Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2020, 07:00
by boogieman
Hi all,

Picking this up from where an OT conversation left off here:

viewtopic.php?f=36&t=56676&start=60

knowan wrote:Syria lost 6 of their 40 T-90s in 2015-2018, 5% of their T-90 strength per year. Compared to that, they lost 437 of their 1600 T-72s in 2011-2018, or 3.9% of their T-72 strength per year.

Proportionally to the number of tanks of each type Syria has in service, the T-90s were being lost at a comparable rate to T-72s, which suggests the T-90 isn't the wunderwaffe Russian propaganda makes it out to be.


This is interesting - do you have a source for these stats? It would be good to dig into them a little deeper to ascertain how those 6 T90's were lost.

knowan wrote:Yet in actual armor testing, both 105mm M700 series APFSDS, 105mm DM33 APFSDS and 105mm DM12 HEAT could penetrate the T-72 from any practical range.

If Iranian M60s struggled against Iraqi T-72s, then they were using terribly obsolete ammunition.


Quite plausible. Do you have a source for this one as well?

knowan wrote:Kontakt-5, the Russian Kruppstahl, able to bend reality as desired by Russian propaganda and Russian fanboys...

...there's no mention of being 'immune' to M829 of any sort, that's all a fabrication by Chinese bloggers.


So testing revealed M829 could, in fact, defeat Kontakt-5? You know what I'm going to ask next - got a source? :wink:

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2020, 07:25
by knowan
boogieman wrote: these stats? It would be good to dig into them a little deeper to ascertain how those 6 T90's were lost.


https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/20 ... 2011-2017/

Data is only for 2011 to 2018, T-90s entered Syrian service in 2015.


boogieman wrote:Quite plausible. Do you have a source for this one as well?


https://imgur.com/a/RAs6vHR
http://www.angelfire.com/mi4/armania/ar ... T72M1.html


knowan wrote:So testing revealed M829 could, in fact, defeat Kontakt-5? You know what I'm going to ask next - got a source? :wink:


I don't have actual data on the tests, AFAIK nobody has been able to find any data from publicly available sources either, suggesting it is classified.

There is a distinct scarcity on hard information in general about the effectiveness of heavy ERA against long-rod KE penetrators, which is why claims of K-5 or Relikt making a tank 'invulnerable' should be treated with a hefty dose of scepticism.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2020, 07:46
by boogieman
knowan wrote:https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/20 ... 2011-2017/

Data is only for 2011 to 2018, T-90s entered Syrian service in 2015.


Perfect, thanks.

It's tricky to draw conclusions here because the T90 sample size (both the number used and the number lost) is so small. I couldn't see any mention of how those T90's were lost (eg. were they knocked out by ATGMs? tank sabot/HEAT rounds? IED/mines? simply captured?) which is unfortunate because it would shed more light on the T90's survivability.

I'm certainly not of the opinion that the T90 is a "wunderwaffe" but I am interested in data from its combat employment - the anecdotes coming from the battlefield suggest it is fairly resilient. Time shall tell how true that is I guess.

knowan wrote:https://imgur.com/a/RAs6vHR
http://www.angelfire.com/mi4/armania/ar ... T72M1.html

...I don't have actual data on the tests, AFAIK nobody has been able to find any data from publicly available sources either, suggesting it is classified.

There is a distinct scarcity on hard information in general about the effectiveness of heavy ERA against long-rod KE penetrators, which is why claims of K-5 or Relikt making a tank 'invulnerable' should be treated with a hefty dose of scepticism.


That's great, thanks for the sources once again. The first two certainly seem to debunk the cold war narrative that said the T72 was immune to cannon fire from the M60.

As for Kontakt-5 and its ability to resist M829 - I think it's a case of "extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence". It does seem that the jury is still out on exactly how effective it was under testing against American anti tank rounds. It will be interesting to see if more information comes to light on this subject in the future.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2020, 09:51
by boogieman
Hmm so I did a bit more digging around and other sources citing the Janes article also include this quote:

"During the tests we used only the weapons which existed with NATO armies during the last decade of the Cold War to determine how effective such weapons would have been against these examples of modern Soviet tank design. Our results were completely unexpected. When fitted to the T-72A1 and B1 the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU (Depleted Uranium) penetrators of the M829A2 APFSDS (used by the 120 mm guns of the Cold War era US M1 Abrams tanks), which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles. We also tested the 30mm GAU-8 Avenger (the gun of the A-10 Thunderbolt II Strike Plane), the 30mm M320 (the gun of the AH-64 Apache Attack Helicopter) and a range of standard NATO Anti Tank Guided Missiles – all with the same result of no penetration or effective destruction of the test vehicles. The combined protection of the standard armour and the ERA gives the Tanks a level of protection equal to our own. The myth of Soviet inferiority in this sector of arms production that has been perpetuated by the failure of downgraded T-72 export tanks in the Gulf Wars has, finally, been laid to rest. The results of these tests show that if a NATO/Warsaw Pact confrontation had erupted in Europe, the Soviets would have had parity (or perhaps even superiority) in armour” – U.S. Army Spokesperson at the show.
Newer KE penetrators have been designed since the Cold War to defeat the Kontakt-5 (although Kontakt-5 has been improved as well). As a response the Russian Army has produced a new type of ERA, “Relikt”, which is claimed to be two to three times as effective as Kontakt-5 and completely impenetrable against modern Western warheads.

Anyone able to shed light on the above?

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2020, 11:10
by hornetfinn
One of the best sources for Russian/Soviet tanks is Vasiliy Fofanov who was (and might still be) very active in Tanknet military forums and was very knowledgeable about Russian tanks. Here is his website about the tanks:

http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/index.html

And there is penetration test data of T-80U and T-90:
http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/TRIALS/19991020.html

It seems very possible that T-80U and T-90 with Kontakt-5 could be mostly immune frontally to M829 as those resisted 3BM42 (which they probably used) even when stripped. M829 has better performance than 3BM42 especially at longer ranges, but K-5 should counter that. However M829 was the baseline and was soon followed with much better M829A1, M829A2, M829A3 and finally M829A4. Each one has about 10-15% better penetration than previous one and are better designed to counter ERA.

Interesting data about M829A4 from DOT&E: https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub ... 105950-793

So M829A4 is close to M829A3 other than the addition of data link which allows the tank fire control to progam the round before firing. This is interesting given that this is APFSDS-T and not explosive round where such programming feature is pretty easy to understand (like engagement profile or time to target).

T-72 has many variants with very different protection levels. T-72M1 used by Iraq is the worst protected and those rounds mentioned should have decent chance of penetration within meaningful ranges. I've also heard from several very knowledgeable Finnish tank officers that T-72M1 (we had those before Leopard 2) had variations in protection level depending on when and where they were built. T-72B-variants with K-5 have much better protection and should be pretty invulnerable against 105mm ammunition but most 120mm rounds should go through at most ranges.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2020, 11:17
by weasel1962
Not sure how relevant since the weapon of choice against MBTs nowadays appears to be either a 500lb LJDAM, paveway or a 200lb SDB. ERA or armor won't make a difference. Latest test was by Turkey in Operation spring shield.

Tanks hit by other tanks, even if killed can probably be repaired and returned to service. Haven't read of any tank being repaired after a direct hit by a paveway yet.

In that context, I think the US Army acknowledged the potential difficulties of handling 3G ERA when they developed the M829A3 and now M829A4

https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub ... 105950-793

The M829A4 120 mm cartridge is a line-of-sight kinetic energy cartridge designed for the Abrams M1A2 SEPv3 MBT. It is the materiel solution for the Abrams’ lethality capability gap against threat vehicles equipped with third-generation explosive reactive armor.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2020, 11:44
by boogieman
hornetfinn wrote:One of the best sources for Russian/Soviet tanks is Vasiliy Fofanov who was (and might still be) very active in Tanknet military forums and was very knowledgeable about Russian tanks. Here is his website about the tanks:

http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/index.html

And there is penetration test data of T-80U and T-90:
http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/TRIALS/19991020.html

It seems very possible that T-80U and T-90 with Kontakt-5 could be mostly immune frontally to M829 as those resisted 3BM42 (which they probably used) even when stripped. M829 has better performance than 3BM42 especially at longer ranges, but K-5 should counter that. However M829 was the baseline and was soon followed with much better M829A1, M829A2, M829A3 and finally M829A4. Each one has about 10-15% better penetration than previous one and are better designed to counter ERA.

Interesting data about M829A4 from DOT&E: https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub ... 105950-793

So M829A4 is close to M829A3 other than the addition of data link which allows the tank fire control to progam the round before firing. This is interesting given that this is APFSDS-T and not explosive round where such programming feature is pretty easy to understand (like engagement profile or time to target).

T-72 has many variants with very different protection levels. T-72M1 used by Iraq is the worst protected and those rounds mentioned should have decent chance of penetration within meaningful ranges. I've also heard from several very knowledgeable Finnish tank officers that T-72M1 (we had those before Leopard 2) had variations in protection level depending on when and where they were built. T-72B-variants with K-5 have much better protection and should be pretty invulnerable against 105mm ammunition but most 120mm rounds should go through at most ranges.


Thanks for the above. Will look forward to delving into those links when I get the chance.

weasel1962 wrote:Not sure how relevant since the weapon of choice against MBTs nowadays appears to be either a 500lb LJDAM, paveway or a 200lb SDB. ERA or armor won't make a difference. Latest test was by Turkey in Operation spring shield.

Tanks hit by other tanks, even if killed can probably be repaired and returned to service. Haven't read of any tank being repaired after a direct hit by a paveway yet.

In that context, I think the US Army acknowledged the potential difficulties of handling 3G ERA when they developed the M829A3 and now M829A4

https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub ... 105950-793

The M829A4 120 mm cartridge is a line-of-sight kinetic energy cartridge designed for the Abrams M1A2 SEPv3 MBT. It is the materiel solution for the Abrams’ lethality capability gap against threat vehicles equipped with third-generation explosive reactive armor.


