Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Share
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 822
    Points : 820
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Isos on Sun May 08, 2016 2:59 pm

    http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/

    Russian tanks and munitions of 125 mm. Explications and illustrations.

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 269
    Points : 279
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Cyrus the great on Mon May 09, 2016 2:34 am

    GarryB wrote:Well certainly with no crew in the turret/ammo storage area it would be useful to purge the air with nitrogen so any spark or burning material quickly is suffocated.

    The ISU-152 was about the only Soviet vehicle that could defeat the Elephant and Tiger tanks at Kursk... they didn't do it by penetrating the armour, as shown in recent conflicts even a 50kg IED can destroy an M1 Abrams and kill its crew... a 152mm shell weighs in the range of 40-45kg and travels at about 900m/s.

    I would suspect the standard full bore 152mm shell will travel at a higher speed but 1,7km/s would be optimistic for a full calibre round.

    Of course with a range of about 70km the 152mm shell from Coalition would have a decent muzzle velocity I would expect.

    The simple fact is that a 152mm shell is very heavy and slow to load and the only vehicle that used it in a turret during WWII was the KV-2 which was very powerful but not very popular.

    When the T-34 entered service most anti armour guns on tanks were 37mm or 45mm or 50mm calibre long barrel high velocity weapons with poor or no HE capacity.

    the 76.2mm gun was a revolutionary design because it mixed both HE power and armour penetration perfomance... before it tanks were either anti tank vehicles with a 37mm or 45mm high velocity anti armour gun and a machine gun, or a short barrel 76.2mm gun firing HE shells... the former anti armour and anti enemy infantry and the latter anti infantry/fortification.  The 76.2mm gun of the T-34 allowed decent penetration of armour and a decent HE shell for other targets... it was the first real MBT.  Good mobility, good armour, good gun.


    Interesting. I've read elsewhere that the 2a83 has a muzzle velocity of at least 1780mps and other sources have put the muzzle velocity at 2000mps+. Electro-thermal guns can reach even greater velocities, so there are great opportunities there as well. I hope to see electric-diesel engines in the Armata variants due to the fact that electric-diesel engines are quiter, fuel and energy efficient and provide excellent acceleration. Electric-diesel engines would apparently also allow platforms to accelerate forward and reverse at the same speed.


    If the T-14 Armata did decide to install a 60mm mortar in the turret and stabilized it and connected it to the FCS... how many rounds do you think it could hold in the turret? The T-90sm seems to have a BMS like other tanks so I wonder what kind of advanced BMS will be installed on all the Armata variants. I hope I'm not being a nuisance.


    Last edited by Cyrus the great on Mon May 09, 2016 2:52 am; edited 1 time in total

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 269
    Points : 279
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Cyrus the great on Mon May 09, 2016 2:45 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Cyrus the great wrote:

    .....................................

    That is incredible. I would hate to be in opposing tanks because it would just be the Armata and burning wrecks. I read up on the ISU-152 and what its low velocity rounds were able to do to German tanks, so imagine what 152mm rounds traveling at 1750mps could do to the Abrams and other modern MBTs. A binary liquid propellant set up would prevent sympathetic detonations even if the Armata was penetrated from the side and so I think that it's something worth investing in.

    .....................................

    Another problem mitigated by the unmanned turret. Because there is nobody inside, they can use more violent and toxic but also more effective firefighting chemicals than on the older models where they would poison the crew.

    Crew is safely tucked away in the capsule so they can use whatever unholy firefighting toxin they want in order to put out the fire instantly and prevent ammo cook off.

    That's true and I guess nitrogen could quickly extinguish any fire within seconds and so I guess a binary liquid propellant is not necessary and would make more sense from a technical and financial level to use these chemicals. Gold platting can be quite dangerous to any military.


    Last edited by Cyrus the great on Mon May 09, 2016 3:20 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5538
    Points : 5579
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Militarov on Mon May 09, 2016 2:51 am

    Cyrus the great wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    Cyrus the great wrote:

    .....................................

    That is incredible. I would hate to be in opposing tanks because it would just be the Armata and burning wrecks. I read up on the ISU-152 and what its low velocity rounds were able to do to German tanks, so imagine what 152mm rounds traveling at 1750mps could do to the Abrams and other modern MBTs. A binary liquid propellant set up would prevent sympathetic detonations even if the Armata was penetrated from the side and so I think that it's something worth investing in.

    .....................................

    Another problem mitigated by the unmanned turret. Because there is nobody inside, they can use more violent and toxic but also more effective firefighting chemicals than on the older models where they would poison the crew.

    Crew is safely tucked away in the capsule so they can use whatever unholy firefighting toxin they want in order to put out the fire instantly and prevent ammo cook off.

    That's true and I guess nitrogen could quickly extinguish any fire within seconds and so I guess a binary liquid propellant is not necessary and would make more sense from a technical and financial level. Gold platting can be quite dangerous to any military.  

    Actually for purposes like this, at least to this day nothing beats Bromotrifluoromethane aka Halon 1301. They are trying to find replacement for it for 2 decades now but its not coming around any time soon. Issue is that its not very...healthy...at the best.

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 269
    Points : 279
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Cyrus the great on Mon May 09, 2016 3:18 am

    Militarov wrote:
    Cyrus the great wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    Cyrus the great wrote:

    .....................................

    That is incredible. I would hate to be in opposing tanks because it would just be the Armata and burning wrecks. I read up on the ISU-152 and what its low velocity rounds were able to do to German tanks, so imagine what 152mm rounds traveling at 1750mps could do to the Abrams and other modern MBTs. A binary liquid propellant set up would prevent sympathetic detonations even if the Armata was penetrated from the side and so I think that it's something worth investing in.

    .....................................

    Another problem mitigated by the unmanned turret. Because there is nobody inside, they can use more violent and toxic but also more effective firefighting chemicals than on the older models where they would poison the crew.

    Crew is safely tucked away in the capsule so they can use whatever unholy firefighting toxin they want in order to put out the fire instantly and prevent ammo cook off.

    That's true and I guess nitrogen could quickly extinguish any fire within seconds and so I guess a binary liquid propellant is not necessary and would make more sense from a technical and financial level. Gold platting can be quite dangerous to any military.  

    Actually for purposes like this, at least to this day nothing beats Bromotrifluoromethane aka Halon 1301. They are trying to find replacement for it for 2 decades now but its not coming around any time soon. Issue is that its not very...healthy...at the best.

