Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

GarryB wrote:

Exactly my point.

The vast majority of the time we can assume both vehicles are on level ground and the gun barrel of the NATO tank will be 1 metre or more above the line of the Russian tank, and the APFSDS rounds have a very flat trajectory but it is not a laser, so assuming the round hits the lower front hull it is more likely traveling at a downward angle and not a perfectly horizontal angle...

You can make assumptions for the sake of simplicity, but I prefer to make assumptions to allow for reality.

The vast majority of the time, NATO tanks will be hull down or behind some kind of cover...  

GarryB wrote:

The aim point will be the enemy turret front and the ballistic computer will deflect the angle of the barrel upwards to a point several metres above the turret so that at 2km distance the round will fall back down to the point of aim through the sights.

Assuming no deceleration of the round in flight (for the sake of simplicity) a 125mm APFSDS round travels about 1.7km per second and gravity acts at 9.8m/s/s so a target 1.7km away hit by a round traveling at i.7km/s/s will be effected by a 9.8m drop from the boresight of aim.
The gun barrel will therefore be pointing at a position slightly less than 9.8m above the target tank which means the penetrator wont be heading straight through but will have a slightly downward path through the target.

Of course in the real world that round will start to decelerate as soon as it leaves the muzzle.

Why are you telling me this, Garry? Finding the angle of impact only requires some simple A-level maths.

Speaking of deceleration; 105mm and 120mm APDS lose around 50 m/s per 1 km of travel. 115mm and 125mm APFSDS lose around 128.5 m/s per km. Perhaps the Soviet munitions industry was so forward-thinking that they deliberately gave their APFSDS high drag so that they could defeat the sloped armour of the M60A1 and the Chieftain?    But to be serious: If you really think that the angle of impact is significant, then I am very certain that you have never seen firing tables for any kind of ammunition whatsoever, because the fact is that the angle of impact is completely negligible. Let me give you two examples:

Firing table for the 125mm BM9 and BM12, courtesy of Stefan Kostch. Angle of attack at the point of impact is shown under the column "Fallwinkel", expressed in degrees.

At 1000 m, angle is... only 0.1 degrees.

At 1500 m, angle is... still 0.1 degrees.

At 2000 m, angle is... a big fat 0.2 degrees.


How about HEAT? Here's a firing table for 125mm BK-14M, courtesy of Stefan Kotsch. Once again, look under the column "Fallwinkel", expressed in degrees.

At 1000 m, angle is... 0.5 degrees.

At 1500 m, angle is... 0.9 degrees.

At 2000 m, angle is... 1.4 degrees.


Let us not forget that Soviet APFSDS and HEAT is more draggy than their 105mm counterparts. 125mm HEAT has a particularly draggy design because it has rather thick fins with a large wingspan compared to 105mm HEAT like the M456, which has a more efficient square-tipped spike nose and subcaliber fins. Even if you shot at a T-72 at 2 km with 105mm HEAT, the shell will probably impact the lower glacis at an angle of much less than 1.4 degrees.

Even the gun axis of a typical NATO tank is 1 m above the gun axis of a T-72, it won't make any difference at distances as short as 1 km. Assuming that the gun axis of an M60A1 is 2 m above the lower glacis of a T-72, you get 2 meters at 1 km, which is 2 mils, and 1 mil is equal to 0.05625 degrees, so that's 0.12 degrees. What difference will that make?

That's why it is convenient to assume that the angle of impact is 0 degrees. This is reality.

GarryB wrote:

Which is why those hits on that target are scattered and no one point of a target can be "aimed" for which makes any weak point no more or no less serious than those you can't do anything about like the gun barrel.

It is very difficult to aim at any weak points, no matter which gun you use or what ammunition you use. However, everyone knows that if you aim at the center mass of a target, you are much more likely to get a hit on the tank, and more of your shots will land near the center or at the center of the tank. Therefore, the center of the tank should have as few weak points as possible. I don't know how much more simple this can be...

GarryB wrote:

Of course, those stupid commies can't design accurate guns.... only weapons produced in the west can be accurate.

When did I talk about guns?   I was talking about the mediocre accuracy of APFSDS shells  

The earlier steel "Ring" type of sabot was just carried over from 115mm development, and they were just not that good, although they were slightly improved with each new round put into service. The first major improvement only came when the aluminium "Bucket" type of sabot was introduced in the early 80's. This is an objective fact.

GarryB wrote:

Be as afraid as you want. The muzzle reference system on the 2S38M 30mm cannon measures muzzle velocity in real time and uses that information to make further bursts of fire more accurate. The radar also tracks outgoing rounds to also further improve aim.

Why are we suddenly talking about anti-aircraft guns? And what's this about radars? How does that control the unpredictable vibrations of the gun barrel? 2A38M uses an induction-type system to find the muzzle velocity of emerging shells, by using Faraday's Law? The Rh120 L/44 on the Leopard 2A4 uses a laser MRS to detect barrel bend. These are completely different things, not to mention that neither of them are capable of detecting the vibrations of the gun barrel      

We were talking about how MRSs can't detect and compensate for the oscillations of the gun barrel while the shell is still accelerating inside it. It's not just the limitation of the MRS, but also of the stabilizer. No existing stabilizer is capable of actively damping barrel vibrations based on feedback from an MRS, not least because the time between primer ignition and the shell leaving the barrel is so short. Reducing the amplitude of the oscillations at the muzzle depends entirely on the construction of the cannon and whatever built-in passive damping structures they've put in there.

GarryB wrote:

The current new Russian tank uses radar both for APS and for local awareness, but guided rounds are much easier and they already have a range of gun tube launched missiles.

That is the thing about the Russians though.. they don't put all their eggs in one basket so they have composite armour and ERA and APS and anything else they think might make their vehicles safer...

Please give us an estimation of when the T-72 will get all these upgrades that you speak of, bearing in mind that the MoD didn't think that it was necessary to replace Kontakt-5 with Relikt and they didn't think it was worth replacing the V-84 for most of the B3s, and they also didn't think that it was necessary to replace the autoloader control system, or give the commander something useful instead of the old TKN-3MK, or add a spall liner to replace the anti-radiation lining that they removed from parts of the interior, and to add an MRS to the gun.

GarryB wrote:

The fact that you say they are reasonably accurate suggests you don't even believe that they are accurate.

Flechette rounds have low recoil and flat trajectory but that does not make them accurate in any sense of the word.

You're grasping at straws, Garry. You deliberately ignored the part where I mentioned that APDS ammo in the 7.62mm caliber is used in Sweden as sniper ammo.

Ammo like SLAP for the M2 are machine gun ammo, not match ammo for sniper use. You're not going to get good accuracy from M2 Ball if you put it in a Barrett or something. You need match-grade ammo. That's why I said that they are reasonably accurate.

APDS ammo is commonly used for CIWS platforms because they have lower dispersion, so the chances of a round hitting an incoming ASM is much higher per burst. In fact, that was the original purpose of the Russian 30mm "Kerner" APDS round for the 30x165mm caliber.

Please don't make it a habit to ignore uncomfortable truths.

GarryB wrote:
Hahahahaha... of course you can... you just compare the width of the turret with the width of the hull... if the turret and hull are narrow it is likely the vehicle is heading directly at you or away from you... even with poor optics.

A weapon designed to engage non armoured targets at 10km and armour at 8.5km however should allow the operator to see what they are firing at to prevent friendly fire errors.

You misunderstood. I am talking about facing forward or backwards, not forwards or sideways. I thought that that was quite clear when I said "forwards or backwards".

GarryB wrote:

I am not going to tarnish all of them with one brush. So you think all American tankers are amazing?

It is a question of averages, not absolutes. On average, the Iraqi army has displayed poor performance, and on average, American tankers have proven to be competent. It is a result of having a bigger budget and having training technology like MILES. It is not difficult to grasp the concept of averages.

GarryB wrote:

Yes, because all Iraqi tankers are idiots too.

We could not possibly consider the attackers set up a situation where side and rear shots were possible and took advantage of the situation that was created?

You have missed the point entirely... Again. The idea is to use tactics that prevent the enemy from being able to shoot you from the rear, typically preceded by having a good system of communication and being able to correctly assess the situation. The tanks did not change from the first assault on Grozny to the second. Only the tactics. The result was a gargantuan decrease in losses.

GarryB wrote:

The 125mm warhead of the RPG-28 is rather more powerful than any old generation ATGM from AT-3/-4/-5 or even -6.

It does not matter what sort of weapon you have... when fighting tanks you always try to hit it from the side or the rear... that is where the weaker armour is...

And the protection level of modern tanks has been increased to deal with the increasing power of anti-tank rockets and missiles as best as possible. The T-72B3 is stagnant. Not every missile is a Kornet, and not every rocket is an RPG-28. The vast majority of threats are old weapons like the RPG-7, SPG-9 and Fagot, usually with a smattering of Chinese weapons like the HJ-73. The extra mantlet armour for the Leopard 2A5+ lets it survive against these common threats. The ~350mm of steel for the mantlet of the T-72B3 does not. If you are fighting a tank, of course you will always try to hit it from the sides or rear, but circumstances are not always ideal.

GarryB wrote:

ARENA2 is not cheap because it is not in mass production. New technologies and mass production will make it more affordable and its ability to cover a wide range of angles of a vehicle makes it rather more effective than adding a few extra blocks or changing to different ERA types.

You make it sound so easy. That must be why every Russian tank now has Afghanit...  

GarryB wrote:

For all we know the new NERA developed for the new vehicles might be even better but they want to keep it secret.. for a real combat use how hard wiould it be to unbolt the old ERA and replace it with much more effective material?

The NERA in the T-72B are definitely useless today unless they are replaced, because the rubber in the bulging plates are definitely degraded after ~30 years, so it's reduced to just spaced armour now. Even so, I am not talking about the composition of the armour inside the cheek cavities. I am talking about the weakness of the mantlet, which has no composite armour at all. It's just cast steel.

Kontakt-5 is welded onto the skin of the tank, not bolted, which is why it is so terrible that they invested in Kontakt-5 instead of Relikt when older T-72B models were upgraded to the B3 standard. It's not like they can just replace it in the near future at negligible costs. The most expensive resource is human labour, not the materials themselves.