For context, this discussion was borne out of a hypothetical confrontation with Russia in Europe (e.g.. the Baltics). While harder hitting PGMs might be the weapon of choice here I doubt that would be comforting to Abrams crews tasked with facing down multiple Kontakt-5/Relikt toting Russian tanks for every one of their own. :shock:

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2020, 13:44
by knowan
boogieman wrote:Perfect, thanks.

It's tricky to draw conclusions here because the T90 sample size (both the number used and the number lost) is so small. I couldn't see any mention of how those T90's were lost (eg. were they knocked out by ATGMs? tank sabot/HEAT rounds? IED/mines? simply captured?) which is unfortunate because it would shed more light on the T90's survivability.

I'm certainly not of the opinion that the T90 is a "wunderwaffe" but I am interested in data from its combat employment - the anecdotes coming from the battlefield suggest it is fairly resilient. Time shall tell how true that is I guess.


It's the National Interest, but for this article they seem to have interviewed the author of the analysis posted by bellingcat, and gotten some details on the T-90 losses from him: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... ason-77961

According to Janovský, of the thirty transferred to the Syrian Arab Army, he is aware of five or six T-90As being knocked out in in 2016 and 2017, mostly by wire-guided TOW-2A missiles. (Some of the knocked out tanks, to clarify, may be recoverable with heavy repairs.) Another four may have been hit, but their status after the attack as not possible to determine. Of course, there may be additional losses that were not documented, and there are cases where the type of tank involved could not be visually confirmed.




boogieman wrote:Anyone able to shed light on the above?


Those sections are apparently fake. That it is talking about M829A2, which is reported to have been developed in response to NATO tests of K-5, is a giveaway.



boogieman wrote:For context, this discussion was borne out of a hypothetical confrontation with Russia in Europe (e.g.. the Baltics). While harder hitting PGMs might be the weapon of choice here I doubt that would be comforting to Abrams crews tasked with facing down multiple Kontakt-5/Relikt toting Russian tanks for every one of their own. :shock:


Well, in the context of a Soviet vs NATO Cold War conflict in the 1980s, only the T-80U and T-72B m1989 were equipped with K-5 at that time, and those models made up only a small portion of the Soviet tank strength.

Earlier T-80Us had base armor packages similar to that of later production T-64Bs too; it wasn't until the 1989 model the T-80U received a base armor package more comparable in protection to the late T-72B and early T-90.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2020, 22:10
by boogieman
knowan wrote:It's the National Interest, but for this article they seem to have interviewed the author of the analysis posted by bellingcat, and gotten some details on the T-90 losses from him: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... ason-77961

According to Janovský, of the thirty transferred to the Syrian Arab Army, he is aware of five or six T-90As being knocked out in in 2016 and 2017, mostly by wire-guided TOW-2A missiles. (Some of the knocked out tanks, to clarify, may be recoverable with heavy repairs.) Another four may have been hit, but their status after the attack as not possible to determine. Of course, there may be additional losses that were not documented, and there are cases where the type of tank involved could not be visually confirmed.


Gotcha. Would be welcome news (if true) to know that the second best TOW variant can get the job done against Russia's premier tank. The next (perhaps pedantic) question would be where the T90s were struck as there are plenty of anecdotes that describe T90's surviving TOW hits across the frontal arc.

knowan wrote:Those sections are apparently fake. That it is talking about M829A2, which is reported to have been developed in response to NATO tests of K-5, is a giveaway...


Yes, that occurred to me too. Makes sense.

knowan wrote:...Well, in the context of a Soviet vs NATO Cold War conflict in the 1980s, only the T-80U and T-72B m1989 were equipped with K-5 at that time, and those models made up only a small portion of the Soviet tank strength.

Earlier T-80Us had base armor packages similar to that of later production T-64Bs too; it wasn't until the 1989 model the T-80U received a base armor package more comparable in protection to the late T-72B and early T-90.


I was more referring to a future crisis but yes this is a valid point. Even so, one would hope that healthy stocks of M829A4 would be both a.) sufficient to reliably defeat modern Russian ERA and b.) readily available to Abrams crews in theatre.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2020, 23:16
by milosh
knowan wrote:There is a distinct scarcity on hard information in general about the effectiveness of heavy ERA against long-rod KE penetrators, which is why claims of K-5 or Relikt making a tank 'invulnerable' should be treated with a hefty dose of scepticism.


It isn't just heavy ERA it is combination of ERA and armor. You can put Relikt on T-72B (as they did with T-72B3) and get nice protection but still noticeable less then T-90S (turret with ceramic tiles).

So when heavy ERA damage KE round, and then hit ceramics effect is much better then when it hit non ceramic armor or cast armor with ceramic balls, there is much higher chance to hit empty space in case of balls then tiles.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2020, 02:52
by weasel1962
~25k M829A4 rounds funded thru FY 21 (@ $16k unit cost per round), and an average production rate of ~3k rounds per year. With an objective of 2,101 M1A2 upgraded to SEPv3, that translate into roughly 11-12 rounds per tank. Normally a fraction of that number of tanks that will actually go into battle, so potentially load out could be higher. The bulk of ammo load out will still be multi-purpose rounds, the new M1147 AMP will enter full rate production in FY 2021.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2020, 03:11
by charlielima223
This a fun little video that does a good job explaining things


Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2020, 04:54
by weasel1962
Don't think we're going to see as much tank on tank conflict in the baltics. I think there has been quite a bit of analysis on Russki tactics in Ukraine and its impact to tank battle.

This is good read.
https://cepa.ecms.pl/files/?id_plik=2991

Firstly, the US Army isn't going to deploy without air cover.
Secondly, the Russkis are leveraging on artillery (zelenopillya's Tornado G being highlighted)
Thirdly, the newest Russki tanks use APS (see link above).

Despite all the peacetime deployment to the baltics, the sure weight of numbers of the western military district render any actual wartime deployment there highly risky at best. More likely the battleground would be Poland where airpower can be best leveraged.

Russki orbat.
http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/d ... 0CTP_0.pdf

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2020, 10:18
by hornetfinn
boogieman wrote:
knowan wrote:It's the National Interest, but for this article they seem to have interviewed the author of the analysis posted by bellingcat, and gotten some details on the T-90 losses from him: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... ason-77961

According to Janovský, of the thirty transferred to the Syrian Arab Army, he is aware of five or six T-90As being knocked out in in 2016 and 2017, mostly by wire-guided TOW-2A missiles. (Some of the knocked out tanks, to clarify, may be recoverable with heavy repairs.) Another four may have been hit, but their status after the attack as not possible to determine. Of course, there may be additional losses that were not documented, and there are cases where the type of tank involved could not be visually confirmed.


Gotcha. Would be welcome news (if true) to know that the second best TOW variant can get the job done against Russia's premier tank. The next (perhaps pedantic) question would be where the T90s were struck as there are plenty of anecdotes that describe T90's surviving TOW hits across the frontal arc.


I doubt TOW-2A will have consistent success against T-90 frontally. The Russian tests show that their own Kornet missile failed to penetrate in tests against T-90 (except one missile when no ERA was present), although they did penetrate T-80U (although not consistently with ERA). Kornet missile is very similar to TOW-2A

Of course TOW-2A is over 30 years old missile and TOW-2B (like Javelin or Israeli Spike missiles) will kill any tank it hits. This is why APS has been pretty popular in Russian tanks.

boogieman wrote:
knowan wrote:Those sections are apparently fake. That it is talking about M829A2, which is reported to have been developed in response to NATO tests of K-5, is a giveaway...


Yes, that occurred to me too. Makes sense.

knowan wrote:...Well, in the context of a Soviet vs NATO Cold War conflict in the 1980s, only the T-80U and T-72B m1989 were equipped with K-5 at that time, and those models made up only a small portion of the Soviet tank strength.

Earlier T-80Us had base armor packages similar to that of later production T-64Bs too; it wasn't until the 1989 model the T-80U received a base armor package more comparable in protection to the late T-72B and early T-90.


I was more referring to a future crisis but yes this is a valid point. Even so, one would hope that healthy stocks of M829A4 would be both a.) sufficient to reliably defeat modern Russian ERA and b.) readily available to Abrams crews in theatre.


I think M829A3 is very capable of defeating all current operational Russian tanks frontally. Of course T-14 Armata is likely pretty tough but it's not really operational yet AFAIK.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2020, 12:12
by boogieman
hornetfinn wrote:I doubt TOW-2A will have consistent success against T-90 frontally. The Russian tests show that their own Kornet missile failed to penetrate in tests against T-90 (except one missile when no ERA was present), although they did penetrate T-80U (although not consistently with ERA). Kornet missile is very similar to TOW-2A

Of course TOW-2A is over 30 years old missile and TOW-2B (like Javelin or Israeli Spike missiles) will kill any tank it hits. This is why APS has been pretty popular in Russian tanks...

... I think M829A3 is very capable of defeating all current operational Russian tanks frontally. Of course T-14 Armata is likely pretty tough but it's not really operational yet AFAIK.


Yes I think APS of various persuasions look set to become standard equipment on any future MBT worth its salt. It is also easy to get bogged down in the armour vs penetrator race and neglect the fact modern MBTs are networked nodes in the joint force - information dominance is likely just as important for them as it is for combat aircraft.

To that end, I fully acknowledge the possibility that killing a tank with another tank may be a method of last resort, with the CONOPS calling for the use of an effector that places the shooter at minimum risk while maximising damage done. This might range from concealed ATGM teams to rotary and fixed wing air power to artillery strikes. Why counter scissors with scissors when you have a perfectly good rock? :wink:

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2020, 15:51
by knowan
boogieman wrote:Gotcha. Would be welcome news (if true) to know that the second best TOW variant can get the job done against Russia's premier tank. The next (perhaps pedantic) question would be where the T90s were struck as there are plenty of anecdotes that describe T90's surviving TOW hits across the frontal arc.


All tanks have weak areas in their frontal armor protection; the Russian tanks are no exception. Eg, mantlet, upper turret, turret ring, lower glacis, driver viewports are all weak areas on the T-64/72/80/90 tanks.

