Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

IronsightSniper wrote:1. The Kornet is proving to be one of the most effective weapons in their arsenal, and have caused many casualties to the Israelis. That incident where that Kornet didn't explode but instead got lodged into the Merkava was a rarity.

Thanks IronsightSniper.

Did the Kornet managed to penetrate Merkava Mark 3/4 ? Does Kornet has the capability to penetrate the frontal of Abrams 2 ?

What happens lets say if a ATGM manages to badly hit the tank but cannot penetrate it , does it have a voilent impact on the crew to the extent that they are mentally not in a postiton to carry on the fight since the violent blast impact has taken its toll although they survived without a scratch.

Why dont ATGM designed to target the tracks , atleast a hit even from RPG-29 would make the tank immobile and a sitting duck ?

Is there any new ATGM under development that will replace the Kornet , logically it should be the Hermes but any thing besides that ?

The Kornet did penetrate the Merkava 3 and 4. Although as expected, the Merkava 4 crews had a higher survivability rate.

The Kornet can only penetrate the Glacis and Lower hull of the Abrams if the engagement were to occur to the Abram's frontal arc.

Shock wise, no. I've seen a video of an M1A2 Abrams get ambushed by the side with an RPG-29, the RPG-29 gunner shot and hit the side rear of the Turret, killing the Gunner. That Abrams stopped for a second and then moved on. Spall liners on modern tanks shield the crew from excessive shock waves, so crews aren't scared shitless when they're hit.

The tracks don't give off anything that can allow a seeker to home in on it. It's up to the gunner to aim for the tracks.

AFAIK, the Kornet is still top-of-the-line, and Russia's not considering putting it into mass-service due to cost and weight, so a replacement is kinda jumping the trigger.

The single warhead on the Metis M1 just delivers a generic big boom,
what the 3BK-31 does is prepare the armor for the next penetration, and
then prepare it again for the final penetration, which instead of just
adding up each warhead's penetrations, just makes it easier to defeat
Advanced armor arrays.

So what you are trying to say is that the Metis M1 offers a powerful single stab with an initial jab to get rid of any ERA, while the 3BK-31 has an initial jab to remove ERA and then two powerful hits each one digging through a "trap" layer designed to reduce its performance.

What I am trying to say is that two separate 125mm shaped charge warheads should penetrate better than a single 125mm charge.

No, tactics are apart of the Tank. You're saying that Tanks don't need
obstacle clearance because that's what Engineers are for, but Engineers
are apart of the system.

Sorry, do you mean "a part" or "apart"? They mean the opposite.
Engineers are part of the system and will be called up when needed... building bridges, clearing minefields, blowing up obstructions etc etc.
If a T-90 and a Leopard come to an obstacle that the Leopard can climb over and the T-90 can't... the Leopard will go over and the T-90 will go around.
The way around might be mined so that is good news for the Leopard. The way over the obstacle might be lined up by an RPG team wanting to shoot the Leopard in the weak belly armour... bad news for the Leopard.

At the end of the day the crew will know what they can or cannot deal with and what they can they will and what they can't... well they will deal with that too.

From people who've been to Tank exhibitions and has touched the Arjun,
they can measure it's varying armor layouts, so we know how much armor
they get to work with.

Without taking a core sample you can only get an overall thickness which tells you little about the structure of the armour. The Indians have little history in developing composite armours so for all we know they might have made some basic errors in design that lead to the armour being effective against the ammo they have tested it against but not effective against western type ammo, or they might have corrected errors in western armour making standards and come up with an excellent armour structure that is 20 tons lighter than an Abrams but is just as well protected.
You can make educated guesses but educated guesses are most accurate when there is a track record, and this is a first for India so personally I wouldn't even bother speculating.

The Indian Army did want to know the secrets of T-90 armour, which the Russians declined to sell to them... which is perfectly understandable, but then if they really wanted to know a few core samples of worn out T-90s would give them an idea if they really wanted to know.

The fact that they wanted to buy the technology suggests it is good enough to be worth buying and it wasn't that they were just curious.

) Will T-90M has blow off panels ? Does Blow Off panels offer
significant level of protection to the crew of tanks and how does it
work ?

