Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Comparing Tanks

    lyle6
    lyle6

    Posts : 671
    Points : 673
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    Comparing Tanks - Page 13 Empty Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  lyle6 Sun Jun 20, 2021 1:19 am

    kvs wrote:The massive gap in thermal imaging does not sound plausible to me.   The USSR could make IR cameras.   They lacked perhaps in resolution if you
    talk about digital imaging.   So the USSR supposedly could not use IR effectively, but NATzO could.   This looks like int(r) where r < 1.0
    giving 0.0.   What are the metrics showing Soviet TI was useless?
    The problem with Soviet TI was that they were late, 10 years late. Agava-2 was introduced in 1992 while the Americans and Germans had theirs at the start of the 1980s. This isn't insignificant; II basically halved the range at which tanks can spot and engage targets during day time when used at night. TI would have no such disadvantages at all hence NATO tanks would be a lot harder to take on during the night.

    kvs wrote:
    https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-xpm-1988-01-12-0010110075-story.html

    So Soviet tanks in 1988 use IR flashlights for imaging other tanks.   According to US media.
    Depending on the ambient conditions and the combat ranges, then yes. Its unlikely that their wouldn't be ambient light though, from the moon to simple illumination rounds, which both sides would rely on heavily btw, since its practically on the very best tanks and IFVs that have the TI.

    kvs wrote:
    http://zhurnalko.net/=weapon/tankomaster/tankomaster-Special-T-90--num18

    The Agava-2 was not some IR flashlight.   That is the typical western chauvinist wishful thinking
    distortion.   When two tanks engage it each other the result is one of them being destroyed.   So anything
    that increases the chance of survival is justified.   The idea that Soviet tanks were scanning everywhere
    with their IR "flashlights" is for retards.
    Its not, but that's not the point. It doesn't matter if Agava-2 is the hottest sh!t in thermal sights if it never made its way to the troops in enough numbers to matter. Its not like the Soviets didn't knew otherwise, they were investing in thermal sights at about the same time NATO did. They just chose not to invest so much in their electronics capability since they were busy improving their already adequate tanks, to the point of hitting diminishing returns. Ironically NATO only got the drop in thermals technology because their tank programs were complete failures and to make up for the shortfalls in their deployed tanks they have to look elsewhere when it comes to improving them including investing in superior electronics for their FCS.
    avatar
    ALAMO

    Posts : 324
    Points : 326
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    Comparing Tanks - Page 13 Empty Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  ALAMO Sun Jun 20, 2021 8:03 am

    lyle6 wrote:
    The problem with Soviet TI was that they were late, 10 years late. Agava-2 was introduced in 1992 while the Americans and Germans had theirs at the start of the 1980s. This isn't insignificant; II basically halved the range at which tanks can spot and engage targets during day time when used at night. TI would have no such disadvantages at all hence NATO tanks would be a lot harder to take on during the night.

    No, they were not.
    TI was widely delivered to the troops in the early 80s, with PRP-4 recon vehicle.
    And that is the point.
    For a recon unit, they accepted the price tag.
    Back in 80s, a TI could functionally double the price of a tank. As you can accept that for several hundreds of units specialized in recon, it is hardly possible for a 20k+ fleet.
    It is a matter of decision only. Of course that as long as they did not make up their minds, and invested in enlarging the industrial base for really mass production, it was a narrow gap in a whole quotation.
    Break up of SU did not make it easier, as mass capabilities stayed abroad, in both Ukraine and Belarus. Russia is buying Belarusian FCS even now and the bulk of modernization assets are made with French Catherine thermal imagers. Localized only in 2010 or so.
    Anyway, as long as we consider the mid of 80, Soviet tanks are smaller, faster, with better strategic mobility, capable to cross the rivers without preparations, better protected, with a more capable gun, able to shoot ATGMs with 4+ km range, and 5-6x leverage in numbers. I would exchange the TI for that any moment. And we have new models around the corner, that happened to be Armata quite soon. Turretless tank project was running in SU as early as the mid80s.
    lyle6
    lyle6

    Posts : 671
    Points : 673
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    Comparing Tanks - Page 13 Empty Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  lyle6 Sun Jun 20, 2021 8:43 am

    ALAMO wrote:
    No, they were not.
    TI was widely delivered to the troops in the early 80s, with PRP-4 recon vehicle.
    And that is the point.
    For a recon unit, they accepted the price tag.
    Back in 80s, a TI could functionally double the price of a tank. As you can accept that for several hundreds of units specialized in recon, it is hardly possible for a 20k+ fleet.
    And that's precisely the problem. 40k+ tanks is simply too much, even for the Soviet Union. Much of those were increasingly obsolete tanks like T-55s and T-62s that were basically target practice but tied down men and resources just to keep them running. Had they been a lot more sensible they would've let go of much of these obsolete crap and focused on improving the rest while pumping funds in R&D for the next gen. And stop the idiocy of maintaining separate lines of functionally similar tanks.

    ALAMO wrote:
    It is a matter of decision only. Of course that as long as they did not make up their minds, and invested in enlarging the industrial base for really mass production, it was a narrow gap in a whole quotation.
    Break up of SU did not make it easier, as mass capabilities stayed abroad, in both Ukraine and Belarus. Russia is buying Belarusian FCS even now and the bulk of modernization assets are made with French Catherine thermal imagers. Localized only in 2010 or so.
    Anyway, as long as we consider the mid of 80, Soviet tanks are smaller, faster, with better strategic mobility, capable to cross the rivers without preparations, better protected, with a more capable gun, able to shoot ATGMs with 4+ km range, and 5-6x leverage in numbers. I would exchange the TI for that any moment. And we have new models around the corner, that happened to be Armata quite soon. Turretless tank project was running in SU as early as the mid80s.
    If they followed what you are saying there wouldn't be a T-72B3 at all. Just activate all the reserve crap in storage, and bam 20k tank armies overnight. What, that's easily 5-6x leverage in numbers, though of course much of that numbers would amount to moving targets in the end but who cares, more tanks!
    avatar
    ALAMO

    Posts : 324
    Points : 326
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    Comparing Tanks - Page 13 Empty Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  ALAMO Sun Jun 20, 2021 8:47 am

    Trying to decide, if you are even serious, or this is a kind of DMC scratch
    lancelot
    lancelot

    Posts : 460
    Points : 462
    Join date : 2020-10-18

    Comparing Tanks - Page 13 Empty Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  lancelot Sun Jun 20, 2021 8:53 am

    Now that Russia has a much lower population than the USSR with almost the same border length to defend the priorities are way different and the quantity vs quality equation changed. So we see a lot more emphasis on higher end gear.
    avatar
    ALAMO

    Posts : 324
    Points : 326
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    Comparing Tanks - Page 13 Empty Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  ALAMO Sun Jun 20, 2021 8:59 am

    lancelot wrote:Now that Russia has a much lower population than the USSR with almost the same border length to defend the priorities are way different and the quantity vs quality equation changed. So we see a lot more emphasis on higher end gear.

    I would say even more.
    Today Russias position is the opposite of what SU used to have.
    SU was allied with other WarPac members, outnumbering NATO in Europe.
    Now, it is Russia that is vastly outnumbered, with Europe having 3x the population and 4x the economy.
    They must resolve the defence capability issues smarter and more effective than the others.
    And they do.

    flamming_python and miketheterrible like this post

    RTN
    RTN

    Posts : 423
    Points : 400
    Join date : 2014-03-24
    Location : Fairfield, CT

    Comparing Tanks - Page 13 Empty Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  RTN Sun Jun 20, 2021 9:51 am

    Isos wrote:
    Azeri anhilated armenians, tanks and soldiers, with few drones.
    The only strike drones that Azeris had were loitering munitions. They don't have strike drones like the Reaper.