I'm doubtful a TOW-2 or TOW-2A could penetrate the main frontal armor arrays on a T-90, but if the missile hit one of the weak areas, a penetration is much more likely.


boogieman wrote:I was more referring to a future crisis but yes this is a valid point. Even so, one would hope that healthy stocks of M829A4 would be both a.) sufficient to reliably defeat modern Russian ERA and b.) readily available to Abrams crews in theatre.


Even M829A3 should be able to defeat Relikt, as it was reportedly designed to do so.



boogieman wrote:It is also easy to get bogged down in the armour vs penetrator race and neglect the fact modern MBTs are networked nodes in the joint force - information dominance is likely just as important for them as it is for combat aircraft.


It's also a mistake to compare the quality of tanks by the armor penetration of their gun and their frontal armor protection. Frontal slugging matches between tanks are actually quite rare, and AT weapons like ATGMs are usually used in ambush position against the sides or rear of a tank.

In reality, the firepower/protection aspects of a tank are frequently less important than the optics and fire control systems.

The way tankers see it, armor and protection systems are nice to have when you're getting shot at, but it's better to spot the enemy first and take them out before they can return fire so you never get shot at.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2020, 21:28
by boogieman
knowan wrote:
boogieman wrote:Gotcha. Would be welcome news (if true) to know that the second best TOW variant can get the job done against Russia's premier tank. The next (perhaps pedantic) question would be where the T90s were struck as there are plenty of anecdotes that describe T90's surviving TOW hits across the frontal arc.


All tanks have weak areas in their frontal armor protection; the Russian tanks are no exception. Eg, mantlet, upper turret, turret ring, lower glacis, driver viewports are all weak areas on the T-64/72/80/90 tanks.

I'm doubtful a TOW-2 or TOW-2A could penetrate the main frontal armor arrays on a T-90, but if the missile hit one of the weak areas, a penetration is much more likely.


boogieman wrote:I was more referring to a future crisis but yes this is a valid point. Even so, one would hope that healthy stocks of M829A4 would be both a.) sufficient to reliably defeat modern Russian ERA and b.) readily available to Abrams crews in theatre.


Even M829A3 should be able to defeat Relikt, as it was reportedly designed to do so.



boogieman wrote:It is also easy to get bogged down in the armour vs penetrator race and neglect the fact modern MBTs are networked nodes in the joint force - information dominance is likely just as important for them as it is for combat aircraft.


It's also a mistake to compare the quality of tanks by the armor penetration of their gun and their frontal armor protection. Frontal slugging matches between tanks are actually quite rare, and AT weapons like ATGMs are usually used in ambush position against the sides or rear of a tank.

In reality, the firepower/protection aspects of a tank are frequently less important than the optics and fire control systems.

The way tankers see it, armor and protection systems are nice to have when you're getting shot at, but it's better to spot the enemy first and take them out before they can return fire so you never get shot at.


Agree on all counts. I can see how it will become increasingly important for MBTs to be hooked up to the broader ISR network so that they can track enemy movements in real time and ensure they are the ones to get the first shot off.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2020, 02:17
by madrat
Not just the first shot, but the first shot on the correct target via a priority chain.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2020, 02:33
by boogieman
madrat wrote:Not just the first shot, but the first shot on the correct target via a priority chain.


Exactly :thumb:

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2020, 02:49
by charlielima223
boogieman wrote:
madrat wrote:Not just the first shot, but the first shot on the correct target via a priority chain.


Exactly :thumb:


That is pretty much what veteran tankers of the 1991 Gulf War echo. While the US M1A1 was vastly superior over the Iraqi T-72s and their older model tanks, most of the success was attributed to the M1A1s ability to engage the T-72s outside their effective engagement ranges and be able to do so accurately.

Also from my understanding most if not all current APS used are only able to engage threats at the horizontal plane. This is where Spikes, Javelin, and similar ATGMs have an advantage. Their top attack profile essentially bypasses the APS defenses by attacking at an angle/sector that they cannot defend against (yet). Couple their top attack profile with their dual-shaped charged warhead and these newest ATGMs pose a serious threat to modern MBT. In some infantry circles the Javelin is referred to as "the can opener".

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2020, 03:06
by boogieman
charlielima223 wrote:
boogieman wrote:
madrat wrote:Not just the first shot, but the first shot on the correct target via a priority chain.


Exactly :thumb:


That is pretty much what veteran tankers of the 1991 Gulf War echo. While the US M1A1 was vastly superior over the Iraqi T-72s and their older model tanks, most of the success was attributed to the M1A1s ability to engage the T-72s outside their effective engagement ranges and be able to do so accurately.

Also from my understanding most if not all current APS used are only able to engage threats at the horizontal plane. This is where Spikes, Javelin, and similar ATGMs have an advantage. Their top attack profile essentially bypasses the APS defenses by attacking at an angle/sector that they cannot defend against (yet). Couple their top attack profile with their dual-shaped charged warhead and these newest ATGMs pose a serious threat to modern MBT. In some infantry circles the Javelin is referred to as "the can opener".


IIRC, Afghanit and Shtora can defend against ATGMs coming from above, although to what elevation I'm not sure (Shtora responds with a smoke screen, Afghanit also has hard-kill capability). If memory serves, the Javelin top attack profile "only" produces a ~45 degree dive angle which would potentially make it more vulnerable to APS. The latest versions of Spike (LR2, NLOS) are supposed to have anti-APS functionality via the use of a steeper 70 degree dive when in top-attack mode.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2020, 21:30
by geforcerfx
Afghanit on the T-14 and T-15 only have tubes facing forward, no side protection and no above protection.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2020, 22:50
by knowan
Shtora has a lot of limitations for defence against top attack; the laser warning receivers are limited to +25 degrees elevation, and the IR dazzlers (only effective against SACLOS missiles like TOW), has only +4 degrees elevation coverage.

With such limited elevation coverage on the dazzlers, Shtora would most likely be unable to defend against helicopter launched SACLOS missiles.

As for Afghanit, it likely has minimal elevation coverage due to the interceptor launch tubes being horizontal. Even the earlier Arena-3 had an elevation limit of +20 degrees, and that had angled launchers.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2020, 09:33
by boogieman
knowan wrote:Shtora has a lot of limitations for defence against top attack; the laser warning receivers are limited to +25 degrees elevation, and the IR dazzlers (only effective against SACLOS missiles like TOW), has only +4 degrees elevation coverage.

With such limited elevation coverage on the dazzlers, Shtora would most likely be unable to defend against helicopter launched SACLOS missiles.

As for Afghanit, it likely has minimal elevation coverage due to the interceptor launch tubes being horizontal. Even the earlier Arena-3 had an elevation limit of +20 degrees, and that had angled launchers.


Did some more reading and it looks like Afghanit probably has soft kill (smoke screen) capability against top attack weapons.

According to Russian claims, the APS provides protection against ATGMs, RPGs, longrod KE penetrators and top-attack missiles. However these claims should be taken with a grain of salt. It is understood only the softkill components of Afghanit are capable of dealing with top-attack missiles. Claims about the ability to defeat KE penetrators is questionable, but it must be noted that most of the informations about this are speculations or from rather biased and "patriotic" websites. The defeat mechanism of Afghanit seems to be based on MEFP or HE-fragementation warheads, which can affect APFSDS penetration only by a limited amount.

https://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot. ... rview.html


Not sure about Shtora but I thought I read that it could deploy smoke in response to top attack as well.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2020, 10:13
by milosh
geforcerfx wrote:Afghanit on the T-14 and T-15 only have tubes facing forward, no side protection and no above protection.


T-14 Afghanit is on turret itself so it can be rotated which mean 360deg can be cover:
https://defense-update.com/wp-content/u ... aps725.jpg

In case of T-15 it is fixed to chasis but tube arrangement is little wider so it covers somewhat more then T-14 tubes:
https://defense-update.com/wp-content/u ... 15_725.jpg

Also both vehicles have lot of chaffs, for example T-15 have two rear boxes with chaffs dedicated for top attack, and lot heavy ERA roof tiles about crew compartment and roof its self have armored uperstructure:
https://defense-update.com/wp-content/u ... iew725.jpg

Only weak spots are hatches but it would be hard to target them even with newest sensors in ideal situation while in real scenario almost impossible (chaffs fog).

Transport compartment is protected from top down attack with remote turret.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2020, 10:42
by boogieman
milosh wrote:
geforcerfx wrote:Afghanit on the T-14 and T-15 only have tubes facing forward, no side protection and no above protection.


T-14 Afghanit is on turret itself so it can be rotated which mean 360deg can be cover:
https://defense-update.com/wp-content/u ... aps725.jpg

In case of T-15 it is fixed to chasis but tube arrangement is little wider so it covers somewhat more then T-14 tubes:
https://defense-update.com/wp-content/u ... 15_725.jpg

Also both vehicles have lot of chaffs, for example T-15 have two rear boxes with chaffs dedicated for top attack, and lot heavy ERA roof tiles about crew compartment and roof its self have armored uperstructure:
https://defense-update.com/wp-content/u ... iew725.jpg

Only weak spots are hatches but it would be hard to target them even with newest sensors in ideal situation while in real scenario almost impossible (chaffs fog).

Transport compartment is protected from top down attack with remote turret.


I think your links are broken :?

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2020, 11:39
by milosh
boogieman wrote:I think your links are broken :?


It opens fine for me?

Okey here are photos from links:

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2020, 21:13
by knowan
boogieman wrote:Did some more reading and it looks like Afghanit probably has soft kill (smoke screen) capability against top attack weapons.

Not sure about Shtora but I thought I read that it could deploy smoke in response to top attack as well.


Smoke is definitely better than nothing, but it is only a temporary measure with limited effectiveness.

IIRC, multi-spectral smoke grenades are standard in most/all modern militaries; the advantage Shtora and Afghanit have is automatic deployment due to their laser warning receivers and/or radar.
But those missile warning systems have disadvantages too; they can be triggered by false alarms, and radar emissions gives the vehicle's position away.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2020, 22:29
by boogieman
knowan wrote:
boogieman wrote:Did some more reading and it looks like Afghanit probably has soft kill (smoke screen) capability against top attack weapons.

