Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Share

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

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

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  Vladimir79 on Tue Mar 22, 2011 6:05 am

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

    No it isn't and yes it can. It is just a laser guided bomb coming from an artillery tube. As long as the shell seeker is pointing in the general direction on its ascent phase, it will seek the illuminated point for impact.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5681
    Points : 6087
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  Austin on Tue Mar 22, 2011 6:14 am

    Nice Interview http://vpk.name/news/50883_sergei_maev_glavkom_suhoputnyih_voisk_dolzhen_naladit_svyaz_s_voennoi_promyishlennostyu_a_ne_delat_neprodumannyie_zayavleniya.html

    ( use translation )

    He says he was personally involved with T-95 and if it got adopted it would have given Russian Army a 20 year advantage over Western system, there were refinments planned for T-95.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  GarryB on Tue Mar 22, 2011 8:15 am

    No it isn't and yes it can. It is just a laser guided bomb coming from
    an artillery tube. As long as the shell seeker is pointing in the
    general direction on its ascent phase, it will seek the illuminated
    point for impact.

    What I meant is that it has a limit as to how far it can manouver during its guidance phase and it also has a seeker field of view that also limits what it can hit as well.

    Firing the shell in the opposite direction to where the target is when the shell is in flight it flys ballistically till it ejects the cap that protects the seeker in the nose and starts looking for the target during its descent.
    During its ascent after being fired it has the seeker cap on and can't see anything... and even if it ejected the cap 100m from the muzzle after launch it will be climbing upwards and just see sky anyway.


    He says he was personally involved with T-95 and if it got adopted it
    would have given Russian Army a 20 year advantage over Western system,
    there were refinments planned for T-95.

    Thanks for posting, and though I haven't read it yet keep in mind that of course he thinks this tank is wonderful... it is his baby. Remember that in the 1980s before the west had its hands on the R-73 they thought the then current model of Sidewinder was the worlds best short range AAM... but only because they didn't know anything about the R-73s real performance.

    Think of the T-95 as being like the Commanche... I rather doubt it was bad... requirements likely changed and undermined its main purpose... and using the latest technologies it was probably pretty expensive too.

    The same is likely to happen with the technology with the T-90 likely benefiting perhaps from new active defense systems developed for it, and the future replacement tank for the T-90 will likely get even more features where they make sense to do so.

    BTW the title of the translation:
    By the central board of ground forces it must fix connection with the defense industry, but not make the unconsidered statements


    Is pretty much what I am saying... the military need to communicate better what it wants, and the MIC need to listen and react to that information.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

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

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  IronsightSniper on Tue Mar 22, 2011 11:55 pm

    [quote="GarryB"]

    Tanks used Defensively are a terrible waste of good armor.

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

    If the enemy isn't fair, don't play fair. Letting tanks sit around in a stationary OP is a bad idea. Better to hide it.

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

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

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

    My problem with a 7.62 coax is both it's power, range, and again, the fact that it's coaxial.

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

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

    Hey now, that's only for the Heavy APC role. Your MBTs can provide the defensive fire if need be.

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

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

    That would be possible, but I have yet to see a picture of the T-90M with anything that resembles a MMW or read anything such so.

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

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

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

    Actually, TOW, Milan and Hot aren't overkill. They were designed to punch through the advanced composite arrays of the T-72Bs (and T-90's Glacis). Most likely, we aren't going to face T-72M1s or T-90s, but there's a distinct possibility we will face T-72Bs or T-80Us, both of which have very advanced arrays which would render the majority of our hand-held AT weapons useless. Just because the US has Javelins doesn't mean that Georgians will. If Georgians have Javelins doesn't mean it will do as it says, who knows, we may have a self-defeating timer on the missiles we sold them...

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  GarryB on Wed Mar 23, 2011 3:00 am

    If the enemy isn't fair, don't play fair. Letting tanks sit around in a stationary OP is a bad idea. Better to hide it.

    Hiding tanks? Why have them at all? Often the ground troops find the accuracy and power of a direct fire 100mm+ calibre weapon to be rather useful. A tank protecting a base makes the enemy focus on the tank rather than the base, which in itself is a good thing.

    My problem with a 7.62 coax is both it's power, range, and again, the fact that it's coaxial.

    Well let me just disagree with you then. The elevation limits are not that big a deal when you consider the main gun has the same limits and so when the gunner is aiming at something that doesn't need a 125mm shell but still needs to be hit a coaxial MG seems to be popular... I can't think of any tank or APC with a turret that doesn't have a coaxial weapon... except artillery, which of course should run away if it finds itself up against enemy infantry because most artillery have no direct fire capability.

    Hey now, that's only for the Heavy APC role. Your MBTs can provide the defensive fire if need be.

    But without BMP-3M type high elevation cannon or 100mm rifled guns the units are going to lack the firepower of the medium brigades that do have BMP-3M type weapons... on their BMP-3Ms.

    In fact adopting the BTRT concept will mean that all of their IFVs can be fitted with 12.7mm weapons in small external gun mounts, or maybe the BTR-82 turret setups, and the fire support vehicles can be based on each light, medium, and heavy family of vehicles. This will remove 40 rounds of 100mm HE rounds and 500 rounds of 30mm ammo from the vehicles you use to carry your infantry. This will make the infantry vehicles much less prone to explosions if penetrated, so even a successful hit with an RPG that penetrates an infantry transport might kill and or injure one or two men rather than potentially hit the ammo stored in the turret and blow up the whole vehicle and kill the entire crew.
    The BMPTs could be fitted with external guns and separate the ammo from the crew compartment... and I think decent external mounts for MG turrets rather than the bow guns fitted to the current BMPT in addition to replacing the twin 30mm guns with a single twin barrel 2A38M gun with burst fire options of single shot, 5, 10, and 20 round bursts and full auto at its standard rate of 2,500 rpm would make it capable against ground and air targets, and co mount it with a 100mm rifled gun from the BMP-3 in an external mount with a turret bustle autoloader with 40 rounds and blow out panels. Elevation to +70 degrees and depression of -15 degrees should make it flexible regarding digging it in and shouldn't be too hard with externally mounted weapons. With no crew in the turret above the turret ring (like BMPT) the turret above the turret ring can be rather large.

    That would be possible, but I have yet to see a picture of the T-90M
    with anything that resembles a MMW or read anything such so.

    There aren't that many pictures of T-90M around full stop. I have photos of BMP-3s with the tower for ARENA with MMW sensors... by now it is probably half the size. For Drodz 2 the radar sensors were separate and mounted above the rocket launchers. With a requirement for laser sensors there is no reason why a module could not be developed that included Laser sensors with MMW radar elements that scan for incoming rounds. The laser detection modules would need 360 FOV so by mounting radar elements there too should give similar coverage as long as there were enough MMW elements to provide the same coverage as the Laser sensors.

    The Russian military should hire me as a consultant... I would be happy to do the job, and could use the extra money... Cool

    Actually, TOW, Milan and Hot aren't overkill.

    Desert Storm: a few hundred T-72s that any of the above missiles could penetrate from any angle. The vast majority of Iraqi tanks were T-55s which were even more vulnerable.
    Iraq invasion # 2... more of the same.
    Afghanistan: very little armour to speak of.
    Kosovo... see above.
    et al.
    The US has yet to face an enemy tank that has armour strong enough to worry any of the missiles above I mentioned. In fact the missiles above have 3-4 times the penetration needed to defeat the vehicles the US has met in combat in the last 2 decades. Milans range is nothing to crow about but HOT and TOW can both pretty much hit all the above armour day or night at ranges the above vehicles will know little about till it is barbecue time.
    If you magically time warped all the Javelins out of service and replaced them with Milans the operational difference would be that the Milan is a bit heavier and really needs 2-3 men to operate properly.

    If Georgians have Javelins doesn't mean it will do as it says, who
    knows, we may have a self-defeating timer on the missiles we sold
    them...

    Yeah, because the US really cares about the lives of Russians. BTW How much drugs produced openly in Afghanistan went to Russia last year?

    Of course the irony is... what does the US think is funding the Taleban... apart from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia of course.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

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

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  IronsightSniper on Wed Mar 23, 2011 7:24 am

    [quote="GarryB"]
    If the enemy isn't fair, don't play fair. Letting tanks sit around in a stationary OP is a bad idea. Better to hide it.

    Hiding tanks? Why have them at all? Often the ground troops find the accuracy and power of a direct fire 100mm+ calibre weapon to be rather useful. A tank protecting a base makes the enemy focus on the tank rather than the base, which in itself is a good thing.

    That's the thing, when you start trying to do that, all that matters is range. How to get more range? Use your gun like a howizter, which is what Saddamm did, and his barrels turned to dust in a matter of a couple dozen shots.

    My problem with a 7.62 coax is both it's power, range, and again, the fact that it's coaxial.

    Well let me just disagree with you then. The elevation limits are not that big a deal when you consider the main gun has the same limits and so when the gunner is aiming at something that doesn't need a 125mm shell but still needs to be hit a coaxial MG seems to be popular... I can't think of any tank or APC with a turret that doesn't have a coaxial weapon... except artillery, which of course should run away if it finds itself up against enemy infantry because most artillery have no direct fire capability.

