Gun was destroyed the MBT hardly served any purpose .

MBTs are good in Open and Hilly terrain but certainly not in Urban conflict . And even in Open & Hilly terrain  their MAIN GUN is vulnerable .

MIndstorm wrote:.......do not make any impact on Large stand off cruise missiles like ......the Brimstone ?

Shocked  Shocked  Shocked

Do you have even the minimum clue of what you talk about ?

Let me ask you something . Has their been any field trial in Russia where an MBT , armed with the ARENA had to defend the MBT against a Hermes or Kh-59 Ovod ?  

And if YES , was the ARENA successful in destroying the incoming Hermes or KH 59 ?

I can assure you that the ARENA ( or any other APS) cannot protect an MBT from the Hermes and Kh 59 .

RTN wrote:
Let me ask you something . Has their been any field trial in Russia where an MBT , armed with the ARENA had to defend the MBT against a Hermes or Kh-59 Ovod ?  

And if YES , was the ARENA successful in destroying the incoming Hermes or KH 59 ?

No, let me ask you something: HAVE YOU EVER HAD LANGUAGE ARTS AT SCHOOL?
Or did you finish high school at all?
Can't you tell the difference between "their", "there", and "they're"?!
Because confusing between those, while claiming that you're from the US makes you look like an imbecile really!

So which is it?
Are you an illiterate idiot posting this crap from a trailer park, or are you a troll claiming to be American when you're really not?!
Let us know cupcake.

RTN wrote: 

And if YES , was the ARENA successful in destroying the incoming Hermes or KH 59 ?

I can assure you that the ARENA ( or any other APS) cannot protect an MBT from the Hermes and Kh 59 .

Are you seriously asking this question? You know that Hermes and Kh-59 or any other kind of air-to-ground weapon of that caliber will have to contest with point-defense and SHORAD (Tor, Pantsir, Morfey, future 57mm systems) SAMS and future battle management systems, with the future proliferation of dual-use 57mm guns systems capable of engaging ground and air targets and ranges of 16km's, which will make normal CAS operations extremely difficult. Attack helicopters and CAS aircraft such as A-10 warthogs, Su-24 Frogfoots will have an extremely difficult time carrying out successful missions under such circumstances.

Tone it down people, if there's a point you disagree with, address it, and do so without being rude.

Regarding Syria, I have extensively studied the conflict since the very beginning. The vast majority of armor losses have been T-55, T-62 etc. Most of which can be attributed to poor training of the SAA regulars and the NDF. The Republican Guards, with their Kontakt 1 ERA equipped T-72's have done very well in this war. IMO, this group of tankers is the most combat hardened and experienced units in the world, surpassing even the best western tank crews in raw skill and combat experience.

If the SAA didn't have their T-72's to push back against the ISIS hordes, Damascus would have been overrun by long ago.

MRAP's are nice, but you need a large gun to smash through cover and fortified structures. Without tanks, infantry would be forced to clear every house, every room, block by block. They would have no advantage against the enemy hiding within. Between the snipers and doorways, morale would quickly collapse.

RTN wrote:
Let me ask you something . Has their been any field trial in Russia where an MBT , armed with the ARENA had to defend the MBT against a Hermes or Kh-59 Ovod ?  

And if YES , was the ARENA successful in destroying the incoming Hermes or KH 59 ?

I can assure you that the ARENA ( or any other APS) cannot protect an MBT from the Hermes and Kh 59 .

Do you even understand how ridiculous your question is?

Ok lets take a look on your question if ARENA is capable of defeating a KH-59...

KH-59 weights almost 930 kg, flies with 236 m/s with a warhead of 320kg, so mv² = force (930kg) x (236m/s)² / 2 = 25.898.640 Joule. (if i did it right   )

ARENA uses a shotgun like explosive charge that is launched towards the incoming threat. This almost 1 tone monster even if ARENA manages to destroy the fuze of the warhead the missile would crush with 25 MJ into the tank, that would rip apart the entire tank.

In WW2 the soviet ISU-152 fired a betongranate with a weight of around 50kg with 600m/s against Tiger tanks, they did not penetrate but the turrets were blown away from the hulls and this beton grenades have lower Joule than a KH-59 would have.

In case of Hermes-A missile it flies with top speed of 1000m/s, so standard ARENA will not be even able to react to it and the ARENA 2 is in the time window at least to react, however the chances are lower with the missiles speed. The higher missiles speed the lower the chance to intercept it.

I would tend that it can defeat Hermes missile but not sure if it would be considered "effective" ie (80% intercept probability).

Werewolf wrote:

Do you even understand how ridiculous your question is?

But you have just explained that it isn't .

Werewolf wrote:Ok lets take a look on your question if ARENA is capable of defeating a KH-59...