Not sure about Shtora but I thought I read that it could deploy smoke in response to top attack as well.


Smoke is definitely better than nothing, but it is only a temporary measure with limited effectiveness.

IIRC, multi-spectral smoke grenades are standard in most/all modern militaries; the advantage Shtora and Afghanit have is automatic deployment due to their laser warning receivers and/or radar.
But those missile warning systems have disadvantages too; they can be triggered by false alarms, and radar emissions gives the vehicle's position away.


Yes I also have my doubts about just how effective a smoke screen would be against passively guided top attack weapons like Javelin or Spike. The first and only indication the APS would get about the inbound ATGM would be its radar picking up the missile itself. The effective range of APS radars (AFAIK) tends to be quite short so it seems likely that the missile would simply plough through the smoke into the tank regardless. A smoke screen ought to function much better when deployed at or before the time of missile launch rather than in the final moments before impact...

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 09 Mar 2020, 18:14
by milosh
T-14 turret is just gun so investing in some hard kill APS for top down attack wouldn't be useful as in case of classic tanks.

T-14 is designed to be ultimate tank killer, crew is better protected compared to any tank in world, armor capsule inside composite armored chassis with heavy ERA, low position of crew compared to tank with crew in turret. Hard kill APS which can deal even with DU sabots, and gun&round combo which goes trough more then 1000mm at 2km.

So we can say Russians resurrect heavy tank destroyer.

On other hand it would suck in urban combat, no wonder they developed T-15. Last thing I read they are planning to have Terminator turret on T-15 chassis so that is their choice for urban warfare.

But in reality do Russians rely need T-14? For export of course but for them selfs? I doubt that, with nice number of new T-90 and many modernized T-72/80 there isn't need for one more tank no matter how good it is. Especally when NATO reduced its tank force a lot.

But they need T-15. They need it in 1990s! They had good lesson from A-stan they even start making something similar but then 1990s happened. In first battle of Grozny IFV based on tank with 2x30mm and Shmel rockets would be lot more effective then tanks which act more as targets then real danger for enemy. BMP-3 was also useless, thin armor and full of 100mm rounds it didn't fare much better then tanks.

Btw US army also need something similar, IFV on tank chassis would make troops lot more safe in urban combat then high tech wheels IFV.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 09 Mar 2020, 21:33
by boogieman
milosh wrote:T-14 turret is just gun so investing in some hard kill APS for top down attack wouldn't be useful as in case of classic tanks.

T-14 is designed to be ultimate tank killer, crew is better protected compared to any tank in world, armor capsule inside composite armored chassis with heavy ERA, low position of crew compared to tank with crew in turret. Hard kill APS which can deal even with DU sabots, and gun&round combo which goes trough more then 1000mm at 2km.

So we can say Russians resurrect heavy tank destroyer.

On other hand it would suck in urban combat, no wonder they developed T-15. Last thing I read they are planning to have Terminator turret on T-15 chassis so that is their choice for urban warfare.

But in reality do Russians rely need T-14? For export of course but for them selfs? I doubt that, with nice number of new T-90 and many modernized T-72/80 there isn't need for one more tank no matter how good it is. Especally when NATO reduced its tank force a lot.

But they need T-15. They need it in 1990s! They had good lesson from A-stan they even start making something similar but then 1990s happened. In first battle of Grozny IFV based on tank with 2x30mm and Shmel rockets would be lot more effective then tanks which act more as targets then real danger for enemy. BMP-3 was also useless, thin armor and full of 100mm rounds it didn't fare much better then tanks.

Btw US army also need something similar, IFV on tank chassis would make troops lot more safe in urban combat then high tech wheels IFV.


Yes the T14 is an interesting design. Excellent crew protection that sacrifices turret survivability. It sounds like it will be a difficult tank to destroy but its gun will be susceptible to being disabled by enemy fire.

As for heavy IFVs, yes I think this is the direction the West is now heading in. You just need to look at the GVM of vehicles like Lynx Kf41, Griffin and even Namer to see this. Now if only the US Army would get its act together and pick one... :wink:

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 09 Mar 2020, 22:31
by knowan
milosh wrote:Hard kill APS which can deal even with DU sabots


https://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot. ... rview.html
Claims about the ability to defeat KE penetrators is questionable, but it must be noted that most of the informations about this are speculations or from rather biased and "patriotic" websites.




milosh wrote:and gun&round combo which goes trough more then 1000mm at 2km.


The claims of the gun/APFSDS penetration should also be treated with scepticism, as that puts the 125mm 2A82 as energetic as a 140mm gun.
In other words, it's physically impossible for the 2A82 to have the performance Russia is claiming.


milosh wrote:But they need T-15. They need it in 1990s!


Problem is, it's doubtful Russia can produce a significant number of Armata chassis.

Eg, the current production order is 132 T-14/15/16 to be produced 2019-2021, but only 16 were produced in 2019, so it is doubtful even that limited order will be produced on time; at the current production rate, it won't be finished until 2027.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 09 Mar 2020, 23:49
by wrightwing
All Russian tanks share a similar vulnerability- the ammunition is in the hull. It makes for dramatic secondary explosions, and turrets flying off. It's also not conducive to crew members' survivability.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 10 Mar 2020, 00:18
by boogieman
True, although an ammunition cook-off tends to be pretty catastrophic for any tank. The blow out panels on the Abrams, for example, only seem to work if the barrier between the crew compartment and the ammunition remains intact. If it doesn't you get... well... this:


(1st vid)

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 10 Mar 2020, 01:40
by wrightwing
boogieman wrote:True, although an ammunition cook-off tends to be pretty catastrophic for any tank. The blow out panels on the Abrams, for example, only seem to work if the barrier between the crew compartment and the ammunition remains intact. If it doesn't you get... well... this:


(1st vid)

The Abrams is far less likely to have a cook-off, in the first place.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 10 Mar 2020, 02:17
by boogieman
wrightwing wrote:The Abrams is far less likely to have a cook-off, in the first place.

Depends on what tank you're comparing it to. When struck from the frontal aspect the M1 is extremely resilient, but from the rear and sides its ammunition racks are vulnerable.

Image
^(Apologies for the War Thunder image, but it is the clearest one I could find) :doh:
Image

Both tanks deviate from the traditional Russian design by separating the crew compartment from ammo stowage. Like I said before though, if the barrier between the crew and ammunition is compromised (eg. due to the trajectory of the penetrator) then the result is still liable to be catastrophic. Definitely a better system than T72 et al mind you...

My take away from this is that all MBT's are going to be heavily reliant on APS to directly defeat side, rear and top-down ATGM impacts as passive armour/ERA are unlikely to be sufficient. To that end, a Trophy equipped M1A2C still ought to be one of the best protected tanks out there and quite competitive with T14 in this regard.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 10 Mar 2020, 05:03
by knowan
One disadvantage of the T-14 ammunition storage compared to the Abrams is the T-14's turret is on top of the ammo storage, meaning an ammunition explosion will be contained for slightly longer and have a higher probability of catastrophic failure.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 10 Mar 2020, 05:17
by boogieman
Yep, it's a weird tank in many ways. The designers seem to have treated the turret and gun as being largely expendable so that they could devote extra weight to protecting the crew. Contrast this with the M1A2 which has DU plates in the turret cheeks. When combined with composites, this makes its turret extremely tough to pen or disable from head on.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 10 Mar 2020, 05:18
by weasel1962
boogieman wrote:To that end, a Trophy equipped M1A2C still ought to be one of the best protected tanks out there and quite competitive with T14 in this regard.


Had the impression its already there. Survivability enhancement item 10. Thought it include a few hundred systems in last year's budget.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 10 Mar 2020, 06:08
by Corsair1963
knowan wrote:One disadvantage of the T-14 ammunition storage compared to the Abrams is the T-14's turret is on top of the ammo storage, meaning an ammunition explosion will be contained for slightly longer and have a higher probability of catastrophic failure.



Yes, the ammo in the Abrams is in the aft part of the turret with blow off panels. Last place would want the ammo is in the tank itself....

Honestly, many of the pictures of lost Abrams. Are from hits in the after part of the turret. Which, may have knocked out the tank. Yet, the crew walked away without a scratch....

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 10 Mar 2020, 08:44
by boogieman
weasel1962 wrote:
boogieman wrote:To that end, a Trophy equipped M1A2C still ought to be one of the best protected tanks out there and quite competitive with T14 in this regard.


Had the impression its already there. Survivability enhancement item 10. Thought it include a few hundred systems in last year's budget.


Yep, deliveries are underway as we speak with ~four brigades worth of Abrams to be so-equipped (a mix of M1A1s and A2s AFAIK).

https://www.fdd.org/uncategorized/2019/ ... on-system/

A decent summary of things for those interested:


Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 10 Mar 2020, 13:00
by charlielima223
@milosh
To claim the T-14 is "crew is better protected compared to any tank in the world" is debatable. For one, the T-14 as of yet has no real combat experience be it against an insurgency or conventional military. In 1991 a US M1A1 and its crew was caught off guard and was hit from the side by an Iraqi Republican Guard T-72. The crew survived with vary injuries and the tank was disabled. There is almost a legendary story among British tankers about a Challenger 2 during the push into Iraq, was ambushed taking multiple hits from RPGs and ATGMs (I think a total of 72 direct hits), the tank survived limping back to friendly forces and while the crew survived. Then these fun little videos...



Before you point to examples of Saudi and Iraqi M1s, understand that exported M1s do not have the same level of protection (or armor package) as their US counterparts. From my understanding only the US Abrams is have the famed Chobham/Burlington armor (only other tank that has it is the British Challenger) and DU plating.

Second just because the crew is in a different compartment doesnt mean they will be completely protected if all that ammo behind them is cooked off. The ammo compartment with the loaders door closed on the M1 Abrams is designed to direct all that force upwards and out.

I dont know how well protected the T-14 crew will be incase all that ammo is cooked off behind them.

