Comparing Tanks

[quote="GarryB"]

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.

The problem again is that the 3BK-31 isn't 3 separate warheads that you can just take the penetration values of each and add them up. The round itself is designed so that each warhead will detonate at the exact same time, but are misaligned so that they won't hit each other. That way, the first warhead will detonate any ERA but will just really destroy the initial RHA layer and prep the DU layer of an Abrams. The second warhead will penetrate the DU layer and then prep the Ceramic layer of an Abrams. The final warhead will penetrate that Ceramic layer, then the backing RHA layer, and finally fully penetrate the tank.

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.

The thing is, roadblocks are generally there like minefields. They're there to make the tank go around, not go over. The tank that goes around will meet the Ambush. The tank that goes over will flank.

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.

Again, I told you, one can infer what the varying thicknesses are. Also, you can probe the armor with a special tool that measures it's the armor's varying magnetism which will allow you to deduce what's where and how much is there. The basics of T-90's composite armor is quite simple really. Internet scientists have deduced that the T-90's composite has: 1. RHA 2. Boron Carbide 3. Fiber Glass 4. Air Gap 5. Applique armor 7. Rubber array 8. Anti-neuron array (this has been replaced with a Spall liner)

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

An engine is hotter still.

Garry , right now they have a fleet of more then 20 thousand tank of various modification.

Yes, I know... so with 20,000 tanks with a few hundred T-90s they will keep and maybe 5,000 T-72s they will modernise that means 15,000 tanks surplus to requirements they need to find a role for.
...Upgrade the 5,000 odd T-72s and make about 1,500 T-90Ms when the design has been finalised and upgrade the few hundred T-90s already in service to that standard.

Regarding the T-80:
In very simple terms the Soviets were basically at one point building three tanks that were different but in the same class.
The T-64 was their first "special tank".
Expensive but very capable with composite armour and a powerful main gun and for the time sophisticated systems.
People look at the T-64 and T-72 and T-80 and T-90 and have trouble telling them apart externally and they assume that internally they are pretty similar too.
They are not.
Very simply up until the T-72BM the T-72 was a mass production tank that could be exported or given to allies, though with various upgrades could be quite formidable.
The T-64 was the front line tank... in the battle of Kursk for the German side the T-64 was the Tiger, the T-80 was the Panther and the T-72s were the Panzer IVs that followed up behind.
The T-64 had new composite armour, but the T-80 was the newer design with even better composite armour and newer electronics etc... the T-64 and T-80 got their ATGM tube fired missile capability first because in many ways they were the "heavy tank" replacement for the T-10M. Their superior armour let them control the battlefield... they could sit back 2km from the front line and with their 4km-5km range missiles pick off enemy vehicles and at that range no 105mm calibre gun could penetrate their frontal armour... the main threat was enemy helos yet their rear position put them pretty safely under the units air defence umbrella.

The T-72 was cheap and easy to make in enormous numbers yet its performance was pretty good if used properly... it was fast and had good armour... but not great armour, and carried a big powerful gun.

The thing is however that when the Soviet Union split up Russia was left with a huge variety of tanks and the factories that made the T-80 were suddenly in the Ukraine... and many of the important components of all tanks like gas turbine engines and even HMGs (NSVT) and diesel engines were now made in a now foreign country. The Ukraine was actually in the same boat because of a lot of components for the T-80 were made in Russia too.
The end result was that Russia decided to hold a contest to decide what tank to go forward with, so the Russian tank (UVZ Uralvagonzavod) company came up with the T-72BM which took out all the cheap simple parts and components and also as much of the foreign parts and components and put in all expensive parts and components to greatly increase performance. It got new expensive but more capable composite armour, new FCS, etc etc.

The T-90 won. The T-80 is considered a Ukrainian tank so I don't know how much is bias, but I do know the under turret autoloader for the T-80 and T-72 are different and that the T-80 autoloader has ammo standing up in its magazine which makes the ammo in the magazine more prone to igniting if the vehicle is penetrated.
In the T-72/-90 the ammo is better protected in its autoloader.

To be honest I like the T-90, but the T-80 is not a bad tank as such. The gas turbine models are gas guzzlers, but the diesel models would be rather good. The diesel engine of the diesel model is made in the Ukraine.

It makes a lot of sense for them to pick the T-90 and as the T-90 is a T-72BM it is much easier to upgrade an older model T-72 to close to T-90 standard than to change the T-80 to something close enough to a T-90 to improve standardisation and logistics and training.