    Exactly, the gun used is usually low power, relatively short range, and can only traverse and elevate with the turret. An independent turret, like a remote 12.7, would have more power, more range, and more traverse/elevation. Of course, if there is a need for a low-power AP weapon, you can mount a remote 12.7 and another remote 7.62, but overall, mounting more than one MG turret seems to be more efficient than having a coax.

    Hey now, that's only for the Heavy APC role. Your MBTs can provide the defensive fire if need be.

    But without BMP-3M type high elevation cannon or 100mm rifled guns the units are going to lack the firepower of the medium brigades that do have BMP-3M type weapons... on their BMP-3Ms.

    In fact adopting the BTRT concept will mean that all of their IFVs can be fitted with 12.7mm weapons in small external gun mounts, or maybe the BTR-82 turret setups, and the fire support vehicles can be based on each light, medium, and heavy family of vehicles. This will remove 40 rounds of 100mm HE rounds and 500 rounds of 30mm ammo from the vehicles you use to carry your infantry. This will make the infantry vehicles much less prone to explosions if penetrated, so even a successful hit with an RPG that penetrates an infantry transport might kill and or injure one or two men rather than potentially hit the ammo stored in the turret and blow up the whole vehicle and kill the entire crew.
    The BMPTs could be fitted with external guns and separate the ammo from the crew compartment... and I think decent external mounts for MG turrets rather than the bow guns fitted to the current BMPT in addition to replacing the twin 30mm guns with a single twin barrel 2A38M gun with burst fire options of single shot, 5, 10, and 20 round bursts and full auto at its standard rate of 2,500 rpm would make it capable against ground and air targets, and co mount it with a 100mm rifled gun from the BMP-3 in an external mount with a turret bustle autoloader with 40 rounds and blow out panels. Elevation to +70 degrees and depression of -15 degrees should make it flexible regarding digging it in and shouldn't be too hard with externally mounted weapons. With no crew in the turret above the turret ring (like BMPT) the turret above the turret ring can be rather large.

    You can only balance a vehicle so much. Personally, I think Russia needs a Heavy Armored APC, with minimal weapons if possible. Self defense can be delivered by exterior sources, such as a MBT or perhaps a BMP-3M.

    That would be possible, but I have yet to see a picture of the T-90M
    with anything that resembles a MMW or read anything such so.

    There aren't that many pictures of T-90M around full stop. I have photos of BMP-3s with the tower for ARENA with MMW sensors... by now it is probably half the size. For Drodz 2 the radar sensors were separate and mounted above the rocket launchers. With a requirement for laser sensors there is no reason why a module could not be developed that included Laser sensors with MMW radar elements that scan for incoming rounds. The laser detection modules would need 360 FOV so by mounting radar elements there too should give similar coverage as long as there were enough MMW elements to provide the same coverage as the Laser sensors.

    The Russian military should hire me as a consultant... I would be happy to do the job, and could use the extra money... Cool

    I have seen that BMP-3M too. But I've only heard of ARENA-E being available for export BMP-3s. Variants of the T-90 and T-80 with hard-kill APSs have been around, but I have not heard that they will be mass produced, for good reason too. T-90Ms can cost as much as $4,000,000 USD a piece, PROBABLY less, but that's quite expensive by Russian standards already, putting an ARENA on it would only mean more expenses.

    Actually, TOW, Milan and Hot aren't overkill.

    Desert Storm: a few hundred T-72s that any of the above missiles could penetrate from any angle. The vast majority of Iraqi tanks were T-55s which were even more vulnerable.
    Iraq invasion # 2... more of the same.
    Afghanistan: very little armour to speak of.
    Kosovo... see above.
    et al.
    The US has yet to face an enemy tank that has armour strong enough to worry any of the missiles above I mentioned. In fact the missiles above have 3-4 times the penetration needed to defeat the vehicles the US has met in combat in the last 2 decades. Milans range is nothing to crow about but HOT and TOW can both pretty much hit all the above armour day or night at ranges the above vehicles will know little about till it is barbecue time.
    If you magically time warped all the Javelins out of service and replaced them with Milans the operational difference would be that the Milan is a bit heavier and really needs 2-3 men to operate properly.

    Those missiles were designed during the Cold War to counter, again, advanced composite armor arrays on Soviet tanks, which had RHAes of over 700 mm alone, without ERA.

    If Georgians have Javelins doesn't mean it will do as it says, who
    knows, we may have a self-defeating timer on the missiles we sold
    them...

    Yeah, because the US really cares about the lives of Russians. BTW How much drugs produced openly in Afghanistan went to Russia last year?

    Of course the irony is... what does the US think is funding the Taleban... apart from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia of course.

    Perhaps it's not who we care about, but rather what we want? Javelins cost a lot of money.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  GarryB on Thu Mar 24, 2011 12:46 am


    That's the thing, when you start trying to do that, all that matters
    is range. How to get more range? Use your gun like a howizter, which is
    what Saddamm did, and his barrels turned to dust in a matter of a
    couple dozen shots.

    Don't quite follow you... Putting a tank in a base to help defend it is normally a good thing... you can string up wire fences to stop Rockets and Missiles aimed at the tank and its optics and fire power are generally quite useful in supporting the defenders in case of an attack.

    An independent turret, like a remote 12.7, would have more power, more range, and more traverse/elevation.

    An independent turret would not have better traverse unless it was mounted on top of the tanks turret.

    I would think the best alternative to a 7.62mm MG with 2,000 rounds of linked ready to fire ammo mounted next to the main gun on a tank could be a Balkan 40mm grenade launcher in a mount that allows extra elevation independent of the main gun, so say it can elevate independently of the main gun to say 70 degrees up and -15 degrees down perhaps, with a load of perhaps 500 grenades linked and ready to fire. The 2.5km range would be very useful and being a fixed mounted weapon dispersion at max range should be better than the dismounted model.

    Of course, if there is a need for a low-power AP weapon, you can mount a
    remote 12.7 and another remote 7.62, but overall, mounting more than
    one MG turret seems to be more efficient than having a coax.

    The only times I have seen this sort of thing is on the old Lee tanks, and of course on the M60, and of course the really old T-32 and T-35 type tanks with multi turrets.
    The problem is do you mount the extra MG turrets at the front so they can't fire backwards, or like the M60 do you mount a MG turret on the commanders cuppola with 360 degree Field of fire traversing independantly of the main turret. Is it worth it? Unless you mount a 360 degree panorama sight for the commander on top of that it will interfere with the commanders view... and make the tank taller and easier to spot.

    You can only balance a vehicle so much. Personally, I think Russia needs
    a Heavy Armored APC, with minimal weapons if possible. Self defense can
    be delivered by exterior sources, such as a MBT or perhaps a BMP-3M.

    That is pretty much what I am suggesting. BMP-3M level armament in the Heavy Brigades APC takes up too much internal space and also places a lot of HE in with the troops... which makes the vehicle vulnerable if penetrated. Separating the fire support role of the BMP-3M from the infantry transport role creates a BMPT requirement, though with the changes I mention above over the well known BMPT design.

    But I've only heard of ARENA-E being available for export BMP-3s.

    That would make sense as the E stands for Export...

    Variants of the T-90 and T-80 with hard-kill APSs have been around, but I
    have not heard that they will be mass produced, for good reason too.

    Would that be because the Russian military has not spent real money on its heavy armour till... well soon.

    Perhaps they want to finalise the upgrades before they spend money because existing newbuilds will need to get the upgrade anyway... which will include an APS.
    Part of the reason of reducing the force sizes is so that new stuff can be afforded and upgrades applied regularly like they were during cold war times.

    T-90Ms can cost as much as $4,000,000 USD a piece, PROBABLY less, but
    that's quite expensive by Russian standards already, putting an ARENA on
    it would only mean more expenses.

    Do you not think that the reason the T-90M suddenly got so expensive is because it has all those expensive new things like ARENA? The 2.2 million price of the T-90S includes French Thermals so what do you think might almost double the price?

    Those missiles were designed during the Cold War to counter, again,
    advanced composite armor arrays on Soviet tanks, which had RHAes of over
    700 mm alone, without ERA.

    Indeed they were, and with the US and NATO bravely taking on third world countries with T-55s and old model T-72s these missiles are probably far more powerful than what is needed at the moment... which is why I called them over kill.


    Perhaps it's not who we care about, but rather what we want? Javelins cost a lot of money.

    So you need Javelins, not because previous missiles can't do the job, but because Javelins are expensive???

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

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

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  IronsightSniper on Thu Mar 24, 2011 12:57 am

    [quote="GarryB"]

    That's the thing, when you start trying to do that, all that matters
    is range. How to get more range? Use your gun like a howizter, which is
    what Saddamm did, and his barrels turned to dust in a matter of a
    couple dozen shots.