GarryB wrote:

During an exercise it really doesn't matter what they fit... fit the stuff they already have in stock that is already paid for and in a real conflict get the good stuff out.

Is that why the T-72B3s sent to Ukraine and Syria are all the same as they appeared during exercises?

GarryB wrote:

No gunner has control over unguided rounds, if they did have control they would all hit in the same spot.

Or do you think he scattered them on purpose?

The world isn't black and white. It's about probabilities. The probability of getting all your shots within a certain radius depends on the weapon system. Making up strawmen is not productive, Garry.

GarryB wrote:

Because over the next 20 years Armata is going to be replacing a portion of those upgraded T-72s and who is to say that once it is in full production they wont start adding Afghan APS systems to older upgraded vehicles?

And APS system that can be used against these superior super accurate western APFSDS rounds...

So we should just ignore that the T-72B3 is rather flawed? Because it's going to be replaced soon (terms and conditions apply)? No, of course not. Let us remain within the realms of reality.

GarryB wrote:

No it isn't.

All any gunner can do with unguided rounds is aim for centre of mass and fire and hope.

Yes, exactly. And depending on how the armour is configured, 2/3 might get through, or 3/3 might get through, or 1/3 might get through. It's not a question of absolutes, but averages. On average, the poor coverage of Kontakt-5 on the T-72B3 is a liability, because there's a bigger chance that incoming fire can get through.

The vast majority of the time, NATO tanks will be hull down or behind some kind of cover...

Yes, of course because NATO only fights wars of defence like in Iraq and in Afghanistan... coming to Iran very soon.

105mm and 120mm APDS lose around 50 m/s per 1 km of travel. 115mm and 125mm APFSDS lose around 128.5 m/s per km.

Wow... even the laws of physics are against the Soviets and Russians.... the amusing thing is that the Soviets and British have had those respective rounds in service for 50 years plus and yet the rate of deceleration for them has not changed since they were introduced... and the 120mm rounds that replaced the 105mm rounds could not improve on their performance?

Smells like you pulled those numbers out of your ass.

Perhaps the Soviet munitions industry was so forward-thinking that they deliberately gave their APFSDS high drag so that they could defeat the sloped armour of the M60A1 and the Chieftain?

But Soviet APFSDS rounds are so inaccurate they wont hit anything unless they press their gun muzzle against the target before they pull the trigger...

That's why it is convenient to assume that the angle of impact is 0 degrees. This is reality.

Glad you can manage to be such an ass about it though.

It is very difficult to aim at any weak points, no matter which gun you use or what ammunition you use. However, everyone knows that if you aim at the center mass of a target, you are much more likely to get a hit on the tank, and more of your shots will land near the center or at the center of the tank. Therefore, the center of the tank should have as few weak points as possible. I don't know how much more simple this can be...

If you can't control the precise impact point of a round then weak points are not an issue. You call them weak points but if the vehicle is fitted with an APS system that causes the incoming projectile to yaw is it still a weakpoint?

You can spend lots of money eliminating all the weak points, or you can take steps to mitigate the chances of the enemy exploiting those weak points but shooting first and then moving.

When did I talk about guns? Laughing I was talking about the mediocre accuracy of APFSDS shells Laughing

A 125mm gun.... or are you going to call it a rifle?

The earlier steel "Ring" type of sabot was just carried over from 115mm development, and they were just not that good, although they were slightly improved with each new round put into service. The first major improvement only came when the aluminium "Bucket" type of sabot was introduced in the early 80's. This is an objective fact.

So they improved with every round but never managed to make them a fraction as aerodynamic as a 105mm round... Interesting.

Please give us an estimation of when the T-72 will get all these upgrades that you speak of, bearing

Yes, of course... the Soviets have a verifyable history of absolutely NEVER upgrading the tanks they had in service... even their cheaper numbers tank the T-72.

In fact it is well known within the western expert community that it is easy to identify a T-72 based on their features and equipment because that absolutely never changes from the day they are built to the day they are retired...

They did not introduce any APS systems in large scale previously but now every one of their new tanks will have an APS system so obviously none of their older tanks will get APS systems as upgrades...

You're grasping at straws, Garry. You deliberately ignored the part where I mentioned that APDS ammo in the 7.62mm caliber is used in Sweden as sniper ammo.

So why has no one else done this too if it is so accurate?

APDS ammo is commonly used for CIWS platforms because they have lower dispersion, so the chances of a round hitting an incoming ASM is much higher per burst. In fact, that was the original purpose of the Russian 30mm "Kerner" APDS round for the 30x165mm caliber.

The Kerner round was never adopted in large quantities and was never adopted by the Russian Navy who uses HE rounds in their CIWS... there is no point in hitting a target just to punch a tiny hole in it.

They increase the chance of a hit by using 12 barrels per Kashtan mount.

You make it sound so easy. That must be why every Russian tank now has Afghanit...

Actually it is that easy.... the Russians aren't stupid. ARENA was expensive and was not able to deal with APFSDS rounds or diving top attack weapons.

Afghanit can deal with those threats, so while it is expensive it is worth it.

They might only fit vehicles actually going into combat rather than those taking part in exercises... why let the enemy know what they will face?

Kontakt-5 is welded onto the skin of the tank, not bolted, which is why it is so terrible that they invested in Kontakt-5 instead of Relikt when older T-72B models were upgraded to the B3 standard. It's not like they can just replace it in the near future at negligible costs. The most expensive resource is human labour, not the materials themselves.

So why not just attach relikt on top... the lower layer probably wont work properly but who cares?

Is that why the T-72B3s sent to Ukraine and Syria are all the same as they appeared during exercises?

If they wanted to send well protected vehicles to either conflict they could have sent T-90s... neither is for the survival of Russia.

the fact that they sent upgraded old tanks suggests they didn't want to invest too much in either case.

The probability of getting all your shots within a certain radius depends on the weapon system.

Any weapon has the same issue and all any operator of said weapon is to place the likely circle of expected impacts over the centre of mass of a target and fire and if they miss or the hit is not effective to fire again.

So we should just ignore that the T-72B3 is rather flawed? Because it's going to be replaced soon (terms and conditions apply)? No, of course not. Let us remain within the realms of reality.

There are no vehicles that have no flaws so how about we just get over it?

It does not matter what changes you make to the T-72B3 design NATO has super ammo and super trained crews and all operators of T-72s are dead men.... as proven by the poor showing in Syria and the Ukraine...

On average, the poor coverage of Kontakt-5 on the T-72B3 is a liability, because there's a bigger chance that incoming fire can get through.

Even with complete coverage with relickt there is a chance the incoming round will hit the gun barrel, or the join between two plates... what they have now they have clearly decided is good enough. Get over it.

GarryB wrote:

Yes, of course because NATO only fights wars of defence like in Iraq and in Afghanistan... coming to Iran very soon.

Yes, and they will fight T-72B3 in the middle east...

Even so, you now understand how little it matters that NATO tanks are generally taller than the T-72.

GarryB wrote:

Wow... even the laws of physics are against the Soviets and Russians.... the amusing thing is that the Soviets and British have had those respective rounds in service for 50 years plus and yet the rate of deceleration for them has not changed since they were introduced... and the 120mm rounds that replaced the 105mm rounds could not improve on their performance?


Smells like you pulled those numbers out of your ass.

Numbers come from V.A Grigoryan in "Защита танков". For 115mm, he gave muzzle velocity of 1615 m/s, and velocity of 1358 m/s at 2 km. That is a loss of 257 m/s over 2 km, or 128.5 m/s per km. 125mm loses velocity at a slightly faster rate (138 m/s per km), according to the firing tables from Stefan Kotsch that you just saw.

Law of physics? 115mm and 125mm APFSDS have bore-riding stabilizing fins, which means that the wingspan is 115mm or 125mm. That's quite a lot of drag. This only started to change when subcaliber fins appeared on newer Russian APFSDS designs. I don't see why it is difficult to grasp this simple fact.

GarryB wrote:

But Soviet APFSDS rounds are so inaccurate they wont hit anything unless they press their gun muzzle against the target before they pull the trigger...

Now you are just being unproductive. Probable deviation (in meters) is available on the firing tables published by Stefan Kotsch. Accuracy improved substantially when the aluminium "Bucket" type sabot started to be used, but the magnitude of the improvement is not known to me.

GarryB wrote:

Glad you can manage to be such an ass about it though.

Don't be salty. We can all learn.

GarryB wrote:

If you can't control the precise impact point of a round then weak points are not an issue. You call them weak points but if the vehicle is fitted with an APS system  that causes the incoming projectile to yaw is it still a weakpoint?

You can spend lots of money eliminating all the weak points, or you can take steps to mitigate the chances of the enemy exploiting those weak points but shooting first and then moving.

I feel like I'm getting trolled by a shitposter.

Okay, let me try again. Assuming that all variables are known (wind speed, distance, ambient temperature, air density, etc), you can aim at the center of a target and most of your shots will land near the center of the target. A few of your shots will land at some distance away from the center. A small number of your shots will land at the very edges of your target. A very, very small number of your shots will miss the target. Statistically, most of your shots will hit the center of your target. The keywords are statistical probability and standard deviation.

The dispersion of the shots from modern tank guns like the 2A46M-5 and Rh120 L/44 is quite good, in that most of the shells land near the aiming point, which would be the center mass of the target.



Even the 2A46, which has a comparably high probable error in the vertical plane due to the asymmetric recoil system, can demonstrate the fact that most shots land near the center of the aiming point. The diagram below shows that only 14.3% of the shots landed in the 0.5 meter circle, but that can be solved by zeroing the gun in the horizontal plane. The important part is the tightness of the shot group.



It would still be alright if there were no Kontakt-5 on the lower glacis or on the turret roof, because those parts of the tank are not hit often. The center mass of the tank is hit the most often, and so the center mass of the tank should have the best protection. The problem with the T-72B3 is that the area on either side of the driver's periscope and the gun mantlet lack Kontakt-5. The mantlet also lacks composite armour, making it vulnerable to older anti-tank rockets and missiles.

By the way, here is the distribution of hits, as observed by Dr. Manfred Held.



