Russian Τank Βiathlon

Apparently the Russian minister of defence has extended an invitation to the United States to participate in a tank biathalon...i was wondering if all sides are limited to using the old rainbow painted T-72s show in the video.Certainly the T-90 would be a better exhibition vehicle for possible sales.A 13 kilometre track,targets every 500 m,missed shots  equal another 500 m tacked on.

Who said its a sales exhibition?
T-90 is taken around the world on defense forums, I don't think they need to market it in this biathlon.

More of a joint training exercise, nothing more.

The video does not name the 4 other countries competing.I was wondering what the selection process for attending crews would be and whether it would be similar to the CAT trophy in Nato.

I think I read an article about this... this years event involves everyone using T-72s and the countries involved were Ukraine, Belarus, and two of the stans I think.

The future competition will have Russia competing against foreign countries using their own tanks... so perhaps 2014 it will be T-90AM and 2015 it will be armata MBT...  

GarryB wrote:..........countries involved were Ukraine, Belarus, and two of the stans I think.

Armenia, Belarus and Kazakhstan

Pugnax wrote:I was wondering what the selection process for attending crews would be and whether it would be similar to the CAT trophy in Nato.

CAT trophy with its organization in..... "bounds"  , platoon's shots at the targets without any restrictions, 40 seconds of target's exposure ,the VERY permissible terrain conditions and very few and easy shots on-the-move against a number of targets inferior to those of the tanks in the platoon in comparison is a true walk in the park .


http://rt.com/news/first-tank-biathlon-competition-russia-346/


What instead i find very strange and even disturbing is that ,just after US Defense Secretary's Chuck Hagel acceptance of the invitation to the competition of next year, a lot of supposed ( and mostly self-proclaimed) military analysts and enthusiasts have begun to strongly criticize the choice of the US Defense Secretary ,labeling it as "taken in a reflexive way" and potentially dangerous for the image of the US military products, coming even to the point to suggest to go to the competition in Russia on M-48 or M-60.



Now, unless the........self-claimed , perpetually suggested, and misty supposed........superiority of western tank's FCS, design layout and crew's level of training apply only to absurdly unbalanced battlefield conditions (enjoying moreover crushing corollary advantages) against some rusty ,inferior export specimen of MBTs 15-25 years older than theirs and employed literally as.... fixed pillbox , by some of the less proficient operators on the planet , i find that this very hard and "all around" MBT's competition should only highlight even more the......supposed..... superiority of western MBT's FCS, main gun's and secondary gun stabilizers , barrel's manufacture, round's stability and crew level of training.


There is something that doesn't seem right........

If the Americans want to show up in M-60-A3 let them,i doubt very many western tankers would easily fit into a T-72.In the CAT competitions the FCS issue did come into play with the advent of thermal imaging as the Abrams was able to register the motors about to raise targets and thus achieve astronomical engagement times.I would also see turret traverse speed becoming an issue unless all the targets are within a specific aspect.A competition however between hand loaded M-60s and the T-72s autoloader would be fun to watch (maybe an after the target run- ROF/accuracy shoot out at a fixed target 1500,2000,2500 m.)

i doubt very many western tankers would easily fit

My uncle is over 2m. tall and he was driver mechanic in T-72. And there is finish guy who served in T-72 from mpnet and he is quite tall.

Pugnax wrote:If the Americans want to show up in M-60-A3 let them,i doubt very many western tankers would easily fit into a T-72.In the CAT competitions the FCS issue did come into play with the advent of thermal imaging as the Abrams was able to register the motors about to raise targets and thus achieve astronomical engagement times

Then where is the problem ?  

All is very simple : M1A1/A2 Abrams could get a very easy chance to humiliate the Russians and their "inferior" products  (among which very likely also T-90A/S, the MBT at today most successful on the international arms market  ) showing those "astronomical engagement times"..........naturally that could happen only if Abrams and other western MBTs are capable to life up to the hype around them in hard engagements reproducing the real environmental and kinematic conditions characterizing full mobile and fluid engagements against a peer enemy in a full scale conflict , instead of turkey shoots engagements against third world enemies totally incapable to react in any way (mostly at cause of the antediluvian level of theirs MBT's park and the military structures around them and the abysmal level of their training ) employing theirs T-55 T-62 and few T-72Ms as fixed pillbox.

   

Pugnax wrote:....i doubt very many western tankers would easily fit into a T-72.