Note from Wiki:

In the post Soviet Union period the states decision to fund tank production at Uralvagonzavod in Nizhny Tagil (manufacturer of the T-90
tank) at the expense of the Omsk factory caused financial ruin for the
company.
The organisation had designed a new prototype tank, named Black Eagle
but it did not enter production.
Although the plant received work
modernising T-62 and T-72 tanks this did not provide sufficient income
and in 2002 the company went bankrupt.^[3]

In 2004 the design arm of the business was absorbed into Uralvagonzavod.

Note the actual competition was between Omsktransmash and UVZ, but UVZ was in a much better state with its rail business making a good profit.

In practical terms the orders so far of T-90 tanks have been so small if the decision had gone to Omsk the company probably would have gone bust anyway.

As its says the design component of Omsk was absorbed into UVZ so the Black Eagle might live on in the form of the turret bustle component of the T-90 upgrade.

The problem again is that the 3BK-31 isn't 3 separate warheads that
you can just take the penetration values of each and add them up. The
round itself is designed so that each warhead will detonate at the exact
same time, but are misaligned so that they won't hit each other. That
way, the first warhead will detonate any ERA but will just really
destroy the initial RHA layer and prep the DU layer of an Abrams. The
second warhead will penetrate the DU layer and then prep the Ceramic
layer of an Abrams. The final warhead will penetrate that Ceramic layer,
then the backing RHA layer, and finally fully penetrate the tank.

I agree but you have one point wrong... they don't all go off together... otherwise the second large warhead would destroy the penetrator in front of it.

The correct actual sequence is for the initial charge to remove any ERA present or to start the penetration. Next the rear most charge detonates and blows a small hole in the large charge in front of it which is not enough to set it off or effect its performance too much which continues forward into the initial hole generated by the first small charge. The second main charge then detonates slightly later when the first main charge has had a go at penetration and tries again through the same hole to see if it can continue all the way through.


In many ways a HEAT beam of metal is very much like an APFSDS round... except at these speeds and temperatures the metal beam of the HEAT penetrator and the armour itself act as much like fluids as solids.
Just look at penetrated steel plate and sometimes you might think if it was painted the right colour it was plasticine.

The thing is, roadblocks are generally there like minefields. They're
there to make the tank go around, not go over. The tank that goes around
will meet the Ambush. The tank that goes over will flank.

Or find an anti tank ditch on the other side it can't get out of... or a minefield especially for the brave tank commander who thinks it will be safe. There are plenty of natural geography that bottlenecks tanks... if the tank driver drives over an obstacle and evades an ambush today... you can bet your @$$ that the next time that obstacle will either be taller, heavier, deeper... or part of the ambush.

Also, you can probe the armor with a special tool that measures it's the
armor's varying magnetism which will allow you to deduce what's where
and how much is there.

Which would work with Iron but plastic, rubber, fibreglass?

The basics of T-90's composite armor is quite simple really. Internet
scientists have deduced that the T-90's composite has: 1. RHA 2. Boron
Carbide 3. Fiber Glass 4. Air Gap 5. Applique armor 7. Rubber array 8.
Anti-neuron array (this has been replaced with a Spall liner)

So what are you doing here? Go and sell it to the Indian Army. They have in their possession more T-90s than the Russian Army currently has yet they still want to buy the technology to make the T-90s armour.

An engine is hotter still.

Doesn't matter. As long as it is warmer than the background it can be targeted by a weapon like Javelin.

Of course the real solution is to simply aim a HMG like a 12.7mm or 14.5mm weapon at the target tanks tracks... or even light cannon fire should do the trick. Any disposable RPG weapon or any of the RPO modifications should also be quite effective in damaging the running gear... and of course the obvious landmine... there are lots of bar shaped models designed specifically to cut the track of a tank.

There are even mines designed to be positioned beside the path a tank will drive down like the Russian TM-83 which is a huge 25cm diameter 20kg mine that can make an 80mm diameter hole in an armoured target from 50m range. It can penetrate 400mm of armour, which would damage most vehicles.

In fact I am surprised the Afghans haven't done what they did on the Tremors movies and put a mine on a remote control car and drive it up to an enemy vehicle and then set it off. The thing is that these remote control cars are relatively cheap and even a quite small shaped charge facing upwards driven under a tank could do some damage. You could dig a hole big enough for a shoebox on the side of the road and have one sitting there with a sand coloured cloth on it and when an Abrams approaches drive it out... with two ends of the cloth staked down so it doesn't prevent the remote control car moving and then drive onto the road under traffic and when the abrams passes over it... boom. Have a secondary crush fuse so if the tank driver runs it over it explodes too. It means you need far less explosive, and you don't alienate the local people by killing them. Then of course the defence personel will have to keep a look out for people buying remote control vehicles.