Explosives will generally take the line of least resistance. A gun works because it is easier for the burning gasses to expand down the barrel pushing the bullet ahead of it than to push the sides of the chamber or the bolt to the rear. Equally in Vietnam wearing sandals was preferred by some because if you stand on a small mine it will take off your toes whereas a shoe will take your foot off at the ankle and a boot your leg 3 quarters of the way up your shin. A very small mine however (called toe poppers) you were better protected by a heavy boot.
The point is that with an explosion giving it an outlet directs the main blast force out the outlet.
Think of it like 1,000 people in a dark movie theatre. If someone yells fire people will panic and everyone will rush to the exit. They might push against bare wall but when it doesn't give way they push towards the exit light instead.
The difference of course is that the blow out panels are designed to blow out and release pressure and energy.
A blow out panel on an ammo cache is like breaking a firecracker in half and then lighting the fuse.
A firecracker will explode with a loud bang because the hole the fuse burns through is tiny and the gas can't escape quickly enough out that hole to relieve the pressure of all the powder burning at once.
With it broken in half however there is plenty of space for the powder to burn without pressure building up so you get what we used to call here a fizzer with a hiss and spray of burning powder like a sky rocket but shorter burning.

What happens lets say if a ATGM manages to badly hit the tank but cannot penetrate it ,

The impact of a 152mm 43kg HE shell on a Tiger or Panther tank turret was devastating and even if it didn't penetrate the armour it often blew the turret off the tank.
A much lighter ATGM hitting a modern heavy tank... they would probably feel it but might not even know what it was till they got out later and saw the damage.

A 90% penetration can lead to spalling where flakes of metal on the opposite side of the impact point can be ripped from the armour and bounce around the inside of the tank at supersonic speed.
Most modern tanks have anti spall liners, and even the ones that don't spaced armour will prevent this being a problem most of the time anyway.
This is the basis for the HESH warhead where the main round is a big soft blob of HE and when it hits the target it flattens and then detonates. It doesn't penetrate the armour, it sends shockwaves through the armour and defeats the vehicle with spall damage.
HESH is a full calibre round that needs rifling and is the main reason the British army keeps rifled main tank guns.

Why dont ATGM designed to target the tracks , atleast a hit even from RPG-29 would make the tank immobile and a sitting duck ?

Because even an immobile tank is dangerous. When you come up against a tank you know you can't penetrate then you have to get creative and try for a side or rear shot.

Setting up a fake minefield... or even a real one will channel the enemies tank forces and you should position your anti tank forces to places where they can take side shots. Natural barriers and choke points can be used for this purpose... fords in otherwise deep rivers can be mined for example, and covered with AT rockets and machine guns and snipers so clearing those mines manually is costly to the enemy.

Is there any new ATGM under development that will replace the Kornet ,
logically it should be the Hermes but any thing besides that ?

Chrisantema is replacing ATAKA in the ground forces, and with a 1250mm penetration and 6km range in the ground launched model is certainly an improvement on both ATAKA and KORNET.

I would think that ground launched HERMES with a range of 20-100km and a near 30kg warhead and terminal guidance should be a good replacement... for tactical air power...

The tracks don't give off anything that can allow a seeker to home in on it. It's up to the gunner to aim for the tracks.

If the tank has been driving anywhere the tracks will be warm.

Thank You so much Garry for that wonderful explanation , makes thing simple and clear.

One of the reason why Arjun has rifled guns is because IA too want to have HESH rounds.

I am quite dissapointed that 2011-2020 does not specify buying T-90M tanks , this is clearly not done

BTW Garry do you know if T-90M has blow up panels on the turret at its rear ?

IronsightSniper , do you have any link to the video where the RPG-29 shoots the Abrams that you had written about ?

On paper HESH is a great idea because it means you can defeat personel inside very hard targets without having to penetrate them... that includes tanks and concrete structures... and for blowing holes in walls for infantry to climb through it is infinitely better than shaped charge HEAT which is designed to make rather small holes in very very thick hard structures.

Having said that, as I said spaced armour is very common and anti spall lining is common now too.
Even the BTR-82 series is having its anti radiation liner replaced with a more practical anti spall liner, but of course the armour of the BTR-82 would simply collapse under the force of a 120mm HESH warhead anyway.

Garry do you know if T-90M has blow up panels on the turret at its rear ?

As far as I know the bustle autoloader is designed as a monolithic add on, so one presumes it can be attached and removed in one piece.
With the Black Eagle design it was supposed to be removed by a crane and replaced in the field so when it was empty the tank would move to the rear and the reloading truck would remove the whole auto loader and replace it with a new one stocked with ammo like a rifle magazine.
Sounds complicated but when an average T series tank is empty it moves to the rear and finds a reloading truck and they hand in ammo one projectile and one stub propellent case at a time... and you have to be very careful because those propellent cases are highly flamable...