Real combat has shown that most shots end up at the center mass of the target, no matter what tanks are you talking about.

GarryB wrote:

A 125mm gun.... or are you going to call it a rifle?

What does that have to do with anything? Seems like you just want to derail the discussion.

GarryB wrote:

So they improved with every round but never managed to make them a fraction as aerodynamic as a 105mm round... Interesting.

Sabots are not supposed to be aerodynamic. They are supposed to peel away after the shell leaves the barrel  

You must mean that the projectiles themselves are not as aerodynamic. As I have already explained, that is because Soviet APFSDS used bore-riding fins, which means that it experiences more drag than a projectile with subcaliber fins, or even an ogived APDS shell.

GarryB wrote:

Yes, of course... the Soviets have a verifyable history of absolutely NEVER upgrading the tanks they had in service... even their cheaper numbers tank the T-72.

In fact it is well known within the western expert community that it is easy to identify a T-72 based on their features and equipment because that absolutely never changes from the day they are built to the day they are retired...

Ahh, another stawman argument    I never said that the Soviets never upgraded the T-72. I just said that the T-72B3 is a half-assed upgrade.

GarryB wrote:

They did not introduce any APS systems in large scale previously but now every one of their new tanks will have an APS system so obviously none of their older tanks will get APS systems as upgrades...

And I kindly asked when will they receive this APS. I didn't say that they will never get it. I'm just asking when they will get it. Since the T-80BVM and T-90M are both receiving Relikt, why hasn't the T-72B3 received Relikt as well? It's supposed to be cheaper once it is in mass production, right? And let's not forget that many BMPTs have been exported with Relikt as well.

GarryB wrote:

So why has no one else done this too if it is so accurate?

Be careful what you say.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/06/20/50-caliber-purpose-sabot-ammunition-development-us-army-ardec-ndia-2017/

Main issue has always been cost, but another one is necessity. .50 cal needed it more because more penetration is needed for the anti-materiel role, but now, the U.S Army is looking for ways to defeat level IV body armour, and saboted ammunition for the M4 may be the only option. We will see what happens, but the fact that APDS is used by Sweden as a sniper round is proof that it can indeed work.

GarryB wrote:

The Kerner round was never adopted in large quantities and was never adopted by the Russian Navy who uses HE rounds in their CIWS... there is no point in hitting a target just to punch a tiny hole in it.

They increase the chance of a hit by using 12 barrels per Kashtan mount.

That is completely true, but that doesn't change the fact that the original purpose of "Kerner" was to improve the hit probability for CIWS. Whether it actually went into service as per its intended purpose is a different matter entirely.

Note that Phalanx and Goalkeeper both use APDS. Sure, Kashtan improves the probability of hit by just throwing more rounds downrange, but other CIWS use APDS with lower dispersion. APDS doesn't just poke a little hole into an incoming ASM. The explosive charge in HE warheads tends to be much more sensitive than something like 4S20 or 4S24 for ERA. It can be set off by high energy APDS shell with no explosive filling.

The newer Mk244 APDS very small dispersion, especially compared to M50 series full caliber ammo for the same gun.



Dispersion radius of Mk244 is just under 4 inches at 200 yards. That's equal to 0.55 mils. Dispersion radius for M50 is 15 inches at 600 yards, which is equal to 0.7 mils. By right, all the extra variables from sabot separation should make APDS and APFSDS less accurate than full caliber ammo, but this is not the case, except perhaps for earlier APDS and APFSDS.

\"GarryB wrote:

Actually it is that easy.... the Russians aren't stupid. ARENA was expensive and was not able to deal with APFSDS rounds or diving top attack weapons.

Afghanit can deal with those threats, so while it is expensive it is worth it.

They might only fit vehicles actually going into combat rather than those taking part in exercises... why let the enemy know what they will face?

No, they aren't stupid, but the economic situation is not good and corruption is still a problem. Afghanit is a very good investment, but the full introduction of the Armata platform keeps getting pushed back, which means that the mass production of Afghanit keeps getting pushed back as well. Not to mention that there is no confirmation on how reliable Afghanit under adverse conditions of low visibility and high noise. It may need more years of tweaking.

GarryB wrote:

So why not just attach relikt on top... the lower layer probably wont work properly but who cares?

A full set of Kontakt-5 weighs 1.5 tons and Relikt weighs 2.3 tons. There should be no problem stacking reactive armour in layers, but you have the problem of weigh to deal with. Vast majority of T-72B3s have the V-84 only, and the suspension would need to be reinforced. The price tag keeps getting bigger and bigger. Why not just install Relikt instead of Kontakt-5? It's not like Relikt is not in production.

GarryB wrote:

If they wanted to send well protected vehicles to either conflict they could have sent T-90s... neither is for the survival of Russia.

the fact that they sent upgraded old tanks suggests they didn't want to invest too much in either case.

Hmm... So I guess we will only see T-72B3 with Afghanit APS, Relikt ERA, 2A82 cannon and V-92S2F when WW3 breaks out.

And in that case, who can say that Leopard 2 and Abrams will not be 2x or 3x better than they are now if WW3 breaks out?

GarryB wrote:

Any weapon has the same issue and all any operator of said weapon is to place the likely circle of expected impacts over the centre of mass of a target and fire and if they miss or the hit is not effective to fire again.

The likelihood of achieving an effective hit is more likely if you are firing at a T-72B3 than at any other modern tank.

GarryB wrote:

There are no vehicles that have no flaws so how about we just get over it?

It does not matter what changes you make to the T-72B3 design NATO has super ammo and super trained crews and all operators of T-72s are dead men.... as proven by the poor showing in Syria and the Ukraine...  

The point is to minimize flaws.

The flaws on the T-72B3 are quite easily solved. Just replace Kontakt-5 with Relikt. Easy as that. It's not a major undertaking like installing APS, or replacing the old cast turret or something like that. It's just welding on Relikt instead of Kontakt-5.

GarryB wrote:

Even with complete coverage with relickt there is a chance the incoming round will hit the gun barrel, or the join between two plates... what they have now they have clearly decided is good enough. Get over it.

And what is that chance? 2 out of 100? 1 out of 100? How is the chance of hitting the join between two plates even comparable to not having any plates at all?

Interlinked you do realise that no Russian tank has ERA around the turret ring and only the T-90M has ERA around the gun mantlet area and I do not see the Russian army keeping the T-72B3 around till 2030 they will likely have put tem into reserve by the mid 2020s.

They may also not be using Relikt Arena or Afganit because they would rather devote that money to procuring the Armata as it is not worth dumping billions into platforms you have no intention of keeping.

The T-64,T-72,T-80 and T-90 would require entirely new turrets and frontal armor in order to remain competent and Russia needs tank that are superior not just capable therefor it is better to devote your resources to building newer vehicles.

I am not saying upgrading old platforms to high standards is impossible I am just saying it is not worth it as it requires almost as mutch effort as building a new tank the Black Eagle and T-55M6 are exelent examples of this.

The-thing-next-door wrote:Interlinked you do realise that no Russian tank has ERA around the turret ring and only the T-90M has ERA around the gun mantlet area and I do not see the Russian army keeping the T-72B3 around till 2030 they will likely have put tem into reserve by the mid 2020s.

What's preventing them from putting ERA around the mantlet area? T-72B2 "Rogatka" was a pretty good proof of concept of how Relikt could have been implemented. That's why I showed it.

The-thing-next-door wrote:

They may also not be using Relikt  Arena or Afganit because they would rather devote that money to procuring the Armata as it is not worth dumping billions into platforms you have no intention of keeping.

Replacing or adding Relikt to one thousand T-72Bs should not cost more than a few million dollars USD, and the payoff would be very significant. Bear in mind that almost all of the T-72B3s built thus far were originally T-72Bs, without Kontakt-5. Only a minority of them are T-72B obr. 1989 models which already have Kontakt-5 installed. That means that some millions were spent on installing Kontakt-5 on these T-72Bs. Relikt would only have been slightly more expensive, but not by much, because it is in mass production to equip BMPTs and the T-90M and T-80BVM. There is no good reason why the T-72B3 obr. 2016 doesn't have Relikt.

The-thing-next-door wrote:

The T-64,T-72,T-80 and T-90 would require entirely new turrets and frontal armor in order to remain competent and Russia needs tank that are superior not just capable therefor it is better to devote your resources to building newer vehicles.

I am not saying upgrading old platforms to high standards is impossible I am just saying it is not worth it as it requires almost as mutch effort as building a new tank the Black Eagle and T-55M6 are exelent examples of this.

No, it just needs newer ERA that will last it for the next decade. In fact, why not give the T-72B3 the same ERA as the T-14? That would lower costs for the T-14 in the near future, right? Right now, Kontakt-5 is 32 years old. It's just not good enough, even until 2025 or 2030.

There's no need to upgrade the T-72B to the level of the T-14. It just needs to be able to withstand the most common tank shells currently in use outside of the U.S and Germany, like KEW-A2 tungsten APFSDS and DM33. It needs Relikt to stand a chance. Kontakt-5 will simply not be enough.

Do things get cheaper if mass produced in Russia? If so adding Malachit ERA and Afganit APS to every tank in service does seem like a good idea.

Isos wrote:Who cares about T-72 armour. They will have T-14 for their main tank forces and the rest will be to overwhelm the enemy while they are focus fighting T-14. That's why T-72 need to be really manoeuvrable and not like those pig tanks in the west that weight 70 tons with all the add on armour.

What I would do is use in big numbers simple attack helicopters like french gazelle or russian ansat 2rc armed with 4 ATGM. Like 600 of them on a front for big wars to destroy vehicles. Gazelles proved really nice when attacking Israeli tanks on the Golan. And you can land them anywhere you want, not like planes.

Even if you can't destroy a tank because of active defence system, you can destroy all the support vehicles behind it that carry ammo and troops.

I would personaly use tons of T-72B3 teletanks and Uran-9s to overwelm the enemy so my T-14s and T-15s get quite a bit less attention. Although if the nato tanks were going defensive then I would just smerch the crap out of them.

Anyway who deosent want a better spammable tank (just remember to make it remote control if you keep it after 230).