    Armenians were hit hard by Azeri heavy artillery. Moreover, Azeris had better ISR than Armenia.
    Sujoy
    Sujoy

    Posts : 1354
    Points : 1512
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India || भारत

    Comparing Tanks - Page 13 Empty Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Sujoy Sun Jun 20, 2021 10:16 am

    Mindstorm wrote:Domestic Institutes of the field computed that for MBTs of the older generations even the cost of active protection systems against top-attack ATGMs would not be justiied.
    Probably, what Armenia needed was BMP style vehicles armed with 4-5 Kornet ATGMs apart from truck mounted Mortars. That would have made a difference in the ground battle.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 7642
    Points : 7626
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Comparing Tanks - Page 13 Empty Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Isos Sun Jun 20, 2021 10:32 am

    RTN wrote:
    Isos wrote:
    Azeri anhilated armenians, tanks and soldiers, with few drones.
    The only strike drones that Azeris had were loitering munitions. They don't have strike drones like the Reaper.

    Armenians were hit hard by Azeri heavy artillery. Moreover, Azeris had better ISR than Armenia.

    They had TB2 which can launch guided munitions but what helped them is ISR from their drones.

    That's what I said at first ISR and guided munitions of all sort which can hit deeper than tank can fire will destroy enemy tanks first and there will be almost no tank vs tank fight. Then tanks will just push in what remains of enemy troops.

    If you don't have shorads to destroy those tanks but also jamm satellites then you are in trouble.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29853
    Points : 30381
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Comparing Tanks - Page 13 Empty Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  GarryB Sun Jun 20, 2021 11:20 am

    They knew all along that II was a step below TI, hence the frenzied development and fielding of clearly inadequate Soviet thermals, but they just couldn't make them in enough numbers and quality to be useful and so are stuck with II.

    Actually they recognised TI as expensive and instead focussed on II but also LLLTV which paid off in spades in terms of autotracking optical targeting systems used for a wide variety of their current range of missiles, from Kornet to Vikhr as well as Pantsir and TOR and many other systems.

    Currently new technology is working on digital night vision which has the advantages of Thermal but without most of the problems of II and Thermal... like tube life in the case of the former and cost in the case of the latter.

    The use of modern multichannel systems means using a variety of sensors is the way forward including radar and thermal and image intensification as well as normal digital video and digital night vision.

    Their current generation II scopes can detect natural light and distinguish it from artificially created colours so painted targets or dyed or coloured fabrics used for camouflage or just coloured face paint will glow in these displays and be highlighted rather than do what they are supposed to do and hide the object.

    You're making a virtue out of a deficiency.

    ERA and APS and Nakidka were not developed because their base armours were inferior, each of these areas of technology plus EW systems like Shtora were intended to add layers to the defence... as opposed to western paths that just had the base armour like the Abrams or Challenger.

    The point is that having multiple different defence layers means advancements in each type of defence further improves protection and improvements in multiple different defence layers is going to happen more often than improvements in just one layer.

    Weaknesses in one layer can be compensated for by the strengths of other layers.... having to have 500mm plus armour protection on the roof of a vehicle would have serious consequences for performance and design while an APS system that can deal with diving top attack munitions or fly over top attack munitions like Bill are much simpler and cheaper to implement.

    So you're saying that Soviet generals would have to pray for the rain like ancient farmers did just so their tanks could get the first look advantage? Ok.

    Not pray. They have smoke generating options and can plan their operations to coincide with suitable weather... and they are not alone... Many in the USAF demanded that F-111 aircraft only be used in the worst weather in Vietnam because that did not effect the aircrafts ability to hit targets, but it made defence against such attacks almost impossible.

    Tank operations in Desert Storm occurred at night... not a mistake or accident but a specific decision on those planning the operations.

    The Soviets might have the advantage in numbers but they would still incur outsized losses that could've been avoided had they just stopped producing so much tanks and focused on improving the individual performance of their existing tanks, starting with soft factors like sensors and comms.

    The individual performance of their tanks was much better than HATOs... remember the purpose of the T-72 was cheap mass produced tank to replace T-54/55 and T-62 tanks in use... the HATO equivalents of these vehicles were still in use in the west and the T-72 was better than those.

    We're in the middle of transition period with militaries just only realizing the value of drones. Give it 10-20 years when drone counters have proliferated then we can go ahead and talk about how drones have changed the battlefield or whatever.

    The situation with drones is much like the situation with tanks... the first time tanks were really significant was WWII in use by the Germans... the minor effect they had during WWI is insignificant, though it was clear it had potential, it was also clear the tank would not be invulnerable either.

    By the 60s and 70s and 80s people started looking at all the anti armour weapons.... RPGs and ATGMs and mines and artillery delivered top attack weapons and of course attack helos and attack aircraft and everyone thought the days of tanks were numbered... but the only reason all these anti tank weapons existed was because the tank dominated the battlefield and was necessary.

    Ironically the 80s with the MANPADS being handed out by the CIA to anyone wanting to shoot down a Soviet helicopter and a lot of people thought the age of the helicopter was over too... yet that does not seem to be the case...

    Over time drones will mature and become a serious threat but equally anti drone weapons will also be developed and used to counter that very same threat so then we are back to square one... you need to have troops so troop carrying vehicles are needed, and to support those troops you need something that did what a tank used to do, so you need heavy protection and a powerful gun to defeat the powerful protection of enemy equivalent vehicles... you end up with a tank.

    It might be slightly different... might have a remote weapon station with a 40mm grenade launcher with airburst grenades to deal mostly with drones and enemy troops, but it will still be a tank.

    A lot of it, I think, is confusing comparisons like comparing the T-72 against the M1. The T-72 was basically the Soviet mass production tank they exported to their allies. So it basically was the Soviet equivalent of the ancient M60 in US allied service. You had to compare the M1 against the T-80 because that is what they both were the leading edge tank in each country's services. The reason why people compare the T-72 against the M1 is because of Desert Storm. Not even the T-72A but some Polish version of the original T-72 or even worse a clone of it built in Iraq with inferior steel.

    The T-72 entered production in the early 1970s, while the US tank called the M1 was shown in the 1980s in the first version with a British 105mm rifled gun and new British composite armour. They replaced the 105mm gun with a 120mm german smoothbore gun with the M1A1 model tank... the earlier M1 was not produced AFAIK.

    The point is that the T-72 was decent armour with the new gun that was cheap and easy to mass produce... unlike the T-64 and T-80... comparing the T-72 to western vehicles should be wiht the Leopard I and the AMX-30 and the M60 and the Chieftain.

    Want to know the real kicker... this is hilarious and western experts don't seem to like talking about it, but Iran when it was occupied by the CIA was allowed to buy western stuff... F-4 phantom and F-14 Tomcat and all that, so they ordered an upgraded Chieftain tank from the British and paid for new armour to be developed... which led to the Chobham armour western tank nuts think is so damn wonderful... so the amazing armour of the british and american tanks of the 1980s was paid for by the Shah of Iran... so in fact they use Iranian armour protection... you pay for something you own it...

    The problem with Soviet TI was that they were late, 10 years late. Agava-2 was introduced in 1992 while the Americans and Germans had theirs at the start of the 1980s. This isn't insignificant;

    And when fighting in a flat open desert with total air control then that might have been significant, but in Europe the use of cover and concealment would mean much shorter engagement distances, and of course the fact that no one actually fought full on combat at night... it was a chance to rearm and repair and rest.

    Using artillery units to launch flares in the case of a night attack would mean attacking forces could still be seen and engaged anyway.

    II basically halved the range at which tanks can spot and engage targets during day time when used at night. TI would have no such disadvantages at all hence NATO tanks would be a lot harder to take on during the night.

    Under normal conditions, but they also had IR flares that could be launched to burn over enemy positions that allowed II to be used to much greater ranges, but of course full scale combat at night was not possible for the west anyway so it would not have been significant.

    since its practically on the very best tanks and IFVs that have the TI.