Because the T-90M or whatever it is called can be fitted with this autoloader or operate without it I would suspect there might be an attachment structure on the back of the turret and an armoured door that allows the autoloader mechanism to ram rounds and charges straight into the breach of the gun so that component must reach right into the turret but the ammo in the loader is still separated from the crew, so perhaps a frame on the rear of the turret where the autoloader/bustle attaches and a small automatic hatch to allow the loading component to enter the crew compartment with a round to load and to reach in far enough (to the breach) to load it and then retract back into the autoloader and shut the hatch for safety.
The crew would have the rear turret armour protecting them plus more armour making up the front of the autoloader turret bustle and the armoured cover when the loading mechanism has completed loading.
I suspect considering the whole purpose of the turret bustle is to remove live ammo from the crew compartment that it is designed to blow out or up or rearward... anywhere but down into the engine or forward into the crew compartment.
Just my opinion of course.

Austin wrote:Thank You so much Garry for that wonderful explanation , makes thing simple and clear.

One of the reason why Arjun has rifled guns is because IA too want to have HESH rounds.

I am quite dissapointed that 2011-2020 does not specify buying T-90M tanks , this is clearly not done

BTW Garry do you know if T-90M has blow up panels on the turret at its rear ?

IronsightSniper , do you have any link to the video where the RPG-29 shoots the Abrams that you had written about ?

austin maybe u'll like this. makava vs kornet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzVEduKGUws

Will the 1200 mm RHAe penetration capability of Khrizantema ATGM HEAT warhead will allow penetration of most western armour in its strongest area ?

Even if its penetration is 2m it wouldn't guarantee penetration of any tank.

The fact is that penetration figures are variable with the main factor being angle of impact.

The old story is that a 120mm shell that takes your little finger off as it passes will not kill you but a .22lr round through the eye socket and into the brain will kill you dead.

Shot placement is key.

The only missile I know of that is a sure fire kill of any tank ever made or ever planned is a Kh-29T.

315kgs of shaped charge HE will kill with blast force alone.

In desert storm one of the most commonly used anti tank weapon was a Mk82 bomb with a laser guidance kit fitted... which equates to a FAB-250 with a laser guidance kit fitted would do a similar job even without the shaped charge warhead.

Garry how about a Top Attack missile like Indian Nag ,US Javelin, Europe PARS they all have top attack capability and attacks the most vulnerable position of the armour which is the center top , isnt that a sure kill ?

Thanks

Garry how about a Top Attack missile like Indian Nag ,US Javelin, Europe
PARS they all have top attack capability and attacks the most
vulnerable position of the armour which is the center top , isnt that a
sure kill ?

Their trajectory takes them to hit the thinnest armour except belly armour but they are not perfect either... they could easily hit the turret frontal armour or other non vulnerable part of the tank where there is no crew or ammo or fuel.
For instance a Javelin hitting an Abrams in a diving attack might hit the rear turret bustle... which will set off the stored ammo but will not take out the tank.

I have seen a test of a Javelin where they had an array of hair dryers on a rack to heat an old model T series tank. They did that to give the tank that was used as a target an IR signature to lock on to.
After heating it and locking on and firing the missile looking at the video the missile didn't even hit the top of the vehicle, it hit the side of the tank at a very steep angle... if the tank was facing the Javelin instead of a side shot the missile could just as easily hit the main frontal armour at a shallow angle that wouldn't have penetrated either the hull or turret front.

^^ Innteresting but i suppose the Top Attack one tried to attack the center of the turret based on their pre-set images and then compares to the actual and then makes correction while in flight , so that it does not end up hitting other then the turret and in the center.

Has the US Army every tested Javelin against the Abrams-2 and who has won most times ?

Look at this freeze frame of a shot at a tank with Javelin...



Now turn the tank around for a frontal shot and it is either going to hit the upper hull or turret front.... and it simply doesn't have the penetration capability to guarantee penetration from those angles in those areas.

It also doesn't have the accuracy to hit a particular part of the tank... especially with a moving tank.

Most of the time it will kill, I am not saying it is useless or anything, and for most tanks the US is currently fighting it is quite frankly overkill using a million dollar hammer to crack a 50 cent nut... from what I have seen of video footage the US grunts are using it on everything from individual shooting positions to buildings... everything but tanks.

Yes indeed the US Army have used Javelin extensively in GW 2 , hitting almost every thing that blocks its way and using F&F capability of Javelin to minimise exposure time and avoid direct fire from enemy.

Well thats the advantage being a rich nation , you can use expensive toys at your will

GarryB wrote:Look at this freeze frame of a shot at a tank with Javelin...



Now turn the tank around for a frontal shot and it is either going to hit the upper hull or turret front.... and it simply doesn't have the penetration capability to guarantee penetration from those angles in those areas.

It also doesn't have the accuracy to hit a particular part of the tank... especially with a moving tank.

Most of the time it will kill, I am not saying it is useless or anything, and for most tanks the US is currently fighting it is quite frankly overkill using a million dollar hammer to crack a 50 cent nut... from what I have seen of video footage the US grunts are using it on everything from individual shooting positions to buildings... everything but tanks.