I should point out that I suggested a cruise missile fired directly from a shipping container about 15 years ago and got no credit at all for that idea... why would Iran bother making ICBMs when a cheap subsonic missile could easily be designed and built to launch directly from a shipping crate on a ship at sea. Those container ships carry thousands of containers and hundreds of thousands are in the sea at any one time because they fell off in a storm. An Iranian freighter could drop a few extra off in the Pacific without anyone being the wiser and they could sit there waiting for a signal... or sink waiting for the right sonar ping signal that releases a missile from each shipping container. Covering your whole border is hard especially from directions you aren't expecting attack from. In the middle of a super bowl weekend or something... of course their only problem is a nuke small enough to fit in a cruise missile...

The thing is, roadblocks are generally there like minefields. They're
there to make the tank go around, not go over. The tank that goes around
will meet the Ambush. The tank that goes over will flank.

Or find an anti tank ditch on the other side it can't get out of... or a minefield especially for the brave tank commander who thinks it will be safe. There are plenty of natural geography that bottlenecks tanks... if the tank driver drives over an obstacle and evades an ambush today... you can bet your @$$ that the next time that obstacle will either be taller, heavier, deeper... or part of the ambush.

But if there's that much crap behind the first crap then why not assume that to the tank that goes around there'd be just more crap? Overall, the Leopard 2 has better obstacle clearance and there's really nothing too bad about that.

Also, you can probe the armor with a special tool that measures it's the
armor's varying magnetism which will allow you to deduce what's where
and how much is there.

Which would work with Iron but plastic, rubber, fibreglass?

If the magnetism rating drops you can assume that there's no steel there. Once you reach the other side where there is steel you can deduce how much of that non-RHA is there. I should note, Ceramics and DU are usually at the back of the array to shatter any rounds that get that far. To find air-gaps, one only needs to clank his hand on the armor array and if it echos, there's an air gap. Rubber and Fiberglass and the like are deduced by armor logic, usually they'll put rubber behind Steel and then steel behind the rubber to make a rubber sandwich which would improve it's RHAe by about 50% when compared to just regular steel. There's a lot of ways to do this.

The basics of T-90's composite armor is quite simple really. Internet
scientists have deduced that the T-90's composite has: 1. RHA 2. Boron
Carbide 3. Fiber Glass 4. Air Gap 5. Applique armor 7. Rubber array 8.
Anti-neuron array (this has been replaced with a Spall liner)

So what are you doing here? Go and sell it to the Indian Army. They have in their possession more T-90s than the Russian Army currently has yet they still want to buy the technology to make the T-90s armour.

I don't like India. Sorry Austin. :v

An engine is hotter still.

Doesn't matter. As long as it is warmer than the background it can be targeted by a weapon like Javelin.

Of course the real solution is to simply aim a HMG like a 12.7mm or 14.5mm weapon at the target tanks tracks... or even light cannon fire should do the trick. Any disposable RPG weapon or any of the RPO modifications should also be quite effective in damaging the running gear... and of course the obvious landmine... there are lots of bar shaped models designed specifically to cut the track of a tank.

There are even mines designed to be positioned beside the path a tank will drive down like the Russian TM-83 which is a huge 25cm diameter 20kg mine that can make an 80mm diameter hole in an armoured target from 50m range. It can penetrate 400mm of armour, which would damage most vehicles.

In fact I am surprised the Afghans haven't done what they did on the Tremors movies and put a mine on a remote control car and drive it up to an enemy vehicle and then set it off. The thing is that these remote control cars are relatively cheap and even a quite small shaped charge facing upwards driven under a tank could do some damage. You could dig a hole big enough for a shoebox on the side of the road and have one sitting there with a sand coloured cloth on it and when an Abrams approaches drive it out... with two ends of the cloth staked down so it doesn't prevent the remote control car moving and then drive onto the road under traffic and when the abrams passes over it... boom. Have a secondary crush fuse so if the tank driver runs it over it explodes too. It means you need far less explosive, and you don't alienate the local people by killing them. Then of course the defence personel will have to keep a look out for people buying remote control vehicles.

