T-62s in Russian Army

Isos wrote:
Anyway like this war and others have shown tank vs tank is unlikely to happen anymore. There is just too much anti tank weapons in the field compare to the numver of tanks. Most army can field less than 500 tanks while the total number of atgm, drones ane mibes is in the thousands.

This is a stupid argument that needs no refuting. Just saying to have it on record here.

Of course but the suicide drones hit 40km away over the horizon. Kornet hit 8km away in direct line of sight.

That's two different weapons for two different situations.

The volume of ground you would have to search to find targets 40km away would be enormous... it is a totally different job and not as easy as some seem to pretend.

With Kornet on the other hand the vehicles carrying the missiles will be operating several kms behind your armour and front units, so as the front units spot targets those Kornet units can engage and destroy them as they reveal themselves.

Using drones you have to hope to spot targets not moving and likely concealed and not firing... a much more difficult job... for a different type of attack and a different stage of the conflict.

For the Russians the systems doing the job would be attack helicopters finding their own targets behind enemy lines and laser guided artillery with drones spotting targets out to 20-30km behind enemy lines.

Anyway like this war and others have shown tank vs tank is unlikely to happen anymore. There is just too much anti tank weapons in the field compare to the numver of tanks. Most army can field less than 500 tanks while the total number of atgm, drones ane mibes is in the thousands.

With fully operational APS systems and armoured forces as opposed to the recon units the Russians are using in this conflict I would think their armour could take a hell of a lot more missiles to defeat... and even without that... how many Javelins and NLAWS and their own anti armour weapons have they thrown into this conflict... and not only are the Russian units not being stopped and driven back... they are advancing where and when they want... because they are relatively light recon units and not heavy armour forces.

This being the case wouldn't it drive armies to select more BMPT in future and less MBT?

The thing is that the Ukraine had a lot of armour but they also could not control the air or deal with Russian cruise missile and air launched missile attacks... HATO are arrogant and would claim their armour would be so much better with much better trained soldiers and they would control the air with their super stealth planes and Rafales and Eurofighters and super Gripens etc etc

If the Orcs had more armour then MBTs make more sense, but with troops dug in then lighter forces with BMPT type vehicles but also 152mm and 203mm and 240mm artillery as well as air to ground weapons too make more sense.

I think in the armada and BMPT threads Garry or another might have mentioned up-coming BMPT having 120mm mortar/gun + 23mm Gatling + AGL.

That was a proposed model as part of new vehicle families... there is no guarantee it will ever enter service... it might get split into different vehicles... the 120mm gun/mortar might be moved to an artillery vehicle with a VENA like turret on the relevant chassis, while the AGL and other cannon options would be used on BMPs... each vehicle has a role and therefore an armament requirement.

The BMP-1 had to be able to kill tanks in self defence with its gun because its anti tank missile had a dead zone of 500m, so the 73mm gun could penetrate M60s at any range they could hit them (up to about 800m). WIth the BMP-2, the new missiles could hit targets at 30-40m so the 30mm cannon only had to kill enemy BMPs, for which 30mm was fine.

Experience with the two models (the 2 didn't replace the 1... they were found to compliment each other so were often used together...) led them to realise that different targets suited different weapons so the BMP-3 combined the HE power (100mm HE bomb launcher replacing the 73mm SPG-9 type rocket launcher, and of course the 2A72 30mm cannon).

But now the 30mm is not good enough for use against western BMPs so they are going to a 57mm grenade launcher that combines a good HE projectile, with a decent APFSDS round that should be effective against most enemy BMPs... Bulats for longer ranged shots at BMPs and Kornets for Tanks...

It is interesting that the twin barrel 23mm gun is lighter and smaller and more compact than the 6 barrel gatling and with a rate of fire of 3,500rpm is probably good enough in an armoured vehicle. Relatively low muzzle velocity of 700 m/s, the projectiles are heavy for the calibre and carry a good payload so in many ways a burst results in the target being showered by HE fragment bombs... short bursts would land like a cluster bomb attack around the point of aim which would be very effective against ground targets like Javelin teams or a sniper position.

The 23 x 115mm rounds are compact and could be carried in reasonable numbers too.

An APFSDS round verison could be developed too... the propellent case is much bigger than that of a 14.5mm HMG round so the volume of propellent and the size and weight of the penetrator would be better. The HATO modification of the 14.5mm HMG round resulted in a 15mm round with a 40mm armour penetration performance to 1km range so an APFSDS round for the 23 x 115mm should do at least as well... but a modification for dual belt feeds would be needed.

That is why the 2A42 and 2A72 are so popular... with dual belt feeds you can have totally different types of ammo with big slow heavy HE rounds and small light high velocity anti armour rounds... if you fed a mixed belt of those into a 6 barrel gatling or twin barrel 23mm gun then the slow heavy HE rounds will hit a completely different point of aim than the light fast AP rounds and your shells would go all over the place.

With a dual feed gun like the 2A42 you can load one belt with AP rounds and one with HE rounds.