Actually, the Javelin has a fair sized warhead too. It has a tandem-HEAT warhead with about 8.4 kg of explosives and it's penetrative capability has been stated from 600 - 1,000 mm of RHA. Also, you have to remember that a stationary target is different than a moving target, so a Javelin would not be aiming for the Front of the Tank all the time.

Also, the Javelin doesn't cost a million, it's more or less around $100,000 :v



And Garry, answering your question of why not fill the air gap:

"You need a space that allow sandwich (or flyer) plates to bulge (or move), you need also a room where HEAT jet and penetrator fragments can spread and would not be channeled into deeper parts of armour array. The clue is to have armour module volume as high as it is possible (of course with common sense and ergonomic issues in mind) while maintaining it`s weight at the lowest level, and "pure" space with air inside is probably the best here. "

"What Przezdzieblo says is perfectly correct, with regards to bulging armor (and similar reactive armors).

With regards to non-reactive armor with spaced components, the airgap is necessary for the creation of stresses in the penetrator.

For instance, in a steel/airgap/steel spaced armor array: While penetrating the first steel layer, a long-rod penetrator will compress and shorten. Passing through the airgap allows it to lengthen again. It will compress and shorten again when penetrating the second steel layer. This compress-stretch-compress action creates tensile and compressive strain in the penetrator body, either breaking it, or weakening it and rendering it less effective at penetrating deeper layers of armor.

In an aluminum whipple shield: Dozens or hundreds of aluminum/air/aluminum transitions cause rapid compressive and tensile loading in the nose of the penetrator, resulting in the destruction of some frontal length. This is similar to other "unsteady hypervelocity interactions" (such as a penetrator passing through a ceramic-filled metal matrix composite).

In an edge-effect component: Part of the penetrator's front interacts with armor, while the other part does not (passes through an airgap). Imagine a baseball clipping the top of a fence. Because the lower half of the baseball meets resistance and the upper half does not, the baseball deflects and takes on spin. Similarly, the penetrator will experience shearing forces at the airgap/armor boundry, and flexural forces in its length, inducing yaw and possibly bending or breaking it.

If the airgaps were filled with armor material, then the disparity of forces acting on the penetrator would be less acute, and the effects would be diminished or lost.

-- TTK"

Also, you have to remember that a stationary target is different than a
moving target, so a Javelin would not be aiming for the Front of the
Tank all the time.

I would suggest that a moving target would make it rather harder to hit in a specific place... and in this case the rocket was fired from 500m... it could just as easily have been an RPG-29... which is also fire and forget.

Also, the Javelin doesn't cost a million, it's more or less around $100,000 :v

Well that makes it ok then...

If the airgaps were filled with armor material, then the disparity of
forces acting on the penetrator would be less acute, and the effects
would be diminished or lost.

And what about something innovative like 10cm2 cells of very high pressure nitrogen in a layer 2.5cm thick?

The layer could be put together in a cold chamber with cryogenic nitrogen poured into the separate compartments with the cells welded shut and sealed within the armour structure. As the armour returns to room temperature the pressure will increase in the cells so when they are penetrated... especially by a super hot HEAT the liquid would turn straight to a gas.
It would be very interesting to test to see what effect that has on a solid (APFSDS) or plasma (HEAT) penetrator.

The IIR seeker will go for what's the hottest. The more you move the hotter you get, except if you have some camouflage on, but that just makes it more difficult but not inaccurate.

The problem I see with using liquid nitrogen would be that it would lose multi-shot capability. Once you make a penetration all the pressure might disarm the first penetrator but the gases also escape which means it loses it's capability for when the second one comes along.

Austin wrote:Will the 1200 mm RHAe penetration capability of Khrizantema ATGM HEAT warhead will allow penetration of most western armour in its strongest area ?

As Garry said, shot placement is key, but answering your question, no.

M1A2 Abram's strongest area would be it's front turret, that's where the DU in the entire tank is at. It's RHAe is about 1700 mm. Leopard 2x's strongest area would also be it's front turret (as you might notice, Front turrets are the most protected part of Western tanks). It's RHAe is almost 2000 mm. Western doctrine of reinforcing the front turret doesn't come with no merit either. Analysis of shot placement in the Gulf war showed that over 60% of tank rounds hit 1.5 m off the ground, which would be the Front turret for tanks that are around 2.5 m tall (including Abrams and T-80/90). Unfortunately for the Leopard 2, being 3m tall means that 60% of tank rounds will hit it's Glacis, which is fairly armored either way. Not really sure how tank rounds relate to ATGMs, but yeah.

The IIR seeker will go for what's the hottest. The more you move the
hotter you get, except if you have some camouflage on, but that just
makes it more difficult but not inaccurate.

