Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I have mentioned however:

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

http://kbptula.ru/eng/multi/hermes.htm


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

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

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

And in those 15 seconds it should have covered:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GarryB wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GarryB wrote:

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

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

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