    I guess the only time the crew would have to exercise caution with regard to Halon 1301 and Nitrogen is when they have to maintain the tank after these chemicals have been used. A binary liquid set up is the only way to completely prevent sympathetic explosions but it does seem that it would be a difficult and expensive undertaking.
    avatar
    x_54_u43

    Posts : 190
    Points : 210
    Join date : 2015-09-19

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  x_54_u43 on Mon May 09, 2016 3:26 am

    Elbows wrote:Hasn't armour almost always been at a disadvantage to anti-tank weapons (be it MBT rounds, ATGMs etc.).  I don't recall a time when any tank has been "safe" short of perhaps the heaviest tanks back in WW2 and even then aircraft could take them out.

    I appreciate that we, as countries, have to design tanks to be as survivable as possible, but I don't think any army plans on tanks surviving very long in open combat against a similar opponent.  Look at the Abrams.  In the hands of a well supplied, well trained crew it's an excellent tank.  Put in the hands of poorly trained Iraqis it becomes a battlefield trophy for ISIS.

    In a real engagement with top of the line modern tanks (T-90's, Armatas, Abrams, Leopard II's etc.) it'd be a matter of serious attrition, and that's assuming opposing aircraft didn't flatten most of them before the tanks even started engaging each other.  Sure we might have crews which survive, but in the modern battlefield, the tank is still a dangerous place to be.

    I'm guessing you are one of those people who think that tanks are obsolete and Javelins are the best thing since sliced bread?
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5538
    Points : 5579
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Militarov on Mon May 09, 2016 3:28 am

    x_54_u43 wrote:
    Elbows wrote:Hasn't armour almost always been at a disadvantage to anti-tank weapons (be it MBT rounds, ATGMs etc.).  I don't recall a time when any tank has been "safe" short of perhaps the heaviest tanks back in WW2 and even then aircraft could take them out.

    I appreciate that we, as countries, have to design tanks to be as survivable as possible, but I don't think any army plans on tanks surviving very long in open combat against a similar opponent.  Look at the Abrams.  In the hands of a well supplied, well trained crew it's an excellent tank.  Put in the hands of poorly trained Iraqis it becomes a battlefield trophy for ISIS.

    In a real engagement with top of the line modern tanks (T-90's, Armatas, Abrams, Leopard II's etc.) it'd be a matter of serious attrition, and that's assuming opposing aircraft didn't flatten most of them before the tanks even started engaging each other.  Sure we might have crews which survive, but in the modern battlefield, the tank is still a dangerous place to be.

    I'm guessing you are one of those people who think that tanks are obsolete and Javelins are the best thing since sliced bread?

    Tanks are not obsolete, tanks are very vulnerable. And slightest mistakes in way they are deployed or used ends up badly aganist decently armed enemy.

    Elbows

    Posts : 12
    Points : 12
    Join date : 2016-03-13

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Elbows on Mon May 09, 2016 4:49 am

    x_54_u43 wrote:
    Elbows wrote:Hasn't armour almost always been at a disadvantage to anti-tank weapons (be it MBT rounds, ATGMs etc.).  I don't recall a time when any tank has been "safe" short of perhaps the heaviest tanks back in WW2 and even then aircraft could take them out.

    I appreciate that we, as countries, have to design tanks to be as survivable as possible, but I don't think any army plans on tanks surviving very long in open combat against a similar opponent.  Look at the Abrams.  In the hands of a well supplied, well trained crew it's an excellent tank.  Put in the hands of poorly trained Iraqis it becomes a battlefield trophy for ISIS.

    In a real engagement with top of the line modern tanks (T-90's, Armatas, Abrams, Leopard II's etc.) it'd be a matter of serious attrition, and that's assuming opposing aircraft didn't flatten most of them before the tanks even started engaging each other.  Sure we might have crews which survive, but in the modern battlefield, the tank is still a dangerous place to be.

    I'm guessing you are one of those people who think that tanks are obsolete and Javelins are the best thing since sliced bread?

    I'm merely perplexed by the attitude which I see come across on a lot of these threads where people seem to think current tanks or next-gen tanks are going to be impervious to battlefield threats. You build the best tank you can within a reasonable budget and you expect losses. The pedantic arguing over which ATGM is better, or which armour certain tanks have is pretty pointless. It's all well and good to study the advancement of technology, but let's be realistic. The battlefield is a dangerous damn place regardless how fancy your equipment is.

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 269
    Points : 279
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Cyrus the great on Mon May 09, 2016 5:11 am

    Elbows wrote:
    x_54_u43 wrote:
    Elbows wrote:Hasn't armour almost always been at a disadvantage to anti-tank weapons (be it MBT rounds, ATGMs etc.).  I don't recall a time when any tank has been "safe" short of perhaps the heaviest tanks back in WW2 and even then aircraft could take them out.

    I appreciate that we, as countries, have to design tanks to be as survivable as possible, but I don't think any army plans on tanks surviving very long in open combat against a similar opponent.  Look at the Abrams.  In the hands of a well supplied, well trained crew it's an excellent tank.  Put in the hands of poorly trained Iraqis it becomes a battlefield trophy for ISIS.

    In a real engagement with top of the line modern tanks (T-90's, Armatas, Abrams, Leopard II's etc.) it'd be a matter of serious attrition, and that's assuming opposing aircraft didn't flatten most of them before the tanks even started engaging each other.  Sure we might have crews which survive, but in the modern battlefield, the tank is still a dangerous place to be.

    I'm guessing you are one of those people who think that tanks are obsolete and Javelins are the best thing since sliced bread?

    I'm merely perplexed by the attitude which I see come across on a lot of these threads where people seem to think current tanks or next-gen tanks are going to be impervious to battlefield threats.  You build the best tank you can within a reasonable budget and you expect losses.  The pedantic arguing over which ATGM is better, or which armour certain tanks have is pretty pointless.  It's all well and good to study the advancement of technology, but let's be realistic.  The battlefield is a dangerous damn place regardless how fancy your equipment is.

    I don't think anyone here has argued that tanks are "impervious", so this seems like a straw man argument on your part. People have consistently reaffirmed that tanks will continue to face potent and deadly threats on the battlefield even as multi-layered countermeasures are developed and deployed to address these challenges.
    avatar
    x_54_u43

    Posts : 190
    Points : 210
    Join date : 2015-09-19

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  x_54_u43 on Mon May 09, 2016 6:21 am

    Elbows wrote:

    I'm merely perplexed by the attitude which I see come across on a lot of these threads where people seem to think current tanks or next-gen tanks are going to be impervious to battlefield threats.  You build the best tank you can within a reasonable budget and you expect losses.  The pedantic arguing over which ATGM is better, or which armour certain tanks have is pretty pointless.  It's all well and good to study the advancement of technology, but let's be realistic.  The battlefield is a dangerous damn place regardless how fancy your equipment is.