Interlinked wrote:The photo below shows the results of a firing exercise by a Polish Leopard 2A4, firing on targets at a distance of 1.6 km or 1.8 km while on the move at a speed of 20 km/h.

Oh interesting, and why not I instead now from 8 -10 km moving at 80 km /h ?

Please........

I have a precise idea from where and who came from those authenticate hallucinations ; him and its close friend have had a very brief appearance also in this forum some years ago before moving a very "hurried retreat" when both of them have realized that here exist people that not eat even only a single fragment of those phantasies covered by pieces of reality and that with those subject in their life do not play.........

He take some target pics from a tank fire training and attempt to "link" to it an obscure ,not binding "document" from the MoD of its country ,obviously not directly related to the pic's event , to extrapolate the modality of theirs acquisition A true DELIRIUM !!!

Not happy it attempt even to compare those madly "constructed" evidence of APFSDS fire with the video of result of fire in the course of domestic tank biathlon (of which of course exist complete video evidence !) that even the stones know that are executed at real 1800 m of distance with training......HEAT rounds.

Theirs crews ,as those of ANY western PR-overbloated MBTs, would be very welcome ,togheter with thiers equipment, in the Federation's Tank Biathlon of next year (formal invitation is envoyed each year), i and several others -among which the same western experts that prevent that a similar catastrophic event for them would ever take place - have a very precise idea both of the amount of decade-olds ridiculous myths about western equipment (vectronic suit included) that would be dispelled in few days of operations under the eyes of anyone and theirs position at the end of the last day.

Naturally my advice for Polish tank crews would be to first attempt at least to best with theirs most advanced Leo-2A5 the largely outdated T-64BM manned by Ukraine crews that have beated them at theirs first attendance in the Strong Europe tank challenge of this year, before even think to sign-up with the top of world crew and equipment.

About muzzle retardation of domestic and foreiogn APDS rounds ,the argument is naturally surreptitiously constructed (moreover from data of true antediluvian Soviet rounds from few and at best incomplete informations from a secondary source) in facts anyone know that taking into account rounds of same time window of construction this parameter is almost overlapping for domestic and foreign rounds (at example 3БМ42M show a MR equal to 60 m/s against the 59,5 m/s of the M8929A2 and for 3БМ44 this parameter is even better, 56 m/s , while both retaining the significantly higher muzzle velocity at barrel of domestic ammunitions).

To sum all : typical western complex of inferiority at work

Mindstorm wrote:

Oh interesting, and why not  I instead now from 8 -10 km moving at 80 km /h ?

Please........

Could you elaborate more on this statement?

Mindstorm wrote:

I have a precise idea from where and who came from those authenticate hallucinations ; him and its close friend have had a very brief appearance also in this forum some years ago before moving a very "hurried retreat" when both of them have realized that here exist people that not eat even only a single fragment of those phantasies covered by pieces of reality and that with those subject in their life do not play.........

He take some target pics from a tank fire training and attempt to "link" to it an obscure ,not binding "document" from the MoD of its country ,obviously not directly related to the pic's event , to extrapolate the modality of theirs acquisition   A true DELIRIUM  !!!

Not happy it attempt even to compare those madly "constructed" evidence of APFSDS fire with the video of result of fire in the course of domestic tank biathlon (of which of course exist complete video evidence !) that even the stones know that are executed at real 1800 m of distance with training......HEAT rounds.

Is your other username "hest"  

Training rounds were also used in that photo from the Leo 2A4 shooting. If they weren't, the target would be in pieces...    Besides, people have been extolling the high accuracy of Soviet HEAT rounds, which you and I both know to be exaggerated. It was interesting to note that a common tactic used by the RF crews in most of the TBs was to slow down to a very slow crawl during the fire-on-the-move stage. Was it out of necessity? Or was it simply an insurance policy? We will never know...

Mindstorm wrote:

Theirs crews ,as those of ANY western PR-overbloated MBTs, would be very welcome ,togheter with thiers equipment, in the Federation's Tank Biathlon of next year (formal invitation is envoyed each year), i and several others  -among which the same western experts that prevent that a similar catastrophic event for them would ever take place  -  have a very precise idea both of the amount of decade-olds ridiculous myths about western equipment (vectronic suit included) that would be dispelled in few days of operations under the eyes of anyone and theirs position at the end of the last day.

Naturally my advice for Polish tank crews would be to first attempt at least to best with theirs most advanced Leo-2A5 the largely outdated T-64BM manned by Ukraine crews that have beated them at theirs first attendance in the Strong Europe tank challenge of this year, before even think to sign-up with the top of world crew and equipment.

Tank Biathlon is an entertaining show, but Strong Europe challenge is a more serious exercise-style challenge that has events to simulate the duties of the crew when they are dismounted. NATO participation in TB depends on politics more than anything else, really.

Since Polish crews aren't that great, it makes that shot group from the photo even more impressive, eh?

Mindstorm wrote:

About muzzle retardation of domestic and foreiogn APDS rounds ,the argument is naturally surreptitiously constructed (moreover from data of true antediluvian Soviet rounds from few and at best incomplete informations from a secondary source) in facts anyone know that taking into account rounds of same time window of construction this parameter is almost overlapping for domestic and foreign rounds (at example 3БМ42M show a MR equal to 60 m/s against the 59,5 m/s of the M8929A2 and for 3БМ44 this parameter is even better, 56 m/s , while both retaining the significantly higher muzzle velocity at barrel of domestic ammunitions).

"surreptitiously"  "antediluvian" Are you studying for an English quiz, perchance? I had to read your paragraph twice to understand what you were trying to say, but I digress; when comparing domestic to foreign APFSDS rounds, the fact that domestic rounds had full caliber bore-riding fins means that practically all foreign rounds were somewhat better in terms of velocity loss over distance. This only changed when Russia began producing the newer generation designs in the 90's, as it should have, seeing as these new projectiles had subcaliber fins, which had been the norm for APFSDS shells for the 120mm caliber since 1979. 3BM-32 from 1985 and 3BM-42 from 1986 still had bore-riding fins, and this was when the M829 was introduced, and the M829 already had exceptionally small subcaliber fins. Surely you wouldn't call the 3BM-32 and 3BM-42 "antediluvian"? Or do you only start labeling things "antediluvian" when they come before the 3BM-42M?

Current Russian APFSDS shells no longer have the problem of overly large fins, but are instead limited by the dimensions of the autoloader. There was once a time when APFSDS was the shortest ammunition type among the three or four types carried, but that is no longer true.

Even so, you now understand how little it matters that NATO tanks are generally taller than the T-72.

A bigger target is easier to see and easier to hit.

Law of physics? 115mm and 125mm APFSDS have bore-riding stabilizing fins, which means that the wingspan is 115mm or 125mm. That's quite a lot of drag. This only started to change when subcaliber fins appeared on newer Russian APFSDS designs. I don't see why it is difficult to grasp this simple fact.

But you said all 125mm rounds have the same velocity loss, now you are suggesting newer rounds... which the T-72B3 has been upgraded to use have better performance...

Now you are just being unproductive. Probable deviation (in meters) is available on the firing tables published by Stefan Kotsch. Accuracy improved substantially when the aluminium "Bucket" type sabot started to be used, but the magnitude of the improvement is not known to me.

Your claim seemed to suggest all Soviet and Russian ammo was not as advanced as NATO ammo, now you suggest they have a similar new more efficient design but for some reason, despite not knowing the performance you would have us believe there is still accuracy problems for the Russian rounds... so it would be fair to therefore assume the laws of physics don't work the same for Russian weapons...

Okay, let me try again. Assuming that all variables are known (wind speed, distance, ambient temperature, air density, etc), you can aim at the center of a target and most of your shots will land near the center of the target. A few of your shots will land at some distance away from the center. A small number of your shots will land at the very edges of your target. A very, very small number of your shots will miss the target. Statistically, most of your shots will hit the center of your target. The keywords are statistical probability and standard deviation.

The dispersion of the shots from modern tank guns like the 2A46M-5 and Rh120 L/44 is quite good, in that most of the shells land near the aiming point, which would be the center mass of the target.

So what you are trying to say is that they can be quite accurate... NATO guns that is, because Russians ammo is crap, as long as the unknown variables are limited. Which is why most tanks fire on the move and don't sit out in the open stationary very much, but accelerate from cover to cover as much as possible.

The new Armata tanks are getting tether powered UAVs equipped with thermal and radar sensors, so at some point one could assume that the T-72s which will be kept in service will get similar upgrades in the near future.

Sharing target information should make tank on tank engagements rather more rare, but then we already agree that a Russia vs NATO fight will not come down to MBTs, but tactical nukes and diplomacy.

But direct line of sight shots will become more rare in an age when UAVs make hiding difficult even for a 40 ton tank...

Ahh, another stawman argument  Laughing  I never said that the Soviets never upgraded the T-72. I just said that the T-72B3 is a half-assed upgrade.

WTF is a stawman argument?

The fact that we are talking about a T-72B3 clearly shows they do upgrade their tanks and that you are just getting shitty about the current upgrade effort... and a bit whiny too.

And I kindly asked when will they receive this APS. I didn't say that they will never get it. I'm just asking when they will get it. Since the T-80BVM and T-90M are both receiving Relikt, why hasn't the T-72B3 received Relikt as well? It's supposed to be cheaper once it is in mass production, right? And let's not forget that many BMPTs have been exported with Relikt as well.

I am glad you asked me because Putin tells me everything...

I dare say that right now with nothing in mass production that there are no APS systems actually in mass production.

However, when the Armata and other vehicle families are put into mass production over the next few years some of the extra APS systems they can produce will likely go to upgrading older models with APS. At that time they might add Relickt to older vehicles or they might not.

I am sure the actual answer is an oligarch who is best friends with Putin owns the Kontact-5 factory and he doesn't want to transition to making Relictk because it is not as profiti

That is completely true, but that doesn't change the fact that the original purpose of "Kerner" was to improve the hit probability for CIWS.

If it was made for the purpose of CIWS then why is it advertised amongst the ground forces versions of the 30x165mm ammo instead of the ammo for the navy?

The 30mm cannons in 30 x 165mm calibre in the navy fire two types of ammo... HEI and HEIT.