    Don't quite follow you... Putting a tank in a base to help defend it is normally a good thing... you can string up wire fences to stop Rockets and Missiles aimed at the tank and its optics and fire power are generally quite useful in supporting the defenders in case of an attack.

    A stationary tank is a dead tank. As you've discussed before, why bother with getting bigger tank guns when everything's going to get hit by Air power?

    An independent turret, like a remote 12.7, would have more power, more range, and more traverse/elevation.

    An independent turret would not have better traverse unless it was mounted on top of the tanks turret.

    I would think the best alternative to a 7.62mm MG with 2,000 rounds of linked ready to fire ammo mounted next to the main gun on a tank could be a Balkan 40mm grenade launcher in a mount that allows extra elevation independent of the main gun, so say it can elevate independently of the main gun to say 70 degrees up and -15 degrees down perhaps, with a load of perhaps 500 grenades linked and ready to fire. The 2.5km range would be very useful and being a fixed mounted weapon dispersion at max range should be better than the dismounted model.

    MG turrets are usually mounted on top of the turret, I wouldn't know why you thought I meant elsewhere. That wouldn't be a terrible idea. Better yet, make an semi-automatic GM-94 with an independent turret turret, that would solve the over penetration and under penetration problems that the 12.7 mm and 7.62 mm faces.

    Of course, if there is a need for a low-power AP weapon, you can mount a
    remote 12.7 and another remote 7.62, but overall, mounting more than
    one MG turret seems to be more efficient than having a coax.

    The only times I have seen this sort of thing is on the old Lee tanks, and of course on the M60, and of course the really old T-32 and T-35 type tanks with multi turrets.
    The problem is do you mount the extra MG turrets at the front so they can't fire backwards, or like the M60 do you mount a MG turret on the commanders cuppola with 360 degree Field of fire traversing independantly of the main turret. Is it worth it? Unless you mount a 360 degree panorama sight for the commander on top of that it will interfere with the commanders view... and make the tank taller and easier to spot.

    If the independent turrets can't rotate 360 it isn't worth it. Mountain a 360 degree hunter sight for T-90 tanks is one improvement that will enhance it's capabilities by many times. And really, making the tank a few cm taller isn't going to make it that much easier to spot.

    You can only balance a vehicle so much. Personally, I think Russia needs
    a Heavy Armored APC, with minimal weapons if possible. Self defense can
    be delivered by exterior sources, such as a MBT or perhaps a BMP-3M.

    That is pretty much what I am suggesting. BMP-3M level armament in the Heavy Brigades APC takes up too much internal space and also places a lot of HE in with the troops... which makes the vehicle vulnerable if penetrated. Separating the fire support role of the BMP-3M from the infantry transport role creates a BMPT requirement, though with the changes I mention above over the well known BMPT design.

    So we've been chasing each other's tail's due to a misunderstanding? Razz

    Variants of the T-90 and T-80 with hard-kill APSs have been around, but I
    have not heard that they will be mass produced, for good reason too.

    Would that be because the Russian military has not spent real money on its heavy armour till... well soon.

    Perhaps they want to finalise the upgrades before they spend money because existing newbuilds will need to get the upgrade anyway... which will include an APS.
    Part of the reason of reducing the force sizes is so that new stuff can be afforded and upgrades applied regularly like they were during cold war times.

    Like many critics of the Russian armored forces, Uralzo-something rarely "finalizes" their designs, in that, they'll probably make a new upgraded version 3-5 years from now.

    T-90Ms can cost as much as $4,000,000 USD a piece, PROBABLY less, but
    that's quite expensive by Russian standards already, putting an ARENA on
    it would only mean more expenses.

    Do you not think that the reason the T-90M suddenly got so expensive is because it has all those expensive new things like ARENA? The 2.2 million price of the T-90S includes French Thermals so what do you think might almost double the price?

    The T-90S doesn't have Shtora, the T-90S doesn't have APU, the T-90S doesn't have a rear-turret autoloader, etc. And again, what pictures I have seen of the T-90M, does not have a MMW radar device needed for hard-kill APSs.

    Those missiles were designed during the Cold War to counter, again,
    advanced composite armor arrays on Soviet tanks, which had RHAes of over
    700 mm alone, without ERA.

    Indeed they were, and with the US and NATO bravely taking on third world countries with T-55s and old model T-72s these missiles are probably far more powerful than what is needed at the moment... which is why I called them over kill.

    What's expected and what comes along are different things.


    Perhaps it's not who we care about, but rather what we want? Javelins cost a lot of money.

    So you need Javelins, not because previous missiles can't do the job, but because Javelins are expensive???

    On the contrary, we should sell Javelins, and make them empty on purpose, and make lots of money.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  GarryB on Thu Mar 24, 2011 9:34 am

    A stationary tank is a dead tank. As you've discussed before, why bother
    with getting bigger tank guns when everything's going to get hit by Air
    power?

    When was the last time the US or Russia faced an enemy where enemy air power was a real threat for very long to ground forces?

    Tanks are supposed to fight all sorts of wars... there is not point designing them for Kursk... rolling tank battles... alone.

    MG turrets are usually mounted on top of the turret, I wouldn't know why you thought I meant elsewhere.

    Apart from the M60 and General Lee tanks I can't think of any others. On the other hand there were lots of pre WWII tanks with multiple turrets.

    A MG turret like that increases the height of the vehicle without increasing the range at which the gunner can see and shoot targets.

    Personally I would think low flat turrets mounted in the bow position of the BMPT with the main turret moved back and the front extended forward to make the front armour thicker and better angled while creating room for two turrets that cover the front of the vehicle and are able to elevate to at least 70 degrees for high angle threats and not be effected by the main turret turning around a bit.

    Better yet, make an semi-automatic GM-94 with an independent turret
    turret, that would solve the over penetration and under penetration
    problems that the 12.7 mm and 7.62 mm faces.

    I couldn't see the GM-94 being modified to belt feed and semi auto operation being smaller or lighter than the Balkan. The high velocity grenades of the Balkan would give a much wider field of fire and enable a wider range of targets to much greater distances be engaged.

    If the independent turrets can't rotate 360 it isn't worth it.

    The front armour of the T-90 is what you want facing at the threat, and the same applies to any BMPT design. Having the extra gun turrets at the front give better firepower in the threat direction... and most of the time that is where you want it. For threats in other directions... the commander keeps his 360 vision and can direct his driver to turn the vehicle to bring the front minor turrets to bear on a threat or group of threats while designating a separate threat that can be anywhere 360 degrees around the tank for the gunner to deal with.

    A soft threat can be dealt with 40mm grenade launchers with coaxial 30 cal MGs, while a hard threat can be dealt with using the main tank gun.

    Like many critics of the Russian armored forces, Uralzo-something rarely
    "finalizes" their designs, in that, they'll probably make a new
    upgraded version 3-5 years from now.

    No design is ever finalised and regular upgrades will keep it a potent system. New system introductions can require fundamental changes which might be able to be coped with or might require a from scratch approach.

    The system they show for export is not the system they are showing to their military to get them to adopt.


    The T-90S doesn't have Shtora, the T-90S doesn't have APU, the T-90S
    doesn't have a rear-turret autoloader, etc. And again, what pictures I
    have seen of the T-90M, does not have a MMW radar device needed for
    hard-kill APSs.

    I have seen a few pictures of the PAK-FA... first and second flying prototype... I have not seen the side mounted AESA radars on the nose of the aircraft yet. They claim it will be there on the final aircraft though.

    I posted above... the 1,000hp engine quote that mentioned active defence systems. I take that over lack of photo evidence.

    BTW it could be a completely new system... what does a MMW radar antenna look like?
    The ones of DRODZ and ARENA just looked like painted metal blocks... array them like ERA and I doubt anyone could tell one from the other...


    What's expected and what comes along are different things.

    I agree if you can afford it... get the best that is available. Problem of course is if you give the troops a 10 MW laser they will use it for everything.

    On the contrary, we should sell Javelins, and make them empty on purpose, and make lots of money.

    I doubt the makers of Javelin would want that on their record...

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  GarryB on Thu Mar 24, 2011 9:38 am

    This is the 40mm automatic grenade launcher I am talking about... either as a coaxial weapon for a tank, or as a weapon for gun turrets on a BMPT like vehicle. Note its compact design:




    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

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

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  IronsightSniper on Thu Mar 24, 2011 10:58 am

    [quote="GarryB"]
    A stationary tank is a dead tank. As you've discussed before, why bother
    with getting bigger tank guns when everything's going to get hit by Air
    power?

    When was the last time the US or Russia faced an enemy where enemy air power was a real threat for very long to ground forces?

    Tanks are supposed to fight all sorts of wars... there is not point designing them for Kursk... rolling tank battles... alone.

    Ah, but that is the purpose of a MBT, take hits, give hits, move along. Having a tank face another tank stationary is akin to trench warfare, something not favorable in a world of maneuvers.

    MG turrets are usually mounted on top of the turret, I wouldn't know why you thought I meant elsewhere.