    Nobody intelligent has ever stated that tanks are impervious. Or that the battlefield is safe while inside a tank.

    However, your statement that tanks would get flattened by air power before engaging each other is hilarious and the sign of a feeble and Hollywood-influenced mind.

    Remove the fanciful notions such as the F-35 or B-1B completely demolishing tank fleets with SDB-IIs. It will never happen, even if the tanks are without air cover or air defenses. Such notions have been hilarious to watch as they fall apart, especially the B-2 and the ICBM tracking fantasy, which was completely forgotten in the legendary SCUD hunting clusterfuck in the Iraq war.

    Tanks may be a danger to be in, but relatively, they are far less risky to be in than other positions, especially in a new Russian tank such as the T-14. Consider the threats it faces, old TOWs and Milans and the laughter-inducing Javelin, with a hilariously low penetrating potential against a 3.5 gen T-90A, much less than a 4th generation T-14, with SIX radars, fully duplicated commander and gunner FCS with new generation thermal imagers and laser rangefinders, all-around camera system and laser warning system. Even if the T-14 is catastrophically hit, mostly likely in its turret, then I will be safe within the armored capsule.

    It's good to be a tanker. Especially a Russian one.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16517
    Points : 17125
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  GarryB on Mon May 09, 2016 9:46 am

    Interesting. I've read elsewhere that the 2a83 has a muzzle velocity of at least 1780mps and other sources have put the muzzle velocity at 2000mps+.

    It is a question of projectile to propellant ratio... a full bore or full calibre round like a HE Frag round is about 23kgs... that is the projectile is 23kgs.

    The entire round is about 33 kgs so we are talking about 10kgs of propellant pushing 23kgs of projectile... down an old 125mm barrel that means about 850m/s muzzle velocity... which is fine... HE rounds don't need to move fast.

    An APFSDS round which is basically a metal dart is about 8kgs and has about 13kgs of propellent pushing it down the barrel at about 1.7km/s down a normal barrel.

    A 152mm full bore round... ie not an APFSDS round, would not be travelling faster than 950m/s or so unless it has a very large propellent charge and a very long barrel... it would never get above 1,500m/s.

    Of course an APFSDS round that is about 10kgs and with extra propellant would be a lot faster than 1.8km/s I would assume.


    If the T-14 Armata did decide to install a 60mm mortar in the turret and stabilized it and connected it to the FCS... how many rounds do you think it could hold in the turret?

    If they wanted a secondary small calibre I doubt they would develop a 60mm mortar.. more likely they would adapt something like the 57mm grenade launcher they were working on... the advantage would be much smaller rounds so you could have a much larger number of targets engaged, and a 57mm low velocity grenade would have quite a powerful HE round. Being an external weapon the ammo could be added to the outside of the vehicle and could carry as many rounds as you want... Placing it on the rear of the turret like the 30mm grenade mount on the upgraded BMP-2s would be interesting... it would just need elevation performance rather than 360 degrees rotation which would mean it would not obstruct the roof mounted 12.7mm HMG.

    The T-90sm seems to have a BMS like other tanks so I wonder what kind of advanced BMS will be installed on all the Armata variants. I hope I'm not being a nuisance.

    Likely all the new vehicles will have a C4IR system that communicates to each other and other platforms. It is likely it will also allow control of UAVs and to get video footage of nearby sensors both air and ground based.

    That's true and I guess nitrogen could quickly extinguish any fire within seconds and so I guess a binary liquid propellant is not necessary and would make more sense from a technical and financial level to use these chemicals. Gold platting can be quite dangerous to any military.

    No. Even with nitrogen or even Halon if a spark hits the cardboard shell of a 125mm propellant charge then it will burn... it does not need oxygen from the air to burn... when the shell and propellant in the gun ready to fire there is not enough oxygen to burn... it provides its own fuel and oxygen... once ignited it would burn in space or under water... the fact that nitrogen has replaced the air around it would not stop the fire... just slow it down from burning objects nearby.

    If you dropped a flare into a nitrogen filled turret the lack of oxygen would stop things in the turret like foam or plastic or wood from burning... it will still be damaged by the heat of the flare but would not burn without the oxygen in the air.

    Put 20 propellant stubs in there and drop a burning flare on them even with no oxygen in the air the carboard would burn because it is designed to combust and leave little residue in the chamber... once the flame of the flare hits the propellant... boom and the shower of flame will ignite the other stubs and the pressure spikes exponentially and boom off go the hatches and anyone in that turret is dead... though they already suffocated with a lack of oxygen anyway.

    A binary liquid set up is the only way to completely prevent sympathetic explosions but it does seem that it would be a difficult and expensive undertaking.

    At its heart it is just plumbing... and a liquid propellant would be more powerful than the current solid propellant.

    It would also be easier to change the charge, so a HE shell uses less propellant, while APFSDS rounds have more...

    I don't think anyone here has argued that tanks are "impervious", so this seems like a straw man argument on your part. People have consistently reaffirmed that tanks will continue to face potent and deadly threats on the battlefield even as multi-layered countermeasures are developed and deployed to address these challenges.

    Ditto.

    There is no perfect tank, just like there is no perfect anti tank weapon.

    Russia is not just applying a range of technologies to help protect their men, like armoured capsules, ERA, NERA, APS, Nakidka, Shtora, different armour types, but it is also investing in communications and command and control systems and computers down to infantry level as well as systems to defeat the enemies equivalent equipment.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Elbows

    Posts : 12
    Points : 12
    Join date : 2016-03-13

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Elbows on Mon May 09, 2016 6:56 pm

    x_54_u43 wrote:
    Elbows wrote:

    I'm merely perplexed by the attitude which I see come across on a lot of these threads where people seem to think current tanks or next-gen tanks are going to be impervious to battlefield threats.  You build the best tank you can within a reasonable budget and you expect losses.  The pedantic arguing over which ATGM is better, or which armour certain tanks have is pretty pointless.  It's all well and good to study the advancement of technology, but let's be realistic.  The battlefield is a dangerous damn place regardless how fancy your equipment is.

    Nobody intelligent has ever stated that tanks are impervious. Or that the battlefield is safe while inside a tank.

    However, your statement that tanks would get flattened by air power before engaging each other is hilarious and the sign of a feeble and Hollywood-influenced mind.

    Remove the fanciful notions such as the F-35 or B-1B completely demolishing tank fleets with SDB-IIs. It will never happen, even if the tanks are without air cover or air defenses. Such notions have been hilarious to watch as they fall apart, especially the B-2 and the ICBM tracking fantasy, which was completely forgotten in the legendary SCUD hunting clusterfuck in the Iraq war.  