Very not true... otherwise the defence from Javelin would be the same as for aircraft... Flare elements in the smoke grenade launchers.
An IR seeker might be fooled by flares, but an IIR seeker actually builds an image like a thermal imager so you can pick a part of the tank to hit... the problem clearly in this case is that the person launching the missile picked low on the side of the tank and picked a high lofted trajectory which resulted in a poor hit low down on the side at a steep angle.
The problem with Javelin is that if the tank has no obvious heat signature to lock on to then it can't be fired in fire and forget mode because if the missile can't see the tanks signature the tank could move and the missile would hit where the tank was because it wouldn't see it moving.
Most tanks however do have an IR signature and moving tanks more so.

Not really sure how tank rounds relate to ATGMs, but yeah.

Of course helicopter fired missiles will be launched from 6-8km away and will as a rule be fired at the flanks of an armoured force. The automatic tracking system will likely aim for the centre of the tank and if the missile hits there then we are talking about a good chance of a hit on the turret ring from the side.

It should also be mentioned that the Krisantema is the cheap replacement for the ATAKA and that when facing front line enemy armour the missile used would likely be HERMES with its 28kg warhead which is designed to defeat current and future enemy main battle tanks.

But as we all know, Khrizantema hasn't been adopted as an air-launched ATGM, and as we discussed a whiles back, we're not really sure why either.

But as we all know, Khrizantema hasn't been adopted as an air-launched
ATGM, and as we discussed a whiles back, we're not really sure why
either.

It is part of the Mi-28M upgrade of the N model.

And I am guessing it is because the TOR system of EOs for the gunners sight didn't have the appropriate laser beam for guidance as the ATAKA doesn't use laser beam riding and nor does any other weapon the Mi-28N normally carries. (The Vikhr uses it but that is a Hokum weapon.)
The TOR system is going to be replaced by an UOMZ turret EO system in the M model Mi-28.

Additionally I would think the M upgrade will have a fully operational MMW radar system for targeting ground targets.

Austin wrote:I think a taller turret will also make it a jucier target , in the sense the opposite gunner would see it much earlier then say it would sight a t-90

I wouldn't say so. Iraqi T-72s did terrible in the Iraq war for a multitude of reasons. One of them was that they were employed in the Hull down, or defensive position. The problem for T-72s and basically any modern Russian tank in that regard is that because their profile is so short, they can't take advantage of many hull down positions.

Another thing about short tanks is that their height limits the elevation and depression they can reach. The current gun on the T-90 can only elevate 12+ and -5 degrees. The elevation for the gun on the Abrams is +15 and -7 degrees. Depression matters in combat environments, when tanks are forced to hug the enemy, and a RPG team somewhere up high or somewhere down low can ambush you and not expect you to fire on them (although a guy following behind would handle it).

GarryB wrote:Odds are that targets are detected using a number of sensors and the taking out of one of those sensors will effect performance, but will not take the tank out of action.

Besides it would be logical for the gunner to recognise the target and realise their is little point in firing on the turret so he might aim for the hull.

"taking out a tank" by hitting its main gun or ammo would be much easier on an Abrams because its ready to use ammo is in the turret bustle, but how often has that happened in real combat?

I would suspect the top of the turret likely contains some form of protection from top attack weapons and may include an APS to protect the top of the tank from submunitions and top attack weapons.

Or it could be a new form of protection as used by postal services and marketing departments all over the world... you've bought that MP3 player that comes in a box the size of a shoebox for a product the size of a matchbox. How many times will they hit it before they work out where the vital components are...

Studies of tank hits in the Gulf war showed that 65% of tank rounds will land 1.5 meters above the ground. Western tanks having the best protected tank turrets in the world, means that most rounds will hit it in it's safest part. For Russian tanks, that means most rounds will hit on it's 2nd safest part.

I highly doubt Russia will field any APS en masse to be honest. Simply said, too expensive and ARENA has fallen behind western APSs like TROPHY.

All said that still does not disqualify my reasoning that T-95 will be
detected much earlier due to its higher profile compared to other tanks ,
so first look and first kill advantage might not be that of T-95
,irespective of its sensors or APS

Really?

Did the fact that M1 Abrams tanks are larger than T-72s help Iraqi Tanks find Abrams tanks first?

Anybody can spot a moving tank. A stationary tank is much harder to detect... especially with optical and other types of camouflage. A 20m tall tank is invisible... when sitting behind a 22m tall building.

When firing at a target don't believe the bullshit... you don't aim for the drivers hatch... you aim for centre of mass and that results quite often in a turret front hit... it is not an accident that 90% of modern tanks have their heaviest armour on the front of their turret. It is not a new thing either.

BTW have read your comments on mpnet and I think you are a little confused about Armata... Armata is a FAMILY, not a single vehicle.