    The Soviets actually paid more attention to night combat than the west did... there was at least one battle I remember reading about where the Israelis were fighting some T-62s and the Israelis were in trouble because the T-62s had night vision (II) and the Israeli vehicles (a mixture of western tanks) did not.

    The Arabs didn't get a lot of kills but if they were better trained it could have made a serious difference.

    Its not, but that's not the point. It doesn't matter if Agava-2 is the hottest sh!t in thermal sights if it never made its way to the troops in enough numbers to matter. Its not like the Soviets didn't knew otherwise, they were investing in thermal sights at about the same time NATO did. They just chose not to invest so much in their electronics capability since they were busy improving their already adequate tanks, to the point of hitting diminishing returns. Ironically NATO only got the drop in thermals technology because their tank programs were complete failures and to make up for the shortfalls in their deployed tanks they have to look elsewhere when it comes to improving them including investing in superior electronics for their FCS.

    Their T-64s and T-80s had the thermals and were considered their best tanks, though early thermal imaging performance was not actually that wonderful and identifying what you are seeing is not actually that easy.

    When sitting in an open flat desert and having a line of enemy tanks drive slowly towards you then obviously it is pretty easy, but in a built up area where an enemy tank can come around the corner and be right in front of you then having thermals is not much of an advantage.

    I wouldn't say their tank programmes were total failures, and they didn't throw enormous resources into thermal sights... as technology improved in other areas the design of thermals improved to the point where they are now affordable to hunters.

    Ironically colour night vision is being pushed not by the military but by cell phone makers and is rather interesting.

    The II technology is not a dead end either, and when incorporated with other technologies including radar and audio will lead to vastly better Situational awareness for troops and vehicle crews.
    lyle6
    lyle6

    Posts : 671
    Points : 673
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    Comparing Tanks - Page 13 Empty Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  lyle6 Sun Jun 20, 2021 12:47 pm

    Sujoy wrote:
    Probably, what Armenia needed was BMP style vehicles armed with 4-5 Kornet ATGMs apart from truck mounted Mortars. That would have made a difference in the ground battle.
    What they needed the most is their jets downing each and every one of the Azeris drones. Perfectly within the capabilities of the Su-30s, and its not as if Azerbaijan can spin this as a cassus belli to justify further engagement from its ally. In a single stroke you significantly reduce the effectiveness of the Azeri artillery as well as force the Armenian ground forces to close in and capture Armenian positions the old fashioned way.

    GarryB wrote:
    Actually they recognised TI as expensive and instead focussed on II but also LLLTV which paid off in spades in terms of autotracking optical targeting systems used for a wide variety of their current range of missiles, from Kornet to Vikhr as well as Pantsir and TOR and many other systems.

    Currently new technology is working on digital night vision which has the advantages of Thermal but without most of the problems of II and Thermal... like tube life in the case of the former and cost in the case of the latter.

    The use of modern multichannel systems means using a variety of sensors is the way forward including radar and thermal and image intensification as well as normal digital video and digital night vision.

    Their current generation II scopes can detect natural light and distinguish it from artificially created colours so painted targets or dyed or coloured fabrics used for camouflage or just coloured face paint will glow in these displays and be highlighted rather than do what they are supposed to do and hide the object.
    All of those systems use thermal cameras. II still have shorter ranges compared to TI, plus you cannot really discount the ability of TI to single out hot spots amongst vast expanses of ambient temperature surfaces.

    GarryB wrote:
    ERA and APS and Nakidka were not developed because their base armours were inferior, each of these areas of technology plus EW systems like Shtora were intended to add layers to the defence... as opposed to western paths that just had the base armour like the Abrams or Challenger.

    The point is that having multiple different defence layers means advancements in each type of defence further improves protection and improvements in  multiple different defence layers is going to happen more often than improvements in just one layer.

    Weaknesses in one layer can be compensated for by the strengths of other layers.... having to have 500mm plus armour protection on the roof of a vehicle would have serious consequences for performance and design while an APS system that can deal with diving top attack munitions or fly over top attack munitions like Bill are much simpler and cheaper to implement.
    They had all these sorts of options for protection yet they skimped on sensors. Are they planning on tanking shots until they can get close enough to engage? Someone ought to have been shot for this stupid lapse in planning.


    GarryB wrote:
    Not pray. They have smoke generating options and can plan their operations to coincide with suitable weather... and they are not alone... Many in the USAF demanded that F-111 aircraft only be used in the worst weather in Vietnam because that did not effect the aircrafts ability to hit targets, but it made defence against such attacks almost impossible.

    Tank operations in Desert Storm occurred at night... not a mistake or accident but a specific decision on those planning the operations.
    Any army would press home its advantage whenever they spot an opening. Of course you can expect that NATO would make use of its advantage to launch tank assaults at night.


    GarryB wrote:
    And when fighting in a flat open desert with total air control then that might have been significant, but in Europe the use of cover and concealment would mean much shorter engagement distances, and of course the fact that no one actually fought full on combat at night... it was a chance to rearm and repair and rest.

    Using artillery units to launch flares in the case of a night attack would mean attacking forces could still be seen and engaged anyway.
    And yet the Soviets deemed the topography exploitable by long range GLATGMs enough to invest huge sums in.

    Again, if any military thought it has an advantage they would make full use of it. If you bet NATO won't attack at night then that's even more reason why they would attack anyway.

    GarryB wrote:
    Under normal conditions, but they also had IR flares that could be launched to burn over enemy positions that allowed II to be used to much greater ranges, but of course full scale combat at night was not possible for the west anyway so it would not have been significant.
    The 1st Gulf war showed that its entirely within their capabilities, what are you talking about?


    GarryB wrote:
    The Soviets actually paid more attention to night combat than the west did... there was at least one battle I remember reading about where the Israelis were fighting some T-62s and the Israelis were in trouble because the T-62s had night vision (II) and the Israeli vehicles (a mixture of western tanks) did not.

    The Arabs didn't get a lot of kills but if they were better trained it could have made a serious difference.
    Is it really? Israeli equipment in the YKW was mostly old stuff, while the Arabs were supplied with stuff fresh from the Soviet Union including tanks with night vision equipment.

    GarryB wrote:
    Their T-64s and T-80s had the thermals and were considered their best tanks, though early thermal imaging performance was not actually that wonderful and identifying what you are seeing is not actually that easy.

    When sitting in an open flat desert and having a line of enemy tanks drive slowly towards you then obviously it is pretty easy, but in a built up area where an enemy tank can come around the corner and be right in front of you then having thermals is not much of an advantage.

    I wouldn't say their tank programmes were total failures, and they didn't throw enormous resources into thermal sights... as technology improved in other areas the design of thermals improved to the point where they are now affordable to hunters.

    Ironically colour night vision is being pushed not by the military but by cell phone makers and is rather interesting.

    The II technology is not a dead end either, and when incorporated with other technologies including radar and audio will lead to vastly better Situational awareness for troops and vehicle crews.
    T-64s never had thermal sights and the vast majority of T-80s only ever rocked Image intensifiers.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29853
    Points : 30381
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Comparing Tanks - Page 13 Empty Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  GarryB Mon Jun 21, 2021 5:35 am

    What they needed the most is their jets downing each and every one of the Azeris drones.

    A very western view on things I think.

    Jets would actually have serious problems detecting the smaller drones and the cost of Air to Air missiles would likely exceed even the most expensive MANPAD, so in terms of cost effectiveness using fixed wing aircraft to deal with drones would be expensive.

    A helicopter like the Mi-28NM with MMW radar and modern electro optics including modern thermals, together with command detonated air burst 30mm cannon shells and bringing down drones could be much cheaper... the mobility and speed of the helicopter meaning they could cover a larger area than a ground based system, but for medium sized drones that launch missiles I would think ground based weapons or even MANPADS in drone based weapons would work best.