    Tanks may be a danger to be in, but relatively, they are far less risky to be in than other positions, especially in a new Russian tank such as the T-14. Consider the threats it faces, old TOWs and Milans and the laughter-inducing Javelin, with a hilariously low penetrating potential against a 3.5 gen T-90A, much less than a 4th generation T-14, with SIX radars, fully duplicated commander and gunner FCS with new generation thermal imagers and laser rangefinders, all-around camera system and laser warning system. Even if the T-14 is catastrophically hit, mostly likely in its turret, then I will be safe within the armored capsule.

    It's good to be a tanker. Especially a Russian one.

    A feeble mind huh? Hmmm, that's a shame. I guess I should take your insulting posts with a grain of salt. Curious, what made you think I was referring to Russian tanks being flattened by US airpower? Or is that because I'm a "Western Devil" and I can't possibly be applying that logic to all forms of armour/aircraft?

    Vann7

    Posts : 3471
    Points : 3583
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Vann7 on Mon May 09, 2016 7:34 pm

    Isos wrote:
    Russia doesn't need to invade Turkey if a war happen, just destroy their navy and their airplanes. A major ground batlle wouldn't happen..


    Turkey is armed with nuclear weapons, yes you heard that right. Right now there are a dozen or more nuclear warheads in Turkey from Americans. It also can get nukes from Israel or Pakistan or "Saudi Arabia".  in reality weapons supplied by Americans ,Pakistan or Israel passed from hand to hand and end in Turkey.

    So this is just one of the many potential scenarios.
    So if Erdogan Army invades Syria or attack Russian airforce again, killing a dozen of Russians ,Russia will be forced to retaliate their airforce and shut down a couple or more of planes . Then Turkey close the hormuz strait to Russia , cutting Russia from the mediterranean sea. then Russia is forced to declare war on Turkey and do what you say , destroy their navy , then Turkey retaliates with tactical nuclear weapon supplied by "mysterious hands" who could they be?  ,or simply attack Crimea with chemical weapons.

    In all this people needs to understand Erdogan is not a rational man. He is a muslin terrorist , he is an extremist . and such kind of people do not think in consequences . Look how he give the order to shot down Russian plane. with the full support of Americans. So such people are very unpredictable. This means that you cannot say.. it will never happen. because it can.
    and this is because Erdogan is not a rational man. he is today arming ISIS to overthrow Syrian government and put ISIS in control of it, Something that could provoke a major world humanitarian crisis with millions killed. If ISIS takes control of Damascus. in short erdogan is a monster. So you cannot say for sure he will not do the unthinkable because he is already risking the life of millions in Syria. So predicting what an irrational and sick man like Erdogan can do or not is impossible. He could be capable of attacking Crimea with nukes or chemical weapons if humiliatted as you say and its navy destroyed.

    So sinking the navy of turkey will NOT remove Erdogan from power. The war of Russia with Nazis did not end until Russia planted a flag in Berlin. that said. if Russia face a full scale war with Turkey. it will have no option but to invade Turkey and take control of Istanbul to reopen the Bosphurous strait at least. The only other option will be to nuke ankara and sacrifice millions innocent civilians. So thats is not an option. Russia will simply need to be prepared for the unthinkable like an invasion of Turkey to remove erdogan. This is why is really important for Russia to have fully modernized Army with Armatas in big numbers in service ,to minimize as much as possible the casualties of Russian army ,by providing them the best military hardware possible in Russia inventory. remember Russia vs georgia war of 5-6 days. Who will have thought such weak nation will kill hundreds of Russian soldiers and start a war against Russia without any provocation?

    Dont underestimate Americans , they can manage to get wars to happen. another front Russia can face very easily a war is on moldova if attack trasnistria will force Russia to help their Russian soldiers peacemakers there. . and Turkey is not an exception ,with Erdogan will be even more easier because he is an islamic extremist. it will be totally foolish if Russia is attacked by Turkey ,and hundreds or thousands civilians die and they do not invade Turkey.  Putin will have 100% support to finally stop Erdogan , and save Europe and the world from that terrorist.
    it will also send a message to NATO. it could finally put an end to the dictator Erdogan and take control of Istanbul for once and no longer allow NATO to have any effective use for Turkey against Russia. The entire world will also backup Russia war against turkey and finally kick the Turks from Cyprus ,from Constantinople and from Syria and IRAQ.  allowing Erdogan to continue ruling after Turkey declares full scale war against Russia will be a serious mistake ,because he will only increase its hostilities and attacks. just like hitler did to Russia. he could be re armed and continue more attacks and give more support to ISIS.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5357
    Points : 5588
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Werewolf on Mon May 09, 2016 7:57 pm

    Turkey, Italy, Germany and Netherlands do not posses those nukes they are only and exclusivley in US hands, so if any nuke is used it is a direct US act. Those military bases are Americans exclusive, no germans are allowed in Ramstein base where they have their nukes, except authorized personal which have no hands and have no procedures within the base whatsoever.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5538
    Points : 5579
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Militarov on Mon May 09, 2016 8:12 pm

    Vann7 wrote:
    Isos wrote:
    Russia doesn't need to invade Turkey if a war happen, just destroy their navy and their airplanes. A major ground batlle wouldn't happen..


    Turkey is armed with nuclear weapons, yes you heard that right. Right now there are a dozen or more nuclear warheads in Turkey from Americans. It also can get nukes from Israel or Pakistan or "Saudi Arabia".  in reality weapons supplied by Americans ,Pakistan or Israel passed from hand to hand and end in Turkey.

    So this is just one of the many potential scenarios.
    So if Erdogan Army invades Syria or attack Russian airforce again, killing a dozen of Russians ,Russia will be forced to retaliate their airforce and shut down a couple or more of planes . Then Turkey close the hormuz strait to Russia , cutting Russia from the mediterranean sea. then Russia is forced to declare war on Turkey and do what you say , destroy their navy , then Turkey retaliates with tactical nuclear weapon supplied by "mysterious hands" who could they be?  ,or simply attack Crimea with chemical weapons.

    In all this people needs to understand Erdogan is not a rational man. He is a muslin terrorist , he is an extremist . and such kind of people do not think in consequences . Look how he give the order to shot down Russian plane. with the full support of Americans. So such people are very unpredictable. This means that you cannot say.. it will never happen. because it can.
    and this is because Erdogan is not a rational man. he is today arming ISIS to overthrow Syrian government and put ISIS in control of it, Something that could provoke a major world humanitarian crisis with millions killed. If ISIS takes control of Damascus. in short erdogan is a monster. So you cannot say for sure he will not do the unthinkable because he is already risking the life of millions in Syria. So predicting what an irrational and sick man like Erdogan can do or not is impossible. He could be capable of attacking Crimea with nukes or chemical weapons if humiliatted as you say and its navy destroyed.