Note that Phalanx and Goalkeeper both use APDS. Sure, Kashtan improves the probability of hit by just throwing more rounds downrange, but other CIWS use APDS with lower dispersion. APDS doesn't just poke a little hole into an incoming ASM. The explosive charge in HE warheads tends to be much more sensitive than something like 4S20 or 4S24 for ERA. It can be set off by high energy APDS shell with no explosive filling.

The west has experience with subsonic anti ship missiles.... practising against rather faster incoming missiles, do you think the Soviets/Russians are wrong to continue to use HE rounds? Is accuracy really everything?

But what would the Russians know about shooting things down...

And in that case, who can say that Leopard 2 and Abrams will not be 2x or 3x better than they are now if WW3 breaks out?

If it is WWIII then who the fuck cares what either is like... it wont matter much.

T-72s are not for marching into Europe... they will go to Syria or possibly Yemen...

There is no good reason why the T-72B3 obr. 2016 doesn't have Relikt.

Of course there is.... we just don't know what it is.

To sum all : typical western complex of inferiority at work Very Happy

Missed you Mindstorm...

GarryB wrote:
A bigger target is easier to see and easier to hit.

That wasn't the point. The point was that NATO tanks being taller did not significantly affect the angle at which shells impact the armour of a T-72. Even if an M60A1 has to aim slightly downward to hit a T-72, the shell will still impact at an angle that is essentially 0 degrees.

GarryB wrote:

But you said all 125mm rounds have the same velocity loss, now you are suggesting newer rounds... which the T-72B3 has been upgraded to use have better performance...

I never said that all 125mm APFSDS rounds have the same velocity loss. Everything I said was in reference to Soviet APFSDS, and if you go back and check, you will see that you did not carefully read what I wrote. You skimmed over my words and did not think it was important to distinguish Soviet APFSDS from RF APFSDS. There is a big distinction. Ammo like the 3BM-42M came after the USSR dissolved and during the time of the Russian Federation.

GarryB wrote:

Your claim seemed to suggest all Soviet and Russian ammo was not as advanced as NATO ammo, now you suggest they have a similar new more efficient design but for some reason, despite not knowing the performance you would have us believe there is still accuracy problems for the Russian rounds... so it would be fair to therefore assume the laws of physics don't work the same for Russian weapons...

You have confused two separate discussions: one about the higher velocity loss of 125mm APFSDS because of larger fins, and one about mediocre accuracy of Soviet APFSDS, and now you are lumping it all together to accuse me of saying that all Soviet and Russian ammo was not as advanced as NATO ammo. You are only confusing yourself.

I never said that current 125mm APFSDS is bad, and I can prove it by simply compiling what was said between us earlier. See for yourself:

Interlinked wrote:

GarryB wrote:

Interlinked wrote:

GarryB wrote:

Interlinked wrote:
The Soviets were not producing very accurate HEAT rounds, they were just producing not-so-accurate APFSDS rounds. This changed when "bucket" style sabots were introduced.

Of course, those stupid commies can't design accurate guns.... only weapons produced in the west can be accurate.

When did I talk about guns?  Laughing I was talking about the mediocre accuracy of APFSDS shells  Laughing

The earlier steel "Ring" type of sabot was just carried over from 115mm development, and they were just not that good, although they were slightly improved with each new round put into service. The first major improvement only came when the aluminium "Bucket" type of sabot was introduced in the early 80's. This is an objective fact.

So they improved with every round but never managed to make them a fraction as aerodynamic as a 105mm round... Interesting.

Sabots are not supposed to be aerodynamic. They are supposed to peel away after the shell leaves the barrel  Laughing

You must mean that the projectiles themselves are not as aerodynamic. As I have already explained, that is because Soviet APFSDS used bore-riding fins, which means that it experiences more drag than a projectile with subcaliber fins, or even an ogived APDS shell.

You seem to have a habit of switching between two unrelated topics when responding. If you didn't get what I was saying, just ask me to rephrase my statements. Don't put words in my mouth, and don't jump around between unrelated topics, like you did with your first point.

GarryB wrote:

So what you are trying to say is that they can be quite accurate... NATO guns that is, because Russians ammo is crap, as long as the unknown variables are limited. Which is why most tanks fire on the move and don't sit out in the open stationary very much, but accelerate from cover to cover as much as possible.

You know exactly what I said, Garry. Don't try to twist my words. It's in the damn quote.

Interlinked wrote:
The dispersion of the shots from modern tank guns like the 2A46M-5 and Rh120 L/44 is quite good, in that most of the shells land near the aiming point, which would be the center mass of the target.

What did I write there that made you think that I ever said that only NATO guns are accurate? Where have I ever said that the latest 125mm APFSDS is crap? I have only said that the earlier steel "Ring" type sabot wasn't very good, and the aluminium "Bucket" type sabot was a major upgrade. I challenge you to find a single sentence from me that says what you think I said. My position on this is very clear. You just have reread what I said.

GarryB wrote:

The new Armata tanks are getting tether powered UAVs equipped with thermal and radar sensors, so at some point one could assume that the T-72s which will be kept in service will get similar upgrades in the near future.

Sharing target information should make tank on tank engagements rather more rare, but then we already agree that a Russia vs NATO fight will not come down to MBTs, but tactical nukes and diplomacy.

But direct line of sight shots will become more rare in an age when UAVs make hiding difficult even for a 40 ton tank...

Perhaps it would be more productive if you finished your thoughts before typing them out. That way, we can save more time.

GarryB wrote:

WTF is a stawman argument?

The fact that we are talking about a T-72B3 clearly shows they do upgrade their tanks and that you are just getting shitty about the current upgrade effort... and a bit whiny too.

Straw man argument: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=straw+man+argument

I am completely aware of what the T-72 is capable of, because I wrote a book-length article on it. From my perspective, it is a big waste that Relikt was not used, because the T-72B still has potential. Call it 'whiny' if you must, but I am not a Yes Man. Sure, the T-72B was upgraded, but it wasn't upgraded enough.

GarryB wrote:

I am glad you asked me because Putin tells me everything...

I dare say that right now with nothing in mass production that there are no APS systems actually in mass production.

However, when the Armata and other vehicle families are put into mass production over the next few years some of the extra APS systems they can produce will likely go to upgrading older models with APS. At that time they might add Relickt to older vehicles or they might not.

I am sure the actual answer is an oligarch who is best friends with Putin owns the Kontact-5 factory and he doesn't want to transition to making Relictk because it is not as profiti

So the T-72 will get Relikt when it is obsolete in the future, like how Kontakt-5 is obsolete now... You and I both know that this should not be normal.

GarryB wrote:

If it was made for the purpose of CIWS then why is it advertised amongst the ground forces versions of the 30x165mm ammo instead of the ammo for the navy?

Why is it advertised amongst the ground forces when there are problems integrating it with the feeding system of the BMP-2 and BMP-3 due to the short length?

From what we know, the answer is that they rejected it for CIWS, so it was adapted for ground forces instead.

GarryB wrote:

The west has experience with subsonic anti ship missiles.... practising against rather faster incoming missiles, do you think the Soviets/Russians are wrong to continue to use HE rounds? Is accuracy really everything?

But what would the Russians know about shooting things down...

Wouldn't a faster missile be more likely to be hit by high velocity APDS than by medium velocity HEI shells?

Maybe they continue to use HE because tungsten is too expensive for the military budget?

GarryB wrote:

If it is WWIII then who the fuck cares what either is like... it wont matter much.

T-72s are not for marching into Europe... they will go to Syria or possibly Yemen...

And what will they face in Syria or possibly Yemen? Probably export tungsten alloy APFSDS like KEW-A2 and DM33, right? Kontakt-5 is not enough against these threats. Relikt is needed. Relikt is also needed to minimize the size of the weakened area of the tank at the center mass, so that obsolete missiles like the HJ-73 and old anti-tank rockets like PG-7VS and PG-9VN can't be used to destroy them easily from the front. This was what I have been patiently saying since the very beginning...

GarryB wrote:

Of course there is.... we just don't know what it is.

Is corruption a good reason?

Interlinked wrote:Could you elaborate more on this statement?

I even need to elaborate a so clear statement ? Oh my.....

Those pics come from here,

http://10bkpanc.wp.mil.pl/pl/95_1046.html

As usual for those fire trials, those photos represent the best fire concentration (both for effect of proficiency that sheer number of attempts) ,and not the mean results, achieved for each type of target by sone of the crew involved.

But even more important there, not exist a single word or figure supporting the phantasious delirium of the guy (an odd polish guy with definitely too much phantasy, anti-Russian resentment and time at its disposition) using the figures from a Polish MoD document to "prove" that those shots has been conducted by 1600 m on the move

Practically you have merely repeated the hallucinatory phantasies of a bitterness-eaten polish guy on internet......

Interlinked wrote:Training rounds were also used in that photo from the Leo 2A4 shooting. If they weren't, the target would be in pieces... Laughing

And you have even the courage to add a laughing emoticon after having uttered a similar titanical nonsense ?

Live fire tests with any kind of rounds with KE penetrators are very often realized literally with piece of papers or semi-rigid carboard supported by nothing more than few wooden axes ; a DM63 leave in those targets no more than the circular holes you see in similar pics and obiously would not destroy the target (to the exact contrary of a not inert HEAT round).

You do not know what you talk about.

Interlinked wrote:Besides, people have been extolling the high accuracy of Soviet HEAT rounds, which you and I both know to be exaggerated.

You must suffer of some kind of dissociation : the accuracy of domestic HEAT rounds at 1800 m of distance (actually even an under-estimation being the training rounds slower and with greater gravity drop) you and any other can see each year at the Army Games.

Let Leopard-2, Abrams in any modification attempt the same with training M830 rounds after high speed jumps and jolts (admitting that them would even reach the shooting point still intacts ); there would be a very wide space for laughters.

Interlinked wrote:Tank Biathlon is an entertaining show, but Strong Europe challenge is a more serious exercise-style challenge that has events to simulate the duties of the crew when they are dismounted.

Are you joking ?