With the Terminator with two 2A42 cannon you could have one belt of APFSDS rounds on one gun and general HE Frag rounds with the other belt on the same gun. The second gun could have air burst HE rounds in one belt and HE Frag rounds in the other.

That way if you see an enemy vehicle select the APFSDS rounds on one barrel and fire that gun. If you see a drone select air burst HE rounds on the other barrel and fire a few shots at that. If the enemy infantry mount a mass attack on you then on each gun select the general HE Frag rounds and fire both barrels at them... and you can vary that by selecting the different firing rates for each gun (low and high)... depending on the situation and target.

So by having a BMPT like this its one tank that can fill 2 rolls (MBT + BMPT) and save countries some hard earned $$$ ?

Don't be confused by the calibre... the 120mm gun they showed is a rifled medium pressure gun... think of it more as a combination 120mm mortar and a 122mm artillery piece... there is no high velocity APFSDS rounds... just a good sized HE Frag round that is direct fired to take down heavier structures like bunkers made of logs or sand bags or concrete structures.

It is ideal where the enemy is dug in and does not have a lot of tanks. It is used together with BMPs which will have anti tank missiles and a main gun that can take on enemy BMPs with direct fire heat rounds or gun tube launched missiles.

Isos wrote:Anyway like this war and others have shown tank vs tank is unlikely to happen anymore. There is just too much anti tank weapons in the field compare to the numver of tanks. Most army can field less than 500 tanks while the total number of atgm, drones ane mibes is in the thousands.

That's preposterous

1). Numerous recent wars have shown that tank vs tank battles happen all the time. Including the first Ukrainian conflict back in 2014-2015. It depends on the theater and type of war.

2). This war has shown plenty of tank vs tank combat as well. In praticaly every small town in the Donbass being fought for where there were defending Ukrainian tanks, advancing Russian tanks, as well as earlier in the conflict when Russian tank columns were advancing throughout northern Ukraine. In Volnovakha there were intense tank duels with Ukrainian tanks hiding behind buildings and monuments. Presumably some of that in Mariupol too. There are plenty of tank wrecks along roads, ostensibly either advancing or in ambush points and having engaged likely other tanks. What's true is that there are no large scale tank vs tank battles; instead there was a MoD mention for example about a tank battle involving 5-6 Ukrainian tanks vs 2 Russian tanks; and it was already highlighted as some significant engagement. The lack of large scale tank vs tank battles is due to the terrain and lopsided Russian capabilities for taking out Ukrainian tanks from beyond their engagement range; forcing the later to disperse them and use them more for ambushes or defense.

3). In general destroying anything, whether a tank, or a stationary target, or any type of vehicle, manpower concentration, etc... is not a problem for any well-equipped military. You can use guided bombs from aircraft, drones with missiles, helicopters, surface-to-surface missiles, artillery, tanks, etc... the biggest trouble is finding the target and being in the right place at the right time with your own weapon system.
In theory the most efficient way to destroy an enemy tank is with an anti-tank system, such as a Sprut-B gun, or ATGM vehicle/drone. As the anti-tank means are generally cheap, typically either safe for the operator or allowing them to strike from a greater range than the tank, and will get the job done. If that is, you can get your AT means to either surprise the enemy's tanks (because they might won't advance if they know what's waiting for them), or hunt them down successfully in an advance. Those are quite specific scenarios, but it can't be helped as AT weapons/carriers/vehicles are not multi-role systems and aren't useful everywhere.
In practice what you'll find is that the enemy's tanks will be engaging, whether in defense or offense - your own versatile front-line heavily armored vehicles - i.e. tanks. Because yours and theirs will just tend to end up in the same place at the same time.

If you don't want your tank to meet enemy tanks, BTW, it does stand to reason that you should use them less as tanks, and more for specific roles. Perhaps that's what the T-62s are billed for, more for checkpoints and as semi-mobile bunkers in the rear areas. Where they should not encounter enemy tanks or serious AT means.

lyle6 wrote:

Isos wrote:
Anyway like this war and others have shown tank vs tank is unlikely to happen anymore. There is just too much anti tank weapons in the field compare to the numver of tanks. Most army can field less than 500 tanks while the total number of atgm, drones ane mibes is in the thousands.

This is a stupid argument that needs no refuting. Just saying to have it on record here.

Plenty of videos of tanks getting destroyed by ATGM and drones.

Numbers of video or even testimony by tankers about tank duels --> one or two.

Even in Gulf war it was bradleys that mostly destroyed iraqi tanks with atgm.

Tank vs tank is not gonna happen anymore, only few such event can happen. Plenty of new missiles in production with longer ranges to destroy enemy from far away.

So now either provide some data or just shut up. You maje me loose my time.

With fully operational APS systems and armoured forces as opposed to the recon units the Russians are using in this conflict I would think their armour could take a hell of a lot more missiles to defeat... and even without that... how many Javelins and NLAWS and their own anti armour weapons have they thrown into this conflict... and not only are the Russian units not being stopped and driven back... they are advancing where and when they want... because they are relatively light recon units and not heavy armour forces.