???  No western "better trained" tanker would be required to do a similar offensive thing; them can sit comfortably in theirs 4 crews, 60+ tons behemoths  fitted out with theirs superior suspensions, unparalleled sight and infallible FCS against the......technologically inferior, cramped russian MBTs             


Words are cheap.

I meant no slight lads,merely saying western tankers and especially reservist tankers tend to be beefier..not able to fit through hatches as easily.Please understand that T-72 and M-60 were always seen to be the big rivals of the early/mid 80s and out of pure interest it would be nice to see them compete with well trained,adequately supplied crews.If the Americans bring the M-60 it is only fair,the are accustomed to it and to force a crew to compete in unfamiliar equiptment would impart an unfair penalty to them.Perhaps a spirit of respect,understanding and true esprit du corps would emerge to displace the old cold war arrogances.

It depends which T-72 is taking part in the training.

T-72BA is a lot closer to M1A2 than to any M-60 the US operated.

Pugnax wrote:I meant no slight lads,merely saying western tankers and especially reservist tankers tend to be beefier..not able to fit through hatches as easily.Please understand that T-72 and M-60 were always seen to be the big rivals of the early/mid 80s and out of  pure interest it would be nice to see them compete with well trained,adequately supplied crews.If the Americans bring the M-60 it is only fair,the are accustomed to it and to force a crew to compete in unfamiliar equiptment would impart an unfair penalty to them.Perhaps a spirit of respect,understanding and true esprit du corps would emerge to displace the old cold war arrogances.

Wasn't this guy a national guard tanker or something? I remember some story on mp.net. Or it was someone else actually; this pic just started the discussion.

The whole "small Soviet tanker" myth belongs in the same category as arm-eating autoloaders.

Python I think that photo was posted in some Army vs Marines argument wasn't it?
They are always accusing the other of being fat and out of shape.

TR1 wrote:The whole "small Soviet tanker" myth belongs in the same category as arm-eating autoloaders.

Python I think that photo was posted in some Army vs Marines argument wasn't it?
They are always accusing the other of being fat and out of shape.

Probably it was posted in a number of threads, this guy must have had quite a few roles and positions by now. lol

Pugnax wrote:Please understand that T-72 and M-60 were always seen to be the big rivals of the early/mid 80s and out of pure interest it would be nice to see them compete with well trained,adequately supplied crews.

T-72 against M-60 was never seen as a "fair" competition in Cold War ; this match would have been largely unbalanced in T-72 favour also in the opinions of western military analysts.

Usually the comparison appearing also in western documents of the times put M-60 against T-62 and even here the opinion was that the Soviet tank was slightly superior to its NATO counterpart (and this only taking into account "static" metricals and totally discounting the impact of the huge numerical difference , time of unit construction, average repair times , significantly lower target area and superior strategical/tactical mobility of T-62).

flamming_python wrote: Wasn't this guy a national guard tanker or something? I remember some story on mp.net. Or it was someone else actually; this pic just started the discussion.

I don't understand what is the even the point or rational of this strange note on tanks crew's fitness and possibility or not to" fit through hatches "


I repeat one more time : only THIS YEAR the competition involve only T-72 (simply because this MBT is present in the tank park of all the nations involved in this first 2013 competition).

A German tank crew taking part in the competition the next year will sit comfortably in its LEO-2A5/A6, an Italian crew in its Ariete MBT ,an American crew could sit in its M1A2, Russian tank's crew will sit, instead, in theirs "cramped" T-90A .

Anyone will be capable to see what tank is REALLY in the FACTS capable to hit in the shorter time and in real battlefield mobile conditions different kind of targets at short to long range and the real impact of those "fabled" western FCS in real battlefield conditions.

Anyone will be also able to rational foundation of the western "choice" (for not say forced choice) of the human loader and the impact of the huge inertial mass of western MBT on main gun fire's PHit in mobile engagements and at EVEN CONDITIONS between all the participants.

Mindstorm the T-62 and M-60A1 are very good match ups.The M-60A3 with thermal sights and Israeli/American blazer pattern reactive armour(yes i know that in GW-1 it was painted shoe boxes)is a match for the early-mid 80s 72s.The big problem with the M-60 is that it literally is a huge target with a relatively poor rear armour aspect.I am not trying to support or argue one faction over another in this discussion ,merely trying to establish a fair competition.By denying other nationalities the use of their own equiptment suites you deny them their comfort zone of training and familiarity.One solution is for everyone to show up and switch tanks..oops russians have forgotten how to load. Another is to play fair and accept the outcomes no matter who wins and for whatever reasons...i believe the second one to be the most promising in research and design as well as establishing better training standards for all.