    In fact for cost effectiveness a fixed wing drone armed with Shturm and Ataka missiles with air to air missile warheads would be ideal... chaff and flares would not protect the targets, the missiles could be flown up to any altitude to engage the target and being supersonic missiles they are not really something a drone could evade.

    Your drone would be operating over your own territory and therefore a long way away from enemy air defence systems which would make it a difficult kill while local air defence missiles could take out enemy aircraft trying to take down your anti drone drones.

    Perfectly within the capabilities of the Su-30s, and its not as if Azerbaijan can spin this as a cassus belli to justify further engagement from its ally. In a single stroke you significantly reduce the effectiveness of the Azeri artillery as well as force the Armenian ground forces to close in and capture Armenian positions the old fashioned way.

    The problem seems to be that Armenia didn't really take part in the conflict and that the Azerbaijanis have S-300 systems, so there is a real risk to those aircraft flying about... and an Su-30 is a good plane but not really well suited to taking down small low flying drones.

    All of those systems use thermal cameras. II still have shorter ranges compared to TI, plus you cannot really discount the ability of TI to single out hot spots amongst vast expanses of ambient temperature surfaces.

    Thermal imagers were eye wateringly expensive in the 1980s... we are not talking about 10K per model... more like 100K, and it was not cheaper for the Soviets.... the technology was expensive.

    The lag at lab level was not enormous in the early 1980s, but the gap was huge in terms of production and development... the Soviets didn't make a lot, and they were focussing on LLLTV systems like the system in the Su-24 and the MiG-27K and MiG-27M, and later the Shkval systems in the Ka-50 and Su-25T and Su-25TM. They had thermal pods like Mercury, but they were not stabilised and not particularly useful most of the time... even today the MMW radar on the Mi-28NM gives a better long range view at night than a thermal imager, and can be used for mapping and detecting moving targets etc etc.

    Modern third generation thermals using QWIP technology in short and medium and long wave can be made relatively cheap and mass produced rather easily, so the advantage for the west has come and gone.

    They had all these sorts of options for protection yet they skimped on sensors.

    You are forgetting that the level of protection they achieved with their cheap mass produced tanks and high quality super tanks meant even if the west could see them at 5km they couldn't reliably penetrate them most of the time at any range.

    More importantly it is not rocket science to drive a tank in a way that it is not visible over enormous distances for long periods... they do have smoke grenades and their tactics were not the same as War Thunder.

    Western tanks used defensively would drive in to the rear of a building in such a way that they could poke their gun out the front and wear a house camouflage kit... if the roof does not collapse it would be hard to spot there was a tank there even after the front wall collapses and allows the commander and gunner to see forward.

    A thermal imager is not just about seeing in the dark, a tank engine puts out enormous amounts of heat when it is running and the M1A1 uses a jet engine.

    All through the 90s and 00s the Russians were offering foreign thermals with their tanks and for big contracts got licences to produce Thales cameras from France, which are the best you can get.... all the while the quality of their own Thermal Camera technology improved in leaps and bounds.

    For their attack helicopters they looked at thermals from Sweden and France and also South Africa... the French ones got the nod I believe again...

    Obviously with all the sanctions BS they are now making their own, which are now state of the art...

    Someone ought to have been shot for this stupid lapse in planning.

    Thermal Camera technology of the time was too expensive... it was like stealth... it was both expensive and not particularly effective at the time so they invested in other areas.

    Personally I think it made sense because now they have bought the technology and are up to speed with the best... but now they can make it pay... even if they spent billions on it at the time these systems were so expensive only a few would be made anyway... but now their performance is much much better and every armoured vehicle they have has about a dozen thermal cameras on it, and their attack helicopters have multiple thermal cameras fixed pointing in all directions around the helicopter to give a 360 degree view. Rifle scopes are thermal and NVGs. Ships and aircraft and drones all carrying thermal cameras... the Armata T-14 tank has several thermal cameras in different wave lengths for different jobs... I would say they probably have more thermals in service now than half the armies of HATO.... maybe not as many as the US who puts them on their ATGMs, but Russian ATGM launchers have thermal sight addons for night and all weather use available to improve their performance.

    Night warfare is not common even today and really only special forces would routinely use it. Those armoured attacks in Desert Storm were unusual at the time and were mainly because of the difference in thermals for each side so with a 1.2km range view the Iraqis would not see the American tanks sitting 2km away firing at them fully visible through their thermal sights.

    But city fighting is another thing... sending troops into an unknown city to fight at night is a no no... even with thermal sights on your armour.

    Fighting at night is hard... and it would just take one enemy soldier with a thermal and an RPG to ruin your day.

    Any army would press home its advantage whenever they spot an opening. Of course you can expect that NATO would make use of its advantage to launch tank assaults at night.

    Yes, but in the WWIII fairy tale it is the Soviets that are the aggressors so it is a Soviet Armoured invasion during the day and at night if HATO wants to form up its armour to attack them over night they need to be aware that Soviet rocket artillery with HEAT top attack munitions work 24/7 and are devastating... and at the time they also had SS-20 and SS-21 missiles to launch cluster warheads at forming up locations too...

    And yet the Soviets deemed the topography exploitable by long range GLATGMs enough to invest huge sums in.

    With four to six rounds per vehicle they clearly didn't expect all targets to be detected and engaged at 5km range, and of course such rounds would be useful against the problem of HATO helicopters who liked to hover when launching missiles... an ideal target for supersonic tank gun fired missiles I would think.

    Again, if any military thought it has an advantage they would make full use of it. If you bet NATO won't attack at night then that's even more reason why they would attack anyway.

    The Soviets would expect them to try... flares and ATGMs would be devastating.... remember the Soviets liked ATGMs like they liked SAMs... they had 100 times more SAMs than HATO had aircraft and probably 10 times more ATGMs than HATO had tanks.... and 10 times more tanks than HATO had tanks.

    And they had T-80s with thermals too.

    Not great thermals, but still thermals.

    In a defensive position facing an attack at night they would certainly be good enough to make the enemy pay.

    The 1st Gulf war showed that its entirely within their capabilities, what are you talking about?

    Are you joking?

    Desert Storm was an armour charge across a desert... it was no accident they avoided cities or infantry combat at night... the tanks and BMPs could use their superior visibility ranged optics to pick off enemy targets before those targets could see them... but there were cases where well camouflaged enemy vehicles were not spotted till the American tanks got much closer and the American vehicles came under fire... if the Iraqi ammo was better than the training rounds they were using the Americans might have lost a few vehicles.

    In comparison the potential situation in Europe would mean the American forces would not be dominant at all... even if they could see the Soviet tanks at 2km range they would be surprised to find most of their shots do not penetrate, and the artillery support and airpower of the Soviets will be a little bit stronger than what the Iraqis operated with.

    In Desert Storm the Americans were allowed to bring up armour to the point where they had local advantages in numbers... that wont happen in Europe either.

    Is it really? Israeli equipment in the YKW was mostly old stuff, while the Arabs were supplied with stuff fresh from the Soviet Union including tanks with night vision equipment.

    Which just shows a detection advantage can be squandered...

    T-64s never had thermal sights and the vast majority of T-80s only ever rocked Image intensifiers.

    Upgrades are continuous, when fitted with missiles often the sights were replaced and upgraded I would think having better armour at the time was of more value...

    http://btvt.info/3attackdefensemobility/432armor_eng.htm

    Armor protection of the tanks of the second postwar generation T-64 (T-64A), Chieftain Mk5P and M60

    © Andrei Tarasenko
    avatar
    ALAMO

    Posts : 324
    Points : 326
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    Comparing Tanks - Page 13 Empty Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  ALAMO Mon Jun 21, 2021 7:17 am

    lyle6 wrote:
    All of those systems use thermal cameras. II still have shorter ranges compared to TI, plus you cannot really discount the ability of TI to single out hot spots amongst vast expanses of ambient temperature surfaces.