When operational APS will be defeated by new solutions.

Ukrainian Javelin and nlaws sucks. Their soviet made atgm manage to make lot of hits on russian vehicles, they even destroyed a ka-52 with them. But overall Russia has the advantage in recco so they have no time to use them because Russia use, not its tanks to attack them, but long range weapons like drones, artillery and air force.

Tanks aren't outdated or shitty but their work will be to survive long range weapons and attack lighter forces. Tanks main enemy today are missiles. Not other tanks.

Isos wrote:
Plenty of videos of tanks getting destroyed by ATGM and drones.

As do artillery, airpower and drones. But only tanks are vulnerable.

Isos wrote:
Numbers of video or even testimony by tankers about tank duels --> one or two.

Skill issue on your end. Git gud at googling.

Isos wrote:
Even in Gulf war it was bradleys that mostly destroyed iraqi tanks with atgm.

That sounds a lot like bullshit. Bradleys don't nearly have enough TOWs missiles onboard to beat the Abrams in potential armor kills, and replacing the missiles is a slow and dangerous process that would see an Abrams burn through its entire ammo supply before you can get a salvo ready to fire.

The only way the Bradley can beat the Abrams in number of kills is if there is a lot more Bradleys than there are Abrams involved. Then it doesn't really do much for your point does it?

In any case, they wouldn't be in the position to exact those kills in the first place if they weren't trailing behind the protection of the Abrams tanks.

Isos wrote:
Tank vs tank is not gonna happen anymore, only few such event can happen. Plenty of new missiles in production with longer ranges to destroy enemy  from far away.

So now either provide some data or just shut up. You maje me loose my time.

For those missiles to work you first have to spot your target. And there are plenty of ways to deny that critical information from EW blanket denial of the spectrum from drones, to AD swatting down drones and aircraft, to camouflage masking with terrain, and so on.

Guess what asset it is that you can use that's resilient enough to uncover most threats head-on to allow them to be serviced by those very same long range missiles?

Most tank kills in the Gulf War was by engineers planting explosives in empty tanks.

Isos has a point.

The cold war scenario with 500+ tanks on one side and 500+ tanks on the other meeting on some empty field is unlikely to happen anymore.

In a peer-to-peer scenario there will be to many long-range precision weapons, aerial vehicles and so on on both sides, in the end you will get a handful of tanks
from both sides getting close enough to each other to fight.

Even the T-14 will use guided missiles or shells most of the time from beyond visual range to kill enemy vehicles.

In a scenario with one superpower on the one side and some bushmen on the other it will be even more unlikely. Even if the bushmen have a lot of tanks, most
will be destroyed on the march to the frontline.

In the end most tank battles will be very small compared to the cold war fantasies. 404 is an example of this. 2 or 3 tanks fighting each other is barely a footnote.

Hole wrote:
In the end most tank battles will be very small compared to the cold war fantasies. 404 is an example of this. 2 or 3 tanks fighting each other is barely a footnote.

Any battle is a skirmish compared to the WW2 battles - since the planet would be glassed before any conflict escalates to that level. But just because the scale is way off doesn't mean the operations are any less important. The handful of tanks fighting over strategic pieces of real estate can still effectively swing the balance of battles, just as entire divisions and brigades did in the past.

Hole wrote:
Even the T-14 will use guided missiles or shells most of the time from beyond visual range to kill enemy vehicles.

Maybe, maybe not. The thing hasn't even entered service, we ought to temper our expectations a bit.

On the other hand if a indirect fire support vehicle is what you want, then there's arguably no reason to base it on a tank chassis. Or use a 125 mm gun, which puts an unnecessary cap on the performance on munitions. The gold standard for which is something like the Kornet, which has a 152 mm caliber missile body.

lyle6 wrote:

Isos wrote:
Plenty of videos of tanks getting destroyed by ATGM and drones.

As do artillery, airpower and drones. But only tanks are vulnerable.  

Isos wrote:
Numbers of video or even testimony by tankers about tank duels --> one or two.

Skill issue on your end. Git gud at googling.

Isos wrote:
Even in Gulf war it was bradleys that mostly destroyed iraqi tanks with atgm.

That sounds a lot like bullshit. Bradleys don't nearly have enough TOWs missiles onboard to beat the Abrams in potential armor kills, and replacing the missiles is a slow and dangerous process that would see an Abrams burn through its entire ammo supply before you can get a salvo ready to fire.

The only way the Bradley can beat the Abrams in number of kills is if there is a lot more Bradleys than there are Abrams involved. Then it doesn't really do much for your point does it?  

In any case, they wouldn't be in the position to exact those kills in the first place if they weren't trailing behind the protection of the Abrams tanks.

Isos wrote:
Tank vs tank is not gonna happen anymore, only few such event can happen. Plenty of new missiles in production with longer ranges to destroy enemy  from far away.