    Apart from the M60 and General Lee tanks I can't think of any others. On the other hand there were lots of pre WWII tanks with multiple turrets.

    A MG turret like that increases the height of the vehicle without increasing the range at which the gunner can see and shoot targets.

    Personally I would think low flat turrets mounted in the bow position of the BMPT with the main turret moved back and the front extended forward to make the front armour thicker and better angled while creating room for two turrets that cover the front of the vehicle and are able to elevate to at least 70 degrees for high angle threats and not be effected by the main turret turning around a bit.

    Just so we can get our definitions straight, when I said MG turrets, I didn't mean mini-pill boxes akin to WW1 and early WW2 tanks. I meant independent pivot mounts, which are already employed already, I'm just saying get more of those and get less of coaxials.

    Better yet, make an semi-automatic GM-94 with an independent turret
    turret, that would solve the over penetration and under penetration
    problems that the 12.7 mm and 7.62 mm faces.

    I couldn't see the GM-94 being modified to belt feed and semi auto operation being smaller or lighter than the Balkan. The high velocity grenades of the Balkan would give a much wider field of fire and enable a wider range of targets to much greater distances be engaged.

    Ah, but I'd disagree. A 40 mm grenade is very dangerous, even in confined conditions. The situations I'm referring to here are Urban combat ones, where the tank, and or convoy is ambushed from Insurgents or regulars that are hiding in civilian buildings 25-100 m away. A 40 mm grenade would cause lots of shrapnel which could penetrate the walls of the houses thus having another over penetration problem. A thermobaric grenade would just level the house, take whoever's inside, and that'll be that.

    If the independent turrets can't rotate 360 it isn't worth it.

    The front armour of the T-90 is what you want facing at the threat, and the same applies to any BMPT design. Having the extra gun turrets at the front give better firepower in the threat direction... and most of the time that is where you want it. For threats in other directions... the commander keeps his 360 vision and can direct his driver to turn the vehicle to bring the front minor turrets to bear on a threat or group of threats while designating a separate threat that can be anywhere 360 degrees around the tank for the gunner to deal with.

    A soft threat can be dealt with 40mm grenade launchers with coaxial 30 cal MGs, while a hard threat can be dealt with using the main tank gun.

    Most of the time, the threat isn't where you want it, thus you'd want a maneuverable turret. In Urban combat situations, you will seldom find the space for a tank to turn a full 360 or even a 180 to face the threat. Most of the time, you will get hits from the side, which is why independent turrets are important.

    Like many critics of the Russian armored forces, Uralzo-something rarely
    "finalizes" their designs, in that, they'll probably make a new
    upgraded version 3-5 years from now.

    No design is ever finalised and regular upgrades will keep it a potent system. New system introductions can require fundamental changes which might be able to be coped with or might require a from scratch approach.

    The system they show for export is not the system they are showing to their military to get them to adopt.

    The system they show for export is another system they build. The system the military adopts is still actually behind the system they sell. Until the T-90M is actually produced, that'll change, but for now, the Indians get the better tank.


    The T-90S doesn't have Shtora, the T-90S doesn't have APU, the T-90S
    doesn't have a rear-turret autoloader, etc. And again, what pictures I
    have seen of the T-90M, does not have a MMW radar device needed for
    hard-kill APSs.

    I have seen a few pictures of the PAK-FA... first and second flying prototype... I have not seen the side mounted AESA radars on the nose of the aircraft yet. They claim it will be there on the final aircraft though.

    I posted above... the 1,000hp engine quote that mentioned active defence systems. I take that over lack of photo evidence.

    BTW it could be a completely new system... what does a MMW radar antenna look like?
    The ones of DRODZ and ARENA just looked like painted metal blocks... array them like ERA and I doubt anyone could tell one from the other...

    But the thing is, if you already know the cost of a tank, which the guy in one of those articles Austin posted before, than you'd know that the prototype is "finished". The photo I have, in fact, does not have any thing that even remotely reminds me of ARENA, to which btw, a MMW radar basically looks like a commander's site but without the optics.

    As you know, the T-90M does not have a 1,000 HP engine, it has a 1,250 HP engine. As you also know, Shtora-2 is fitted for the T-90M. And finally, as you know, Shtora is an APS system, although soft-kill. It's far more reasonable to believe that the APS in mention is Shtora-2 than ARENA.


    What's expected and what comes along are different things.

    I agree if you can afford it... get the best that is available. Problem of course is if you give the troops a 10 MW laser they will use it for everything.

    Admittedly Russia cannot afford the diamond molded behemoths we roll out, so why would they increase the cost with ARENA?

    On the contrary, we should sell Javelins, and make them empty on purpose, and make lots of money.

    I doubt the makers of Javelin would want that on their record...

    Why not? Profits first!

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  GarryB on Fri Mar 25, 2011 4:29 am

    Ah, but that is the purpose of a MBT, take hits, give hits, move along.
    Having a tank face another tank stationary is akin to trench warfare,
    something not favorable in a world of maneuvers.

    Not all warfare is manoeuvre warfare. The role of the tank is mobile protected fire power, more specifically mobile protected direct fire fire power... as opposed to artillery, which is mobile indirect fire fire power that can often be substituted by air power. Tanks cannot be substituted by air power most of the time. A ground force needs tanks like an air force needs fighters.

    I meant independent pivot mounts, which are already employed already,
    I'm just saying get more of those and get less of coaxials.

    You mean like on Israeli tanks with 3 machine gun mounts on top of turrets to suppress infantry?

    I am thinking of a proper mini turret that has minimal protection for the gun and its ammo feed back into the vehicle. It gives better elevation and traverse than say a bow mounted weapon as shown on the BMD or BMPT vehicles.

    Proper little turrets on the BMPT would be relatively low mounts, and I would give them more clearance by raising the weapons in the turret by using an external 100mm rifled gun from the BMP-3 and a turret bustle autoloader for it to keep the 100mm HE shells out of the crew compartment for safety.
    This will mean the front turret mounts should be able to cover the front and sides of the vehicle and with 40mm grenade launchers should be much more powerful than 30 cal weapons.

    In many ways I am suggesting the revival of the T-28 with its three turret arrangement where the main turret is the standard placement for turrets today, but with two small turrets in front of it and lower down to give the main turret a clear field of view. The two front MG turrets on the T-28 were huge because they were manned, which meant the main gun in the central turret was up quite high. I am suggesting much smaller unmanned MG turrets fitted with an AGL instead of a MG.



    The main problem of course is space because there are three crew seated in the front hull of the BMPT so two turrets will mean only one roof hatch above the driver. I think moving the turret back in the hull or extending the hull forward... or reducing the size of the turret ring would all be viable solutions.
    The turret ring is designed to absorb the recoil of a 125mm gun so it could be considerably reduced with a long recoil absorber for the 100mm rifled medium pressure gun offering the most recoil.

    Ah, but I'd disagree. A 40 mm grenade is very dangerous, even in
    confined conditions.

    Any explosive weapon is made more effective in confined conditions... explosive weapons have several ways they can kill and that includes blast and fragmentation... confined conditions make blast more effective.

    The situations I'm referring to here are Urban
    combat ones, where the tank, and or convoy is ambushed from Insurgents
    or regulars that are hiding in civilian buildings 25-100 m away.

    This is a rather specific situation to design a tanks features around... the best solution is to not use tanks.

    A 40 mm
    grenade would cause lots of shrapnel which could penetrate the walls of
    the houses thus having another over penetration problem.

    The 40mm grenade of the Balkan is actually big enough to enable the use of plastic cased rounds for the HE grenade. (what I mean is that some smaller grenades rely on fragmentation for effectiveness like the 30mm grenade the Russians/Soviets used). This means the blast wave from the grenade will kill you at longer ranges than the plastic bits as fragments will kill
    you because the plastic bits are so light they rapidly decelerate and become ineffective.
    This means over penetration is not a problem, the only problem is finding the target and getting the grenade on target before they can do what they were planning to do.

    A thermobaric
    grenade would just level the house, take whoever's inside, and that'll
    be that.

    A thermobaric grenade is not a tactical nuke. If you take plastic explosive and look at it by volume about three quarters of it by weight generates huge amounts of O2 and heat, while the remaining one quarter is the fuel that uses that heat and that O2 to burn at highly supersonic speed. A thermobaric round has a small dispersal charge to blow the thermobaric compound into the air around the target and then ignites it using the air around the target. In many ways thermobaric explosive is just fuel... like Petrol (Gasoline). In liquid form it will likely burn, but it needs certain conditions before it will explode. Boil petrol to well beyond its flash point and it wont burn... it will explode, using a small HE charge to vapourise petrol into the air and then have some ignition source to ignite it at just the right time and that explosion will be like a thermobaric blast.
    HE detonates faster, but thermobaric material tends to push harder and longer and hotter... and of course it consumes the oxygen in the area around the target too.
    What I am trying to say is that a 40mm thermobaric grenade will deal with an average room... to take out the floor of a building you need something like RPO.

    Most of the time, the threat isn't where you want it, thus you'd want a maneuverable turret.