Right now the T-90 is the chassis for the MBT, it is also the chassis for the MSTA 152mm artillery vehicle.

Armata will be the same, in fact it is quite likely that all air defence and artillery vehicles will use the Armata chassis, so when they talk about Armata being up to 65 tons they are probably talking about a Coalition type vehicle (that twin gunned MSTA) on an Armata Chassis that weighs 65 tons... with a huge turret and significant on board 152m calibre ammo. The development money was cut but it was a joint Army Navy program so it is likely the Navy will still get a new system of much longer range perhaps.

Depression matters in combat environments, when tanks are forced to hug
the enemy, and a RPG team somewhere up high or somewhere down low can
ambush you and not expect you to fire on them (although a guy following
behind would handle it).

The remote control 12.7mm calibre HMG is for engaging infantry or helos, but for most roles they don't want enemy infantry near their tanks... tanks are stand off firepower. BMPs are armed with 100mm HE frag shells fired in direct fire mode that are very accurate and have 60 degree plus elevation plus a 30mm automatic cannon and 7.62mm coaxial mgs for all sorts of infantry targets... hard or soft... and of course they have their own infantry too.

Tanks alone amongst enemy infantry are in trouble. The purpose of the BMPT was as a fire support vehicle to deal with targets tanks are not very good at dealing with... sort of a failed attempt to put BMP firepower in a tank protection level package.

I highly doubt Russia will field any APS en masse to be honest. Simply
said, too expensive and ARENA has fallen behind western APSs like
TROPHY.

I agree it wont be ARENA, but after all the blubbing about T-90s not being able to deal with Javelin and top attack submunitions I would expect they will have an upgraded APS system that can defend against those sorts of threats... ARENA 4 perhaps?

I suspect the complaints heard about the cost of T-90s compared with the cost of Leopards suggests strongly that Russian tank crews are finally getting APS systems... after testing them first in combat they might get some into service.
$4 million a vehicle... not likely for a Russian company to gold plate their tanks... something I hope they never learn from the west.

GarryB wrote:Really?

Did the fact that M1 Abrams tanks are larger than T-72s help Iraqi Tanks find Abrams tanks first?

Anybody can spot a moving tank. A stationary tank is much harder to detect... especially with optical and other types of camouflage. A 20m tall tank is invisible... when sitting behind a 22m tall building.

When firing at a target don't believe the bullshit... you don't aim for the drivers hatch... you aim for centre of mass and that results quite often in a turret front hit... it is not an accident that 90% of modern tanks have their heaviest armour on the front of their turret. It is not a new thing either.

Comparing T-72M1:s with Iraq crew against M1A1:s with professional soldiers, doesnt.
In fact, the M60 and M48 tanks in Vietnam suffered because of their heights. It sometimes is infantry firing, and yes, larger targets are easier to hit.

Yes, when firing antitank missiles and such, you aim in the middle. If you have a Carl Gustav or RPG, you can aim for the soft spots. And i am talking of close combat, not over 400m.
Veteran Tank crews certainly aims for the soft spots when its possible.

GarryB wrote:I agree it wont be ARENA, but after all the blubbing about T-90s not being able to deal with Javelin and top attack submunitions I would expect they will have an upgraded APS system that can defend against those sorts of threats... ARENA 4 perhaps?

Truth is, you can never defend a tank from top attacks. Because at the moment you have a defence system that can deal with it, the offensive systems is being improved and enhanced.

As of now, the STRIX and EXCALIBUR systems can destroy any known tank.

Warfare is a very complex thing, not just one system against one other, its every system against almost everything.

And about gun depression, it played some part in the Golans, T-55, T-62 vs Centurian and Shermans. But overall other things decided the battle. Like crew training and tactics. Like support and aircover. Like professionalship and hmm, lots of things.

GarryB wrote:Did the fact that M1 Abrams tanks are larger than T-72s help Iraqi Tanks find Abrams tanks first?

Thats not a fair comparision , considering even of T-72 managed to hit the Abrams they would been by and large inffective , ofcourse the Abrams in most occasion never gave a chance or the chopper did that for them.

When firing at a target don't believe the bullshit... you don't aim for the drivers hatch... you aim for centre of mass and that results quite often in a turret front hit... it is not an accident that 90% of modern tanks have their heaviest armour on the front of their turret. It is not a new thing either.

you are still missing the point , lets says if you let a T-90 and T-95 approach a Abrams , chances are Abrams will see the T-95 before it sees the T-90, that was my point. I read in some board that T-95 was 3m tall.

BTW have read your comments on mpnet and I think you are a little confused about Armata... Armata is a FAMILY, not a single vehicle.