I should point out that I suggested a cruise missile fired directly from a shipping container about 15 years ago and got no credit at all for that idea... why would Iran bother making ICBMs when a cheap subsonic missile could easily be designed and built to launch directly from a shipping crate on a ship at sea. Those container ships carry thousands of containers and hundreds of thousands are in the sea at any one time because they fell off in a storm. An Iranian freighter could drop a few extra off in the Pacific without anyone being the wiser and they could sit there waiting for a signal... or sink waiting for the right sonar ping signal that releases a missile from each shipping container. Covering your whole border is hard especially from directions you aren't expecting attack from. In the middle of a super bowl weekend or something... of course their only problem is a nuke small enough to fit in a cruise missile...

You really don't need a wall of text to reanswer the question, "Why not make a Track-seeking warhead?".

Overall, the Leopard 2 has better obstacle clearance and there's really nothing too bad about that.

I am not disputing that or disagreeing with you, I just think in practical terms it is about as important as which one has the nicest paint finish, or whether the crew can plug their Ipods into the intercom system in the tank.

I just don't think being able to climb over a slightly taller obstacle is as important as total weight which will restrict how the vehicle can be transported by air or rail and what bridges it can use etc etc.

To find air-gaps, one only needs to clank his hand on the armor array and if it echos, there's an air gap.

The performance of a real air gap would be minimal... surely it would make more sense to fill air gaps in spaced armour with material that further reduces penetration? Even if it is filled with sand it will effectively defeat a HESH warhead by dispersing the shock wave sideways. A compressible fluid would also do the trick too.

There's a lot of ways to do this.

But that is the point however isn't it? There are so many materials that could be used in so many combinations that most of these guesses could easily simply be wrong.

I don't like India. Sorry Austin. :v

It is not about liking India, it is about liking money... and you call yourself an American!!! (Sorry... just playing with you... )

You really don't need a wall of text to reanswer the question, "Why not make a Track-seeking warhead?".

You don't know me very well yet do you...

There are many weapons that are manually aimed so the track could be directly targetted without the need to develop a whole new weapon.

I would like to ask, how is progressing equipping tanks, IFVs, APCs, etc
with data links to be integrated into C4ISR, or it is still only to the
level of brigade commander CP or battalion commander CP?

Only talk has been revealed so far, but talk involves a digital high bandwidth communication infrastructure by the end of 2012, and command and control systems have already been tested a couple of times... lots of problems to work out, but this is understandable. Look at my post above ...number 201, and especially the YeSU TZ link.

The article said, that army will get Khrizantema-S ATGM this year in
units. What about Kornet-S ATGM, based on BMP-3 chassis? Will army use
both or only Khrizantema? Any ino if VDV will get this yar any new
BMD-4/BMD-4M?

Kornet is a different family of missiles and is at the upper edge of the man portable range.
Together with the Metis-M1 the Kornet will be the long range and the Metis-M1 will be the shorter range... the European comparison would be the HOT (Kornet) and Milan (Metis M1). The Russian missiles being replaced are the AT-4/AT-5 combination replaced by the Kornet and the Metis being replaced by the Metis M1.
The Krisantema isn't man portable because its radar guidance system is pretty bulky and it will replace the Shturm-S which could also fire the ATAKA.

Now the Krisantema has a range of 6km day or night or heavy snow in the ground launched model while the Kornet reaches 5.5km during the day the real difference is that Kornet weighs about 30kgs with the launcher weighing another 26 kgs and a further 11kgs for the thermal sight.
The Krisantema missile alone I don't have weight figures for, but the ATAKA it replaced was just under 50kgs... and would never be man portable.

The future structure will be old obsolete MANPADs are replaced with METIS M1 and KORNET while vehicle and air launched ATGMs ie Shturm and ATAKA will be replaced with Krisantema.
HERMES is a whole new class of ATGM that will replace Vikhr.
The air launched Krisantema is credited with a range of 8km, which is 2km further than the ATAKA and 3kms further than SHTURM, but its penetration figures are significantly better... 1,250mm compared to 800mm and 560mm respectively.

AFAIK, the Russian Army isn't going to use the Kornet en masse, so I
don't think that BMP-3-Kornets are going to run around. Besides,
Khrizantema provides better target acquisition and prosecution systems.

I think the Krisantema on a BMP-3 chassis has beaten the Kornet BMP-3 rival system to get into service, but there is no competition for replacement of long range man portable ATGM as the Krisantema is not an option due to its weight and the weight of the guidance systems needed to use it.

BTW thanks for the book.

I just started reading it and am amused by some of the comments... like the RPG-2 being like a Panzerfaust when in practical terms it only shares the external warhead and in most respects is actually more like the Bazooka in operational terms.