Then there are other well known tanks out there that also claim to have the most crew protection. Such as the Israeli Merkava and the German Leopard 2A5.

I will admit my bias is in favor towards the M1 Abrams. However I wont say that the T-14 isnt survivable. I will say that the T-14 is DEFINITELY more survivable than previous Russian tanks. I will applaud its clever design and it having a very formidable layered defense. To me the T-14 takes everything Russian tanks already have and put it into a more efficient design.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 10 Mar 2020, 13:29
by charlielima223
I want to address people sounding off about a heavy IFV/ICV for the US Military and saying, "why cant they have something like the Namer. Before I go any further, does anyone remember the GCV concept?
Image
Essentially something that weighs close to an M1A2 with equal or more protection and the offensive capability of an M2 Bradley. Sounds nice until you start to look at what type of responsibilities and capabilities the US Military has.

Even though the US Military is rather large and has a heavy fighting force, the US Military is also a very expeditionary fighting force. The biggest complaint of the M1 Abrams is its weight. Over the years the M1 Abrams has only gotten heavier and the latest M1A2C weighs in at 73 tons, 13 tons heavier than the original M1. A C-17 can only accomodate 1 and the C-5 struggles with 2. NATO military logistic planners have voiced concerns with the increasing weight of western tanks (especially the M1) because European roads and bridges wont be able to adequately accomodate their movement and deployment. Having a heavy IFV/ICV wont alleviate this.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 10 Mar 2020, 16:34
by milosh
knowan wrote:One disadvantage of the T-14 ammunition storage compared to the Abrams is the T-14's turret is on top of the ammo storage, meaning an ammunition explosion will be contained for slightly longer and have a higher probability of catastrophic failure.


No, this cutaway explain why:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EKgPeBMW4AE-H75.png

Crew is 100% separated from ammo with armor. So if ammo cooked off it can only blow upwards so it would damage turret which is already non funcional without auto loader.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 10 Mar 2020, 22:36
by knowan
milosh wrote:
knowan wrote:One disadvantage of the T-14 ammunition storage compared to the Abrams is the T-14's turret is on top of the ammo storage, meaning an ammunition explosion will be contained for slightly longer and have a higher probability of catastrophic failure.


No, this cutaway explain why:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EKgPeBMW4AE-H75.png

Crew is 100% separated from ammo with armor. So if ammo cooked off it can only blow upwards so it would damage turret which is already non funcional without auto loader.


And the Abrams has armored doors separating the crew from the ammo; those systems can fail.

With the weight of the T-14 turret containing an explosion for longer than the blow off panels on the Abrams, there is a greater probability of catastrophic failure of the crew protection.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2020, 00:59
by boogieman
knowan wrote:And the Abrams has armored doors separating the crew from the ammo; those systems can fail.

With the weight of the T-14 turret containing an explosion for longer than the blow off panels on the Abrams, there is a greater probability of catastrophic failure of the crew protection.


Admittedly I have no evidence for this but I would expect the cabin/ammo barrier in T14 to have been designed to withstand an ammo cook off much like the one in the Abrams. The bigger issue to me is if a penetrator managed to compromise that barrier. Then again if that were to happen the crew would probably be dead anyway...

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2020, 11:24
by weasel1962
Something like this re armored capsule. Still doesn't matter to a 500 lb ljdam.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2020, 16:48
by milosh
@knowan
And the Abrams has armored doors separating the crew from the ammo; those systems can fail.


Loader need to open door to take round and there is also problem if door isnt't seal right, part of ammo explosion could enter in turret:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViJtarUgPIg

In case of T-14 you have solid peace of steel between rounds and crew so no explosion will enter in crew space.
Mostly likely explosion will exit were APS tubes are, blowing them and turret sheet cover above them.
https://i.pinimg.com/564x/7c/57/c4/7c57 ... 18e92a.jpg

Btw officials confirmed DU sabot was intercepted with APS and it was success,why people expect APS disintegrate DU sabot I don't know, it probable damaged it enough so sabot lose its penetrating capability.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2020, 19:58
by madrat
Let's just have the men drive around armored greyhound buses and call it a day...

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2020, 05:08
by knowan
milosh wrote:Loader need to open door to take round and there is also problem if door isnt't seal right, part of ammo explosion could enter in turret:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViJtarUgPIg

In case of T-14 you have solid peace of steel between rounds and crew so no explosion will enter in crew space.
Mostly likely explosion will exit were APS tubes are, blowing them and turret sheet cover above them.
https://i.pinimg.com/564x/7c/57/c4/7c57 ... 18e92a.jpg


And the force on the crew protection of the T-14 is much greater. And it can still fail if the blast isn't vented fast enough or if it is stronger than expected due to more HE projectiles detonating than expected.

Further, in the event of an ammo detonation the Abrams can remain in combat; it will have lost most or all of its main gun ammunition, but it will likely still have one round in the tube and operational machineguns. And when it retires it can be quickly repaired.
If the T-14 suffers an ammo detonation, it loses the entire turret; it has no armament or combat capability remaining, repairs will take more time and be vastly more expensive.


milosh wrote:Btw officials confirmed DU sabot was intercepted with APS and it was success,why people expect APS disintegrate DU sabot I don't know, it probable damaged it enough so sabot lose its penetrating capability.


Don't trust Russian propaganda, they're up there with Iran and North Korea for grandiose claims.

The T-14 and T-15 have extensive passive protection to protect against both shaped-charge and KE penetrators. If their APS was as good as Russian propaganda claims, the designs would be totally different, sacrificing passive protection for increased APS coverage.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2020, 21:39
by milosh
knowan wrote:And the force on the crew protection of the T-14 is much greater. And it can still fail if the blast isn't vented fast enough or if it is stronger than expected due to more HE projectiles detonating than expected.


So they projected new tank and didn't take in consideration worst case scenario? I really doubt that.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2020, 01:24
by knowan
milosh wrote:So they projected new tank and didn't take in consideration worst case scenario? I really doubt that.


A steel plate isn't going to protect the crew if 10+ kg of high-explosive detonates on the other side of it.

If Russia wanted the crew protection system to work even under worst case scenarios like that, they wouldn't have put the ammunition in the hull at all.

The designers put the ammunition in the hull, because the crew protection system in the T-14 is a compromise between crew protection and keeping the turret as small and light as possible.

A better system would have been the ammunition stored in a larger turret with blow out panels on the turret roof, but that would have substantially increased the turret size and required significant armor protection to prevent the tank being easily disarmed.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2020, 01:45
by madrat
The next generation coming from China is going to push numbers. The next generation from the West is chasing that never ending quality over quantity motiff. I'm not sure you shouldn't be going for something in between as a safeguard.

It's time to invest in some sort of 6x6 automation that is soft skinned overall, but has point protection over vitals. Significant amount of heavy rounds would need to hit it to kill off redundant systems. The thing would be equipped with the equivalent of the EODAS, only networked between automatons. And the weaponry could consist of remote aimed machine guns and vertical launch ATGWs. The weapons would be dispersed in 3-dimensions within the hull so no one hit could disable all of them with less than a half dozen or more heavy rounds, or literally a long sustained barrage of mid-caliber rounds. And you could add some passive defenses on it so they aren't just sitting ducks to a bunch of incoming hits. Automatons could rapidly direct counter-fire much faster than a human.

That and armed RC cars so troops can sneak up on enemy encampments in complete darkness. The RC units could dispatch minor targets that threaten humans operating in the area. Maybe they carry IEDs in them. Maybe they can fling .45 or .308 bullets in a pinch. Both humans and their stealthy RC units would provide localized targeting. If big guns are in range, give them hell. Let the MBTs and mobile infantry evolve into capabilities that allow for highly mobile indirect fire platforms. Organized artillery units cannot be everywhere. Nor should they be exposed to possible counter-fire when opportunistic indirect fire is available to guns already within reach. Fire and move out.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2020, 06:37
by weasel1962
knowan wrote:A better system would have been the ammunition stored in a larger turret with blow out panels on the turret roof, but that would have substantially increased the turret size and required significant armor protection to prevent the tank being easily disarmed.


Yes and no.
Ammo.png


Putting the ammo in the turret exposes the ammo to more lines of fire. The trade off being that the turret can move to reduce the opposing attack angles (and thus reducing risk).

Putting ammo in the hull reduces risks from lines of fire frontal and rear due to increased armor in front and the engine behind (in the case of T-14).

Can eliminate the turret risk by eliminating ammo in the sides (and only placing ammo in the rear). In the diagram above, that's removing the storage in yellow. But again if one does the same in the hull, the largest cross section is again protected and the risk area is actually less in the hull than in the turret. Placing the ammo in the hull also means the turret can be smaller which is again advantageous in a hull down position. The difference again being that the turret is movable.

It also depends on operational philosophy. If defensive, then the tank could be in a hull-down position with only the exposed turret. In a hull down position, the ammo in the hull is not exposed whereas ammo in the turret would be (even if only from the rear. The advantage for ammo in the turret would be in maneuver warfare (which is where US tends to use its tanks).

The disclaimer being that all this is largely irrelevant when hit by a LJDAM.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2020, 13:13
by madrat
You bring up an interesting point. Maybe tanks should have dual motors to enhance protection both front and back. Single motors are better use of space, but a single motor hit almost always means no more movement. Twin motors, with high power to weight ratios helps, and on opposite ends of the hull, help assure you stay mobile even while losing one. You can begin scooting immediately under electric when in a pinch. A hybrid assures much quicker mobility in an emergency because electric motors have great torque for only as long as you have stored power, and a large battery storage is a vulnerability. Electric drives don't offer that added protection of a ICE motor, but you probably need them too for minimal emissions while parked.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2020, 20:24
by milosh
knowan wrote:If Russia wanted the crew protection system to work even under worst case scenarios like that, they wouldn't have put the ammunition in the hull at all.

The designers put the ammunition in the hull, because the crew protection system in the T-14 is a compromise between crew protection and keeping the turret as small and light as possible.