Pugnax wrote:Mindstorm the T-62 and M-60A1 are very good match ups.

Pugnax please open this document at pag 14 ; you will find a very clear graph (elaborated on a dynamic model of engagement by the US Army Materiel Systems Analysis Agency) showing the comparison in MBT quality between URSS and USA in plain Cold War


http://216.12.139.91/docs/DOC_0001066239/DOC_0001066239.pdf

As you can see the notions portrayed in the public information media of the time was very different from the picture of the situation coming out from the formerly classified documents.......

Pugnax wrote: ....denying other nationalities the use of their own equipment suites you deny them their comfort zone of training and familiarity

Pugnax Russian Federation military authorities don't want to deny absolutely nothing to any possible foreign participants , clear ?

Them can participate with any of theirs MBTs, employing any weapon or ammunition at theirs disposition in order to destroy the targets in the shortest time.

Naturally i would find very very strange if western competitors would avoid to participate to the competition with theirs best MBT, those equipped with theirs......claimed.....superior FCS and.....claimed....better engine and.....claimed.... better suspensions so to show with HARD FACTS and against COMPARABLY TRAINED eastern opponents, aboard COMAPARABLY UP-TO-DATE and not downgraded Russian tanks at totally EQUAL CONDIDTIONS the.....claimed technological superiority of theirs equipment and training

If a T-72BM or T-90A, proceeding at 30 km/h ,after a curve and under the heavy solicitations of terrain irregularities is capable to acquire ,load a round and hit a randomly popping out target in X seconds , a Leopard-2A5 or an M1A2 Abrams ,in virtue of theirs....supposedly....better FCS , stabilization, ballistic computer and sensor suit should be capable to find a fire solution, an reliably hit the same target in much less time.

No trick possible, no more words ....only cold seconds.



Do you know is very easy to gain the upper hand even on Fedor Emelianenko or Wladimir Klitschko if........ them are in theirs mild sixties , the opponents are 25-30 young guys and, before combat, the two legends are blinded and hindered in the movements .

Naturally after the combat those "brave and valiant" fighters take photos of the beaten Emelianenko and Klitschko's faces claiming theirs fighting technique to have proved to be superior in real combat in comparison to that of the two opponents.
I strongly doubt that one of those "valiant" fighters would accept a one vs one fight against a young Fedor Emelianenko or Wladimir Klitschko, in perfect shape, to give proof of the superiority of their fighting technique....

The data shown was from late 70s early 80s,indeed from my service time i still have our restricted briefings on t-64,t-72 and t-80 estimated strengths,weaknesses and this falls inline with the then western military complex,s  goal to paint a bleak picture so as to extort billions from government coffers.Thermal imaging was a game changer as was chobbham armour..Soviet night fighting could not compare to it in range and target acquisition and the Pacts huge reliance upon heat warheads was largely negated by chobbham.That was yesterday,Fulda gap never happened and the bulk of armour available to both sides then has long been scrapped.Being of Russian and proud Soviet descent i defended Soviet arms vociferously and will continue to do so.I make one proviso...never insult an potential rival by belittling or underestimating their capabilities.The newly developed technologies each have their banner wavers,ive been there seen that,most estimations on both sides usually proove to be erroneous.Competitions like a multinational biathalon are what are needed to give every party a sobering look at  reality,i wholely endorse them.

Pugnax wrote:.....this falls inline with the then western military complex,s  goal to paint a bleak picture so as to extort billions from government coffers.

Please Pugnax ,not with me.

Do you pretend ,maybe, that i am unaware that ,for effect of similar intelligence's dossiers and informed projections on the expected comparison and exchange ratio between Soviet shock forces and NATO's defensive forces in Europe, entire divisions of CENTAG and NORTHAG was repositioned , theirs weapon provisions changed, and force's composition varied and even policy on nuclear weapon employment and placement modified ; all choices potentially representing the difference between NATO's survival or total collapse in a possible Soviet offensive (an event considered at the time probable).

This story on CENTCOM and Central Intelligence Agency's analysis and projections totally twisted (up to the exact opposite !) to obtain financing is so absurd that can old water on F-16 . net and similaria ,surely not here with me.    

Pugnax wrote:Thermal imaging was a game changer as was chobbham armour..Soviet night fighting could not compare to it in range and target acquisition and the Pacts huge reliance upon heat warheads was largely negated by chobbham.