So now either provide some data or just shut up. You maje me loose my time.

For those missiles to work you first have to spot your target. And there are plenty of ways to deny that critical information from EW blanket denial of the spectrum from drones, to AD swatting down drones and aircraft, to camouflage masking with terrain, and so on.

Guess what asset it is that you can use that's resilient enough to uncover most threats head-on to allow them to be serviced by those very same long range missiles?

Russian planes and artillery are way safer in Ukraine than their tanks that got on daily bases hit by atgm. Russians have so far shared plenty of videos of atgm and drones destroying ukrainian armor. Not a single tank vs tanks shared since the begining. I only remember an ukrainian btr hitting two russian tanks from behind with a 30mm gun in a city/village.


I may be good at googling but you are good at nothing. You back your dumb words with nothing.


Abrams did almost nothing in gulf war. It was A-10 and Bradleys which had missiles enabling them to hit a long range. Their tanks were used to support infantry once iraq vehicles were destroyed. Bradley

Like I said their new task is to fight light enemies. Tank vs tank isn't happening anymore on big scale. May happen here and there if they are lucky and not spotted before that.

Plenty of videos of tanks getting destroyed by ATGM and drones.

Indeed but there have been ATGMs and air power threats to tanks for the last 60-70 years and people have been claiming the tank is dead for most of that time, but there has not really been anything that can replace the tank and the tanks have only gotten better.

Numbers of video or even testimony by tankers about tank duels --> one or two.

The job of the tank is to take on any enemy armoured vehicles in combat... enemy tanks are their number one priority but in normal combat they can often serve as direct fire artillery and engage bunkers and firing positions too... and of course if they break through enemy lines then all sorts of light vehicles would be engaged by tanks and BMPs operating with them.... this is not new.

Even in Gulf war it was bradleys that mostly destroyed iraqi tanks with atgm.

Not totally true... Bradleys got in close with the enemy T-54/55s and used their 25mm cannon against the enemy tank sides... which they could do while moving. To fire their missiles they had to sit stationary for half a minute to guide their missiles which is not a good idea if the enemy has a 100mm plus calibre gun firing APFSDS rounds back at you...

Most Iraqi tanks were dug in and destroyed in place by B-52s in their fixed positions which stood out from the air and were easy to engage.

A lot of other armoured vehicles were destroyed when they were retreating from Kuwaite, also by air power.

Tank vs tank is not gonna happen anymore, only few such event can happen.

Every few years someone says that, but you need a heavily armoured vehicle that can protect your troop carriers with a gun powerful enough to defeat any other vehicle on the battlefield.

Missile armed tanks have been tried and put into service but always ended up as terrible failures... except the Soviet and Russian concept of adding missiles fired down gun tubes to their armory... the French 142mm gun didn't get into service... lucky for them, and the US 152mm armed vehicles were horrible wastes of money and time... a version of the M60 and the Sheridan which were bloody awful... it turned out an M113 with TOW missiles was much more efficient and effective when a vehicle in that role was required... not to mention cheaper.

Peer vs Peer conflict does not happen often but when it does there will be tank on tank engagement situations...

The Ukraine recieved over 20K each of Javelins and Stingers... and the return has been pathetic... and that is with tanks not fitted with APS systems, and not the latest and bestest tanks and vehicle either.

The vast majority of ATGMs over the years have been used against things other than MBTs most of the time... in the Falklands war a few LAW M72s were used against amphibious landing vehicles of the Argentine navy but the Milan ATGMs they took with them spent most of their time engaging MG and snipers positions and bunkers. RPGs are better suited but many lack the range to really reach out and touch from a safe distance...

These days sniper rifles can be effective to over 2km...

Plenty of new missiles in production with longer ranges to destroy enemy from far away.

But none have so far actually proven themselves in that role... it is like AAMs... you can have a missile with a kill range of 300km but is it effective?

The current push into the Ukraine is largely airpower and artillery but tanks also form an important part of the force... equally you need troops too and they need to travel in armoured vehicles too so they will need tanks to protect them...

When operational APS will be defeated by new solutions.

Really because we were told Javelin was a super missile and would wipe the floor with enemy armour and that in hit and run attacks there is nothing better... and why don't the Russians have any of those type weapons.

HATO has no solution for their older armour, but you think improved designs with jammers and laser dazzlers and APS systems would be just as easy to deal with?

When western strong boys talk about western armour and its experience in war they take pride in vehicles being hit dozens of times and continuing to operate... there are situations in Chechnia and Syria and other places where Russian vehicles manage the same but you think they are obsolete and useless... would they be safer in a Tigr?

Ukrainian Javelin and nlaws sucks.

The core of western anti armour weapons has been sent to the Ukraine including Panzerfaust 3s and other so called high tech stuff and it has all failed too... against Russian forces not equipped with their latest stuff...

HATO says their stuff is better and that the Russians are poorly trained and don't know what they are doing... gotta say it seems they are wrong on all three counts... not just Syria but now the Ukraine as evidence.