Yes but protection as it is now is very good. Any weapon is compromise, Armata is universal hull, same hull is used for T-14 and T-15, because T-15 is ifv+apc chassis need to be long, so why not use it to store autoloader and ammo.

Btw T-14 have turret ammo bustle but it is used to reloading autoloader while tank isn't in combat:
https://i.pinimg.com/564x/7c/57/c4/7c57 ... 18e92a.jpg

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2020, 03:22
by knowan
weasel1962 wrote:Yes and no.
Ammo.png


Putting the ammo in the turret exposes the ammo to more lines of fire. The trade off being that the turret can move to reduce the opposing attack angles (and thus reducing risk).

Putting ammo in the hull reduces risks from lines of fire frontal and rear due to increased armor in front and the engine behind (in the case of T-14).

Can eliminate the turret risk by eliminating ammo in the sides (and only placing ammo in the rear). In the diagram above, that's removing the storage in yellow. But again if one does the same in the hull, the largest cross section is again protected and the risk area is actually less in the hull than in the turret. Placing the ammo in the hull also means the turret can be smaller which is again advantageous in a hull down position. The difference again being that the turret is movable.

It also depends on operational philosophy. If defensive, then the tank could be in a hull-down position with only the exposed turret. In a hull down position, the ammo in the hull is not exposed whereas ammo in the turret would be (even if only from the rear. The advantage for ammo in the turret would be in maneuver warfare (which is where US tends to use its tanks).

The disclaimer being that all this is largely irrelevant when hit by a LJDAM.


I don't think the T-14 is designed for hull down combat; the gun apparently only has 5 degrees of gun depression, and while the turret is a small target it has only limited armor protection.
While a turret hit wouldn't injure or kill the crew, the poor armor protection means hits from anything beyond a light AT weapon is highly likely to disable the turret.



milosh wrote:Yes but protection as it is now is very good. Any weapon is compromise, Armata is universal hull, same hull is used for T-14 and T-15, because T-15 is ifv+apc chassis need to be long, so why not use it to store autoloader and ammo.

Btw T-14 have turret ammo bustle but it is used to reloading autoloader while tank isn't in combat:
https://i.pinimg.com/564x/7c/57/c4/7c57 ... 18e92a.jpg


Good point, universal chassis is another reason for compromises I didn't think of.

Does that turret bustle have any sort of blow out panels, or is it expected the distance of the bustle from the crew will provide sufficient protection in the event of a detonation?

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2020, 05:53
by charlielima223
@weasel1962
I dont believe any MBT can survive a hit from a 500lbs JDAM or SDB striking at terminal velocity (unless it has some kind of advanced hyper-alloy armor called adamantium/vibranium/unobtanium). If that was the thinking of all military planners in the services then there would be no use for any kind of ground force. The talk and discussion of an MBT having mutual support from varying sectors is indeed relevant. That is why pretty much every major military power practices and contemplates combined arms.

@milosh
Testing the seal on the ammo blast doors of the tank is basic PMC. You typically do not deploy without running basic PMC on vital components or field user accessible parts.

Further protection to the crew is afforded by an automatic fire suppression system. This fire suppression system is so effective that according to tank crew accounts during the push through Iraq, disabled M1 tanks that had to be destroyed by other M1 tanks were unsuccessful because the fire suppression system put out the fire in the crew compartment too quickly to have any lasting/significant damage. From my understanding the US military was/has been looking to use another chemical agent that isnt as hazardous to the crews health.

I would also like to point something out regarding active protection systems. From my understanding they are primarily used to defeat ATGMs, RPGs, and other chemical warheads. They are less effective at defeating/defending against HV kinetic rounds due to their (you guessed it) high velocity. From my understanding attempts to upgrade APS to defend against HV kinetic rounds by disrupting their trajectory thus reducing ability to defeat armor as seen in this Trophy APS advertisement (time index 1:30)


Also how effective is ERA against current advanced ATGMs like Javelin, Spikes, Brimstone and the latest anti-armor variant of the Hellfire? All of which have tandem warheads designed to negate the protection values of ERA. I know someone is going to pipe up with "heavy" ERA. Unless that "heavy" ERA destroyed the missile itself and its main charge and the tank has a robust composite and NERA underneath those ERA blocks, newer ATGMs (especially with a top attack profile) are still a nasty threat to any MBT

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2020, 07:21
by weasel1962
CL, I agree. I also note Knowan's comment on lack of depression. The lack of depression is a function of a smaller silouette to reduce target size. It doesn't mean it can't do hull down.

I think it probably reflects the Russian view on defence that a tank would need more prepared positions, than just relying a natural crest for a hull down. That probably why many later Russki tanks have a dozer blade which I won't be surprised to see eventually on operational T-14s. The lack of the depression being I suspect offset by thicker front armor, whether turret or hull.

To increase gun depression, the tank needs to be taller = bigger target if not in hull down. Again its a question of trade offs rather than any real inferiority on the part of design which is more the point I'm making.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2020, 14:54
by milosh
First two and last two wheels have computer controlled suspension so maybe use them for gun elevation:
Image

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2020, 16:20
by zhangmdev
The purpose of those hydropneumatic suspensions may be just to improve mobility. To adjust chassis elevation, I think all running wheels should be adjustable, like those Korean and Japanese tanks.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2020, 16:47
by milosh
zhangmdev wrote:The purpose of those hydropneumatic suspensions may be just to improve mobility. To adjust chassis elevation, I think all running wheels should be adjustable, like those Korean and Japanese tanks.


You don't need all adjustable wheels:
https://gfycat.com/blandwelllitbaboon

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2020, 18:32
by zhangmdev
S-Tank is too special and too old to be relevant here. Description of its suspension system can be found here:

http://amps-armor.org/SiteReviews/ShowR ... px?id=3933

Also its "footprint" is relatively short. And it has only 4 road wheels on each side. Changing hull elevation is relatively easy.

The new track system being tested on Bradley has identical suspension arms on all road wheels, and they are self-contained, no centralized hydralic oil reservoir used on S-Tank.

https://defence-blog.com/army/u-s-army- ... ystem.html

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2020, 19:31
by milosh
zhangmdev wrote:S-Tank is too special and too old to be relevant here. Description of its suspension system can be found here:

http://amps-armor.org/SiteReviews/ShowR ... px?id=3933

Also its "footprint" is relatively short. And it has only 4 road wheels on each side. Changing hull elevation is relatively easy.



It doesn't matter it is old it just shows why you don't need all adjustable wheels. Similar principle is used on T-14 so I don't see reason why you can't use adjustable wheels for smaller gun elevation.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2020, 20:22
by zhangmdev
If you replace hydropneumatic cylinders of the 2nd and 3rd road wheel of S-Tank with traditional torsion bars, will it still work? I don't know. If you are building the 21st century super tank, why not just go full hydropneumatic suspension and call it a day? Until T-14 definitely demonstrates its ability to change hull elevation/ground clearance, I am skeptical.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2020, 21:46
by milosh
zhangmdev wrote:If you replace hydropneumatic cylinders of the 2nd and 3rd road wheel of S-Tank with traditional torsion bars, will it still work? I don't know. If you are building the 21st century super tank, why not just go full hydropneumatic suspension and call it a day? Until T-14 definitely demonstrates its ability to change hull elevation/ground clearance, I am skeptical.


S-tank have hydropenumatic on first and last wheel:
https://tanks.mod16.org/2016/09/29/demo ... -strv-103/

but not on second and third. So tech wise it is similar to what Russians done on Armata.

Why not going with full HP suspension on T-14? Price and complexity.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 16 Mar 2020, 12:32
by zhangmdev
As far as I know S-Tank's 2nd and 3rd road wheels have hydropneumatic suspension too. Maybe they are soft enough to be pressed down by gravity alone.

And how much harder or more expensive will it be to install 6 more identical arms? It isn't days of S-Tank or MBT-70 any more.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2020, 16:14
by charlielima223
weasel1962 wrote:CL, I agree. I also note Knowan's comment on lack of depression. The lack of depression is a function of a smaller silouette to reduce target size. It doesn't mean it can't do hull down.

I think it probably reflects the Russian view on defence that a tank would need more prepared positions, than just relying a natural crest for a hull down. That probably why many later Russki tanks have a dozer blade which I won't be surprised to see eventually on operational T-14s. The lack of the depression being I suspect offset by thicker front armor, whether turret or hull.

To increase gun depression, the tank needs to be taller = bigger target if not in hull down. Again its a question of trade offs rather than any real inferiority on the part of design which is more the point I'm making.


Speaking of the T-14, the T-14 and is too much for the Russian economy and the Russian military budget much like the Su-57.

https://thediplomat.com/2018/08/russia- ... ttle-tank/

They're only going to produce a couple hundred T-14s.

Every design has its compromises, no disagreement there. However with the introduction of highly integrated computerized target and acquisition sights, this has made the low profile design all but obsolete IMO. This is why I think the T-14 departed away from the low profile silhouette seen on the T-72, 80, and 90. During the Gulf War US Abrams devastated Iraqi T-72s with superior accuracy at long range and in terms of first round hits. To my knowledge the longest range tank to tank kill was scored by a British Challenger 1, almost 3mi if I remember correctly.

Design is often a reflection of tactical doctrine. Ever see training videos of western tanks on the firing range? During certain areas the tanks will fire over the crest of a mound or elevatation and then go into reverse. From my understanding this is sort of like a pop up and shoot. After firing the tank can safely hide behind the crest as the tank reloads for the next round. An old retired tanker acquaintance of mine said the Cold War tank design emphasized a more defense mindset.

Also here is an interesting explanation of the differences in reloading methods of the Abrams, Challenger 2, and Leopard 2.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2020, 18:11
by underscan
I know that Iraq had purchased some T-72M parts from Poland but did Iraq have any factories to produce Rha steel?

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2020, 19:13
by milosh
underscan wrote:I know that Iraq had purchased some T-72M parts from Poland but did Iraq have any factories to produce Rha steel?