Right now the T-90 is the chassis for the MBT, it is also the chassis for the MSTA 152mm artillery vehicle.

Armata will be the same, in fact it is quite likely that all air defence and artillery vehicles will use the Armata chassis, so when they talk about Armata being up to 65 tons they are probably talking about a Coalition type vehicle (that twin gunned MSTA) on an Armata Chassis that weighs 65 tons... with a huge turret and significant on board 152m calibre ammo. The development money was cut but it was a joint Army Navy program so it is likely the Navy will still get a new system of much longer range perhaps.

Yes thats what I think too , that Armata project could be an attempt to develop common chassis for different platform.

I would still wait and see how the new tanks develop , the jury is open after the generals latest statement on this issue.

I would personally be happy to see a 65T tank with either 125 mm or 152 mm gun if not initially atleast at future date for higher caliber gun , considering they do have those guns developed for T-95 it would be a waste not to use it for some project

Comparing T-72M1:s with Iraq crew against M1A1:s with professional soldiers, doesnt.
In
fact, the M60 and M48 tanks in Vietnam suffered because of their
heights. It sometimes is infantry firing, and yes, larger targets are
easier to hit.

I quite agree that larger targets are easier to hit, but with modern fire control systems getting a hit on a tank isn't currently a problem is it?

And your first point is your best... in real combat the height of the T-72M1 or lack of it was not significant enough to save it. In real combat it was C4IR and the thermal optics of the M1s that meant the T-72s weren't given a chance to get good close shots at them... ignoring the fact that their ammo was rubbish.

If you have a Carl Gustav or RPG, you can aim for the soft spots. And i am talking of close combat, not over 400m.
Veteran Tank crews certainly aims for the soft spots when its possible.

You certainly do aim manually aimed weapons at soft spots... but as range increases and target speed increases the chances of actually hitting what you aim at decreases. In a strong cross wind at more than 150m range you will be happy just to get a hit with most unguided weapons. Volley shots are common with such weapons for a reason as a good hit in a soft area is more often a case of luck than intent.

Certainly the chance of hitting soft spots with RPGs and CGs is greatly increased by firing at tanks from the side or rear or from above at the side, rear, and top armour respectively.

Truth is, you can never defend a tank from top attacks. Because at
the moment you have a defence system that can deal with it, the
offensive systems is being improved and enhanced.

The measure/countermeasure war is a circle. The point is that if the rival has a measure in widespread service then a counter to that measure is worth it. For example the RPG-7 is widely used in Russian and other forces so a counter makes sense. Trying to counter the effect of a tactical nuclear weapon is a waste of time on two fronts... it is too powerful to protect something from, and the likelyhood of it being used against a tank is so low as to consider it to be zero.
With Javelins in widespread US service however it makes sense to develop and deploy a counter to it... even if it is not a perfect 100% shield.

As of now, the STRIX and EXCALIBUR systems can destroy any known tank.

And Hermes and Kh-29L and Kh-29T could probably do the same.

There is no point developing armour for western tanks to stop a 317kg HEAT warhead of the Kh-29 simply because the blast will kill the crew even if the weapon hits the ground 5m beside the tank.

Warfare is a very complex thing, not just one system against one other, its every system against almost everything.

Indeed... the US could deploy a 1950s fighter bomber to bomb the Taleban in Afghanistan and Pakistan... if that 1950s fighter is wired to carry satellite guided bombs... they are already using the B-52 from the 1950s and it does its job fine without needing stealth or supersonic speed.

Thats not a fair comparision , considering even of T-72 managed to hit
the Abrams they would been by and large inffective , ofcourse the Abrams
in most occasion never gave a chance or the chopper did that for them.

It is not a fair comparison... but it is a real comparison. The fairest fight of the last 50 years was probably the conflict in Georgia in 2008. Very similar sized forces very similar equipment, except the Georgians has a sophisticated C4IR system with UAVs etc and the Russian forces used cellphones for communications...
It is not just skill and training... the Russians wanted to help their neighbours while the Georgians didn't seem interested in dying to take a little slice of land called South Ossetia.

you are still missing the point , lets says if you let a T-90 and T-95
approach a Abrams , chances are Abrams will see the T-95 before it sees
the T-90, that was my point. I read in some board that T-95 was 3m tall.

And lets follow that analogy and say it fires first on the T-95 and the round penetrates the turret... no crew in there and no ammo so it is a clean hit that goes straight through the turret... without anything critically hit that will stop the tank and knock it out... which is fuel, crew, or ammo, the tank continues to function. It will fire back at that M1 and most likely with a 152mm gun will kill it. If its main gun is damaged then it can pass on target data to other vehicles in its unit to do the same and monitor the results.
Now lets take the T-90... it gets closer... but is still spotted by the M1 and fired upon. The engagement will continue till one of the vehicles destroys the other but the better protection of the T-95 means it is more likely to be able to take a hit and keep fighting.