I also find it amusing they play down the usefulness of Soviet anti tank rifles... during fighting in built up areas a rifle that can shoot through concrete walls and kill snipers can't be under estimated. They were never long range weapons but in relatively close combat can be used to shoot down into hatches or through hatches on even very heavy tanks, and of course for every tank there are dozens of other light vehicles they are very useful against.
Needless to say the most popular weapons in Stalingrad for the Soviet soldiers were the PPSH series submachineguns, hand grenades, and anti tank rifles.

Also regarding anti tank guns, specifically the 45mm towed guns... they were in the same category except their HE shell made them very useful close support weapons for Soviet Infantry. Being direct fire they were accurate and powerful enough for most tasks, though ineffectual against tanks the Soviets had plenty of artillery and their own tanks to deal with that most of the time. Dealing with MG nests and snipers a 45mm HE shell was rather effective and with a team of men moving it around wasn't that hard... it was lighter than most artillery pieces of the time by a wide margin.

Oh dear... I just got to the part of that RPG book where it talks about the 100s of tanks destroyed in Chechnia and how the much vaunted T-90 was so easily defeated by Chechen tactics and only three or four hits from RPG-7s during the height of the conflict.

Wonder what his sources are... the Washington Post? The BBC?

The Russian Book on T-90 vs T-80 I had put up some time back , in one of the subjects it posts in chechnia on an average each tank suffered a RPG hit to a ratio of 8:1 for RPG vs Tank

Many didnt have ERA and some didnt have explosive in the ERA.

GarryB wrote:

To find air-gaps, one only needs to clank his hand on the armor array and if it echos, there's an air gap.

The performance of a real air gap would be minimal... surely it would make more sense to fill air gaps in spaced armour with material that further reduces penetration? Even if it is filled with sand it will effectively defeat a HESH warhead by dispersing the shock wave sideways. A compressible fluid would also do the trick too.

The protection offered by Spaced armor is both cheap and quite effective. From Paul Lakowski's Armor basics:

"One of the first methods to enhance the armor of tanks was the spaced plate arrangement. It was discovered the combination of air gap and plate detonated shaped charges before impact on the main armor. Where the air gap was large enough, the standoff of the shaped charge helped to defeat the warhead. This is because shaped charges have an optimum detonation range. If the standoff distance is too little or too much, this reduces the jet efficiency. All mod- ern tanks have spaced armor somewhere over the design, like the rear hull and turret or the skirts over the side hull.

In addition, the spaced plates themselves also help to defeat the shaped charge by erosion. Test on thin spaced plate’s show that the collapse of the plate flows into the path of the jet, leading to a large disrupted zone. Since the jet has little strength, it too is disrupted and the plate will offer a resistance 2—3 times the LOS thickness.

If the spaced plate arrangement is layered, the disrupted zone and shaped charge loss of penetration is larger. A steel–aluminum–steel arrangement offers a resistance 7 times the LOS thickness of the plates. The ‘Wedge armor’ added to the Leopard 2A5 seems to be of this construction with several plates of steel, probably of different hardness [triple hardness steel?]18 Sufficiently large enough spaced plates can also offer increase resistance to kinetic energy attack [APFSDS], increasing plate resistance ~10% as well as 10% for slanted impact.

If the layer includes an elastic material the plates will bulge at considerable speed [200—500 m./s], increasing the effectiveness of the plate in much the same way ERA works (see below). These kind of arrangements could offer ~10 times the LOS thickness against shaped charges. The Israeli EKKA armor added to M113 and AAVP–7 are examples of this armor."

After referring to some more text from Vasiliy Folfanov, the T-72B's glacis does have Spaced armor with an elastic material (rubber).

Austin wrote:The Russian Book on T-90 vs T-80 I had put up some time back , in one of the subjects it posts in chechnia on an average each tank suffered a RPG hit to a ratio of 8:1 for RPG vs Tank

Many didnt have ERA and some didnt have explosive in the ERA.

I looked through some pages of your posts but was unable to find it, would you be so kind to repost it?

IronsightSniper wrote:I looked through some pages of your posts but was unable to find it, would you be so kind to repost it?

This is the book i wrote about T-80 vs T-90

This is a very nice book i believe but unfortunately this is in Russian.

If some one takes an effort to translate it to English , this would be a great book considering the subject is very interesting.

Make sure when you click the link ,it adds an extra link over the original link , the full link should look like

http://www.4shared.com/document/y7rFsSl9/OBT_Rossii.html

Go from there and make new unmanned little tanks to put in battlefield.
Cheap project for Russian tank maker to keep Engineers thinking new.