    Totally agree, that is why I am suggesting the removal of the bow guns on the BMPT and replace them with external guns in mini turrets.

    Until the T-90M is actually produced, that'll change, but for now, the Indians get the better tank.

    Why shouldn't they get the better tank... they pretty much kept UVZ alive for the last 20 years. I hope when the T-90M is ready that the Indians will benefit too... though I suspect they wont want a completely new upgrade as that might threaten their own tank design.

    The photo I have, in fact, does not have any thing that even remotely
    reminds me of ARENA, to which btw, a MMW radar basically looks like a
    commander's site but without the optics.

    What? The MMW radar of ARENA is all those little box antennas fixed on that drum shaped tower on a pole above the turret. The MMW radar antenna on Drodz is circled in green in this image (fitted to a T-55AD which was used to test the system operationally in Afghanistan in the 1980s):



    As you know, the T-90M does not have a 1,000 HP engine, it has a 1,250 HP engine.

    I know they are working on a 1,250HP engine, but the quote above suggests they are currently using the 1,000hp engine.

    As you also know, Shtora-2 is fitted for the T-90M. And finally, as you
    know, Shtora is an APS system, although soft-kill. It's far more
    reasonable to believe that the APS in mention is Shtora-2 than ARENA.

    I haven't seen Shtora-2. If they have upgraded Shtora, then why wouldn't they upgrade ARENA as well? The two systems compliment each other.

    Admittedly Russia cannot afford the diamond molded behemoths we roll out, so why would they increase the cost with ARENA?

    Because by far the most common threat for tanks in the world currently is not Javelin or Spike... it is simple dumb RPG rockets flying at sonic speeds rather than hypersonic speeds, and even the old fully developed ARENA deals with those sorts of threats just fine. In the near future or perhaps as we speak its performance can be enhanced to increase the range of targets it can defeat and these features can be added when the vehicles get upgrades.

    Why not? Profits first!

    Because the sales figures will drop when the users find during training that the weapons they spent a fortune on don't go bang because they are empty.

    @ nightcrawler
    I have read cases where Soviet officials that go to inspect tests of tanks often used to play tricks, like demand the vehicles drive a few thousand kms to another location before they fire on targets to show they can hit what they are supposed to hit. The officials fly to the new location, but the tanks involved in the tests have to drive there. A good idea in my opinion... keeps them on their toes. Smile

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

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

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  IronsightSniper on Fri Mar 25, 2011 10:40 am

    [quote="GarryB"]
    Ah, but that is the purpose of a MBT, take hits, give hits, move along.
    Having a tank face another tank stationary is akin to trench warfare,
    something not favorable in a world of maneuvers.

    Not all warfare is manoeuvre warfare. The role of the tank is mobile protected fire power, more specifically mobile protected direct fire fire power... as opposed to artillery, which is mobile indirect fire fire power that can often be substituted by air power. Tanks cannot be substituted by air power most of the time. A ground force needs tanks like an air force needs fighters.

    Exactly, but a stationary tank is still easier to hit compared to a moving tank, T-64 gun trials showed this.

    I meant independent pivot mounts, which are already employed already,
    I'm just saying get more of those and get less of coaxials.

    You mean like on Israeli tanks with 3 machine gun mounts on top of turrets to suppress infantry?

    I am thinking of a proper mini turret that has minimal protection for the gun and its ammo feed back into the vehicle. It gives better elevation and traverse than say a bow mounted weapon as shown on the BMD or BMPT vehicles.

    Proper little turrets on the BMPT would be relatively low mounts, and I would give them more clearance by raising the weapons in the turret by using an external 100mm rifled gun from the BMP-3 and a turret bustle autoloader for it to keep the 100mm HE shells out of the crew compartment for safety.
    This will mean the front turret mounts should be able to cover the front and sides of the vehicle and with 40mm grenade launchers should be much more powerful than 30 cal weapons.

    In many ways I am suggesting the revival of the T-28 with its three turret arrangement where the main turret is the standard placement for turrets today, but with two small turrets in front of it and lower down to give the main turret a clear field of view. The two front MG turrets on the T-28 were huge because they were manned, which meant the main gun in the central turret was up quite high. I am suggesting much smaller unmanned MG turrets fitted with an AGL instead of a MG.

    Pretty much. Mini-turrets IMO are quite useless unless you're protecting medium caliber munitions, like 30 mm cannon rounds and 30/40 mm grenades.

    Ah, but I'd disagree. A 40 mm grenade is very dangerous, even in
    confined conditions.

    Any explosive weapon is made more effective in confined conditions... explosive weapons have several ways they can kill and that includes blast and fragmentation... confined conditions make blast more effective.

    True, but thermobaric grenades don't offer as much shrapnel than a HE-Frag one, admittedly, the blastwave will pretty much suffocate everyone in the room or even take down the entire room/house. But, in situations like Iraq, it's better to take down one house then to still take down that house but spread shrapnel up and around the same house and throwing shrapnel at other houses.

    The situations I'm referring to here are Urban
    combat ones, where the tank, and or convoy is ambushed from Insurgents
    or regulars that are hiding in civilian buildings 25-100 m away.

    This is a rather specific situation to design a tanks features around... the best solution is to not use tanks.

    In fact, it is not specific, as it's very common nowadays. IED, roadside bombs, and maybe even roadside Kornet snipers may be still dangerous, but tanks in urban areas are always going to get hit from the sides. Not using a tank is even worst for the crew.

    A 40 mm
    grenade would cause lots of shrapnel which could penetrate the walls of
    the houses thus having another over penetration problem.

    The 40mm grenade of the Balkan is actually big enough to enable the use of plastic cased rounds for the HE grenade. (what I mean is that some smaller grenades rely on fragmentation for effectiveness like the 30mm grenade the Russians/Soviets used). This means the blast wave from the grenade will kill you at longer ranges than the plastic bits as fragments will kill
    you because the plastic bits are so light they rapidly decelerate and become ineffective.
    This means over penetration is not a problem, the only problem is finding the target and getting the grenade on target before they can do what they were planning to do.

    A plastic cased HE grenade is basically like a HE bomb. A thermobaric grenade is well, like a thermobaric bomb. The latter has shown to offer more bang for the same weight as the former. Although, as a compromise, I wouldn't be surprised if they made 40 mm thermobaric grenades for the Balkan.

    A thermobaric
    grenade would just level the house, take whoever's inside, and that'll
    be that.

    A thermobaric grenade is not a tactical nuke. If you take plastic explosive and look at it by volume about three quarters of it by weight generates huge amounts of O2 and heat, while the remaining one quarter is the fuel that uses that heat and that O2 to burn at highly supersonic speed. A thermobaric round has a small dispersal charge to blow the thermobaric compound into the air around the target and then ignites it using the air around the target. In many ways thermobaric explosive is just fuel... like Petrol (Gasoline). In liquid form it will likely burn, but it needs certain conditions before it will explode. Boil petrol to well beyond its flash point and it wont burn... it will explode, using a small HE charge to vapourise petrol into the air and then have some ignition source to ignite it at just the right time and that explosion will be like a thermobaric blast.
    HE detonates faster, but thermobaric material tends to push harder and longer and hotter... and of course it consumes the oxygen in the area around the target too.
    What I am trying to say is that a 40mm thermobaric grenade will deal with an average room... to take out the floor of a building you need something like RPO.

    I know how they work. :rolleyes:

    Admittedly, I did overstate the 43 mm thermobaric grenade's power, but it was used in a metaphorical sense. Very Happy

    Most of the time, the threat isn't where you want it, thus you'd want a maneuverable turret.

    Totally agree, that is why I am suggesting the removal of the bow guns on the BMPT and replace them with external guns in mini turrets.

    Oh then, that's agreeable.

    Until the T-90M is actually produced, that'll change, but for now, the Indians get the better tank.

    Why shouldn't they get the better tank... they pretty much kept UVZ alive for the last 20 years. I hope when the T-90M is ready that the Indians will benefit too... though I suspect they wont want a completely new upgrade as that might threaten their own tank design.

    It's quite traditional for the manufacturer's country to get the best models.

    The photo I have, in fact, does not have any thing that even remotely
    reminds me of ARENA, to which btw, a MMW radar basically looks like a
    commander's site but without the optics.

    What? The MMW radar of ARENA is all those little box antennas fixed on that drum shaped tower on a pole above the turret. The MMW radar antenna on Drodz is circled in green in this image (fitted to a T-55AD which was used to test the system operationally in Afghanistan in the 1980s):


    Yes, that's what I was talking about, it basically looks like a commander's site but without the optics (i.e. you don't see glass)

    As you know, the T-90M does not have a 1,000 HP engine, it has a 1,250 HP engine.

    I know they are working on a 1,250HP engine, but the quote above suggests they are currently using the 1,000hp engine.

    This mystery has been solved.