But overall Russia has the advantage in recco so they have no time to use them because Russia use, not its tanks to attack them, but long range weapons like drones, artillery and air force.

Orc recon likely includes western professionals... they are also trying to be a guerilla force so hiding as the enemy forces move past and then popping out to engage their supply forces would be the name of the game... but they suck at that too because not only are Russian forces being supplied but they are also supplying food and medicine to the civilians in the areas they pass through.

Tanks aren't outdated or shitty but their work will be to survive long range weapons and attack lighter forces. Tanks main enemy today are missiles. Not other tanks.

The APFSDS round from a tank is the one few thing most APSs can't deal with, which makes tanks necessary for both sides.

Most tank kills in the Gulf War was by engineers planting explosives in empty tanks.

Isos has a point.

The Gulf War was not a peer to peer conflict... if you look at small arms and aircraft and ships and weapon systems the Falklands war was about teh closest the west has come to a peer to peer conflict but even then the training of the Argentine troops was more like WWII than modern training to kill your enemy and the effects on the battlefield showed that.

I would say the best asset the Brits had was the SSN which prevented the Argentines using their Navy properly... and of course a lack of fighter aircraft with medium range AAMs for either side which would have been a real influence even if most missed.

The cold war scenario with 500+ tanks on one side and 500+ tanks on the other meeting on some empty field is unlikely to happen anymore.

That is not important though... and not what he is saying... he is saying tank on tank combat wont take place because drones and anti tank missiles and artillery and air power will stop that from happening... but this conflict it has already happened, despite both sides starting the conflict with excellent anti armour weaponry.

In a peer-to-peer scenario there will be to many long-range precision weapons, aerial vehicles and so on on both sides, in the end you will get a handful of tanks
from both sides getting close enough to each other to fight.

It depends on the peer... in this case both sides had dangerous air defence systems which effect the effectiveness of air power including drones.

It would be fair to say that Ukrainian drones despite being unlimited because they are supplied by the west don't seem to be lasting very long leading to high attrition and not so great efficiency... certainly not as good as they might achieve against an opponent with less capable air defence.

A replay of Kosovo with the Serbs using drones extensively wouldn't matter much against HATO because HATO were such pussies they didn't even send in ground troops till the Serbs promised not to shoot them... but would be catastrophic against the KLA, and HATO aircraft operating at 8km altitude would be powerless to interfere.

Stingers and Mistrals simple don't cut it against small drones... the version of Starstreak would be totally useless too because the chance of three darts hitting a small drone is very low.

Even the T-14 will use guided missiles or shells most of the time from beyond visual range to kill enemy vehicles.

In a desert or flat open plains, but most of the time there will either be cover or concealment or both... and where there isn't they can always launch smoke...

In the end most tank battles will be very small compared to the cold war fantasies. 404 is an example of this. 2 or 3 tanks fighting each other is barely a footnote.

Large scale tank battles are unlikely, but for every weapon there is a counter weapon... how can your artllery be killing tanks when their artllery is killing your artillery? Their airpower killing your air power...

How will you move your forces around the battlefield are they going to be walking?

If they are travelling in armoured vehicles then you will use tanks to operate with those armoured vehicles to defend against enemy armoured vehicles...

Maybe, maybe not. The thing hasn't even entered service, we ought to temper our expectations a bit.

Exactly... after Desert Storm the Abrams got a reputation amongst its fanboys of being and all seeing all shooting all killing invincible tank... its thermals its gun its powerful engine... it could see everything and shoot everything and drive anywhere... but it turns out they blow up too... the tank gun can only point in one direction at a time and when it is not pointing at you the turret bustle ammo storage is exposed to enemy fire.... when it first went into action in Iraq and Kuwaite the enemy didn't know where to hit it... they learned its weak points soon enough and every tank has those same weak spots too...

Russian planes and artillery are way safer in Ukraine than their tanks that got on daily bases hit by atgm. Russians have so far shared plenty of videos of atgm and drones destroying ukrainian armor. Not a single tank vs tanks shared since the begining. I only remember an ukrainian btr hitting two russian tanks from behind with a 30mm gun in a city/village.

We need to wait till this conflict is over and all the information is in before we start changing the way war is fought... videos released to the enemy (the West) are not a good basis for discussion... apart from what do they want us to know works and doesn't work right now... they know the people sending weapons to the Ukraine will be watching these videos closely...

Abrams did almost nothing in gulf war. It was A-10 and Bradleys which had missiles enabling them to hit a long range.

The Bradleys did **** all at long range.... their missiles only reach about 3.5km anyway and from that distance even a T-55 could take a shot at those 3m high monsters with a good chance of a hit.

Once battle started the vehicle churned up the sand in the form of a very fine dust and it was the Bradleys superior thermal imagers that allowed them to spot Iraqi tanks and shoot them with their 25mm cannon to destroy them... there would be no way they would stop in the middle of a battle to launch a TOW, because those things are slow and give away your position and attract enemy fire.