Interesting idea, but I think the moon is a bit far away for observing Earth and things in Earth orbit.
The idea of unmanned vehicles that could support tank operations and also troop operations is probably already in operation... there have been videos of armed wheeled platforms shown at various defence shows with mounted grenade launchers and machine guns. Missing is the very small recon only models, but I would guess that for many roles a small flying eye has better cross country performance than a ground based system... the advantage of the ground based system would be the ability to carry some sort of grenade launcher or MG.

The Russian Book on T-90 vs T-80 I had put up some time back , in one of
the subjects it posts in chechnia on an average each tank suffered a
RPG hit to a ratio of 8:1 for RPG vs Tank

More importantly 99% of vehicle losses were in the first conflict in the mid 90s, by the time the T-90s were even deployed to the region they had already realised that ammo in the crew compartment was bad and the vehicles were used much better.

Of course the tactics of the first conflict were awful... Tanks and APCs rolling into a city in a nice column like they were on parade... it is clear that they expected the sight of such military force to effect the chechens and avoid a conflict, but they underestimated their enemy and paid a terrible price. The west condemned them as being weak and having useless vehicles. Of course the second time they went in and blew things up properly before sending in forces like they should have the west condemned them for warcrimes against innocent civilians. It is like the events in Libya right now with the west condemning Gaddafi for murdering innocent civilians... except the innocent civilians I have seen are armed with assault rifles, machineguns... including 14.5mm anti aircraft heavy machineguns and RPG rocket launchers and I wonder how these very well armed innocent civilians get their innocent or their civilian status from.
I think what I find most annoying from the book is that it talks at length about how 7-8 direct hits are needed to defeat an M113 in Vietnam and then suggest that the T-90 needs 3 hits to kill. Ignoring the fact for a start that very few T-90s were actually destroyed totally, and of course the fact that the RPGs the Vietcong and NVA were using were not really comparable to the range of ATGMs the Chechens had access to.
Another ignored factor is that the Chechens had plenty of Soviet Army training and with conscription they were taught how to use and maintain most of the weapons in the Soviet arsenal... and when they declared independance they suddenly got access to all the weapon stocks from Soviet military bases on their territory... this can only be comparable to the US civil war in terms of the enemy faced regarding training and skill and weaponry... and what sort of casualties were there in the US civil war?

A steel–aluminum–steel arrangement offers a resistance 7 times the LOS thickness of the plates.

Since the jet has little strength, it too is disrupted and the plate will offer a resistance 2—3 times the LOS thickness.

So empty air is 2-3 times less effective than a steel al steel arrangement. I am not saying an empty space has no effect, I am saying that there are materials that you can put in that space to make it more disruptive to the incoming penetrator. You have a limited overall thickness of armour and within that thickness you use layers to disrupt or disperse the penetrator. Putting a 5cm air gap might increase protection by 100mm equivalent armour against HEAT rounds and make HESH rounds ineffectual, but filling some of that air gap with rubber and kevlar and nomex might result in a 300mm equivalent of armour against HEAT rounds and a 150mm equivalent against APFSDS rounds... just a totally made up example but do you understand what I mean?

Where does NERA stand in the over all picture along with ERA ? Do
Russians have any development happening on NERA , read its effective
against Tandem warhead.

http://igorrgroup.blogspot.com/2010/06/russian-nxra-for-lavs.html

It is logical, that khrizantema-S will replace Sturm-S ATGM, but
Kornet-SP on BMP-3 could be a replacement for Konkurs-S ATGM placed on
BRDM-2 vehicle. Khrizantema and Kornet could work in different levels of
army formations.

For any vehicles that use AT-4/AT-5 external launchers like BMP-2 and even BMP-1 still in service and vehicles like the BMD models without the 100mm rifled gun of the BMP-3 it would make sense to replace the older missiles with KORNET. Krizantema also uses laser beam riding guidance but at 50kgs it is just too heavy to man handle up to a launcher for a reload.

For one Shotra is provided on frontal side of the gun , which means its
jamming capability is complete on the frontal arc but tanks are
vulnerable on the back and side ways , that does not make sense to me ,
because it leaves a big area vulnerable.

With a four vehicle unit you will generally have a tank turret looking forward, back, to the left and the right.

This gives 360 degree coverage. Also a commander will try to keep his turret turned in the direction of the most serious threat to his vehicle so a TOW missile system 2km away with a missile in flight might be considered a greater threat so he will direct his gun at the threat which also directs his SHTORA lamps at it too. One HE Frag shell later he can turn his turret to the next threat.

Second is for a system that uses passive systems and uses F&F
missile that uses MMW/IIR seeker , Shotra will not be aware of the
missile approaching it , which makes me believe Shotra-1 has to be ON
all the time , which is not ideal and defeats the purpose.