    He said more than a few countries buy Russian tanks, and the T-90A got a positive evaluation from testing in difficult climatic conditions, including in Saudi Arabia, India, and Malaysia. In Saudi Arabia, according to Karavayev, the T-90A was the only tank to destroy more than 60 percent of its targets after a road march. Karavayev continues:

    “The tests conducted in Saudi Arabia as part of an open tender fully and completely contradict the Glavkom’s [Postnikov’s] assertions.”

    This T-90 modification supposedly has a new turret, a 1,000-hp engine, an improved thermal sight, new active defense measures, and a number of other improvements. Karavayev flatly said neither the German Leopard, French LeClerc, nor American Abrams is equal to the T-90.

    I believe when they said, "This T-90 modification", they were referring to the T-90A, which was discussed prior. Backchecking, the T-90A does in fact have a 1,000 HP engine, and a new turret (welded).

    As you also know, Shtora-2 is fitted for the T-90M. And finally, as you
    know, Shtora is an APS system, although soft-kill. It's far more
    reasonable to believe that the APS in mention is Shtora-2 than ARENA.

    I haven't seen Shtora-2. If they have upgraded Shtora, then why wouldn't they upgrade ARENA as well? The two systems compliment each other.

    That's probably because Shtora-2's on the ever elusive T-90M. If they did upgrade ARENA, you or I should of at least heard of some new designation for it, I haven't, have you?

    Admittedly Russia cannot afford the diamond molded behemoths we roll out, so why would they increase the cost with ARENA?

    Because by far the most common threat for tanks in the world currently is not Javelin or Spike... it is simple dumb RPG rockets flying at sonic speeds rather than hypersonic speeds, and even the old fully developed ARENA deals with those sorts of threats just fine. In the near future or perhaps as we speak its performance can be enhanced to increase the range of targets it can defeat and these features can be added when the vehicles get upgrades.

    In that regards, the T-90 is fully protected from the PG-7V from the Front and Sides. The rear is different, but as of now, no tank has all around, including ass protection.

    Why not? Profits first!

    Because the sales figures will drop when the users find during training that the weapons they spent a fortune on don't go bang because they are empty.

    Being as costly as $100,000 per missile, they won't use it for live fire training, they'll buy simulators from us.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  GarryB on Fri Mar 25, 2011 9:08 pm

    Exactly, but a stationary tank is still easier to hit compared to a moving tank, T-64 gun trials showed this.

    Against a modern enemy with modern tanks using modern Fire Control Systems with auto trackers et al hitting moving targets is no problem. For a limited enemy like those forces the US faces in Afghanistan and Iraq a stationary target with chain link fences and other protective measures will be easily enough protection for them.

    True, but thermobaric grenades don't offer as much shrapnel than a
    HE-Frag one, admittedly, the blastwave will pretty much suffocate
    everyone in the room or even take down the entire room/house. But, in
    situations like Iraq, it's better to take down one house then to still
    take down that house but spread shrapnel up and around the same house
    and throwing shrapnel at other houses.

    Why do you think HE rounds only come in HE FRAG forms? A thin non pre fragmented shell case and the maximum HE charge makes it a HE round, as opposed to a smaller HE charge and thick prefragmented wall shells. The design of the munition can control the fragmentation pattern and effect. For instance the RGO and RGN hand grenades are the same size but one is for defensive use and has heavier fragments with a longer effective range so you really need to throw it from behind cover. The other is an offensive grenade with smaller lighter fragments that lose velocity rapidly so outside about 5 metres or so the fragments are ineffective... which is ideal if you are rushing forward in the open throwing grenades at the enemy.
    Plastic walls or thin non prefragmented shell walls removes the problem of shrapnel and over penetration/collateral damage.


    In fact, it is not specific, as it's very common nowadays. IED,
    roadside bombs, and maybe even roadside Kornet snipers may be still
    dangerous, but tanks in urban areas are always going to get hit from the
    sides. Not using a tank is even worst for the crew.

    Well it is clear that the Russian idea of heavy brigades with tank level protection for all vehicles makes a bit of sense, especially if there is a fire support vehicle like the BMPT as such a vehicle would be ideal for the use you suggest for tanks... for which their current armament is ill suited to.

    A plastic cased HE grenade is basically like a HE bomb. A thermobaric
    grenade is well, like a thermobaric bomb. The latter has shown to offer
    more bang for the same weight as the former. Although, as a compromise, I
    wouldn't be surprised if they made 40 mm thermobaric grenades for the
    Balkan.

    They already make them for the GM-94. They could make a whole range of grenade types for the Balkan... but only if it enters service I would expect.


    Admittedly, I did overstate the 43 mm thermobaric grenade's power, but it was used in a metaphorical sense.

    I didn't miss the point, but I think if you want to hit one person... a 30 cal bullet is better than any grenade of any type. If a sniper or MG team is in a room and there are "innocent civilians" also in that room then obviously a 30 cal could take out the bad guys and leave the neutrals safe, but I would suggest that the fact that they are in the room and not running away and hiding tells me they are not so innocent, and while they shouldn't be directly targeted it is hard to suggest an injury or death amongst them is cause for concern.
    Those innocent civilians might just as easily be directing the fire of the sniper or MG team.

    It's quite traditional for the manufacturer's country to get the best models.

    No. What is traditional is that the people who pay for the product... get the product. Russia up to date has not put its money where its mouth is. It has funded the T-95 for more than 15 years and now it is funding a complete upgrade of the T-90, but so far the big money has been spent in production by India.

    Yes, that's what I was talking about, it basically looks like a
    commander's site but without the optics (i.e. you don't see glass)

    Strange. I would describe them as looking like small boxes painted over like mini ERA blocks.

    That's probably because Shtora-2's on the ever elusive T-90M. If they
    did upgrade ARENA, you or I should of at least heard of some new
    designation for it, I haven't, have you?

    I have had a look around and have seen no reference to Shtora-2. The criticisms of the T-90 included its vulnerability to diving top attack missiles (ARENA can engage missiles that over fly the tank like BILL 2) and cluster munitions. I would expect if there is an assumption that they are upgrading Shtora then an assumption that they would also adopt a hard kill system like a potential DROZD 3 or ARENA 2 is a fair assumption too.


    In that regards, the T-90 is fully protected from the PG-7V from the
    Front and Sides. The rear is different, but as of now, no tank has all
    around, including ass protection.

    Any tank has weak spots, so another layer of protection is always useful... especially if the munitions can be fitted to the turret bustle autoloader to give 360 degree protection without turning the turret.

    Being as costly as $100,000 per missile, they won't use it for live fire training, they'll buy simulators from us.

    Even with simulators it is normal practise in most armies to check stock performance by allocating a small number of live weapon launches to selected personel... usually as a reward for something... like best performed unit on the simulator. Besides to the American taxpayer these missiles are very expensive... to the Georgian taxpayer... they are a gift from the US taxpayer... Wink

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

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

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  IronsightSniper on Fri Mar 25, 2011 11:38 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Exactly, but a stationary tank is still easier to hit compared to a moving tank, T-64 gun trials showed this.

    Against a modern enemy with modern tanks using modern Fire Control Systems with auto trackers et al hitting moving targets is no problem. For a limited enemy like those forces the US faces in Afghanistan and Iraq a stationary target with chain link fences and other protective measures will be easily enough protection for them.

    Ah but that's the thing, even Modern tanks miss many shots from 2km, even closer. Gets worst when moving.

    True, but thermobaric grenades don't offer as much shrapnel than a
    HE-Frag one, admittedly, the blastwave will pretty much suffocate
    everyone in the room or even take down the entire room/house. But, in
    situations like Iraq, it's better to take down one house then to still
    take down that house but spread shrapnel up and around the same house
    and throwing shrapnel at other houses.

    Why do you think HE rounds only come in HE FRAG forms? A thin non pre fragmented shell case and the maximum HE charge makes it a HE round, as opposed to a smaller HE charge and thick prefragmented wall shells. The design of the munition can control the fragmentation pattern and effect. For instance the RGO and RGN hand grenades are the same size but one is for defensive use and has heavier fragments with a longer effective range so you really need to throw it from behind cover. The other is an offensive grenade with smaller lighter fragments that lose velocity rapidly so outside about 5 metres or so the fragments are ineffective... which is ideal if you are rushing forward in the open throwing grenades at the enemy.
    Plastic walls or thin non prefragmented shell walls removes the problem of shrapnel and over penetration/collateral damage.

    I didn't? I'm simply stating that the majority of the 40 mm grenade rounds used will be inherently HE-FRAG, and using HE-Plastic is inferior to using Thermobaric.

    A plastic cased HE grenade is basically like a HE bomb. A thermobaric
    grenade is well, like a thermobaric bomb. The latter has shown to offer
    more bang for the same weight as the former. Although, as a compromise, I
    wouldn't be surprised if they made 40 mm thermobaric grenades for the
    Balkan.

    [quote\They already make them for the GM-94. They could make a whole range of grenade types for the Balkan... but only if it enters service I would expect.

    No, the GM-94 uses a 43 mm grenade.


    Admittedly, I did overstate the 43 mm thermobaric grenade's power, but it was used in a metaphorical sense.