If any among the two is just the Strong Europe Tank Challenge at not represent at all a challenge placing vehicle's performance and crew proficiency in battle-relevant skills at the center of the event, but instead largely secondary tasks (MedEvac, vehicle identification ,personal pistol fire, destruction of a civil car etc....), the equipment is never put under heavy stress how would instead happen in a conflict against an advanced opponent, forcing armoured divisions of the enemy to conduct high-tempo high-mobility operations off-roads for very long distances to react to the axis of attack and counter-attacks long sevral fronts of the first and second echelon of enemy ground forces.

Some of the trials of the Strong Europe Tank Challenge are so absurds and totally irrelevant to ascertain crew and equipment efficiency in real battle that it become often belittled in domestic press ,this is just an example

https://vpk-news.ru/articles/36789

Mindstorm wrote:

I even need to elaborate a so clear statement ? Oh my.....

Those pics come from here,    

http://10bkpanc.wp.mil.pl/pl/95_1046.html

As usual for those fire trials, those photos represent the best fire concentration (both for effect of proficiency that sheer number of attempts) ,and not the mean results, achieved for each type of target by sone of the crew involved.

But even more important there, not exist a single word or figure supporting the phantasious delirium of the guy (an odd polish guy with definitely too much phantasy, anti-Russian resentment and time at its disposition) using the figures from a Polish MoD document to "prove" that those shots has been conducted by 1600 m on the move  

Practically you have merely repeated the hallucinatory phantasies of a bitterness-eaten polish guy on internet......

I know where the photo comes from. All I needed to do was do a Google reverse image search...

But anyway, what makes you think that those photos represent the best fire concentration and not the mean results? The average score for the crews was 4.86 out of 5 at the training ground for firing on the move, and the average score for the shooting during the two "combat" exercises was 4.77 out of 5 and 4.73 out of 5. Average seems to be pretty high, no?

And even if you don't believe the leaflet that was shared, the distance of 1600-1800 meters is typical for firing exercises anyway. It is true in Germany, it is true in the U.S, and it is true in Russia, because that distance represents the average engagement distance for tank battle in a Central European environment.

Mindstorm wrote:

And you have even the courage to add a laughing emoticon after having uttered a similar titanical nonsense ?

Live fire tests with any kind of rounds with KE penetrators are very often realized literally with piece of papers or semi-rigid carboard supported by nothing more than few wooden axes ; a DM63 leave in those targets no more than the circular holes you see in similar pics and obiously would not destroy the target (to the exact contrary of a not inert HEAT round).

You do not know what you talk about.

Errr, I don't think that those look like DM63 holes...    Diameter of the DM63 projectile is something like 2 cm. So those targets are either the size of an A4 sheet of paper, or there is a mysterious shell called "DM63" that is 120mm in diameter...

That's a very strange A4 piece of paper  



And since when did Poland have DM63?  

Mindstorm wrote:

You must suffer of some kind of dissociation : the accuracy of domestic HEAT rounds at 1800 m of distance (actually even an under-estimation being the training rounds slower and with greater gravity drop) you and any other can see each year at the Army Games.

Let Leopard-2, Abrams in any modification attempt the same with training M830 rounds after high speed jumps and jolts (admitting that them would even reach the shooting point still intacts ); there would be a very wide space for laughters.        

3BK-14M HEAT shell
Weight: 19.8 kg
Muzzle Velocity: 905 m/s

VP5 Practice shell
Weight: 19.8 kg
Muzzle Velocity: 905 m/s

Ballistic shape is identical. Fin diameter is identical. Everything is identical, except there is no warhead; just ballast.

I suspect that you may not be aware of this, but the ballistic shape of the M830 is more aerodynamic than on Soviet HEAT designs due to the flat tip on the spike nose and due to the smaller diameter of the stabilizer fins. I have studied this a little, and you can read it here: https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2015/12/t-62.html#heat (look under 3BK-15 "Zmeya")

Mindstorm wrote:

Are you joking ?

If any among the two is just the Strong Europe Tank Challenge at not represent at all a challenge placing vehicle's performance and crew proficiency in battle-relevant skills at the center of the event, but instead largely secondary tasks (MedEvac, vehicle identification ,personal pistol fire, destruction of a civil car etc....), the equipment is never put under heavy stress how would instead happen in a conflict against an advanced opponent, forcing armoured divisions of the enemy to conduct high-tempo high-mobility operations off-roads for very long distances to react to the axis of attack and counter-attacks long sevral fronts of the first and second echelon of enemy ground forces.    

Some of the trials of the  Strong Europe Tank Challenge are so absurds and totally irrelevant to ascertain crew and equipment efficiency in real battle that it become often belittled in domestic press ,this is just an example

https://vpk-news.ru/articles/36789

Whereas in real life, tank crews prepare for battle in an air-conditioned room where they get hot meals and occasionally have to perform some final maintenance and adjustment of their tanks. In real combat, tank crews don't have to do anything except run laps around a track, sometimes drive into a shallow ditch, and open fire with a 12.7mm machine gun at a static hovering helicopter at 800-1000 meters while the tank is stationary It's very realistic! Yes, it is well known that tank crews don't have to load their tanks full of ammunition from an external ammunition supply by running to and fro, and then immediately jump into their tanks and get into action while their whole bodies are covered in sweat. No, no, tank crews do not have to evacuate the wounded. Not Russian tank crews, at least, because if one man is wounded in a Russian tank, his comrades will continue to fight on valiantly!

I hope you did not mind. I am simply responding to a joke with a joke. It's all in good faith.

Interlinked wrote:


Errr, I don't think that those look like DM63 holes...    Diameter of the DM63 projectile is something like 2 cm. So those targets are either the size of an A4 sheet of paper, or there is a mysterious shell called "DM63" that is 120mm in diameter...

That's a very strange A4 piece of paper  



And since when did Poland have DM63?  

Mindstorm is not saying those are DM63 holes, he is explaining to you that a DM63 round would leave a similar hole to those in the photo, all APFSDS rounds leave such holes, contrary to your wrong impression that only training rounds would have left the target intact, and non-training rounds would have left "the target in pieces".[/quote]

x_54_u43 wrote:

Mindstorm is not saying those are DM63 holes, he is explaining to you that a DM63 round would leave a similar hole to those in the photo, all APFSDS rounds leave such holes, contrary to your wrong impression that only training rounds would have left the target intact, and non-training rounds would have left "the target in pieces".

And those Polish Leopard 2A4s were clearly not firing APFSDS like DM63, so it is completely irrelevant. I was talking about training HEAT and non-training HEAT, because those holes were clearly made by 120mm training HEAT and not KE, training or not.

Mindstorm wrote:

Interlinked wrote:
Training rounds were also used in that photo from the Leo 2A4 shooting. If they weren't, the target would be in pieces... Laughing

Live fire tests with any kind of rounds with KE penetrators are very often realized literally with piece of papers or semi-rigid carboard supported by nothing more than few wooden axes ; a DM63 leave in those targets no more than the circular holes you see in similar pics and obiously would not destroy the target (to the exact contrary of a not inert HEAT round).

What is the point in saying that KE shells wouldn't leave the target in pieces? Was Mindstorm just looking for an opportunity to try to prove me wrong on a technicality? @Mindstorm

I never said that all 125mm APFSDS rounds have the same velocity loss. Everything I said was in reference to Soviet APFSDS, and if you go back and check, you will see that you did not carefully read what I wrote. You skimmed over my words and did not think it was important to distinguish Soviet APFSDS from RF APFSDS. There is a big distinction. Ammo like the 3BM-42M came after the USSR dissolved and during the time of the Russian Federation.

The first major improvement only came when the aluminium "Bucket" type of sabot was introduced in the early 80's. This is an objective fact.

So the improvement happened when the ammo was still Soviet?

Call it 'whiny' if you must, but I am not a Yes Man. Sure, the T-72B was upgraded, but it wasn't upgraded enough.

Sounds pretty whiny to me...

It is an upgrade... there will be plenty more to come.

Right now it is cheap enough to have in significant numbers without costing too much.

Clearly they want to use Relickt on better protected tanks right now and not the 3rd upgrade of the T-72B.

Once the T-14 is in mass production they might just skip the Relickt and fit the new ERA to all their older tanks to improve commonality and increase production numbers... or they might not.

The fact that they are introducing four new vehicle families into service with state of the art features suggests they are not doing this on the cheap, they just don't want to waste money on stuff that does not do the whole job yet... so no expensive ARENA-2... wait until expensive but more capable Afghanit is ready...

Why is it advertised amongst the ground forces when there are problems integrating it with the feeding system of the BMP-2 and BMP-3 due to the short length?

From what we know, the answer is that they rejected it for CIWS, so it was adapted for ground forces instead.

If it doesn't fit the feed systems then it is hardly adapted for the ground forces...

Or a better answer is that the high velocity armour piercing rounds might have been intended for anti armour use from the beginning due to the armour increases of western IFVs considering the primary purpose of the light cannon on the Russian and Soviet IFVs was to engage enemy equivalents.

In contrast, while Soviet and Russian Anti ship missiles have gotten faster and more deadly, western anti ship missiles are still Exocet, Harpoon, blah blah blah.

They didn't need APDS rounds for their cannon... very high velocity SAMs mounted on Kashtan mounts was easily enough of an improvement to deal with any future supersonic anti ship missile threat.

Wouldn't a faster missile be more likely to be hit by high velocity APDS than by medium velocity HEI shells?

Yeah... hitting small fast moving targets any hunter will first reach for his flechette rifle... then after a few loud belly laughs he will pick up a shotgun... well known for the enormous velocity of its projectiles...

A baseball player times his swing to hit the ball... the speed of the bat does not need to be high to make a connection, the calculation to ensure impact is all that has to be right.

Maybe they continue to use HE because tungsten is too expensive for the military budget?

But hang on.... surely they will use nuclear waste like the US Navy and that is both cheap and pollutes the world.

And what will they face in Syria or possibly Yemen? Probably export tungsten alloy APFSDS like KEW-A2 and DM33, right?

If there is an actual enemy firing back with decent ammo then a different tank would be used.

GarryB wrote:

So the improvement happened when the ammo was still Soviet?