KH-59 weights almost 930 kg, flies with 236 m/s with a warhead of 320kg, so mv² = force (930kg) x (236m/s)² / 2 = 25.898.640 Joule.  (if i did it right   )

ARENA uses a shotgun like explosive charge that is launched towards the incoming threat. This almost 1 tone monster even if ARENA manages to destroy the fuze of the warhead the missile would crush with 25 MJ into the tank, that would rip apart the entire tank.

In WW2 the soviet ISU-152 fired a betongranate with a weight of around 50kg with 600m/s against Tiger tanks, they did not penetrate but the turrets were blown away from the hulls and this beton grenades have lower Joule than a KH-59 would have.

In case of Hermes-A missile it flies with top speed of 1000m/s, so standard ARENA will not be even able to react to it and the ARENA 2 is in the time window at least to react, however the chances are lower with the missiles speed. The higher missiles speed the lower the chance to intercept it.

I would tend that it can defeat Hermes missile but not sure if it would be considered "effective" ie (80% intercept probability).

And you can't deny that Hermes & Kh 59 are used to take out armored vehicles including MBTs .

Even if Sensor Fuzed Weapons like BLU 108 , CBU 97 or Russia's SPBE D are used ARENA / any other APS will be of no use .

Keep in mind, the 1000m/s velocity associated with the Hermes-A system is the top speed achieved during the booster phase of flight.

Depending on the range, like say 15-20km, the velocity will drop. Hermes should be comfortably within ARENA's engagement envelope. "Afghanistan" APS can supposedly intercept APFSDS, which exit the gun at ~1,500m/s. Hermes would be well withing the reach of this new APS.

The question is, how will it handle the 30kg warhead?

And you can't deny that Hermes & Kh 59 are used to take out armored vehicles including MBTs .

They can be used to take out anything, this isn't an effective argument against MBT's.

RTN wrote:

And you can't deny that Hermes & Kh 59 are used to take out armored vehicles including MBTs .

Even if Sensor Fuzed Weapons like BLU 108 , CBU 97 or Russia's SPBE D are used ARENA / any other APS will be of no use .

Yes you can take Mavericks, CBU-97 bombs, JDAMs or BLU 108.... the point is ARENA secures a tank against lot of threats, but that does not mean a shotgun round can be used against T-Rex like weapons.

You should keep comperision within realistic boarders.

I don't see anyone compering Merkava IV equiped with Trophy and Iron Fist, and if it could somehow magically possible to intercept KH-25,59,55 or whatever weapons.

Werewolf wrote:
ARENA uses a shotgun like explosive charge that is launched towards the incoming threat. This almost 1 tone monster even if ARENA manages to destroy the fuze of the warhead the missile would crush with 25 MJ into the tank, that would rip apart the entire tank.

In WW2 the soviet ISU-152 fired a betongranate with a weight of around 50kg with 600m/s against Tiger tanks, they did not penetrate but the turrets were blown away from the hulls and this beton grenades have lower Joule than a KH-59 would have.

In case of Hermes-A missile it flies with top speed of 1000m/s, so standard ARENA will not be even able to react to it and the ARENA 2 is in the time window at least to react, however the chances are lower with the missiles speed. The higher missiles speed the lower the chance to intercept it.

I would tend that it can defeat Hermes missile but not sure if it would be considered "effective" ie (80% intercept probability).

well afaik current MBT turret rings are subjected to about 15 MJ every time the tank's gun fires. 140 mm guns can reach 25 MJ and they can be installed on current tanks with minor mods so I think a tank can withstand a Kh-59 sized something hitting it at 600m/s.
However if it blows up- well the tank and its crew turns into a literal can of puree. So yeah, ARENA is useless against Kh-59 since it lacks the intercept distance needed for the tank to survive the blast. However afghanistan may very well be able to counter it- if it uses either a solid hit to kill interceptor or a proximity fused HE-frag one it will be able to engage the kh-59 from 50 meters or maybe more.

Zivo wrote:Tone it down people, if there's a point you disagree with, address it, and do so without being rude.

Regarding Syria, I have extensively studied the conflict since the very beginning. The vast majority of armor losses have been T-55, T-62 etc. Most of which can be attributed to poor training of the SAA regulars and the NDF. The Republican Guards, with their Kontakt 1 ERA equipped T-72's have done very well in this war. IMO, this group of tankers is the most combat hardened and experienced units in the world, surpassing even the best western tank crews in raw skill and combat experience.

If the SAA didn't have their T-72's to push back against the ISIS hordes, Damascus would have been overrun by long ago.

MRAP's are nice, but you need a large gun to smash through cover and fortified structures. Without tanks, infantry would be forced to clear every house, every room, block by block. They would have no advantage against the enemy hiding within. Between the snipers and doorways, morale would quickly collapse.

the use of autoloader only ammo storage helps greatly i think, as is not topping up all fuel tanks. the enemy snackbar may be able to kill a crew with a succesful hit and penetration of the tank, but when this happens they just remove the corpse, clean the blood off, maybe do some repairs then a new guy takes over.