Biggest problem was round, Iraqis used 3BM-15 it is steel only sabot. So better armor wouldn't help a lot, M1 still had much better round and FCS. In fact even our T-72 clone (M-84, Kuwait use them) which had very advanced FCS for that time (western like compared to soviet FCS):
http://www.srpskioklop.paluba.info/m84/m84-suv.htm

wouldn't be much better against M1 because of weak round.

@charlielima223

They had to be pretty bold plan to get something like 2500 Armata in this decade and replace everything with them. That would cost a lot (10 billions just for tanks but much more for logistics and retraining). Also T-14 isn't for urban combat. T-90MS with APS is better and even older tanks if they don't carry ammo around turret and less rounds in autoloader (empty space could be filled with some kind of fire supresion solution).

T-90M upgrade look quite interesting they used T-14 tech (gun and fcs):
https://militarywatchmagazine.com/artic ... chnologies

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2020, 13:59
by knowan
underscan wrote:I know that Iraq had purchased some T-72M parts from Poland but did Iraq have any factories to produce Rha steel?


Iraq didn't have factories to produce T-72 parts at all AFAIK; the whole 'Iraqi produced T-72' thing started from the idea to assemble some T-72s locally from Polish knock-down kits, and it's unknown if any of those were even assembled.



milosh wrote:Biggest problem was round, Iraqis used 3BM-15 it is steel only sabot. So better armor wouldn't help a lot, M1 still had much better round and FCS.


Yep, 3BM-15 had little chance against the frontal armor of a M1; it would probably struggle even against a M60 at combat ranges.

3BM-15 had a small (about 70mm long) tungsten slug though. It was the older 3BM-9 that was steel only.



milosh wrote:T-90M upgrade look quite interesting they used T-14 tech (gun and fcs):


T-90M didn't get the T-14's gun in the end, it has the 2A46M-4 instead.

https://thediplomat.com/2019/03/russias ... s-in-2019/

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2020, 12:46
by hornetfinn
milosh wrote:Biggest problem was round, Iraqis used 3BM-15 it is steel only sabot. So better armor wouldn't help a lot, M1 still had much better round and FCS. In fact even our T-72 clone (M-84, Kuwait use them) which had very advanced FCS for that time (western like compared to soviet FCS):


Iraqi T-72s were totally inferior to M1s. Far inferior sights, FCS, armour and ammo. T-72 had decent mobility and was smaller but it really had very little chance. If Iraqi T-72s had to face Russian T-80Us with 3BM-32 rounds, the end result would've been pretty much the same. Of course Iraqi forces had to also face the wrath of overwhelming air power and superior ATGMs. I think Desert Storm tells us very little when it comes to comparison of vehicles between East and West.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2020, 21:02
by madrat
Didn't Saddam's forces rely on Chinese versions and aftermarket parts, too. Poor fellas.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2020, 02:18
by boogieman
Bit of a random question here that is mildly OT but I couldn't find a better thread for it:

I remember reading about Javelin (FGM-148) in years past and hearing that it had a time-to-lock of somewhere around 30s-1min (if memory serves). Is this correct? If so I find it kind of surprising since the FPA IIR seeker on the AIM9X, for example, is supposed to lock its targets more or less instantly. Would be quite a nuisance needing 30+ seconds to lock a target that keeps popping in and out of cover in a high intensity land battle...

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2020, 03:14
by michaelemouse
boogieman wrote:Bit of a random question here that is mildly OT but I couldn't find a better thread for it:

I remember reading about Javelin (FGM-148) in years past and hearing that it had a time-to-lock of somewhere around 30s-1min (if memory serves). Is this correct? If so I find it kind of surprising since the FPA IIR seeker on the AIM9X, for example, is supposed to lock its targets more or less instantly. Would be quite a nuisance needing 30+ seconds to lock a target that keeps popping in and out of cover in a high intensity land battle...



I'm really not sure but maybe the 30 seconds figure means time-from-turning-on-to-firing. The AIM9X is more expensive/fancier, bigger and aimed at a hotter target against a sparser background than the Javelin.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2020, 03:45
by boogieman
michaelemouse wrote:
boogieman wrote:Bit of a random question here that is mildly OT but I couldn't find a better thread for it:

I remember reading about Javelin (FGM-148) in years past and hearing that it had a time-to-lock of somewhere around 30s-1min (if memory serves). Is this correct? If so I find it kind of surprising since the FPA IIR seeker on the AIM9X, for example, is supposed to lock its targets more or less instantly. Would be quite a nuisance needing 30+ seconds to lock a target that keeps popping in and out of cover in a high intensity land battle...



I'm really not sure but maybe the 30 seconds figure means time-from-turning-on-to-firing. The AIM9X is more expensive/fancier, bigger and aimed at a hotter target against a sparser background than the Javelin.

Yeah it would be handy to get the input of someone who has fired the thing, because I understand the CLU and missile seeker need to be cooled prior to firing (at least in early Javelin variants) but the time-to-lock struck me as a PITA. Any ATGM is going to have some built-in set up time, but you really want to be able to fire it as soon as a target comes into view, or at targets that are darting in and out of cover.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2020, 08:23
by hornetfinn
michaelemouse wrote:
boogieman wrote:Bit of a random question here that is mildly OT but I couldn't find a better thread for it:

I remember reading about Javelin (FGM-148) in years past and hearing that it had a time-to-lock of somewhere around 30s-1min (if memory serves). Is this correct? If so I find it kind of surprising since the FPA IIR seeker on the AIM9X, for example, is supposed to lock its targets more or less instantly. Would be quite a nuisance needing 30+ seconds to lock a target that keeps popping in and out of cover in a high intensity land battle...



I'm really not sure but maybe the 30 seconds figure means time-from-turning-on-to-firing. The AIM9X is more expensive/fancier, bigger and aimed at a hotter target against a sparser background than the Javelin.


I bet that's where the 30 seconds come from. Javelin became operational about 25 years ago and uses early 1990s technology. Then it was necessary to cool down the IIR seekers to get good enough performance and 30 seconds sounds about right.

Here it's stated that Javelins will receive uncooled seekers which would erase the time needed for cooling. https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub ... 155807-307

The Spiral 3 eff ort develops a new launch tube assembly and battery unit, and will replace the current gas-cooled
seeker with an uncooled seeker in the guidance section of the missile. Production missiles will be designated FGM-148G.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2020, 08:54
by boogieman
hornetfinn wrote:
michaelemouse wrote:
boogieman wrote:Bit of a random question here that is mildly OT but I couldn't find a better thread for it:

I remember reading about Javelin (FGM-148) in years past and hearing that it had a time-to-lock of somewhere around 30s-1min (if memory serves). Is this correct? If so I find it kind of surprising since the FPA IIR seeker on the AIM9X, for example, is supposed to lock its targets more or less instantly. Would be quite a nuisance needing 30+ seconds to lock a target that keeps popping in and out of cover in a high intensity land battle...



I'm really not sure but maybe the 30 seconds figure means time-from-turning-on-to-firing. The AIM9X is more expensive/fancier, bigger and aimed at a hotter target against a sparser background than the Javelin.


I bet that's where the 30 seconds come from. Javelin became operational about 25 years ago and uses early 1990s technology. Then it was necessary to cool down the IIR seekers to get good enough performance and 30 seconds sounds about right.

Here it's stated that Javelins will receive uncooled seekers which would erase the time needed for cooling. https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub ... 155807-307

The Spiral 3 eff ort develops a new launch tube assembly and battery unit, and will replace the current gas-cooled
seeker with an uncooled seeker in the guidance section of the missile. Production missiles will be designated FGM-148G.


Totally plausible. I thought they were moving to an uncooled CLU too. Now all the Jav needs is some form of man-in-loop guidance to bring it in line with the competition.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2020, 09:31
by gideonic
hornetfinn wrote: I bet that's where the 30 seconds come from. Javelin became operational about 25 years ago and uses early 1990s technology. Then it was necessary to cool down the IIR seekers to get good enough performance and 30 seconds sounds about right.

Here it's stated that Javelins will receive uncooled seekers which would erase the time needed for cooling. https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub ... 155807-307

The Spiral 3 eff ort develops a new launch tube assembly and battery unit, and will replace the current gas-cooled
seeker with an uncooled seeker in the guidance section of the missile. Production missiles will be designated FGM-148G.

Overall you're correct. I'll just add a few details as we alos operate Javelin in the Estonian Defence League and therefore I have a bit of experience with it (40-ish hours it the simulator and dozens of outdoor exercises with actual Command Launch Units. I've also spectated multiple live shots, though haven't had the honor to live-fire it myself).

As this is rather old tech, most of the info is directly on wikipedia and there are even full FGM-148 manuals available on the "interwebs", it probably isn't such a secret to share the basics (as these are listed in the manuals and have nothing to do with the way we operate around them anyhow).

The Javelin consists of 2 parts. the CLU (Command Launch Unit) and the round (missile) Both have separate seekers that operate a bit differently though both are actively cooled. The CLU is cooled by a battery operated DDC (Detector Dewar Cooler) that indeed might take 30s or even minutes (with very hot weather) to enable NVS (Thermal Sight) on the CLU, but then again also allows the CLU to be used for hours on a single battery, which is easily replacable/chargeable.

The missile is powered and cooled by its own BCU (Battery Coolant Unit) that only last a couple of minutes, but can cool the missile in the matter of seconds (with compressed gas). You do not need to use the night-sights on the CLU to be able to fire the missile, as it's done via the missile seeker anyway. Therefore, if necessary, it can be done quite rapidly (considerably quicker than 30 seconds, provided you have the round already attached).

The uncooled seeker is indeed a much anticipated upgrade that is being developed (as it simplifies the logistics and operating greatly), though I'ts unclear whether we'll see this in our parts any time soon or at all.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2020, 09:36
by hornetfinn
boogieman wrote:Totally plausible. I thought they were moving to an uncooled CLU too. Now all the Jav needs is some form of man-in-loop guidance to bring it in line with the competition.