    So sinking the navy of turkey will NOT remove Erdogan from power. The war of Russia with Nazis did not end until Russia planted a flag in Berlin. that said. if Russia face a full scale war with Turkey. it will have no option but to invade Turkey and take control of Istanbul to reopen the Bosphurous strait at least. The only other option will be to nuke ankara and sacrifice millions innocent civilians. So thats is not an option. Russia will simply need to be prepared for the unthinkable like an invasion of Turkey to remove erdogan. This is why is really important for Russia to have fully modernized Army with Armatas in big numbers in service ,to minimize as much as possible the casualties of Russian army ,by providing them the best military hardware possible in Russia inventory. remember Russia vs georgia war of 5-6 days. Who will have thought such weak nation will kill hundreds of Russian soldiers and start a war against Russia without any provocation?

    Dont underestimate Americans , they can manage to get wars to happen. another front Russia can face very easily a war is on moldova if attack trasnistria will force Russia to help their Russian soldiers peacemakers there. .  and Turkey is not an exception ,with Erdogan will be even more easier because he is an islamic extremist. it will be totally foolish if Russia is attacked by Turkey ,and hundreds or thousands civilians die and they do not invade Turkey.  Putin will have 100% support to finally stop Erdogan , and save Europe and the world from that terrorist.
    it will also send a message to NATO. it could finally put an end to the dictator Erdogan and take control of Istanbul for once and no longer allow NATO to have any effective use for Turkey against Russia. The entire world will also backup Russia war against turkey and finally kick the Turks from Cyprus ,from Constantinople and from Syria and IRAQ.  allowing Erdogan to continue ruling after Turkey declares full scale war against Russia will be a serious mistake ,because he will only increase its hostilities and attacks. just like hitler did to Russia. he could be re armed and continue more attacks and give more support to ISIS.

    Nuclear weapons under "Nuclear sharing agreement" are being "hosted" in Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands and Turkey, however they are not under control of their armies but US Air Force, stop spreading missinformations on this forum for once.

    NORAD is to supply the codes and fuses to hosting country in case of need for such weapons to be deployed, and they are to be launched from hosting country aircraft, some of which are adapted to deliver nuclear warload. Whole time weapon deployment is to be handled by mixed crews of US servicemen and host country.

    Now, if you are trying to claim that NORAD would supply Turkey with means to deliver nuclear warload on their own... just....no. Actually there are rumors US is planning of retrieving remaining warheads from Turkey and transfer them to Germany and Netherlands due to instability in the region.

    I am not sure whats up with you people and all this BS talk about nuclear war and nuclear apocalypse. Grow up, its not going to happen any time soon. Everyone is aware of how dangerous nuclear weapons are, and how grave the consequences would be for whole human kind. Stop flooding forum with crap like this, its getting very annoying.

    wilhelm

    Posts : 228
    Points : 232
    Join date : 2014-12-09

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  wilhelm on Mon May 09, 2016 10:48 pm

    Elbows wrote:
    x_54_u43 wrote:
    Elbows wrote:

    I'm merely perplexed by the attitude which I see come across on a lot of these threads where people seem to think current tanks or next-gen tanks are going to be impervious to battlefield threats.  You build the best tank you can within a reasonable budget and you expect losses.  The pedantic arguing over which ATGM is better, or which armour certain tanks have is pretty pointless.  It's all well and good to study the advancement of technology, but let's be realistic.  The battlefield is a dangerous damn place regardless how fancy your equipment is.

    Nobody intelligent has ever stated that tanks are impervious. Or that the battlefield is safe while inside a tank.

    However, your statement that tanks would get flattened by air power before engaging each other is hilarious and the sign of a feeble and Hollywood-influenced mind.

    Remove the fanciful notions such as the F-35 or B-1B completely demolishing tank fleets with SDB-IIs. It will never happen, even if the tanks are without air cover or air defenses. Such notions have been hilarious to watch as they fall apart, especially the B-2 and the ICBM tracking fantasy, which was completely forgotten in the legendary SCUD hunting clusterfuck in the Iraq war.  

    Tanks may be a danger to be in, but relatively, they are far less risky to be in than other positions, especially in a new Russian tank such as the T-14. Consider the threats it faces, old TOWs and Milans and the laughter-inducing Javelin, with a hilariously low penetrating potential against a 3.5 gen T-90A, much less than a 4th generation T-14, with SIX radars, fully duplicated commander and gunner FCS with new generation thermal imagers and laser rangefinders, all-around camera system and laser warning system. Even if the T-14 is catastrophically hit, mostly likely in its turret, then I will be safe within the armored capsule.

    It's good to be a tanker. Especially a Russian one.

    A feeble mind huh?  Hmmm, that's a shame.  I guess I should take your insulting posts with a grain of salt.  Curious, what made you think I was referring to Russian tanks being flattened by US airpower?  Or is that because I'm a "Western Devil" and I can't possibly be applying that logic to all forms of armour/aircraft?

    Don't stress about it too much, Elbows. Smile

    x_54_u43, Elbows was pretty neutral, and didn't exactly pick on any nation over another.
    I really can't see why he deserved the slight dig? dunno

    Either way, I was glad when I was a soldier back in the day that I was an infantryman. Twisted Evil

    On that note, forgive me if I haven't been following as closely as I should the progression of Armata, but is it still in State Trials, or have those been concluded now?
    If they are concluded, is there a date that it is to be inducted into service? I seem to recall reading on this site that a production order was announced the other day.
    avatar
    x_54_u43

    Posts : 190
    Points : 210
    Join date : 2015-09-19

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  x_54_u43 on Mon May 09, 2016 11:53 pm

    wilhelm wrote:
    Don't stress about it too much, Elbows. Smile

    x_54_u43, Elbows was pretty neutral, and didn't exactly pick on any nation over another.
    I really can't see why he deserved the slight dig? dunno

    Either way, I was glad when I was a soldier back in the day that I was an infantryman. Twisted Evil

    On that note, forgive me if I haven't been following as closely as I should the progression of Armata, but is it still in State Trials, or have those been concluded now?
    If they are concluded, is there a date that it is to be inducted into service? I seem to recall reading on this site that a production order was announced the other day.

    Anyone who thinks air power can significantly affect ground power is a retard, simply put.