    No, they don't.
    II and TI are totally different animals, operating on different physical principles.
    Are you sure about being capable of this discussion, while missing such obvious things ?
    Yeah, me neither ... dunno

    lyle6 wrote:
    T-64s never had thermal sights and the vast majority of T-80s only ever rocked Image intensifiers.

    That is true, still, as in the mid of 80s, all of them were better armed, armoured, more mobile, smaller, much lower, easier to maintain, with better strategic mobility, capable to shoot the enemy at double ranges using ATGMs on the move, and outnumbering the enemy by 1 to 5 factor.
    They have no TI, oh Lord, oh Lord, oh Lord, no TI, no TI, no TI affraid ... let's make some more mantras here.
    Do you even have a clue why I mentioned the height of a tank as a factor? scratch
    lyle6
    lyle6

    Posts : 671
    Points : 673
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    Comparing Tanks - Page 13 Empty Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  lyle6 Mon Jun 21, 2021 8:04 am

    ALAMO wrote:
    No, they don't.
    II and TI are totally different animals, operating on different physical principles.
    Are you sure about being capable of this discussion, while missing such obvious things ?
    Yeah, me neither ... dunno
    All those systems mentioned use thermal cameras, yes.

    ALAMO wrote:
    That is true, still, as in the mid of 80s, all of them were better armed, armoured, more mobile, smaller, much lower, easier to maintain, with better strategic mobility, capable to shoot the enemy at double ranges using ATGMs on the move, and outnumbering the enemy by 1 to 5 factor.
    They have no TI, oh Lord, oh Lord, oh Lord, no TI, no TI, no TI affraid ... let's make some more mantras here.
    Do you even have a clue why I mentioned the height of a tank as a factor? scratch

    Except you are forgetting one thing. NATO tanks would be constantly on the defense, so their higher silhouette would be offset by making use of earthworks and camouflage. In contrast Soviet tanks would've been driving for hours in their advance so they would be plenty hot and easy to spot from afar especially at night. You can't hit what you can't see so Soviet tanks would be forced to advance under an immense withering barrage of 120 mm fires before they can even respond in kind.

    You say Soviet tanks are better armored, and they are, but that protection is not monolithic and even from the front there are vulnerable weakspots that you can hit, to say nothing if you are presented with flank shots. Its only a matter of firing enough rounds before some of those rounds hit home and if there is anything NATO tanks are good at its firing really fast.
    avatar
    ALAMO

    Posts : 324
    Points : 326
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    Comparing Tanks - Page 13 Empty Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  ALAMO Mon Jun 21, 2021 8:18 am

    GarryB wrote:
    The T-72 entered production in the early 1970s, while the US tank called the M1 was shown in the 1980s in the first version with a British 105mm rifled gun and new British composite armour. They replaced the 105mm gun with a 120mm german smoothbore gun with the M1A1 model tank... the earlier M1 was not produced AFAIK.
    The point is that the T-72 was decent armour with the new gun that was cheap and easy to mass produce... unlike the T-64 and T-80... comparing the T-72 to western vehicles should be wiht the Leopard I and the AMX-30 and the M60 and the Chieftain.
    Want to know the real kicker... this is hilarious and western experts don't seem to like talking about it, but Iran when it was occupied by the CIA was allowed to buy western stuff... F-4 phantom and F-14 Tomcat and all that, so they ordered an upgraded Chieftain tank from the British and paid for new armour to be developed... which led to the Chobham armour western tank nuts think is so damn wonderful... so the amazing armour of the british and american tanks of the 1980s was paid for by the Shah of Iran... so in fact they use Iranian armour protection...  you pay for something you own it...

    We must see things from the proper perspective there. Shir 2 that you mention here, used to be projected with a protection level of about 300-350 mm RHA. That is hardly a level of early T-72 Laughing
    Mir
    Mir

    Posts : 318
    Points : 320
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    Comparing Tanks - Page 13 Empty Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Mir Mon Jun 21, 2021 8:31 am

    It is true that Soviet tanks weren't fitted with any TI's. I think the T-80U was the first candidate and that happened only in 1992.
    So yes the Soviets certainly lagged behind for a short period during the 80's, but those early TI's had there issues as well.
    For instance it could be easily blinded where the gunner only ends up with a white screen rendering the tank quite useless for a while. This had no effect on late II's.
    Certain types of smoke is very effective against TI's and it is useless in heavy rains and snow.
    lyle6
    lyle6

    Posts : 671
    Points : 673
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    Comparing Tanks - Page 13 Empty Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  lyle6 Mon Jun 21, 2021 9:02 am

    GarryB wrote:
    A very western view on things I think.

    Jets would actually have serious problems detecting the smaller drones and the cost of Air to Air missiles would likely exceed even the most expensive MANPAD, so in terms of cost effectiveness using fixed wing aircraft to deal with drones would be expensive.

    A helicopter like the Mi-28NM with MMW radar and modern electro optics including modern thermals, together with command detonated air burst 30mm cannon shells and bringing down drones could be much cheaper... the mobility and speed of the helicopter meaning they could cover a larger area than a ground based system, but for medium sized drones that launch missiles I would think ground based weapons or even MANPADS in drone based weapons would work best.

    In fact for cost effectiveness a fixed wing drone armed with Shturm and Ataka missiles with air to air missile warheads would be ideal... chaff and flares would not protect the targets, the missiles could be flown up to any altitude to engage the target and being supersonic missiles they are not really something a drone could evade.

    Your drone would be operating over your own territory and therefore a long way away from enemy air defence systems which would make it a difficult kill while local air defence missiles could take out enemy aircraft trying to take down your anti drone drones.
    Better than keeping those jets on the tarmac, doing absolutely nothing. The Azeri ISR workhorses like the TB-2s are plenty expensive to make an anti-air missile their way worthwhile, but of course you can always shoot it down with the autocannon.

    GarryB wrote:
    The problem seems to be that Armenia didn't really take part in the conflict and that the Azerbaijanis have S-300 systems, so there is a real risk to those aircraft flying about... and an Su-30 is a good plane but not really well suited to taking down small low flying drones.
    The area is mountainous enough that you can launch attacks and then dip below the radar shadow behind the mountain peaks before Azeri SAMs, based near the coast could even make contact.

    GarryB wrote:
    Thermal imagers were eye wateringly expensive in the 1980s... we are not talking about 10K per model... more like 100K, and it was not cheaper for the Soviets.... the technology was expensive.

    The lag at lab level was not enormous in the early 1980s, but the gap was huge in terms of production and development... the Soviets didn't make a lot, and they were focussing on LLLTV systems like the system in the Su-24 and the MiG-27K and MiG-27M, and later the Shkval systems in the Ka-50 and Su-25T and Su-25TM. They had thermal pods like Mercury, but they were not stabilised and not particularly useful most of the time... even today the MMW radar on the Mi-28NM gives a better long range view at night than a thermal imager, and can be used for mapping and detecting moving targets etc etc.

    Modern third generation thermals using QWIP technology in short and medium and long wave can be made relatively cheap and mass produced rather easily, so the advantage for the west has come and gone.
    The guidance system for GLATGM was expensive as well (A T-64 variant was 20% more expensive solely by the addition of this feature) but they managed to include the capability to quite a lot of their tanks, and its effect is not even that far-reaching in terms of the overall performance of the tank compared to the thermal sight. They might have to cut back on the numbers, but quite frankly it would have done them a lot more good considering they could hardly support the amount of tanks they had. Like,

    GarryB wrote:
    Night warfare is not common even today and really only special forces would routinely use it. Those armoured attacks in Desert Storm were unusual at the time and were mainly because of the difference in thermals for each side so with a 1.2km range view the Iraqis would not see the American tanks sitting 2km away firing at them fully visible through their thermal sights.