Even in WW2 tank vs tank engagements were rare. You had a couple major tank vs tank engagements in the Soviet Union but that is all. Most tank kills were done with anti-tank guns like the 75nm/85/88mm or 100mm AT guns.

When they were putting T-34s into service they had a choice of two guns... the 76.2mm gun and a high velocity 57mm gun... the 57mm gun had excellent penetration but against lighter armoured vehicle (which were abundant on the battlefield) they tended to punch right through and did not do a lot of damage unless it went through a crewman or ammo or fuel. The 76mm gun had less penetration... much less at short range, but at greater ranges it retained penetration better but to 2km or so the 57mm had better penetration, but it had a much more effective HE round so that is what they went with for both the T-34 and the KV-1.

Personally I thought the KV-1 should have gotten the 57mm gun as a sort of tank destroyer with heavier armour and lower speed but they put the same calibre gun on both tanks... again I would have said double the barrel length on the KVs gun to at least give it better performance...

The point is that a tanks gun is used against a very wide range of targets and it is only the western view of combat that it is a tank vs tank vehicle.

The normal load out for Soviet tanks was for half the ammo to be HE Frag, and of the remaining half they would be split between APFSDS and HEAT rounds with the latter being a dual purpose round for all sorts of targets.

I would add that the British might be the first major power to not have any MBTs, but then in the 1970s they were also convinced that fighter aircraft were obsolete because SAMs would do everything so they stopped making fighters... not their best move.

lancelot wrote:Even in WW2 tank vs tank engagements were rare. You had a couple major tank vs tank engagements in the Soviet Union but that is all. Most tank kills were done with anti-tank guns like the 75nm/85/88mm or 100mm AT guns.

Head-on engagements between armored forces are rare because of the extremely high rates of attrition and extreme lop-sidedness of such actions. Entire battalions that you've painstakingly spent millions of man-hours to train, equip, and maintain can be wiped out in minutes and any advantages one side enjoys quickly snowballs into complete overmatch. Which is why only the really confident commanders or the desperate ones would even contemplate it. If they can help it, they'd rather use their tanks to cleave through much less dangerous forces where attrition is a lot more sustainable - and tanks indeed are used as such in the vast majority of cases, but war does have a way of making sure whatever plans you have on paper, stay on paper.

lancelot wrote:
Today this seems to have shifted towards guided artillery rounds like Krasnopol. Roughly 50% of tank losses seem to be to artillery and only 10% to infantry ATGMs.

For the longest time it was the only the Russians who recognized what a threat the Krasnopol was, and accordingly standardized laser protection measures on their newest MBTs. Even now, NATO is still focusing on countering the 2nd gen ATGM threat from when they were still fighting their bullshit wars almost oblivious to just how much dangerous Russian artillery has grown with use of modern technology.

lancelot wrote:
We will still have tanks. You can't face modern anti-tank weapons without really thick armor. Put enough armor, and weaponry with enough reach to deal with most direct enemy fires, and you will end up with a tank. The first tanks had models with machine guns and models with cannon. Even if you put machine guns on it this is still a tank. The main advantage of the cannon is that the rounds are much cheaper than rockets. Nothing changed really.

Shots and shells are also typically less bulky for the same effect, so deeper magazines and more time spend in combat and not retreating to rearm.

GarryB wrote:
The core of western anti armour weapons has been sent to the Ukraine including Panzerfaust 3s and other so called high tech stuff and it has all failed too... against Russian forces not equipped with their latest stuff...

HATO says their stuff is better and that the Russians are poorly trained and don't know what they are doing... gotta say it seems they are wrong on all three counts... not just Syria but now the Ukraine as evidence.

On a certain point of view they are correct. Most Russian equipment involved in this special military operation came from Soviet stocks - and more importantly are never going to make someone a lot richer, which arguably is the main reason behind NATO's procurement strategy.

GarryB wrote:
Orc recon likely includes western professionals... they are also trying to be a guerilla force so hiding as the enemy forces move past and then popping out to engage their supply forces would be the name of the game... but they suck at that too because not only are Russian forces being supplied but they are also supplying food and medicine to the civilians in the areas they pass through.

NATO thought they can play the guerilla this time around - but they forgot that Russia has been successfully fighting their own insurgency wars for a solid 20 years. They know every trick in the book by this point.

GarryB wrote:
The APFSDS round from a tank is the one few thing most APSs can't deal with, which makes tanks necessary for both sides.

Nor can it deal with an airburst HE shell. Fire one first to shred the APS, and then have your wingman finish them off with the APFSDS.

GarryB wrote:
In a desert or flat open plains, but most of the time there will either be cover or concealment or both... and where there isn't they can always launch smoke...

The T-14 still retains the integral dozer blade. In 10-15 minutes tops it can dig a trench deep enough to hide its already well-protected hull. If its targeted by PGMs it can lean on its massive banks of obscurant dischargers to deny a hit. Then the only way anyone can stop the tank from engaging its targets is if they can disable the main gun from a direct hit, a very big ask.