    Russian air force or American, it makes no difference.

    Contract for Armata have begun.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 5422
    Points : 5526
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  PapaDragon on Tue May 10, 2016 12:28 am

    Elbows wrote:.....'Western Devils'.......

    Don't get too worked up over harsh tone Elbows, it's just the flavour of this forum. Problem is that low quality of discussion and amount of stereotypes on other forums and comment sections makes people here go into ''shoot first ask questions later'' mode quite often.

    There are only so many videogame-grade ''experts'' you can tolerate at any given time before preemptively going ballistic.

    Just roll with it and feel free to shoot back.Very Happy

    Oh, and expression you were looking for is ''West Stronkian'' or ''West Stronker''. Nobody outside East Asia uses expression ''Western Devil'' as far as I know. Cool

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 771
    Points : 948
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Mindstorm on Fri May 13, 2016 9:42 am

    Well my two cents : Air Power is merely one of the factors.......and one not even close to the 4-5 most important ones..... which come in to play in the very complex "equation" at the basis of the variation in the military balance in a conflict between highly advanced peer/near-pear opponents.

    WWII was the last historical example where peer opponents fought one against the other.
    Then ground superiority proved itself orders of magnitude more important and crucial than air superiority even more if we take in consideration that the very bulk of the conflict was mostly fought and won on the eastern front where the balance between the patriotic BBC and Luftwaffe was strongly lopsided in enemy favour, naturally the strategic moment when the balance on the ground begun to slowly shift in РККА's favour, progressively faster the strategic balance of the conflict too shifted equally in our favour until a very fast defeat of Third Reich.

    The post Great Patriotic War military history cannot provide neither a true staple neither a reliable standard to ascertain the real importance of Air Forces in influencing the outcome of a conflict between peers, that for the very simple reason that always those conflicts involved opponents separated by a crushing difference in military technology and/or weight.

    In this global environment Air Forces became progressively more "popular" as military mean to achieve politic aims for the very limited amount of losses involved in its employment against backwarded opponents (both in terms of air defence systems/air forces and long range missiles capable to assure the destruction of the airbases in the theatre).

    The attempt to enormously “blow up” the importance of Air Force is always present in western narrative,for the simple reason that the heavily split, intercontinetal, geographical  composition of the major western  alliance  -NATO- has not only prevented the formation of unified ground forces armies capable to represent anymore than a momentary hindrance to Soviet Army ,but forced also it to invest extensively and almost exclusively in easily deployable/redeployable forces and equipment ,first among all aircraft.

    From this forced strategic choice descended also the pressing need to construct an enormous amount of spread-out related infrascrutures -in particular air bases- for which was at the time and is impossible still today to provide  for NATO any kind of effective IAD coverage.  

    Taking into account what just said is simple to understand why the inherently wronged idea that Air Forces would achieve today ,in a conflict between peer opponents, any better result than what achieved in the last major conflict is so strongly pushed and promoted in western media and ….…..at least publicly…..in the declarations of western military officials.

    Factual reality and cold data talk obviously of a totally different history : in facts even in the post WWII period and just in those conflicts always characterized by a crushing technological/numerical superiority enjoyed by a side on the other, merely the presence of one relatively up-do –date ground based air defense system……i repeat, only one model and not the several dozen different ones representing a full IAD as well its auxiliary and aid assets……,even if in its heavily scaled down export version and in a density
    much lower than what established in the  ПВО doctrinal structure, was sufficient to generate unsustainable aircraft losses on practically the most advanced and well trained “western” Air Forces : US Air Forces and Israeli Air Force, how well explained by Виталий Носов:



    “Почему на Ваш взгляд, действия систем ПВО советского производства в Ираке и Югославии были малоуспешны. Оказало ли это негативное влияние на продвижение российской техники на мировой рынок? Есть ли вообще перспективы систем ПВО, которые основаны на принципах активной радиолокации. Не являются ли более перспективными системы ПВО с пассивными (телевизионными, инфракрасными) датчиками или основанные на принципе бистатической и мультистатической радиолокации?

    Позвольте обратить ваше внимание на тот факт, что за многолетнюю историю противостояния средств ПВО советского производства и зарубежных средств воздушного нападения только в двух конфликтах в равном бою встречалось оружие одного поколения с той и с другой стороны - во Вьетнаме в 1965-1972 годах и на Ближнем Востоке в октябре 1973 года. И почему-то многие забыли, что успехи средств ПВО были тогда более чем впечатляющими. Так, например, только за один 1972 год во Вьетнаме огнем средств ПВО советского производства было сбито более 400 самолетов, из них 223 современнейших на то время самолета F-4 "Фантом" и 51 стратегический бомбардировщик B-52. За 10 дней октября 1973 года только в Сирии и только ЗРК "Квадрат" было сбито 64 израильских самолета. Именно значительные потери американской авиации в 1972 году в небе над Ханоем наряду с другими причинами заставили США подписать соглашение о прекращении боевых действий.

    Во время боевых действий в Ираке и Югославии на поле боя друг другу противостояли системы оружия разных поколений: со стороны стран западного альянса самые последние образцы средств воздушного нападения, поддерживаемые мощной системой воздушно-космической разведки и радиоэлектронного противодействия, а с другой стороны - система ПВО, построенная на основе устаревших ЗРК и РЛС, практически не имевших АСУ, средств радио- и радиотехнической разведки и средств РЭБ, без поддержки с воздуха, без подавления авиации на аэродромах и т.п. Имели место случаи неполного использования возможностей комплексов при их боевом применении. В настоящее время кардинальным образом изменились требования к системам и средствам ПВО, подходы к построению системы ПВО и нестратегической ПРО в целом, поэтому никакими героическими усилиями ни иракские, ни югославские специалисты, располагая старым парком вооружения, построить эффективной группировки ПВО не могли. Эти очевидные факты никем не игнорируются, поэтому события в Ираке и Югославии не только не оказали негативного влияния на продвижение российской техники ПВО на мировой рынок, а наоборот, способствовали резкому возрастанию интереса к ней со стороны потенциальных покупателей.

    Отвечая на вторую часть вопроса, напомню, что может быть эффективной только та система ПВО, которая включает в себя оптимальное сочетание различных огневых комплексов, РЛС, АСУ средств РЭБ, систем радио- и радиотехнической разведки, работающих в различных диапазонах дальностей, высот, частот, использующих различные способы и принципы обнаружения, пеленгации, сопровождения и наведения, в том числе и перечисленные в Вашем вопросе. Чрезмерное же увлечение каким-то одним новым направлением, или полный отказ от использования старых и проверенных принципов может пагубно сказаться на устойчивости или эффективности системы ПВО в целом."