    But city fighting is another thing... sending troops into an unknown city to fight at night is a no no... even with thermal sights on your armour.

    Fighting at night is hard... and it would just take one enemy soldier with a thermal and an RPG to ruin your day.
    The US army must be solely composed of special forces because I could google tons of footage of line infantry fighting in the night. Plenty of insurgents are even getting on the action as well. Its 2021, almost everyone and his dog has night vision capability.

    GarryB wrote:
    Yes, but in the WWIII fairy tale it is the Soviets that are the aggressors so it is a Soviet Armoured invasion during the day and at night if HATO wants to form up its armour to attack them over night they need to be aware that Soviet rocket artillery with HEAT top attack munitions work 24/7 and are devastating... and at the time they also had SS-20 and SS-21 missiles to launch cluster warheads at forming up locations too...
    For artillery to be effective instead of a nuisance that can be ignored the enemy has to be fixed in place. Guess what's not going to happen if your tank units are getting plinked from afar and could not properly respond?

    GarryB wrote:
    The Soviets would expect them to try... flares and ATGMs would be devastating.... remember the Soviets liked ATGMs like they liked SAMs... they had 100 times more SAMs than HATO had aircraft and probably 10 times more ATGMs than HATO had tanks.... and 10 times more tanks than HATO had tanks.

    And they had T-80s with thermals too.

    Not great thermals, but still thermals.

    In a defensive position facing an attack at night they would certainly be good enough to make the enemy pay.
    Artillery can be suppressed and stocks of illumination rounds could be exhausted. When that happens, what now?

    GarryB wrote:
    Are you joking?

    Desert Storm was an armour charge across a desert... it was no accident they avoided cities or infantry combat at night... the tanks and BMPs could use their superior visibility ranged optics to pick off enemy targets before those targets could see them... but there were cases where well camouflaged enemy vehicles were not spotted till the American tanks got much closer and the American vehicles came under fire... if the Iraqi ammo was better than the training rounds they were using the Americans might have lost a few vehicles.

    In comparison the potential situation in Europe would mean the American forces would not be dominant at all... even if they could see the Soviet tanks at 2km range they would be surprised to find most of their shots do not penetrate, and the artillery support and airpower of the Soviets will be a little bit stronger than what the Iraqis operated with.

    In Desert Storm the Americans were allowed to bring up armour to the point where they had local advantages in numbers... that wont happen in Europe either.
    Their enemy was situated mostly in the desert because the Iraqis were dumbasses. If the cold war has gone hot the Soviets would be looking to avoid cities for the open countryside where superior optics could be put to good effect.

    GarryB wrote:
    Upgrades are continuous, when fitted with missiles often the sights were replaced and upgraded I would think having better armour at the time was of more value...

    http://btvt.info/3attackdefensemobility/432armor_eng.htm

    Armor protection of the tanks of the second postwar generation T-64 (T-64A), Chieftain Mk5P and M60

    © Andrei Tarasenko
    Better armor is nothing if you can't see your enemy in the first place. It can only buy you time, but unless you can counter-attack you are only prolonging the inevitable. Its telling that after the dissolution of the USSR the Russians practically did not touch the protection of their tanks, with T-90As rolling with vintage 1980s K-5 ERA and Object 187 turrets. Instead they poured all their resources and energies into obtaining French thermals and digital electronics for their comms. and FCS.
    avatar
    limb

    Posts : 260
    Points : 268
    Join date : 2020-09-17

    Comparing Tanks - Page 13 Empty Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  limb Mon Jun 21, 2021 10:08 pm

    ALAMO wrote:
    lyle6 wrote:The whole point of the T-72B3 upgrade is that it addresses the two most glaring issues of Soviet legacy tanks: the lack of effective night-fighting capability and antiquated comms. gear, providing what is otherwise an obsolete vehicle with a fighting chance against most threats on the battlefield while making it affordable enough that it could actually be bought en masse in a short period of time - and they've bought quite a lot.

    Let's not complicate things, numbers still matter in warfare especially land combat. After all even the most protected NATO tank is only resistant from the front; everywhere else is fair game. On the tactical level, if you can secure absurd force ratios with significantly cheaper and more importantly easier to deploy units you can just outright surround your enemy and attack him from multiple sides, bypassing the protection afforded by the heavy frontal armor. If you have have more than enough tanks that you outnumber what the enemy has in theatre several times you can also just outmaneuver the enemy's fighting elements and strike at his vulnerable communications. With no fuel and ammo even the very best of NATO tanks would die just like the rest of them, abandoned or set alight by their own crews as they are forced to retreat on foot.

    That brings another interesting question. Were the Soviet tanks really inferior when compare FCS and comm?
    The peaking achievement of the Soviet tank industry used to be a T-80UK model.
    It was a command version, as K states for "komandirski", more costly, delivered in small numbers, still what we have there at the end of 80s ?
    Well, we have a tank with Agava 2 thermal sight for a gunner, passive light magnification channel for the commander, improved communication, and last but not least, Ainet programmable round. Agava installed was a follow-up of first-gen Agava, with 50 elements matrice, that Soviets had back in the early 80s. Not implemented for serial use due to cost, the fact that work on improved 128 element matrice was already running, and general problems with establishing an industrial base needed for serial production of it.
    If one doubts if the Soviets were able to make a TI sight back in 80s, well, the answer is very simple.
    A PRP-4M recon vehicle with 1PN71 NVS was delivered serial to ground forces starting from the early 80s, and its TI channel granted a 3000m detection and 1300m recognition ranges (some states 2000).
    As we realize, that it is not a matter of competency and/or ability, what left is a doctrinal approach.
    All Soviet tanks of the 80s were produced or modernized for use of a combined active/passive light magnification. In general, a range of passive detection of a tank-sized target was in the 1200-1500m range. For European theatre of operation, it was more than enough, as the line of sight does not exceed 1000m in most places in Europe.
    What we have got on the opposite side? Well, an EMES 15 system of Leo2 could operate for approx. 20 minutes. After that, had to be switched off for cooling. Any TI observation channel for a commander was applied to A5 version only, and we are in the late 00s already, 20 years after 80UK. Its granted parameters are no better than that 80UK possessed.
    If the price tag would be accepted by the Soviet decision-makers, they could equip the tank fleet with tanks on pair with the opponents in both FCS and comm status. Still, those would be much better protected, much smaller, much lighter, and possessing some really important tactical gains, like Brod river crossing system, gun launched ATGMs, or Ainet programmable round.
    Who has even heard about Ainet round? It used to be Israel, who operated the first programmable ammo for 120mm tank gun, right? Ze Wezt fanboys were driving crazy about that back in 90s, so it is impossible that Russkies got it a decade earlier!

    The problem is that by the mid 1980s, almost every single NATO AFV was equipped with thermal imaging.
    Challengers, leopard 1s, leopard 2s, M901 ITVs, Bradleys, Warriors, Marder 1A3s, Jaguar ATGM vehicles, every single abrams, AMX-10 RCs, Centauros, All NATO reconnassaince vehicles etc.