First big accuracy improvement came during early 80's, so it's Soviet APFSDS, but I don't know how exactly big was the improvement in accuracy. First APFSDS to use "bucket" type sabot was 3BM-26, followed by 3BM-32 and 3BM-42. However, all three of these rounds still used bore-riding fins, so high drag was still a problem.

GarryB wrote:

Sounds pretty whiny to me...

It is an upgrade... there will be plenty more to come.

Right now it is cheap enough to have in significant numbers without costing too much.

Clearly they want to use Relickt on better protected tanks right now and not the 3rd upgrade of the T-72B.

Once the T-14 is in mass production they might just skip the Relickt and fit the new ERA to all their older tanks to improve commonality and increase production numbers... or they might not.

The fact that they are introducing four new vehicle families into service with state of the art features suggests they are not doing this on the cheap, they just don't want to waste money on stuff that does not do the whole job yet... so no expensive ARENA-2... wait until expensive but more capable Afghanit is ready...

But the fact is that Relikt is fundamentally the same as Kontakt-5, except that the steel flyer plates are rearranged. They certainly didn't think that 4S24 is more costly than 4S22 or that the cost made a difference, because 4S24 is used in the T-72B3's Kontakt-5. T-90M has a good chance of resisting DM53, IMO, but the current T-72B3 can't even survive against DM33. If you want a high-low mixture of tanks, the "high" tank should be able to deal with the most advanced weapon currently in use, but "low" tank must at least be able to survive the most common type of threat.

GarryB wrote:

If it doesn't fit the feed systems then it is hardly adapted for the ground forces...

If they increased the length then it would need fins, so APDS becomes APFSDS. There are other things that distinguish 30x165mm for the ground forces from the ones for the air force and for the navy...

GarryB wrote:

Or a better answer is that the high velocity armour piercing rounds might have been intended for anti armour use from the beginning due to the armour increases of western IFVs considering the primary purpose of the light cannon on the Russian and Soviet IFVs was to engage enemy equivalents.

In contrast, while Soviet and Russian Anti ship missiles have gotten faster and more deadly, western anti ship missiles are still Exocet, Harpoon, blah blah blah.

They didn't need APDS rounds for their cannon... very high velocity SAMs mounted on Kashtan mounts was easily enough of an improvement to deal with any future supersonic anti ship missile threat.

And yet "Kerner" is hardly used in the Russian army at all. Most of its users are export customers. Another case of corruption?

GarryB wrote:

Yeah... hitting small fast moving targets any hunter will first reach for his flechette rifle... then after a few loud belly laughs he will pick up a shotgun... well known for the enormous velocity of its projectiles...

I give you evidence that APDS is more accurate than full caliber rounds, and you just ignore it all and continue to say the same things you have always said, and then you use an idiotic analogy that has nothing to do with the topic.

Using APDS doesn't mean low RPM, as you implied with your "flechette rifle" analogy. You should have said "flechette shotgun". We aren't even talking about APFSDS, which is what flechettes are similar to. We are talking about APDS for autocannon calibers, and such ammunition is proven to be more accurate than regular full bore ammunition.  

You can fire thousands of rounds per minute and still use RPM, except you need less ammo because APDS is more accurate, so you don't need to fire fast and you don't need that much ammo, which means that your system can be installed on top of the deck. Systems like Kashtan require substantial deck penetration, which means that it is only suitable for heavy ships, and not smaller ones. Not only that, but firing fast also produces enormous recoil forces, which means higher vibration, which means even less accuracy.

GarryB wrote:

A baseball player times his swing to hit the ball... the speed of the bat does not need to be high to make a connection, the calculation to ensure impact is all that has to be right.

Yes, so Kashtan only needs calculate all the variables and then fire one single shell to hit the target. Oh wait...

GarryB wrote:

But hang on.... surely they will use nuclear waste like the US Navy and that is both cheap and pollutes the world.

You think Russia cares about polluting the world? Nizhny Tagil is the most polluted city in Europe

GarryB wrote:
If there is an actual enemy firing back with decent ammo then a different tank would be used.

The problem is that the T-90 is only available in small numbers, and you can't always know what you will face before you start shooting at each other.[/quote]

As far as APFSDS vs paper does this count?

The-thing-next-door wrote:As far as APFSDS vs paper does this count?

That hole is much too big to be APFSDS. Definitely HEAT or HE-Frag.

Interlinked wrote:
If you want a high-low mixture of tanks, the "high" tank should be able to deal with the most advanced weapon currently in use, but "low" tank must at least be able to survive the most common type of threat.

Ive been reluctant to chime in on this discussion, for multiple reasons. But ill just add my 2 cents worth anyway...

I must say i have to agree with the post i quoted above. I will not talk here about accuracy of tanks in combat or training situations, as it will not result in anything but endless discussion. What nobody imho can argue with is that the coverage of the ERA in the T-72B3 could have been a lot better. Simply looking at the tank you can spot these gaps.

T-72B3M should have addressed this issue. Except...it didn't. How can they have an excuse for not addressing the ERA gap for the smoke grenade launcher for example? If you leave such a weakness out in the open, the enemy can develop tactics to abuse these weaknesses, regardless of the accuracy of their own tanks. And one can not simply assume that suddenly every tank is going to be equipped with active protection systems, simply because the technology is available. It takes quite some time to integrate such technology into existing designs, and even more so to integrate it into crew training, tactics and doctrine. Not even talking about the costs.

Hopefully there will be a modified version of the T-72B3M which is more inspired by the new T-90 upgrade, and provides better coverage of the ERA. With the rather limited amount of the new T-72B3M's delivered, there is still much hope for me that the next version will adress this issue, and the current batch delivered in 2017 could be upgraded later.

As the guy said : The low end tank should be able to survive the common threats of the enemy. It seems to me that the T-72B3 upgrade plans where rushed because there was an immediate requirement of "somewhat better protected tanks" that would potentially operate in the Donbass area? Here, against less competent tanks/crews, the firepower and mobility of the T-72B3M would likely be a decisive factor during more aggressive maneuvers. Surely if Russia was expecting to face Western tank/ATGM crews in the very near future, than the T-72 would receive a more comprehensive "survivability" upgrade? Or is it simply a case of pure economics, where the MoD got exactly what it could pay for in order to stretch the budget for other  projects?

An other thought that comes to mind is that the workforce, workspace, infrastructure and tools that it would take up for fully implementing a more comprehensive, adjusted armor package onto the fleet of the T-72B3 and T-72B3Mtanks, are now available for doing the same task on the T-80's and T-90's, and will also likely be an essential part of the initial production batch of T-14 tanks. This can be considered a priority i guess.

At any rate : It is hard to estimate or quantify the combat effectiveness of a tank design before it is actually deployed in a conflict. I am sure the Israeli's for example will agree.
You can speculate and discuss endlessly.

Anyway : TLDR : do i think the T-72B3M is a bad tank ? No. Should it be better protected ? yes !
There will be further upgrades to the design to come before 2020, and i have high hopes.

Russia has over 3000 T-80s many of witch are T-80Bs that are to be upgraded to the T-80BVM standard so that is where all the Relikt is going not to mention all the T-90s and T-90As that still have Kontact 5 ERA.

This is the same for active protection systems when Afganit and/or Arena are being fitted to older tanks the most recent tanks will get top priority so first will be the T-90A then T-90 and T-80B and then and only then will the T-72B receive an active protection system.

Interlinked wrote:But anyway, what makes you think that those photos represent the best fire concentration and not the mean results? The average score for the crews was 4.86 out of 5 at the training ground for firing on the move, and the average score for the shooting during the two "combat" exercises was 4.77 out of 5 and 4.73 out of 5. Average seems to be pretty high, no?

Obviously not.

Score achieved or claimed has nothing to do with mean round dispersion among the shooter tanks. Someone could present a photo of the target with the lower rounds dispersion among the participants to the Army Games and that would be NOT representative of the mean one.

Even more important, those photos say literally nothing of the distance or gun fire and even less of the conditions of theirs execution (MBT in movement, target in movement, limit of time or penalty for time of collimation or shot and so on...)

Interlinked wrote:Errr, I don't think that those look like DM63 holes... lol! Diameter of the DM63 projectile is something like 2 cm. So those targets are either the size of an A4 sheet of paper, or there is a mysterious shell called "DM63" that is 120mm in diameter...

That hole is much too big to be APFSDS. Definitely HEAT or HE-Frag.

Definitely ......you do not know how an high caliber KE penetrator hole appear










About the targets , those are the standard MBT-size target at Grafenwoeher (where Strong Europe Tank Chellenge is conducted)

https://meggitttrainingsystems.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Stationary_Armor_Target_SAT_Rev3_GO.pdf

Interlinked wrote:Whereas in real life, tank crews prepare for battle in an air-conditioned room where they get hot meals and occasionally have to perform some final maintenance and adjustment of their tanks. In real combat, tank crews don't have to do anything except run laps around a track, sometimes drive into a shallow ditch, and open fire with a 12.7mm machine gun at a static hovering helicopter at 800-1000 meters while the tank is stationary Laughing It's very realistic!
I am simply responding to a joke with a joke. It's all in good faith.

The only joke here is your almost inexistent knowledge of the subject and even worse totally corrupted mindset ..... (years of eating ridiculous wewstern claims and PR-engineered mantras can do thatto westren people devoid of the most basic critical thinking).

Actually tank biathlon present battle-representative time and mechanical challenges even stressing and pressing both for the crew and the equipment than those of a typical battlefield maybe of at the level of a multi-front conflict against high-end opponents.

Someone must have a true steel-face to get the courage to attempt to "belittle" actual fire executed at 1 km of distance with 12,7 mm MBT secondary machine gun against an hovering helicopter (maybe for the usual complex of inferiority coming from the awareness that the western 7,62 mm secondary MG could never hope to even reach that distance and even less damage an attack helicopter rotor or trasparency... ) against the NOTHING of western "CHALLENGE".

This embarrassing garbage (to notice the western meaning of "offensive operation shooting practice" and "precision driving" challenges )



can be put even only in comparison with the challenges of TB



only in the minds of the most western-PR-corrupted people.
Western experts and operatives are perfectly aware that majority of theirs horribly conceived MBTs would not even come to the end of the 3 laps without broke and even less maintain integer the ridiculous myths circulating on theirs FCS and training level.