    I didn't miss the point, but I think if you want to hit one person... a 30 cal bullet is better than any grenade of any type. If a sniper or MG team is in a room and there are "innocent civilians" also in that room then obviously a 30 cal could take out the bad guys and leave the neutrals safe, but I would suggest that the fact that they are in the room and not running away and hiding tells me they are not so innocent, and while they shouldn't be directly targeted it is hard to suggest an injury or death amongst them is cause for concern.
    Those innocent civilians might just as easily be directing the fire of the sniper or MG team.

    That's the thing, in Urban environments, a round capable of penetrating cover that is common place in urban areas will usually have enough power to go through 1 or 2 walls, kill the guy, go through another wall, hit some kid in the leg, and turn a family against us. Bullets in general have a tendency to either overpenetrate or underpentrate, if we were to use say, frangiables, than it'd have no penetration power, and if we were to use simple ball ammo, it'd still have enough energy due to the short ranges involved to go through a few walls. A thermobaric grenade is simpler and more effective, as the tank thus becomes a "well" armored room-clearing team.

    It's quite traditional for the manufacturer's country to get the best models.

    No. What is traditional is that the people who pay for the product... get the product. Russia up to date has not put its money where its mouth is. It has funded the T-95 for more than 15 years and now it is funding a complete upgrade of the T-90, but so far the big money has been spent in production by India.

    True enough, but you'd think that Ural-something would be "country first" so to say.

    That's probably because Shtora-2's on the ever elusive T-90M. If they
    did upgrade ARENA, you or I should of at least heard of some new
    designation for it, I haven't, have you?

    I have had a look around and have seen no reference to Shtora-2. The criticisms of the T-90 included its vulnerability to diving top attack missiles (ARENA can engage missiles that over fly the tank like BILL 2) and cluster munitions. I would expect if there is an assumption that they are upgrading Shtora then an assumption that they would also adopt a hard kill system like a potential DROZD 3 or ARENA 2 is a fair assumption too.

    Cluster munition's power is overstated, they're simply overhead EFPs, penetration figures are usually about 150 mm, nothing the T-90's roof can't survive. If there was criticism over the T-90's top attack survivability, they should ask themselves what tank can survive a top attack from Javelin or TOW-2? None. I've read about Shtora-2 in a few tank discussion of the past, might try to dig it up.


    In that regards, the T-90 is fully protected from the PG-7V from the
    Front and Sides. The rear is different, but as of now, no tank has all
    around, including ass protection.

    Any tank has weak spots, so another layer of protection is always useful... especially if the munitions can be fitted to the turret bustle autoloader to give 360 degree protection without turning the turret.

    MBTs are about compromise. Spending $300,000 on ARENA (which isn't 360 degrees) to compensate for ass and side protection isn't worth the bucks. I'd say just slap on some NERA on the ass and have it go.

    Being as costly as $100,000 per missile, they won't use it for live fire training, they'll buy simulators from us.

    Even with simulators it is normal practise in most armies to check stock performance by allocating a small number of live weapon launches to selected personel... usually as a reward for something... like best performed unit on the simulator. Besides to the American taxpayer these missiles are very expensive... to the Georgian taxpayer... they are a gift from the US taxpayer... Wink

    This is capitalism not hugism!

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  GarryB on Sat Mar 26, 2011 5:39 am

    No, the GM-94 uses a 43 mm grenade.

    I know, the difference of 3mm in calibre is not that important. They have a 43mm thermobaric grenade and also a 43mm plastic HE Blast grenade, so doing the same for a 40mm grenade is not hard.

    That's the thing, in Urban environments, a round capable of penetrating
    cover that is common place in urban areas will usually have enough power
    to go through 1 or 2 walls, kill the guy, go through another wall, hit
    some kid in the leg, and turn a family against us.

    Then use 40mm HE blast grenades to blow your way through the cover and get the bad guy. And the family of the kid will likely turn against you for blowing down walls in their house anyway. The secret is to make sure that kid gets real medical treatment and to ask why they let the militant into their house in the first place.

    Bullets in general have a tendency to either overpenetrate or
    underpentrate, if we were to use say, frangiables, than it'd have no
    penetration power, and if we were to use simple ball ammo, it'd still
    have enough energy due to the short ranges involved to go through a few
    walls.

    Kill the bad guy first and then deal with any other problems afterwards. There is no magic guided bullets yet that only kill or injure the bad guys.

    The secret is don't go into cities unless you have to and get the population on your side. That often means walking amongst them and taking the same risks they do everyday. Hey if they are worth fighting for they should be worth dying for. If there is a zero tollerance for casualties then you are in the wrong game or this war should never have been started in the first place. Dont start what you don't have the balls to finish.

    A thermobaric grenade is simpler and more effective, as the tank thus becomes a "well" armored room-clearing team.

    Like any explosive its detonation is spherical and completely indiscriminate. The blast wave can be concentrated and focused to go round corners or it can be deflected by a piece of furniture... kill one person and leave the person next to them unhurt. It is certainly no panacea.

    True enough, but you'd think that Ural-something would be "country first" so to say.

    Actually I would think they make more money from export orders than they do domestic production but I am sure UVZ would prefer to see the current standard operational tank for the Russian Army as the T-90M.

    Cluster munition's power is overstated, they're simply overhead EFPs,
    penetration figures are usually about 150 mm, nothing the T-90's roof
    can't survive.

    The Russian models can target engine compartments too and are relatively cheap.

    If there was criticism over the T-90's top attack survivability, they
    should ask themselves what tank can survive a top attack from Javelin or
    TOW-2? None.

    This isn't a dick measuring contest... the question at hand is what are the current threats to our MBTs and Javelin and cluster munitions appear on the list. Both threats are already in significantly wide spread service.

    MBTs are about compromise. Spending $300,000 on ARENA (which isn't 360
    degrees) to compensate for ass and side protection isn't worth the
    bucks. I'd say just slap on some NERA on the ass and have it go.

    Why not do both? Even ARENA 1 gives significant coverage angles already and an upgraded model could easily deal with 360 degree threats and top attack munitions too no doubt.

    This is capitalism not hugism!

    Hard core capitalism has no morals. Everyone has to draw a line.
    The US can certainly arm Georgia with anything they want to... but they should keep a couple of things in mind. First... nothing they can give them will equip them to do what they really want, which is to take South Ossetia and Abkhazia by force. (I believe it was you mentioning something about imperialism after 1945 was bad).
    And Second arming Georgia to inflict more pain on Russia in the event of another conflict will likely result in a lot more unnecessary deaths of Georgian citizens and ultimately lead to Russia blaming the US for funding and arming that idiot...
    Having said all that of course you can support your own defence industry by giving Georgia free money and then telling them they can only spend it on US weapons because the money actually comes from a Board game.
    Just expect it to be used poorly and quickly captured... remember that while the Russian forces were criticised for lack of C4ISR the Georgians enjoyed NATO air defence data direct from Turkey and an up to date battle management system which they failed to use effectively at all.
    I am sure the money your MIC makes on any sales and the friendship that will buy with Georgia more than makes up for any negative effect arming Russias enemies might have. I mean Georgia has Oil pipelines...

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

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

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sun Mar 27, 2011 9:22 am

    [quote="GarryB"]
    No, the GM-94 uses a 43 mm grenade.

    I know, the difference of 3mm in calibre is not that important. They have a 43mm thermobaric grenade and also a 43mm plastic HE Blast grenade, so doing the same for a 40mm grenade is not hard.

    Correctly so, but until a 40 mm thermobaric one comes along, I'll stand by my thought of putting a semi-automatic GM-94 on a independent rotating mount.

    That's the thing, in Urban environments, a round capable of penetrating
    cover that is common place in urban areas will usually have enough power
    to go through 1 or 2 walls, kill the guy, go through another wall, hit
    some kid in the leg, and turn a family against us.

    Then use 40mm HE blast grenades to blow your way through the cover and get the bad guy. And the family of the kid will likely turn against you for blowing down walls in their house anyway. The secret is to make sure that kid gets real medical treatment and to ask why they let the militant into their house in the first place.

    Of course, but then you get to questions of lethality, a HE grenade is deadly, but is it more deadly than a thermobaric grenade? No, it's not, thus, the thermobaric one has both the lethality and then some of a HE grenade, while retaining the small collateral radius of said grenade.

    Bullets in general have a tendency to either overpenetrate or
    underpentrate, if we were to use say, frangiables, than it'd have no
    penetration power, and if we were to use simple ball ammo, it'd still
    have enough energy due to the short ranges involved to go through a few
    walls.

    [quote]Kill the bad guy first and then deal with any other problems afterwards. There is no magic guided bullets yet that only kill or injure the bad guys.

    The secret is don't go into cities unless you have to and get the population on your side. That often means walking amongst them and taking the same risks they do everyday. Hey if they are worth fighting for they should be worth dying for. If there is a zero tollerance for casualties then you are in the wrong game or this war should never have been started in the first place. Dont start what you don't have the balls to finish.[quote]

    Of course there isn't. That's why you use hammers instead of scapels. Take down the house (or room) of the bad guy and you got him either way.