    And its an absolute understatement how vastly superior thermals are. They basically highlight an AFV in any background. It cannot be underestimated how exceptionally difficult it is to identify and MBT at 1-2km away, even in completely barren terrain, especially if said MBT isnt moving and fully exposed. This basically made almost every NATO AFV able to shoot first without exception, which would result in decisive victory. The much vaunted USSR GLATGMs would be useless since its basically impossible to see an  MBT 3+km using just eysight, even with zoom.   Meanwhile soviets had thermals on only a handful of recce vehicles with thermals. Of course, there were ground based radars, but they werent installed on soviet tanks.

    lyle6 likes this post

    avatar
    ALAMO

    Posts : 324
    Points : 326
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    Comparing Tanks - Page 13 Empty Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  ALAMO Mon Jun 21, 2021 10:38 pm

    But of course it was not, there is even no point to discuss that.
    M2 was just there. The one and only that has a TI just from the beginning.
    Marder was undergoing a serial upgrade, still being produced/delivered in both TI/II variants to the troops. Only massive refurbishment applied since the mid-80s.
    AMX-10 has no TI at all. First attempt to modernize it was in 2000.
    Warrior got his TI as an upgrade package in the late 00s.
    You are so much scoped on the mythical "TI" matter, that missing the point in total.
    5:1 superiority ratio. Better armor. Better gun. Better mobility. Smaller. Faster. Lower. Better strategic movability. Longer hands.
    There is no point to repeat it more times if you are anchored to your clue ...
    Take care lads study

    GarryB likes this post

    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 7642
    Points : 7626
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Comparing Tanks - Page 13 Empty Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Isos Tue Jun 22, 2021 12:14 am

    Greece compared a t-80 unit with nato tanks. It's on the web. T-80 faired poorly but it wasn't used the way soviet would use tanks.

    Soviet tanks were build for big waves and deap attacks a d they would mostly take cover during engagements.

    Not some overexpensive tanks that need to fire on the move at 90km/h and hit a target 2000km away which would never happen in a war.
    Atmosphere
    Atmosphere

    Posts : 115
    Points : 117
    Join date : 2021-01-31

    Comparing Tanks - Page 13 Empty Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Atmosphere Tue Jun 22, 2021 12:30 am


    Speaking of thermals and fcs,
    Wasnt there a test in abu dabi in which the T-90S could hit 7 targets while the leopard 2A5 did one less and the M1A2 one less than the leo?
    Here we're talking FCS accuracy, not observation capability.
    Ive seen this being talked about in at least two sources
    Also, it seems legit, Because the amount of targets hit by abrams are sumilar to the performance it gave during trials vs the Osorio, at similar conditions.

    So this leads me to believe that in the FCS of The T-90S, in the early 2000's had a bonus in accuracy and a minus in observation.

    Which does not surprise me, even with the lack of a barrel bend sensor, since its about the collective effectiveness of the while system, as an example, the accuracy of the M1A2 range finder was officialy stated zt +/- 10 m while it was 5 for the T-90S. That is to examplify.
    Russians were behind in terms of mass produced thermals at that time but they had very good instrumentation technology and were ahead in lenses and software/processing (hence why the sights had french thermal latticed and russian software, cooling and lenses).

    GarryB and Mir like this post

    lyle6
    lyle6

    Posts : 671
    Points : 673
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    Comparing Tanks - Page 13 Empty Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  lyle6 Tue Jun 22, 2021 9:36 am

    Isos wrote:
    Not some overexpensive tanks that need to fire on the move at 90km/h and hit a target 2000km away which would never happen in a war.
    Firing on the move is absolutely critical if you want to achieve excellent survivability for your tank. A moving target is by definition harder to hit; not stopping to fire removes that tiny window of vulnerability when the attacker can easily score hits altogether. Firing on the move also synergizes well with soft-kill systems since most such munitions would just coast along to the last known location if their sensors are blinded, and you don't really want to be in the same spot when that happens.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29853
    Points : 30381
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Comparing Tanks - Page 13 Empty Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  GarryB Tue Jun 22, 2021 9:54 am

    Better than keeping those jets on the tarmac, doing absolutely nothing. The Azeri ISR workhorses like the TB-2s are plenty expensive to make an anti-air missile their way worthwhile, but of course you can always shoot it down with the autocannon.

    Those aircraft are next to useless in such a situation, ground base SAMs used together in a coordinated way should easily deal with TB-2s, the real problem is the Turkish support finding targets and detecting SAM sites for attacks... but the fundamental problem was that this was a conflict between Azerbaijan supported by Turkey against the tiny region of NK... they never really had a chance.

    The area is mountainous enough that you can launch attacks and then dip below the radar shadow behind the mountain peaks before Azeri SAMs, based near the coast could even make contact.

    The SAM systems the Azeris had are fully mobile and have no reason to remain on the coast.

       

    The guidance system for GLATGM was expensive as well (A T-64 variant was 20% more expensive solely by the addition of this feature) but they managed to include the capability to quite a lot of their tanks, and its effect is not even that far-reaching in terms of the overall performance of the tank compared to the thermal sight.

    During day time normal optics needed to be used to identify targets, and at night you just had to guess... thermals were no perfect system of instant superiority that some pretend.... Hence lots of own goals in Desert Storm...

    The ability to shoot down an American attack helicopter operating in the day time at ranges that matched for the time the range of their missiles... you wouldn't need every tank to be able to manage that, but that ability is very valuable.

    The US army must be solely composed of special forces because I could google tons of footage of line infantry fighting in the night. Plenty of insurgents are even getting on the action as well. Its 2021, almost everyone and his dog has night vision capability.

    It is 2021 and if you pay close attention the Russians have brand new high quality state of the art thermals in most of their vehicles from air defence to ground armour.... likely better quality and performance than many of the systems used by the US and other HATO countries.

    For artillery to be effective instead of a nuisance that can be ignored the enemy has to be fixed in place. Guess what's not going to happen if your tank units are getting plinked from afar and could not properly respond?

    Having to continuously move your armour to prevent them being attacked by artillery means more wear and tear on the vehicles and men, and it makes arming and refuelling more difficult not to mention ambushes easier... and of course they run out of fuel much faster... keeping in mind the Soviets were supposed to be the invaders in the scripted WWIII for the Cold War period... having defensive forces dancing around trying to avoid artillery is just perfect for the attacker...

    Artillery can be suppressed and stocks of illumination rounds could be exhausted. When that happens, what now?

    The Soviets had rather more artillery of greater range than HATO did in the 70s and 80s... suppressed how?

    They could simply bypass HATO armour concentrations and use tactical nukes to eliminate them.

    Their enemy was situated mostly in the desert because the Iraqis were dumbasses.

    It was the land they were defending... I am sure they would have preferred to fight in the US instead... but the US likes away games... and because they start them they also get to choose where they take place.

    If the cold war has gone hot the Soviets would be looking to avoid cities for the open countryside where superior optics could be put to good effect.

    In Warsaw Pact countries and then western european countries... most of the cities would be nuked, as would significant airfields and enemy armour concentrations

    Better armor is nothing if you can't see your enemy in the first place.

    Very true, but at the time fighting in the dark was not an option... if they tried it the Soviets could easily bring their ATGM teams forward and wipe out any western vehicle that tried to punch through their line.

    Its telling that after the dissolution of the USSR the Russians practically did not touch the protection of their tanks, with T-90As rolling with vintage 1980s K-5 ERA and Object 187 turrets. Instead they poured all their resources and energies into obtaining French thermals and digital electronics for their comms. and FCS.

    Well obviously, they are hardly going to pour their resources into special fragrance trees they can hang in the air conditioning systems of their vehicles to make them smell like spring meadows...

    And to be fair they have clearly succeeded in closing any sensor gap and any other gap that existed too... so good for them.


    The problem is that by the mid 1980s, almost every single NATO AFV was equipped with thermal imaging.
    Challengers, leopard 1s, leopard 2s, M901 ITVs, Bradleys, Warriors, Marder 1A3s, Jaguar ATGM vehicles, every single abrams, AMX-10 RCs, Centauros, All NATO reconnassaince vehicles etc.

    They were not all equipped with thermals and there was a lot of variety in the quality of the imagers they did have... not all thermals are created equally.

    hey basically highlight an AFV in any background. It cannot be underestimated how exceptionally difficult it is to identify and MBT at 1-2km away, even in completely barren terrain, especially if said MBT isnt moving and fully exposed.