    In those unique post WWII instances where the most advanced, well equipped ,well manned and numerous western Air Forces have confronted a very limited amount of an export version of a single model of relatively up-to-date AD system, not taking into account the total absence of any kind of offensive mean capable to attack directly the western air bases in the theatre (all of them not hardened in any way, devoid of even only the most elementary simulacrum of an IAD at theirs defense and literally overcrowded of an absurd number of very soft skin aircraft, immense amount of fuel and of openly exposed ammunition) only the successful holding of the US and Israeli forces on the ground – in particular for the Yom Kippur conflict – prevented an all-out defeat.

    With enemy enjoying ground superiority those conflicts ,and very likely also the majority of those where even only a single relatively up-to-date AD model was not present, would have resulted in the complete military collapse and the flattening of all the asset and structures in the thetre of operation in a matter of few days.

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 269
    Points : 279
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Cyrus the great on Sun May 15, 2016 3:44 pm

    Garry B wrote:

    It is a question of projectile to propellant ratio... a full bore or full calibre round like a HE Frag round is about 23kgs... that is the projectile is 23kgs.

    The entire round is about 33 kgs so we are talking about 10kgs of propellant pushing 23kgs of projectile... down an old 125mm barrel that means about 850m/s muzzle velocity... which is fine... HE rounds don't need to move fast.

    An APFSDS round which is basically a metal dart is about 8kgs and has about 13kgs of propellent pushing it down the barrel at about 1.7km/s down a normal barrel.

    A 152mm full bore round... ie not an APFSDS round, would not be travelling faster than 950m/s or so unless it has a very large propellent charge and a very long barrel... it would never get above 1,500m/s.

    Of course an APFSDS round that is about 10kgs and with extra propellant would be a lot faster than 1.8km/s I would assume.

    I think I confused APFSDS with full-bore rounds. A full-bore round travelling at 950 m/s is incredibly fast and would be really effective in an urban environment where the distances aren’t so great. The 2a83 is an impressive gun and will destroy any tank in existence [or in development] with just one shot. If it doesn’t completely destroy an opposing tank, it should immobilize it.


    Garry B wrote:If they wanted a secondary small calibre I doubt they would develop a 60mm mortar.. more likely they would adapt something like the 57mm grenade launcher they were working on... the advantage would be much smaller rounds so you could have a much larger number of targets engaged, and a 57mm low velocity grenade would have quite a powerful HE round. Being an external weapon the ammo could be added to the outside of the vehicle and could carry as many rounds as you want... Placing it on the rear of the turret like the 30mm grenade mount on the upgraded BMP-2s would be interesting... it would just need elevation performance rather than 360 degrees rotation which would mean it would not obstruct the roof mounted 12.7mm HMG.

    This might sound a little daft but couldn’t they have both? A fully stabilized 60mm mortar [connected to the FCS] could provide great indirect fire against opposing infantry and anti-tank teams in defilade – something that I don’t think the 57mm could achieve. The unmanned turret of the T-14 could probably accommodate 20 + plus 60mm rounds and the 57mm grenade launcher could operate in lieu of the 7.62mm in the remote weapons station. The 57mm grenade would be a great direct fire weapon.

    It would also be great if two 23mm autocannons were attached on the sides of the turret and would make the T-14 Armata an incredibly effective platform in urban engagements.

    Garry B wrote:

    Likely all the new vehicles will have a C4IR system that communicates to each other and other platforms. It is likely it will also allow control of UAVs and to get video footage of nearby sensors both air and ground based.

    The T90SM seems to have a good BMS and so I expect the Armata series to have a world class BMS just like how its FCS is arguably superior with its advanced image processing capabilities. With barrel launched drones and an advanced C4IR, the T-14 Armata should be able to see other tanks first thereby getting off the first shot.


    Garry B wrote:No. Even with nitrogen or even Halon if a spark hits the cardboard shell of a 125mm propellant charge then it will burn... it does not need oxygen from the air to burn... when the shell and propellant in the gun ready to fire there is not enough oxygen to burn... it provides its own fuel and oxygen... once ignited it would burn in space or under water... the fact that nitrogen has replaced the air around it would not stop the fire... just slow it down from burning objects nearby.

    If you dropped a flare into a nitrogen filled turret the lack of oxygen would stop things in the turret like foam or plastic or wood from burning... it will still be damaged by the heat of the flare but would not burn without the oxygen in the air.

    Put 20 propellant stubs in there and drop a burning flare on them even with no oxygen in the air the carboard would burn because it is designed to combust and leave little residue in the chamber... once the flame of the flare hits the propellant... boom and the shower of flame will ignite the other stubs and the pressure spikes exponentially and boom off go the hatches and anyone in that turret is dead... though they already suffocated with a lack of oxygen anyway.


    That is incredibly frightening and really puts it all into perspective and really does create the impression that a binary liquid propellant is absolutely essential and will eventually have to be incorporated into the T-14 Armata. Thanks for this informative write-up. I’ve learned a lot from it.

    Garry B wrote:
    At its heart it is just plumbing... and a liquid propellant would be more powerful than the current solid propellant.

    It would also be easier to change the charge, so a HE shell uses less propellant, while APFSDS rounds have more...

    If they can introduce binary liquid propellants then it really should be done especially if it increases efficiency and the speed of the loading system.

    Garry B wrote:

    Ditto.

    There is no perfect tank, just like there is no perfect anti tank weapon.

    Russia is not just applying a range of technologies to help protect their men, like armoured capsules, ERA, NERA, APS, Nakidka, Shtora, different armour types, but it is also investing in communications and command and control systems and computers down to infantry level as well as systems to defeat the enemies equivalent equipment.

    Exactly. I really do appreciate Russia’s emphasis on layers of defence to more effectively counter the ever evolving range of threats that armored vehicles will continue to encounter in war.



    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16517
    Points : 17125
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  GarryB on Mon May 16, 2016 1:04 pm

    The 2a83 is an impressive gun and will destroy any tank in existence [or in development] with just one shot. If it doesn’t completely destroy an opposing tank, it should immobilize it.

    The 152mm shells were so effective because their weight... ie about 50kgs is enough to kill the crew on the other side of heavy armour with the concussion effect.

    Just like a 100kg bomb can kill everyone inside a tank... even if it wont penetrate the armour the shock wave will kill the crew anyway.