What is wrong with having it on all the time?

Shtora is on all the time anyways, because if you're not expecting an Ambush, then you should prepare for it all the time.

Exactly... ambushes are most effective when they are unexpected so having it on all the time makes a lot of sense.

GarryB wrote:

A steel–aluminum–steel arrangement offers a resistance 7 times the LOS thickness of the plates.

Since the jet has little strength, it too is disrupted and the plate will offer a resistance 2—3 times the LOS thickness.

So empty air is 2-3 times less effective than a steel al steel arrangement. I am not saying an empty space has no effect, I am saying that there are materials that you can put in that space to make it more disruptive to the incoming penetrator. You have a limited overall thickness of armour and within that thickness you use layers to disrupt or disperse the penetrator. Putting a 5cm air gap might increase protection by 100mm equivalent armour against HEAT rounds and make HESH rounds ineffectual, but filling some of that air gap with rubber and kevlar and nomex might result in a 300mm equivalent of armour against HEAT rounds and a 150mm equivalent against APFSDS rounds... just a totally made up example but do you understand what I mean?

But then you have to think about price and or weight. Empty air is free and light relative to the Earth's magnetic field.

Using Ballistic Kevlar as an example (density - 1440-1610 kg/m3), the T-90's Glacis is about 150 cm long and 81 cm tall. Assuming the air gap is 5 cm (although, in real life, part of the T-72B's glacis composition has an 5mm rubber/3mm steel/19mm air/3mm steel/5mm rubber configuration), the total weight of the Kevlar would be almost 100 kg, which is pretty light, but cost wise, high-strength Kevlar (Spectra) can cost over $500 USD per kg, so that extra layer of Kevlar (ballistically speaking, Kevlar is only good for spall liner) could cost over $50,000, which isn't too much when you put the total price tag next to it, but for a 5 cm thick piece of kevlar, it's not worth it.

However, if you used a 25 mm layer of DU or Tungsten (Tungsten is 144% more effective than RHA), and then mount a 25 mm layer of Boron Carbide over that layer of Tungsten, the tungsten plate itself should have an increased effectiveness of 190% more effective than RHA. This new layer will weigh about 650 kg, and will cost about $30,000 USD, plus provide actual protection.

Of course, air is both free and light.

T-90 vs Abrams

Of course, air is both free and light.

And much less effective...

So why not put a DU layer instead >.>

It all goes back to the Russian philosophy of small, cheap, and smart. Air works fine for it's size and isn't as exotic, heavy, and costly as something like DU, or WHA, or Boron Carbide.

Air is cheap but not as effective as a range of other materials that could be put in there even if it is lighter.

To be fully effective against modern weapons you need about 2.5 metres of air to be effective on its own... now I know it is not being used on its own but your own numbers above show that layers of different materials yield better performance than empty air alone in a particular layer.

Air increases volume without increasing protection as much as a smaller volume of layered material would increase protection.

But as I posted, the T-72B's Glacis isn't relying on just air. It has that NERA layer and not to mention the several hundred millimeters of solid Steel of varying hardness that's sandwiching it all in.

The air was just a cheap and quick addition that does enough v.s. Shape charge compared to just putting something solid in.

Remember, from Armor basics, "If the layer includes an elastic material the plates will bulge at considerable speed [200—500 m./s], increasing the effectiveness of the plate in much the same way ERA works (see below). These kind of arrangements could offer ~10 times the LOS thickness against shaped charges. The Israeli EKKA armor added to M113 and AAVP–7 are examples of this armor"

And also remember:

"part of the T-72B's glacis composition has an 5mm rubber/3mm steel/19mm air/3mm steel/5mm rubber configuration"

Between the two layers of Rubber are those said several hundred millimeters of solid steel, so the effectiveness of this arrangement equates to about 350 mm of RHAe v.s. HEAT alone, not including those thick steel plates in front of and behind this arrangement. The total protection was estimated to be approaching 700 mm RHAe v.s. HEAT, and that's without ERA.

Although you are right that a filler instead of air would only increase it's effectiveness (unless it was flammable), but in general, filling that 0.23 m^3 air gap with something besides air adds to either weight, cost, or maybe even manufacturability.