GarryB wrote:
The normal load out for Soviet tanks was for half the ammo to be HE Frag, and of the remaining half they would be split between APFSDS and HEAT rounds with the latter being a dual purpose round for all sorts of targets.

HEAT shells are kind of meh to be honest. Do you really need two types of anti-armor rounds, especially when most lighter vehicles probably won't even resist a direct impact of an HE shell.

@Garry I said tank vs tank are not gonna happen. I never said tanks are outdated. Their job is to push enemy lines but enemy tanks will be hunted by atgm from various launchers, artillery and aviation/drones.

All the anti tank weapons showed their effectiveness including suicide drones and javelin (even if its Pk is low). TOW missiles also proved to be very effective in Syria. Kornet and older soviet missiles destroyed plenty of abrams.

If you want to stop an invasion by a conventional force with hundreds of tanks and bmp you better have atgm and suicide drones. Russians are more pissed by ukrainian atgm and drones than their tanks.

I don't even understand why there is a conversation about this.

Isos wrote:@Garry I said tank vs tank are not gonna happen. I never said tanks are outdated. Their job is to push enemy lines but enemy tanks will be hunted by atgm from various launchers, artillery and aviation/drones.

All the anti tank weapons showed their effectiveness including suicide drones and javelin (even if its Pk is low). TOW missiles also proved to be very effective in Syria. Kornet and older soviet missiles destroyed plenty of abrams.

If you want to stop an invasion by a conventional force with hundreds of tanks and bmp you better have atgm and suicide drones. Russians are more pissed by ukrainian atgm and drones than their tanks.

I don't even understand why there is a conversation about this.

As I said, all evidence is that tank vs tank continues to happen all the time

What's not happening are some large tank engagements, for multiple reasons already discussed.

But it's enough for tank engagements to just be 1v1, for all the same priorities to apply; better armour, faster autloaders, more precise targeting, ERA, rounds with more penetration, gun-fired ATGMs. All that stuff is still the priority to continue to improve for tanks, because exactly they are expected to engage similar heavily armored vehicles to themselves right at the tip of any assault or defense.

On a certain point of view they are correct. Most Russian equipment involved in this special military operation came from Soviet stocks - and more importantly are never going to make someone a lot richer, which arguably is the main reason behind NATO's procurement strategy.

Well this combat shows they are wrong... lots of older obsolete Soviet stuff with upgrades used against a western trained force with a lot of their newer stuff with rear areas and recon forces that cannot be destroyed because they are the EU and HATO.

In a WWIII scenario there would be no logistics centre that would be safe and no recon aircraft or satellite the Russians wouldn't try to interfere with or destroy, so this was a rather idealised fight in favour of HATO with more forces than the Russians and they are still being fairly comprehensibly beaten... except in the propaganda stakes of course which is not relevant in this case, because the Russians seem to fully support this conflict... now.

NATO thought they can play the guerilla this time around - but they forgot that Russia has been successfully fighting their own insurgency wars for a solid 20 years. They know every trick in the book by this point.

In many ways HATO doctrine has always been guerilla tactics... very much based on the fighting withdrawal of Nazi Germany from the Soviet Union... trying to inflict max damage all the way trying to exhaust the enemy forces as their supply lines got longer and longer and they got further and further from friendly territory.

Nor can it deal with an airburst HE shell. Fire one first to shred the APS, and then have your wingman finish them off with the APFSDS.

And further compounding things... the lack of widely deployed APS systems has led to a lack of counter APS systems like the RPG-31, or other tactics.

I personally have mentioned using a HMG with plastic ballistic nose caps with the front of the solid projectile being a corner reflector so its radar signature would be rather big... firing from 4-5km these incoming rounds will appear to most APS radars as being rather large ballistic RPG like threats that it would have to react to for those going to impact the vehicle... after firing bursts at enemy tanks for most of the day their APS munitions will be used up... keep firing at them with the HMGs and then start launching anti armour missiles too and you will easily overwhelm them.

The T-14 still retains the integral dozer blade. In 10-15 minutes tops it can dig a trench deep enough to hide its already well-protected hull. If its targeted by PGMs it can lean on its massive banks of obscurant dischargers to deny a hit. Then the only way anyone can stop the tank from engaging its targets is if they can disable the main gun from a direct hit, a very big ask.

Another factor is that it is a Russian tank so SOSNA and TOR and Pantsir are going to be operating nearby so any Spikes or Javelins lofted into the air and flying at subsonic speeds, let alone Hellfires and Brimstones would be easy pickings for such ADS.

The T-14s APS system can intercept APFSDS rounds so its hard kill interceptor must be accurate and substantial in terms of impact performance, so being able to deal with top attack weapons wont stop laser guided bombs (TOR is for that job), but drones with top attack munitions should be affected, plus I would expect laser dazzlers and laser anti drone systems which they are testing in this conflict should be up to the job... nothing is perfect of course...