    This might sound a little daft but couldn’t they have both? A fully stabilized 60mm mortar [connected to the FCS] could provide great indirect fire against opposing infantry and anti-tank teams in defilade – something that I don’t think the 57mm could achieve. The unmanned turret of the T-14 could probably accommodate 20 + plus 60mm rounds and the 57mm grenade launcher could operate in lieu of the 7.62mm in the remote weapons station. The 57mm grenade would be a great direct fire weapon.

    No disrespect meant, but the Russians don't have any 60mm mortars in service... the Israelis do because it is an american weapon. the Soviets had 50mm mortars but withdrew them because they were expensive to make and not that effective on the battlefield.

    If you want to add a light automatic weapon on a Russian tank it would make sense to use an existing type rather that create one completely from scratch or even copy an american design when existing Russian designs have pretty much similar performance.

    the 57mm grenade launcher I am talking about is a new weapon like a 40mm grenade launcher with much bigger and heavier projectiles... the difference between a 57mm grenade and a 60mm mortar bomb is less than 3mm in calibre... both are low velocity rounds that rely on HE capacity for performance... the difference is that the 57mm weapon could be belt fed and automatic, while a 60mm mortar that is not in service in Russia would be semi automatic only.

    the 57mm grenade launcher has a low muzzle velocity... don't confuse it with the new 57mm high velocity guns they are talking about for IFV use with guided shells.

    A 57mm grenade launcher has a curved trajectory like a mortar but a much higher rate of fire and can be used for direct and indirect fire.

    It would be mounted coaxially with the main gun but with independent elevation so where you point the main gun you are pointing the grenade launcher but the grenade launcher can be angled up much higher than the main gun.

    In fact knowing the Russians the 57mm grenade launcher probably has the same cheap simple air burst rounds as their 40mm grenades making the 57mm grenade launcher much more effective than the US or Israeli 60mm mortar.

    (BTW the Israelis used the 60mm mostly for launching illumination rounds to float over the target area to illuminate the enemy and make their own forces harder to see in the dark.)

    It would also be great if two 23mm autocannons were attached on the sides of the turret and would make the T-14 Armata an incredibly effective platform in urban engagements.

    It would make more sense to keep the tank as a tank and have a fire support vehicle like a BMP-T to have the anti infantry fire power. IFVs will also be very well armed and of course the artillery vehicles will also add their fire power... there will be no shortage of bang.

    Exactly. I really do appreciate Russia’s emphasis on layers of defence to more effectively counter the ever evolving range of threats that armored vehicles will continue to encounter in war.

    the key is to remember not to confuse a component with a system. You can look at any single part of a machine and point out its potential faults, but when it is operating as part of a machine... particularly a war machine where every part works as a greater whole trying to assist each other part as well as do a particular job it stops being so easy to find fault or weakness.

    I mean with most vehicle units likely including systems that can detect gunshots then the vulnerability to snipers is reduced. Systems that defeat IEDs and mines and booby traps further make systems safer.

    Learning enemy tactics and adapting to tricks means sneaky attacks can be successful first time and perhaps even second and third time but eventually they will devise tactics to defeat such attacks... it is a constant battle... one side introduces MRAP vehicles able to survive 5kg HE mines under their wheels... the enemy is not just going to stop trying to blow up your vehicles... they will likely start using more HE or different IEDs that attack from the side or the belly rather than blow up a wheel. Smile


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    MarshallJukov

    Posts : 20
    Points : 20
    Join date : 2015-02-22

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  MarshallJukov on Thu May 19, 2016 11:17 pm

    GarryB wrote:while a 60mm mortar that is not in service in Russia would be semi automatic only.

    avatar
    x_54_u43

    Posts : 190
    Points : 210
    Join date : 2015-09-19

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  x_54_u43 on Fri May 20, 2016 2:38 am

    [quote="GarryB"]


    Just like a 100kg bomb can kill everyone inside a tank... even if it wont penetrate the armour the shock wave will kill the crew anyway.


    Don't underestimate tank armor, T-90As are rated to a several kiloton explosion just 700m away. JDAMS were detonated mere meters away from Iraqi tanks and did nothing to them, dispelling a lot of false notions in the process.

    How do you think World War 3 would have been fought? Everyone knew about this and tanks were designed for very high amount of overpressure damage.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16517
    Points : 17125
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  GarryB on Fri May 20, 2016 1:07 pm

    @MarshallJukov

    I am fully aware of the excellent 82mm Vasilek Automatic mortar... but that is not a 60mm mortar.

    As I mentioned the closest thing the Russians have to a 60mm mortar would be the new 57mm auto grenade launcher they have in development.

    Don't underestimate tank armor, T-90As are rated to a several kiloton explosion just 700m away. JDAMS were detonated mere meters away from Iraqi tanks and did nothing to them, dispelling a lot of false notions in the process.

    How do you think World War 3 would have been fought? Everyone knew about this and tanks were designed for very high amount of overpressure damage.

    The shockwave from an explosion propagates in 3 dimensions and loses power exponentially.

    From 300m an aircraft bomb will likely not injure you in the open.

    Abrams tanks have been taken out of operation with 50kg IEDs.

    Abrams armour is no more or less effective than T-90 armour in this respect.

    Very simply for a 152mm shell to kill a tank crew without penetrating its armour it can only do so with a HE shell using the shockwave crushing the crew with its effect.

    Detonating that same warhead 10m from the tank will not even likely injure the crew... though it would destroy aerials and shatter optics.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    MarshallJukov

    Posts : 20
    Points : 20
    Join date : 2015-02-22

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  MarshallJukov on Fri May 20, 2016 4:37 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    but that is not a 60mm mortar.

    As I mentioned the closest thing the Russians have to a 60mm mortar would be the new 57mm auto grenade launcher they have in development.

    Not even close. AGS-57 fires twice heavier and more powerfull rounds. 3,1kg vs 1,6kg. Each contains 600g of А-IХ-2. Thats closer to 8xmm mortars.



    GarryB wrote:
    Very simply for a 152mm shell to kill a tank crew without penetrating its armour it can only do so with a HE shell using the shockwave crushing the crew with its effect.

    Detonating that same warhead 10m from the tank will not even likely injure the crew... though it would destroy aerials and shatter optics.

    Even old KV-1 tanks and their crews survived DIRECT him of 150mm artillery shell during WW2 and did not even left the battle.
    All modern tanks are airtight so they are totaly protect their crew from shockwave.
    Bomb or IED can damage, destroy the tank or injure its crew ONLY if direct blast physicaly reach the tank and the charge is large enough. Neither of mortar shells or 15xmm artillery have enough charge to destroy tanks even with direct hit most of the time. Their detonation in proximity will do almost no damage or harm, if any at all.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Oct 20, 2017 9:10 am