    A thermobaric grenade is simpler and more effective, as the tank thus becomes a "well" armored room-clearing team.

    Like any explosive its detonation is spherical and completely indiscriminate. The blast wave can be concentrated and focused to go round corners or it can be deflected by a piece of furniture... kill one person and leave the person next to them unhurt. It is certainly no panacea.

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

    Cluster munition's power is overstated, they're simply overhead EFPs,
    penetration figures are usually about 150 mm, nothing the T-90's roof
    can't survive.

    The Russian models can target engine compartments too and are relatively cheap.

    It'd be a mobility kill at least and a catastrophic kill at worst, if the fuel catches on fire. Generally, engine blocks make great impromptu armor.

    If there was criticism over the T-90's top attack survivability, they
    should ask themselves what tank can survive a top attack from Javelin or
    TOW-2? None.

    This isn't a dick measuring contest... the question at hand is what are the current threats to our MBTs and Javelin and cluster munitions appear on the list. Both threats are already in significantly wide spread service.

    It, in fact is a dick measuring contest, measure and counter measure. Javelins, if proliferated to countries whom Russia deems a threat, would warrant proliferations of modern APSs to Russian tanks, but, the question comes again to, why protect a tank against the off chance of something like over top cluster munitions or top attack ATGMs? Then another question comes, whether or not said APSs would be able to handle such attacks? To the former question, if threatening country does acquire Javelin ATGMs, how much did they acquire and what are the possibilities of an engagement with said country? To the former, can said APS reach the elevation required to disable or destroy a top attack ATGM? It would seem that the chances of another Russo-Georgian war is small, the chance that Georgia will use Javelins are also small, and that ARENA, as it stands, would not be able to intercept the Javelin. In regards to cluster munitions, really, I don't think Russia has any threatening country that has an air force competent enough to win air dominance in case of a Russian invasion or have even rockets for their MLRS that can release cluster munitions.

    MBTs are about compromise. Spending $300,000 on ARENA (which isn't 360
    degrees) to compensate for ass and side protection isn't worth the
    bucks. I'd say just slap on some NERA on the ass and have it go.

    Why not do both? Even ARENA 1 gives significant coverage angles already and an upgraded model could easily deal with 360 degree threats and top attack munitions too no doubt.

    It's about cost. Again as it stands, Russian tanks aren't as cheap as they used to be, smart armor is better armor but having a thick hull with smart armor means big bucks.

    This is capitalism not hugism!

    Hard core capitalism has no morals. Everyone has to draw a line.
    The US can certainly arm Georgia with anything they want to... but they should keep a couple of things in mind. First... nothing they can give them will equip them to do what they really want, which is to take South Ossetia and Abkhazia by force. (I believe it was you mentioning something about imperialism after 1945 was bad).
    And Second arming Georgia to inflict more pain on Russia in the event of another conflict will likely result in a lot more unnecessary deaths of Georgian citizens and ultimately lead to Russia blaming the US for funding and arming that idiot...
    Having said all that of course you can support your own defence industry by giving Georgia free money and then telling them they can only spend it on US weapons because the money actually comes from a Board game.
    Just expect it to be used poorly and quickly captured... remember that while the Russian forces were criticised for lack of C4ISR the Georgians enjoyed NATO air defence data direct from Turkey and an up to date battle management system which they failed to use effectively at all.
    I am sure the money your MIC makes on any sales and the friendship that will buy with Georgia more than makes up for any negative effect arming Russias enemies might have. I mean Georgia has Oil pipelines...

    Maybe. If Georgia decides to reannex those regions, than the arms dealer would indeed be NATO and more so, the U.S. But, there's one thing called Defense and another called Imperialism. The 2008 South Ossetian war shows that the Georgian ground forces, as trained and equipped as they were, fell back to their old ways, which was crumbled up into a donut and thrown around by the Russian forces. You can argue that Javelins will only help Georgia win a ground war, but you'd have to give Georgia a lot more than 3rd generation ATGMs for them to actually annex those regions (air dominance required.) So, in that retrospect, selling Javelins to Georgia can be considered arming them for Defense, but selling say, F-35s to Georgia would be arming them for Imperialism. Thus, that's the line.

    I.E.

    It's okay to sell me a .22 rifle as I'm not going to kill the local police force with that.

    But it's not okay to sell me a 30 mm autocannon, as I can kill the local police force with that.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3057
    Points : 3155
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

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

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

    runaway
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

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

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

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

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

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

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

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

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


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

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

    Correctly so, but until a 40 mm thermobaric one comes along, I'll stand
    by my thought of putting a semi-automatic GM-94 on a independent
    rotating mount.

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

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

    Of course, but then you get to questions of lethality, a HE grenade is
    deadly, but is it more deadly than a thermobaric grenade? No, it's not,
    thus, the thermobaric one has both the lethality and then some of a HE
    grenade, while retaining the small collateral radius of said grenade.

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

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

    Of course there isn't. That's why you use hammers instead of scapels.
    Take down the house (or room) of the bad guy and you got him either way.

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

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

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

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


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

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

    Javelins, if proliferated to countries whom Russia deems a threat,
    would warrant proliferations of modern APSs to Russian tanks, but, the
    question comes again to, why protect a tank against the off chance of
    something like over top cluster munitions or top attack ATGMs?

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

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

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

    To the former question, if threatening country does acquire Javelin
    ATGMs, how much did they acquire and what are the possibilities of an
    engagement with said country?

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

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

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

    It would seem that the chances of another Russo-Georgian war is small,
    the chance that Georgia will use Javelins are also small, and that
    ARENA, as it stands, would not be able to intercept the Javelin.

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

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

    In regards to cluster munitions, really, I don't think Russia has any
    threatening country that has an air force competent enough to win air
    dominance in case of a Russian invasion or have even rockets for their
    MLRS that can release cluster munitions.

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

    It's about cost. Again as it stands, Russian tanks aren't as cheap as
    they used to be, smart armor is better armor but having a thick hull
    with smart armor means big bucks.

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

    You can argue that Javelins will only help Georgia win a ground war, but
    you'd have to give Georgia a lot more than 3rd generation ATGMs for
    them to actually annex those regions (air dominance required.)

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

    So, in that retrospect, selling Javelins to Georgia can be considered
    arming them for Defense, but selling say, F-35s to Georgia would be
    arming them for Imperialism. Thus, that's the line.

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

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

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

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

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

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

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

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  IronsightSniper on Mon Mar 28, 2011 7:33 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Correctly so, but until a 40 mm thermobaric one comes along, I'll stand
    by my thought of putting a semi-automatic GM-94 on a independent
    rotating mount.

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

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

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

    Of course, but then you get to questions of lethality, a HE grenade is
    deadly, but is it more deadly than a thermobaric grenade? No, it's not,
    thus, the thermobaric one has both the lethality and then some of a HE
    grenade, while retaining the small collateral radius of said grenade.

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

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

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

    Of course there isn't. That's why you use hammers instead of scapels.
    Take down the house (or room) of the bad guy and you got him either way.

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

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

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

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

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

    That really doesn't change the situation.


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

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

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

    Javelins, if proliferated to countries whom Russia deems a threat,
    would warrant proliferations of modern APSs to Russian tanks, but, the
    question comes again to, why protect a tank against the off chance of
    something like over top cluster munitions or top attack ATGMs?

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

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

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

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

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

    To the former question, if threatening country does acquire Javelin
    ATGMs, how much did they acquire and what are the possibilities of an
    engagement with said country?

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

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

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

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

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

    It would seem that the chances of another Russo-Georgian war is small,
    the chance that Georgia will use Javelins are also small, and that
    ARENA, as it stands, would not be able to intercept the Javelin.

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

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

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

    In regards to cluster munitions, really, I don't think Russia has any
    threatening country that has an air force competent enough to win air
    dominance in case of a Russian invasion or have even rockets for their
    MLRS that can release cluster munitions.

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

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

    It's about cost. Again as it stands, Russian tanks aren't as cheap as
    they used to be, smart armor is better armor but having a thick hull
    with smart armor means big bucks.

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

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

    You can argue that Javelins will only help Georgia win a ground war, but
    you'd have to give Georgia a lot more than 3rd generation ATGMs for
    them to actually annex those regions (air dominance required.)

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

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

    So, in that retrospect, selling Javelins to Georgia can be considered
    arming them for Defense, but selling say, F-35s to Georgia would be
    arming them for Imperialism. Thus, that's the line.

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

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

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

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

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  IronsightSniper on Mon Mar 28, 2011 10:10 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

    Generally speaking, I refer to the explosives only.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Here's a list of Russian submunitions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Generally speaking, I refer to the explosives only.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

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

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  IronsightSniper on Mon Mar 28, 2011 2:22 pm

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

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

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

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

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

    No, only mountainous regions like Afghanistan.

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

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

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

    Generally speaking, I refer to the explosives only.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Says 120 mm there.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Tanks Armour and Protection

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 7:29 pm


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 10, 2016 7:29 pm