    Thermals of the time at best could see targets 2km away at most and the image quality was poor in terms of identification... if you think these things are damn perfect then what about all the own goals in Desert Storm.

    HATO couldn't even tell a tractor from a tank in 1999, but they had perfect night vision in Desert Storm?

    Yeah right.

    This basically made almost every NATO AFV able to shoot first without exception, which would result in decisive victory.

    Certainly in desert storm it helped, but there are many threats to a tank on a battlefield that don't show up well on thermals like ATGM teams and RPG operators... or anything in cover.

    The much vaunted USSR GLATGMs would be useless since its basically impossible to see an  MBT 3+km using just eysight, even with zoom.

    Hahaha it was the west that was claiming it could see and hit targets at extended ranges, with their amazingly accurate guns... the Soviets were rather quiet about their tank gun fired missiles... but they knew moving targets would be hard to hit at extended ranges so they kept going with missiles.

    Meanwhile soviets had thermals on only a handful of recce vehicles with thermals. Of course, there were ground based radars, but they werent installed on soviet tanks.

    Tanks firing at tanks at distances greater than 2km was very very rare as was night combat for tanks. Desert Storm was an exception rather than a guide to what future combat would be like... and both sides knew that.

    Its telling that after the dissolution of the USSR the Russians practically did not touch the protection of their tanks, with T-90As rolling with vintage 1980s K-5 ERA and Object 187 turrets. Instead they poured all their resources and energies into obtaining French thermals and digital electronics for their comms. and FCS.

    Funny because the last 30 or so years western tanks have stagnated and multiple replacement and upgrade programmes have failed to materialise, and now that Russia is putting its next gen vehicle families into service HATO is all talk about new guns and new tank programmes but nothing is anywhere near the hardware stage... in fact the British are talking like they might not bother with making tanks in the future... which sounds dramatic but the numbers they have been building and using have not been amazing anyway so it is likely few will notice their absence.


    Firing on the move is absolutely critical if you want to achieve excellent survivability for your tank.

    When you are firing dumb rounds you are correct... if the target moves in a way that you did not anticipate then most of the time you miss... except if the round you fired is a missile and can follow the movements of the target and still get a hit at extended ranges...

    A moving target is by definition harder to hit; not stopping to fire removes that tiny window of vulnerability when the attacker can easily score hits altogether.

    Not being able to take a hit means not just moving from concealment to concealment, but from cover to cover... and trying to close distance so you can get a hit somewhere that will be effective at a distance where it will penetrate.

    Firing on the move also synergizes well with soft-kill systems since most such munitions would just coast along to the last known location if their sensors are blinded, and you don't really want to be in the same spot when that happens.

    I would say the opposite... stopping and starting and moving erratically would be a better way of moving whether in the open or behind smoke.
    Moving from cover to cover reduces your exposure to enemy fire, and manouver means you might find a weak point you can exploit and then start to take the enemy position from a flank or unexpected direction... or just tie them down while you prepare a Havok or Hokum attack....
    lyle6
    lyle6

    Posts : 671
    Points : 673
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    Comparing Tanks - Page 13 Empty Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  lyle6 Tue Jun 22, 2021 10:40 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Those aircraft are next to useless in such a situation, ground base SAMs used together in a coordinated way should easily deal with TB-2s, the real problem is the Turkish support finding targets and detecting SAM sites for attacks... but the fundamental problem was that this was a conflict between Azerbaijan supported by Turkey against the tiny region of NK... they never really had a chance.
    That was the case for the previous war as well. The difference is Armenia mustered but a tiny fraction of their strength to assist their allies.

    GarryB wrote:
    The SAM systems the Azeris had are fully mobile and have no reason to remain on the coast.
    They had no way of knowing how would the Russians respond; as such they can only really keep in place to guard the coast against a possible Russian attack on the capital itself.

    GarryB wrote:
    During day time normal optics needed to be used to identify targets, and at night you just had to guess... thermals were no perfect system of instant superiority that some pretend.... Hence lots of own goals in Desert Storm...

    The ability to shoot down an American attack helicopter operating in the day time at ranges that matched for the time the range of their missiles... you wouldn't need every tank to be able to manage that, but that ability is very valuable.
    And they were so successful American tanks nailed more of their own than the enemy did. That says quite a lot to the effectiveness of thermals that the enemy can't even compare even when they were trying.

    GarryB wrote:
    It is 2021 and if you pay close attention the Russians have brand new high quality state of the art thermals in most of their vehicles from air defence to ground armour.... likely better quality and performance than many of the systems used by the US and other HATO countries.
    But not night vision devices for their line infantry.

    GarryB wrote:
    Having to continuously move your armour to prevent them being attacked by artillery means more wear and tear on the vehicles and men, and it makes arming and refuelling more difficult not to mention ambushes easier... and of course they run out of fuel much faster... keeping in mind the Soviets were supposed to be the invaders in the scripted WWIII for the Cold War period... having defensive forces dancing around trying to avoid artillery is just perfect for the attacker...
    Better a few hours on the depot and hundreds of thousands of dollars of early replacement for parts than burning husks with dead bodies inside. Then again, the Soviets are still limited by their logistics; they can't very well just unleash artillery barrages at every defensible position can they?

    GarryB wrote:
    The Soviets had rather more artillery of greater range than HATO did in the 70s and 80s... suppressed how?

    They could simply bypass HATO armour concentrations and use tactical nukes to eliminate them.
    Through longer ranged rocket artillery and air power of course. And if you are throwing tactical nukes around expect the same going your way as well. They might not kill the fighting elements sitting in NBC protected vehicles, but unprotected truck based logistics are fair game and would just as easily stop your armor dead in their tracks.

    GarryB wrote:
    Very true, but at the time fighting in the dark was not an option... if they tried it the Soviets could easily bring their ATGM teams forward and wipe out any western vehicle that tried to punch through their line.
    Not if you have thermals equipped. Before the Russians got their hands on Western thermal sights their ATGM teams were at a significant disadvantage. The tanks could see them just fine at ranges further than they can hardly spot the tank. Not the end of the world since you can still use concealment to avoid being engaged and conduct ambushes but again severely limits their tactical utility when they can't easily reposition.


    GarryB wrote:
    When you are firing dumb rounds you are correct... if the target moves in a way that you did not anticipate then most of the time you miss... except if the round you fired is a missile and can follow the movements of the target and still get a hit at extended ranges...
    No guidance system is perfect; evasive maneuvers would still work to some extent but in combination with other means of protection like soft kill systems the chances of successfully dodging an attack would only improve.

    GarryB wrote:
    Not being able to take a hit means not just moving from concealment to concealment, but from cover to cover... and trying to close distance so you can get a hit somewhere that will be effective at a distance where it will penetrate.

    I would say the opposite... stopping and starting and moving erratically would be a better way of moving whether in the open or behind smoke.
    Moving from cover to cover reduces your exposure to enemy fire, and manouver means you might find a weak point you can exploit and then start to take the enemy position from a flank or unexpected direction... or just tie them down while you prepare a Havok or Hokum attack....
    Sometimes the terrain itself doesn't offer any form of cover or concealment and there are lots of such open spaces in steppes of Eastern Europe, in which case your only real option really is to pull off evasives while trying to kill your attackers as quickly as possible.

    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 7642
    Points : 7626
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Comparing Tanks - Page 13 Empty Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Isos Tue Jun 22, 2021 10:43 am

    Sometimes the terrain itself doesn't offer any form of cover or concealment and there are lots of such open spaces in steppes of Eastern Europe, in which case your only real option really is to pull off evasives while trying to kill your attackers as quickly as possible.

    In that case they will get cover somewhere a control the terrain with kornets and tank launched atgm which outrange any NATO missile or tank's guns.

    Sponsored content

    Comparing Tanks - Page 13 Empty Re: Comparing Tanks

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Jul 27, 2021 11:24 am