1 )Thermal imaging  and  2) Chobham armor game changers ?  


1) Do you know night armoured offensive sorties ,moreover with only a very small segment of your ground forces equipped with the very expensive ,at the time, thermal sight (therefore without the "coverage" of a combined arms operation) have the very sad characteristic to leave the tanks crew of armoured component of your divisions totally unavailable  to react to the full combined arms offensive of the enemy (outnumbering you more than 5 to one in any segment of ground equipment and enjoying an huge engagement's range advantage on you) the daytime after.


To be profitable against anything except some immensely inferior opponent, ALL elements of your ground forces (from APC or IFVs to the last of your infantry squad) should have possessed similar thermal sight so to conduct combined arms breakthrough and consolidate the gains ; naturally if your opponent is some third world dictator totally incapable to mount any kind of offensive/counteroffensive ground operation and with armoured divisions equipped mostly with export version of.......T-55 , T-62 and Type 59 you can conduct almost insulated night armoured operations without any fear of a true ,deep ,combined arms counteroffensive the morning after when your ground forces would find themselves, at this point, totally devoid of the critical MBT component.

Those comical mantras sold around ,mostly after Gulf Wars  , on the importance of thermal imaging systems on MBTs in Cold War can mislead some scarcely knowledgeable people ,but appear totally ridiculous for anyone knowing the fundamentals of large scale ground forces operations between peer opponents.


2) Chobham and Burlighton was a breakthrough only for western armor standards (uncapable to produce, up to that time, any efficiently sequentied semi-active armor fillers for theirs composites) and burning and broken Abrams in Iraq with theirs pieces widely spread and enemy ragtags all around have gone a long way toward maintain integer its .....supposed....fabled virtues or secrets   

DU interpolation in HAP was a measure influencing much more the overall level of protection of M1 Abrams than basis Burlighton composites layers.

Capability to widely employ guided missiles form main gun ,so to engage from stand-off ranges enemy ATGM squads, bunkers, sniper positions, IFV, MBTs, APC, helicopters , reconnaissance vehicles etc....and Kontakt-5 ERA (on western publications you can read its impact on the chances of penetration of western weapons of the time in the articles "Russian tanks immune to attack says German expert "JIDR vol 29 n. 7 of July 1996 and  "Impenetrable Russian Tank Armor Stands Up To Examination" Vol. 30 No. 7 of July 1997) probably would candidate much better than the elements cited by you for the term "game changers" , but ,in spite of that, no knowledgeable  person would be even only tempted by the idea to do that in any serious debate.


NATO Coalitions' s F-15s and F-16s get an easy time in gain the upper hand ,in wolf packs attacks with AWACS and jamming aircraft aid, against the barely 9-10 operative very old export Serbian AF's L-18 MiG-29s  with RWR, Radar and OLS out of work, vastly outdated armaments, engine problems, absent ECM suit and pilots with 20 hours at year of flight , but get worrisome exchange ratios in 1 vs 1 and many vs many engagements ,at even conditions , against still old MiG-29s but well maintained, with radar and OLS perfectly functioning ,manned by very proficient German crew with hundreds of hours of flights on theirs shoulders and armed with R-73 and HMS "combo".


What i believe is that ,for PR and market purposes,for western nations and weapon manufacturers is much better to let "legends",the constructed on the easy victory on russian-built weapons, to continue to live instead to let ,one more time, hard reality and fact (produced in even conditions) destroy them utterly in few minutes  

I've read that the Abrams doesn't have any chobham infact, only laminated steel and DU.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:I've read that the Abrams doesn't have any chobham infact, only laminated steel and DU.

Abrams has gone through several armor iterations. There is much debate on exact armor composition, but Chobham is meaningless anwyays. You can have equivalent protection with other methods.

this biathlon is a fucking joke, at least get some foreign ones, same tanks driving around to look who is faster....please

NationalRus wrote:this biathlon is a fucking joke, at least get some foreign ones, same tanks driving around to look who is faster....please

How is that a joke?

It is a chance tankers from all over CIS to compete on even grounds and get some good practice.

If anything with different tanks it would be more of a gimmick and marketing joke.

yeah a nice friendly competion to laugh and have a good time, i give you that, yes...

but as i got it they wanted to let tanks compete against eachother, and if they cant get some foreing countrys with some foreing tanks of same classes to compete and have to drive with the same machines agains eachother then it is kind of a joke, but till that... then lets pop the beer get out the chips