Mindstorm wrote:

Obviously not.

Score achieved or claimed has nothing to do with mean round dispersion among the shooter tanks. Someone could present a photo of the target with the lower rounds dispersion among the participants to the Army Games and that would be NOT representative of the mean one.

Even more important, those photos say literally nothing of the distance or gun fire and even less of the conditions of theirs execution  (MBT in movement, target in movement, limit of time or penalty for time of collimation or shot and so on...)  

True, true, and that means that those photos could possibly represent the worst dispersion, so the average accuracy should be even higher  

1600-1800 m is the standard distance for tank targets, because that represents the average combat distance in Central European terrain. This means that practically all European armies conduct firing exercises at that kind of range, including Russian tanks. This was shown on the booklet, but if you disregard evidence that was presented to you (you know what I mean), then I simply don't know how you can be persuaded.

Interlinked wrote:

Definitely ......you do not know how an high caliber KE penetrator hole appear

Luckily for you, I am familiar with all of those photos, and I can tell you that you are sorely mistaken.

First image:


According to Gurkhan, it is a "naked" T-90S turret tested in Russia at the NTIIM training grounds. Some time ago, I analysed the photo for my upcoming article on the T-90 and came to the conclusion that either BM-32 or BM-42 was used. There are two reasons: The size of the crater indicates that the projectile was sheathed in a steel jacket, which mushroomed out upon impact with the hardened steel face of the turret cheek. After all, there is no APFSDS round in existence with that kind of fin wingspan to body diameter ratio, so the entry hole was not clean. Second reason is that the marks made by the fins must indicate that the size of the fins is rather large, making it all but impossible for anything else to have made them except for Soviet-era APFSDS shell with bore-riding fins. This is further supported by the fact that there are five fins, which is characteristic of Soviet APFSDS. 120mm APFSDS like DM33, DM53 and M829A2/KEW-A2 have six fins, and so do many other 120mm APFSDS rounds.

Compare the holes to these:



And I think you see what I mean. These holes were made on a T-72M1 turret during testing with 105mm and 120mm ammunition at Meppen (apparently).


Second image:


Oblique penetration produces large entrance hole. This is a well known phenomena. See the photo below.



This can only happen when impacting a target at an angle and if the target has some strength. It doesn't happen on paper or cardboard  


Third image:


You are embarrassing yourself with this one. I can understand if you do not know that oblique impact produces large oval entry holes, or if you did not know that there are jacketed and monoblock long rod projectiles, because that only shows that you have the level of knowledge of a typical keyboard warrior from YouTube comments, but this is just silly. The photo comes from here (link), and the caption says this:

1- Main battle tank t-55 100 mm armor piercing round (100 APCBC). Hit and penetration (4 pcs)

2 - Main battle tank t-55 100 mm armor piercing round (100 APCBC). Hit,no penetration due the small angle of impact.

3 - Light recoilless rifle (55 S 55) of Finnish origin. Two hits and penetrations. Note the small penetration hole of the HEAT (High Explosive Antitank) jet in comparison to the kinetic ammunition penetration (armor piercing, POS.1).

9 - Hit by 100 mm tank gun HEAT ammunition directly to the penetration hole left by 100 mm kinetic Armor Piercing round.Note the impacts of the stabilizing wings of the shell around the impact hole.


No wonder those holes are so big. They were made by 100mm BR-412D APCBC shells with a diameter of 100mm! Of course the holes are actually a bit bigger than 100mm, and that is because of the displacement of steel. If you were shooting at a paper or cardboard target, the hole would be the same size as the caliber of the shots.


All the evidence you've given is worthless, so let me show you mine. The two screenshots below show holes through plywood made from 125mm APFSDS fired from a T-90S.



Look at the size of that hole.



And let's not forget about this famous photo of a telephone pole in Ukraine:



And a photo of an M48 turret hit by some APFSDS round.



And here's another photo, but it's copyrighted: http://cfs12.blog.daum.net/image/18/blog/2008/10/29/14/29/4907f4c2d86d1&filename=17.jpg


Convinced?

Mindstorm wrote:

About the targets , those are the standard MBT-size target at Grafenwoeher (where Strong Europe Tank Chellenge is conducted)

https://meggitttrainingsystems.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Stationary_Armor_Target_SAT_Rev3_GO.pdf

I think you took the "A4 paper" joke a little too seriously...

Mindstorm wrote:

The only joke here is your almost inexistent knowledge of the subject and even worse totally corrupted mindset ..... (years of eating ridiculous wewstern claims and PR-engineered mantras can do thatto westren people devoid of the most basic critical thinking).

Yes, that is why a person with high knowledge of the subject presented a photo of a T-55 turret bombarded by 100mm APCBC shells as proof that APFSDS rounds create large holes  

Mindstorm wrote:

Actually tank biathlon present battle-representative time and mechanical challenges even stressing and pressing both for the crew and the equipment than those of a typical battlefield maybe of at the level of a multi-front conflict against high-end opponents.

Someone must have a true steel-face to get the courage to attempt to "belittle" actual fire executed at 1 km of distance with 12,7 mm MBT secondary machine gun against an hovering helicopter (maybe for the usual complex of inferiority coming from the awareness that the western 7,62 mm secondary MG could never hope to even reach that distance and even less damage an attack helicopter rotor or trasparency... ) against the NOTHING of western "CHALLENGE".

Hmm, and having tank crews compete in the biathlon one at a time is more realistic and more challenging than having a platoon of tanks work together, using communications and teamwork to complete a challenge with multiple objectives. Okay. I understand.  

The fact that commander of a T-72 is required pop out of his hatch to manually fire at a static hovering helicopter at 800-1000 m means that it is worth something? I seeeeee. Usually this would be done with the main gun of an Abrams using M830A1 MPAT with a proximity fuse, and at ranges much further than 800-1000 m. You know, tanks usually don't sit still in front of enemy attack helicopters at that distance, and attack helicopters don't normally hover in front of tanks at that distance either. During USSR times, it was recognized that the tank crews of only two nations were trained in anti-helicopter tactics using the main gun: West Germany and Russia. Firing at hovering or moving helicopters would be done using APFSDS, and Russian crews had the additional option to use barrel-launched ATGMs. Firing at helicopter targets using a 12.7mm machine gun was not practiced by anyone, because it was recognized to be a waste of time.

Mindstorm wrote:

This embarrassing garbage (to notice the western meaning of "offensive operation shooting practice" and "precision driving" challenges    )

can be put even only in comparison with the challenges of TB

Perhaps shaving off some seconds is more important than driving over the grass?  

Mindstorm wrote:

only in the minds of the most western-PR-corrupted people.
Western experts and operatives are perfectly aware that majority of theirs horribly conceived MBTs would not even come to the end of the 3 laps without broke and even less maintain integer the ridiculous myths circulating on theirs FCS and training level.

You should apply for a position as a DPRK spokesperson or a newsreader.

I am not saying that T-64 autoloaders eat arms. I am saying that people during the 70's and 80's could neither confirm or disprove such myths, because they did not have access to that kind of information until much later.

They could simply extend the length of the Sabot or move the APDS projectile further out of the case...

And yet "Kerner" is hardly used in the Russian army at all. Most of its users are export customers. Another case of corruption?

Or simply a case of they clearly have other anti armour options.

Amusing that you keep banging on about corruption...

I give you evidence that APDS is more accurate than full caliber rounds, and you just ignore it all and continue to say the same things you have always said, and then you use an idiotic analogy that has nothing to do with the topic.

Velocity is not critical for interception of small fast targets... I realise the US believes this to be false as their 20mm cannon fitted to their fighter planes all use very high velocity rounds, but their (Air Forces) 23mm cannon actually use low velocity low recoil rounds for shooting down aerial targets at close range.

High velocity is good for extending range but most air to air shooting involves very close ranges.

Using APDS doesn't mean low RPM, as you implied with your "flechette rifle" analogy. You should have said "flechette shotgun". We aren't even talking about APFSDS, which is what flechettes are similar to. We are talking about APDS for autocannon calibers, and such ammunition is proven to be more accurate than regular full bore ammunition.

The reason the Russians are looking at 57mm AAGs is because 30mm rounds are not good enough for very small targets like UAVs or munitions.

Tightening the group or increasing the number of rounds within the group an be done a number of ways, but with most high speed targets you still need to cover a cube of air space where the target might move into in the time it takes for the rounds to arrive to the intercept point, so very tight little groups are not that useful.

Shotguns are used to cover an area with lethal pellets, the spread is to compensate for any moves the target might make after the shot is fired.

A tighter spread extends effective range, but if the rounds are more expensive, then you need to decide whether you want to fire a 200 round burst at each target or if a larger calibre that fills that interception box by exploding nearby and filling it with shrapnel might not be a better idea.

Systems like Kashtan require substantial deck penetration, which means that it is only suitable for heavy ships, and not smaller ones. Not only that, but firing fast also produces enormous recoil forces, which means higher vibration, which means even less accuracy.

Kashtan has deck penetration for the missiles it uses.

Yes, so Kashtan only needs calculate all the variables and then fire one single shell to hit the target. Oh wait...

After the shells are fired the target is free to speed up or slow down or climb or descend or turn left or turn right.

Given the time it would take for the rounds to reach the interception point a given target has a box in 3D space where it could be when the rounds arrive... the Kashtan is designed specifically to fill that box with 30mm rounds so that no matter what change in direction or speed the target manages to perform in the few seconds between fired and impacted there will still be some rounds headed its way.

Most anti ship missiles don't manouver so the box is rather small, but the target is also very small too.

You think Russia cares about polluting the world? Nizhny Tagil is the most polluted city in Europe

I think you will find Brussels holds that title.

The problem is that the T-90 is only available in small numbers, and you can't always know what you will face before you start shooting at each other.

They are hardly going to be sending 10,000 tanks to any conflict. If the enemy turn out to be well supported then action will be taken.

Ie at the start the Russians clearly assumed the Turks would not shoot down their aircraft and therefore let Su-24s operate on their own without a SAM umbrella.

After the attack by the Turkish air force they changed their tactics to suit.

If they send tanks to an area they will likely do the same.