HEAT shells are kind of meh to be honest. Do you really need two types of anti-armor rounds, especially when most lighter vehicles probably won't even resist a direct impact of an HE shell.

HEAT shells are quite effective at delivering damage to hardened structures and are better dual purpose weapons because they don't tend to over penetrate like APFSDS rounds, and their capacity to set fire to things inside vehicles and rooms makes them very destructive... all this for much less barrel wear too...

@Garry I said tank vs tank are not gonna happen. I never said tanks are outdated.

And I am saying it is happening... not on thousands of tanks vs thousands of tanks but there is some doubt whether that even happened that way anyway...

Their job is to push enemy lines but enemy tanks will be hunted by atgm from various launchers, artillery and aviation/drones.

And Russia currently has air control, and artillery vehicles are continually detected and destroyed... as are air defence vehicles, and other armoured types that are coming out of hiding every day... when the enemy runs out of tanks and starts travelling around in SUVs a tank will still be useful because they can still have anti armour weapons and a tank is still more likely to survive any anti armour weapon than any BMP not tank based.

TOW missiles also proved to be very effective in Syria.

TOW misiles got perfect hits on T-90s and failed to take them out... and that is without APS systems operating.

Kornet and older soviet missiles destroyed plenty of abrams.

Even old Konkurs destroyed Abrams by hitting them in their rear turret area... and setting off the ammo.

If you want to stop an invasion by a conventional force with hundreds of tanks and bmp you better have atgm and suicide drones. Russians are more pissed by ukrainian atgm and drones than their tanks.

The Russians are not going to cancel Armata and Kurganets and just use Boomerang and ATGMs and suicide drones... this invasion force was vastly outnumbered by the force of the country that it attacked and part of its success was its mobility, but it was also very skillful use of artillery and air power.

What's not happening are some large tank engagements, for multiple reasons already discussed.

The Russians have limited objectives and are not trying to overrun the entire country to occupy it... if they wanted to seize the entire country then normal tank and motor rifle forces would be used requiring much more armour and rather a lot more support vehicles too... it would be a different war...

I don't even understand why there is a conversation about this.

Those believing western propaganda will be thinking Javelins are destroying all Russian ground targets and Stingers are clearing the skies... but they are ignoring obvious signs like Kiev demanding and threatening to get more armour and more aircraft (or no fly zones) and more artillery... they started this conflict with a good amount of all those things... where have they gone?

Perhaps tanks are useful afterall and ATGMs and drones are not all powerful...

limb wrote:Why is the tank repair plant in chita ordered to upgrade 800(!) T-62s with thermals and extra armor? This is so irrational. Its a complete waste of money to upgrade utterly obsolete tanks with modern electronics and apllique armor. The upgrade packages must cost more than the entire tanks.
I understand upgrading a few dozen to plug the gaps or making them into robots, but this is madness. Upgrading 800 T-62s is also demoralizibg. Its a tacit admission that Russian tank losses are so huge that not even T-72s are enough to replace them.

Doesn't Russia have enough T-80s and T-72Bs in storage to upgrade at least 2000 more tanks into B3M and BVM standard?

If the US or Germany were upgrading their M60s and leopard 1s in 2022, im sure the residents here would ridicule them for weeks.

It's an admission only to you

No-one else is dumb enough to believe that Russia has lost its stockpiles of thousands of T-72s in the Ukraine

Scorpius wrote:
So, you have not answered any of the questions posed.
Firstly, no NATO country can simply afford the modernization of so many tanks.
Secondly, you ignore the fact that this is an ADDITIONAL 800 tanks in addition to those that are produced and upgraded at the two main tank factories in Russia.
Thirdly, you are NOT AWARE of the purpose for which this modernization is being carried out: this may be a planned modernization of the military reserve, it may be an upgrade for further sale or to create a reserve of combat-ready tanks in case of a major war, it may be an upgrade to create 800 fortified checkpoints on the territory of Ukraine. You don't know any of this for sure. So your statements are just your own conjectures, under which there is no factual basis.

How do you expect he will answer being a zoo exhibit?

All NATO and "western" countries that have any serious armor force not only keep the equivalent tanks in ranks but carry the modernization as well.
And calling M48/60/L1 "an equivalent" is a big favor for them
Let's say Israel took the last Magach only in 2014, but they are muchly more privileged.
Turkey still operates and carries modernization of M48.
Same Greece.
South Korea is phasing out the M48 only now, having a replacement program running at full swing.

T-62M is a killer if compared to M48/M60/Leopard 1. Not only much better armored, but more mobile, with a much more powerful main gun and FCS with ATGM channel.
It is actually much better than the ones that can be supplied to 404.
Czech 72M4Cz will be slightly better, but Czech had a whole 30 (THIRTY) pieces.

By the way, there are tons of new friends in Africa that will take those tanks without a single doubt. The whole project can be much more complex than we might think.