Yes thats what I think too , that Armata project could be an attempt to develop common chassis for different platform.

Armata is a standard chassis for a new tank and the rest of the family of vehicles that operates with the tank.

If they want tank based IFVs for the heavy brigade it will be based on the Armata chassis too, as will all the air defence vehicles and the artillery etc etc.

The medium brigade will be the same... there will be a medium weight vehicle... Boomerang or something wasn't it? And all the vehicles... ie tank/direct fire support vehicle, APC, Artillery, Air defence, etc etc will be based on that chassis.

The light Brigade will be the same with a new chassis design... though they might go for a mix of 8 wheeled and 4 wheeled vehicles... so that would be in todays vehicles... the tank/fire support vehicle would be based on the BTR with a 125mm gun, while the APC might be Volk or PVP or SP3 or whatever, while air defence might be on a Vodnik or something and artillery might be the 2S23 with a 120mm mortar on a BTR-80 chassis.

I would still wait and see how the new tanks develop , the jury is open after the generals latest statement on this issue.

He is complaining about the price per vehicle... when they start with orders of 100 or 200 a year once the design is finalised then the price will likely go down... especially if it is an impressive new upgrade that might appeal to export customers... though Indian might not want it because it might want the T-90 to remain the cheap numbers tank.

I would personally be happy to see a 65T tank with either 125 mm or 152
mm gun if not initially atleast at future date for higher caliber gun ,
considering they do have those guns developed for T-95 it would be a
waste not to use it for some project

The game of measure and countermeasure means the sooner you deploy it into service and the wider you get it into service the quicker the rival will develop measures to defeat it.

So what he is saying is they can deliver the T-90A at 1.5 times lower price than what the Chief said which was $4million.

1.5 times lower cost will be $2.6 million unit cost of T-90A

I suspect that the 4 million is for the T-90M and that the Chief is getting this out into the public to try to force them to drop the price.

Depression matters in combat environments, when tanks are forced to hug
the enemy, and a RPG team somewhere up high or somewhere down low can
ambush you and not expect you to fire on them (although a guy following
behind would handle it).

The remote control 12.7mm calibre HMG is for engaging infantry or helos, but for most roles they don't want enemy infantry near their tanks... tanks are stand off firepower. BMPs are armed with 100mm HE frag shells fired in direct fire mode that are very accurate and have 60 degree plus elevation plus a 30mm automatic cannon and 7.62mm coaxial mgs for all sorts of infantry targets... hard or soft... and of course they have their own infantry too.

Tanks alone amongst enemy infantry are in trouble. The purpose of the BMPT was as a fire support vehicle to deal with targets tanks are not very good at dealing with... sort of a failed attempt to put BMP firepower in a tank protection level package.

The funny thing is that combat experience in Iraq has proved the ineffectiveness of the 12.7 mm TC's gun and the 7.62 coax. The latter doesn't have the penetration power to hit past the houses and cause lethal wounds while the former over penetrates (stories in Iraq of families finding 12.7 mm ammo passing through 4 houses). The main gun has shown to be the most effective urban anti-personal weapon. Shrapnel rounds have enough velocity to punch through a wall and kill the guy but not enough mass to punch through more than one wall, thus reducing collateral.

The BMPT has been canceled.

I highly doubt Russia will field any APS en masse to be honest. Simply
said, too expensive and ARENA has fallen behind western APSs like
TROPHY.

I agree it wont be ARENA, but after all the blubbing about T-90s not being able to deal with Javelin and top attack submunitions I would expect they will have an upgraded APS system that can defend against those sorts of threats... ARENA 4 perhaps?

I suspect the complaints heard about the cost of T-90s compared with the cost of Leopards suggests strongly that Russian tank crews are finally getting APS systems... after testing them first in combat they might get some into service.
$4 million a vehicle... not likely for a Russian company to gold plate their tanks... something I hope they never learn from the west.

It depends on what Russian tank needs. Top attack isn't a critical problem for tanks in general as no top attack weapon has been used against any modern tank force yet. Only top attack tactics have been employed. In that sense, what the T-90 needs would be something similar to the Trophy, in that it's an external module that can rotate 360 and elevate at least 60 degrees. Whatever they decide to come out with, it of course needs a better reload mechanism. And it should at least edge on being relatively affordable by Russian standards.

And Hermes and Kh-29L and Kh-29T could probably do the same.

There is no point developing armour for western tanks to stop a 317kg HEAT warhead of the Kh-29 simply because the blast will kill the crew even if the weapon hits the ground 5m beside the tank.

Put a Stinger on it! *not actually advising that, but just saying