Yeah, uncooled sensors are really taking over as their imaging performance is getting close enough to cooled sensors for many applications while having many advantages (cost, weight, maintenance requirements, power requirements, no cooling time). For ATGMs and their CLUs modern uncooled sensors are definitely the best option. For aircraft targeting pods nothing beats cooled MWIR sensors in performance and they will keep using those as the disadvantages are not a problem.

Man-in-the-loop guidance for Javelin would be very interesting but I'm not sure how much benefits it would offer due to relatively short range of the missile and not being designed for such from the beginning. Maybe develop a new one or just buy the Spike LR2 missiles.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2020, 10:10
by gideonic
hornetfinn wrote:Man-in-the-loop guidance for Javelin would be very interesting but I'm not sure how much benefits it would offer due to relatively short range of the missile and not being designed for such from the beginning. Maybe develop a new one or just buy the Spike LR2 missiles.

Agreed. This looks like a big-enough redesign that a new missile would be more appropriate (let's not forget that an optic cable would also be highly-desirable in that case). For instance Estonia did exactly that - bought Spike LR despite already operating Javelin (which theoretically could have similar range, if it weren't limited by the seeker).

Man-in-the-loop would have it's benefits but Javelin wasn't really been built for that.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2020, 10:51
by boogieman
gideonic wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:Man-in-the-loop guidance for Javelin would be very interesting but I'm not sure how much benefits it would offer due to relatively short range of the missile and not being designed for such from the beginning. Maybe develop a new one or just buy the Spike LR2 missiles.

Agreed. This looks like a big-enough redesign that a new missile would be more appropriate (let's not forget that an optic cable would also be highly-desirable in that case). For instance Estonia did exactly that - bought Spike LR despite already operating Javelin (which theoretically could have similar range, if it weren't limited by the seeker).

Man-in-the-loop would have it's benefits but Javelin wasn't really been built for that.

Perfect, thanks for the info. Yes we are heading down the Spike LR2 path now in Australia as well - both for our IFVs and infantry. I take it Spike will totally replace Javelin in Australian service.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2020, 11:47
by hornetfinn
Spike LR2 has some very interesting capabilities for ATGM and would definitely make any enemy tanker sweat.
https://www.rafael.co.il/wp-content/upl ... ke-LR2.pdf

It has uncooled seeker which means very quick reaction times. The missile also has color visible light sensor which definitely enhances daytime capabiltiies with higher resolution and seeing colors and shadows. Another interesting feature is has "fire to coordinates" capability along with "fire and forget" and "fire and observe" modes. This allows effective third party targeting. It also has two different warhead options with regular tandem HEAT and multipurpose warhead. Multipurpose warhead is likely better for many situations against enemies with little to no modern MBTs. Of course it also has very nice range, at least twice the Javelin range. It does all this while being only very slightly larger and heavier than current Javelin system. I can definitely see why it has become so popular.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2020, 12:04
by michaelemouse
hornetfinn wrote:Spike LR2 has some very interesting capabilities for ATGM and would definitely make any enemy tanker sweat.
https://www.rafael.co.il/wp-content/upl ... ke-LR2.pdf

It has uncooled seeker which means very quick reaction times. The missile also has color visible light sensor which definitely enhances daytime capabiltiies with higher resolution and seeing colors and shadows. Another interesting feature is has "fire to coordinates" capability along with "fire and forget" and "fire and observe" modes. This allows effective third party targeting. It also has two different warhead options with regular tandem HEAT and multipurpose warhead. Multipurpose warhead is likely better for many situations against enemies with little to no modern MBTs. Of course it also has very nice range, at least twice the Javelin range. It does all this while being only very slightly larger and heavier than current Javelin system. I can definitely see why it has become so popular.


What is fire and observe? How is it different from lock-on after launch?

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2020, 12:30
by hornetfinn
michaelemouse wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:Spike LR2 has some very interesting capabilities for ATGM and would definitely make any enemy tanker sweat.
https://www.rafael.co.il/wp-content/upl ... ke-LR2.pdf

It has uncooled seeker which means very quick reaction times. The missile also has color visible light sensor which definitely enhances daytime capabiltiies with higher resolution and seeing colors and shadows. Another interesting feature is has "fire to coordinates" capability along with "fire and forget" and "fire and observe" modes. This allows effective third party targeting. It also has two different warhead options with regular tandem HEAT and multipurpose warhead. Multipurpose warhead is likely better for many situations against enemies with little to no modern MBTs. Of course it also has very nice range, at least twice the Javelin range. It does all this while being only very slightly larger and heavier than current Javelin system. I can definitely see why it has become so popular.


What is fire and observe? How is it different from lock-on after launch?


It's the man-in-the-loop mode. Basically the gunner shoots the missile and observes from launch unit display what the missile seeker sees and what it thas locked on to. The gunner can then choose to do nothing or he can refine the hit-point (especially against buildings) or he can lock on another target within the seeker FoV or he can abort the mission and not engage anything with the missile self-destructing. In that mode he can lock-on before or after the launch. So this mode is more extensive than just LOAL.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2020, 23:15
by charlielima223
Full disclaimer, I haven't shot one. However it was part of a 3 day heavy weapons and crew serve weapon familiarization and training course.

The CLU (command launch unit) and the launch unit aka The Tube can be set up and synched in under 2 minutes (user experience and proficiency a factor of course, took me i think under 4 with instructions).

This is going off memory and its been years... this IS NOT verbatim

The Javelin is a man portable advanced anti-tank guided missile system with fire and forget capability. it is carried by a two man team, one has the CLU and the other has the tube. It has a two stage launch cycle; soft launch and active. Soft launch reduces thermal signature of the shooting the position allowing the firing team to move and relocate shortly after launch. Active launch cycle activates the rocket motor propelling the missile upward toward the target.

Upon arming, a solid box will appear. Place the box over the intended target and switch to acquisition mode. A 4 corner box will appear inplace of the solid box along with a crosshair. Hold acquisition keeping the crosshairs over the target allowing the 4 corners to enclose on the crosshair. Upon full acquisition a solid box will appear enclosing the target along with the crosshair automatically tracking. The shooter must keep the target in their field of view. Inform back blast area clear before releasing final safeties to fire. I most likely got a few things backwards or a little off but you get the jest.

Depending on the target an experienced operator can engage an identified stationary target in 5 seconds and a moving (depending on size distance and speed) target in 20.

The Javelin has also successfully been tested to engage at extended range
https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2015-06 ... ring-Tests

https://www.army-technology.com/news/ne ... y-4924678/

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2020, 02:05
by boogieman
^Great info, thanks. So ~20sec to lock up a moving target once the Jav is set up? Still seems like quite a while :|

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2020, 17:16
by charlielima223
boogieman wrote:^Great info, thanks. So ~20sec to lock up a moving target once the Jav is set up? Still seems like quite a while :|


It seems like a long time but it really isnt especially from a concealed position. There are many factors that can makes things worse like weather and terrain. A tank rolling up and over mounds and dunes or going through a built up structures can make it very difficult. Then there is the FoV setting the operator is using. Unlike something like a Sidewinder, there are more factors the IR seeker on a Javelin has to contend with.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2020, 21:17
by boogieman
No doubt - the Javelin has to stare into heavy clutter practically every time it is fired. Perhaps that is the beauty of Spike's design - the gunner can manually refine the target while the missile is in flight, giving the seeker time to adjust in mid-air. If he needs to stop his input to move at any point he can still do so though.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2020, 00:05
by madrat
I'm curious if you couldn't utilize robotics to make tanks obsolete in urban environments. You can probably look less like a tank and more like a variety of mobile camera systems to search and destroy targets from a distance. The command structure can sit out of sight or perhaps could coordinate miles away in safety, calling in the most cost-effective means to prosecute targets. Tanks are blunt force trauma when you really wanted surgical repair. Spend the money on processing the environment to uproot the combatants rather than just going in and wholesale chopping it to pieces. Warfare is moving away from non-personal total war concepts to a less visible yet probably much nastier up close and personal signature effort in the modern era. Facial recognition of everyone in the environment, identifying threats, journal-building a catalog of connections, indirect influences of individuals, and killing as a last resort is the future. Killing to kill is a waste of potential ally building. It really has been the predominant strategy in use for thousands of years but we tend to glorify the toys over diplomacy these days. The most effective armies are the ones that win without having to resort to killing their opponents, but rather turning them into tools to deliver the spoils over and over and over. If we aren't careful, the Chicoms will beat us to the punch.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2020, 01:43
by weasel1962
China did develop an unmanned MBT based on the type 59 platform whilst the Russians have developed the same for the T-72.
Cost could be a big factor but mitigated if using end of life inventory.

I think it does make sense at least for first wave assaults where casualties are likely to be the highest. The other role is improving situation awareness especially under fire. Cameras can still run even when the vehicle is disabled.

Same benefit in defence, it may not be sufficient to achieve a kill by putting a tank round thru a UGV hull, since the gun continues to operate. That's why 250 to 500lb-er still numero uno.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2020, 01:58
by boogieman
Didn't the Russians dip their toe in the water with the Uran9 UGV? Not sure how that one panned out... Personally I'd be concerned about losing the command link to the vehicle thanks to enemy EW and unwittingly donating a UGV to OPFOR...

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2020, 05:48
by knowan
boogieman wrote:Didn't the Russians dip their toe in the water with the Uran9 UGV? Not sure how that one panned out... Personally I'd be concerned about losing the command link to the vehicle thanks to enemy EW and unwittingly donating a UGV to OPFOR...


Uran9 was a massive flop: https://defence-blog.com/army/combat-te ... -tank.html

Probably the biggest flaw was extremely short command link range of just 300-500 meters in light urban terrain.

Re: Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2020, 06:00
by boogieman
knowan wrote:Uran9 was a massive flop: https://defence-blog.com/army/combat-te ... -tank.html

Probably the biggest flaw was extremely short command link range of just 300-500 meters in light urban terrain.


:shock: :lmao:

I think we should counter it with this just to be safe:
Image
Although best be careful, I hear new Russian AT weapons can defeat our frontal armour...
https://youtu.be/4Hm-h-nG5ng?t=662
:mrgreen: :P