Anyways, another book I found, this time about the T-80. It's from the same publisher that published that M1A1 v.s. T-72 book Austin posted and that RPG book I posted a few posts back.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=4Z4XNBS3

Nice video of T-90 and Leopard comparision , use translation for content but video is good

http://rian.ru/video/20110322/356548390.html

Russian T-90 tank versus German Leopard 2A6 tank

In the 1500km desert travel evaluation of tanks the T-90 stood foremost among the rivals namely US A1-Abrams & German Leopards dictating its superior speed; firepower & more still its low silhouette causing major problem for the enemy to attack the Russian T-90. More still this tank is four times cheaper than its German counterpart & one can acquire four T-90s as compared to one Leopard for the same price.

see vid.
http://defencedog.blogspot.com/2011/03/russian-t-90-tank-versus-german-leopard.html

There was a comparison chart shown to putin which compared M1A2SEP ,Leopard 2 ,T-90S and T-90MS ... the pictures i have seen of the chart is barely clear.

Do we have a clear picture of the chart ?

The exploding Russian tank...

All the Iraqi tanks were T-72s in Desert Storm... except the ones that were T-80s of course

(for those that don't appreciate sarcasm... the vast majority of Iraqi tanks in Desert Storm were T-54s and T-55s that were downgraded for export. There were no T-80s in Iraq.)

GarryB wrote:The exploding Russian tank...

All the Iraqi tanks were T-72s in Desert Storm... except the ones that were T-80s of course

(for those that don't appreciate sarcasm... the vast majority of Iraqi tanks in Desert Storm were T-54s and T-55s that were downgraded for export. There were no T-80s in Iraq.)

T-80 is negatively covered with fighting in Checheny. I have seen guys with some "defense analyst specialist" mark on some forum saying

that not T-72/80 and from that T-90 (which according to them is only slightly modernized T-72/for some not even that)can not be

compared with M1A2 on any possible level. (T-72 because of Iraq) and T-80 (because of Checheny where according to them they proved

its worth - nothing)

Viktor wrote:

GarryB wrote:The exploding Russian tank...

All the Iraqi tanks were T-72s in Desert Storm... except the ones that were T-80s of course

(for those that don't appreciate sarcasm... the vast majority of Iraqi tanks in Desert Storm were T-54s and T-55s that were downgraded for export. There were no T-80s in Iraq.)

T-80 is negatively covered with fighting in Checheny. I have seen guys with some "defense analyst specialist" mark on some forum saying

that not T-72/80 and from that T-90 (which according to them is only slightly modernized T-72/for some not even that)can not be

compared with M1A2 on any possible level. (T-72 because of Iraq) and T-80 (because of Checheny where according to them they proved

its worth - nothing)

No MBT at world , having the fighting in high intensity wars as theirs central CONOPS, has ever fought in URBAN environments (even more if without infantry coverage) achieving good performances against entrenced and hidden enemy "hit and run" anti-tanks squads capable to engage them at leisures with mines ,RPGs or ATGMs at very close range and from any aspect angle and achieving almost always total surprise.

If any the very poor performance of US Abrams, in the same conditions in Iraq ( against enemies several times worse equipped and trained than Chechen combatants ...) has furtherly strengthened this well known fact.

About performances of the two MBTs -M1 and T-72- in an high intensity war let me say that, discounting any other factor, if you would put on a side 200 million dollars of "M1A1 Abrams" MBTs and on the other 200 millons dollars of T-72B MBTs, the Abrams side wouldn't have get a chance.

T-72 series was superbly conceived to gain total superiority over NATO ground forces in a very large scale conflict throungh the achievement of crushing local numerical overmatch and force's concentration (thanks mostly to much superior strategic and tactical mobility and immensely lower logistical footprint and tail) over NATO enemy line in the offence, or to execute deadly pincer manoeuvres on NATO's spearheads in defensive missions and quickly "saturate" (with the aid of BMP series) enemy deep space to destroy or disarticulate its logistical network (so to "strangle" enemy forward divisions).

T-72 in its :

1) Original domestic version
2) Intended CONOPS
3) Intended production numbers
4) Intended force structure's architecture

was, by a very long margin, the most perfect machine to fight and win a very large scale war against a a world level enemy of the entire Cold War.

Viktor wrote:

GarryB wrote:The exploding Russian tank...

All the Iraqi tanks were T-72s in Desert Storm... except the ones that were T-80s of course

(for those that don't appreciate sarcasm... the vast majority of Iraqi tanks in Desert Storm were T-54s and T-55s that were downgraded for export. There were no T-80s in Iraq.)

T-80 is negatively covered with fighting in Checheny. I have seen guys with some "defense analyst specialist" mark on some forum saying

that not T-72/80 and from that T-90 (which according to them is only slightly modernized T-72/for some not even that)can not be

compared with M1A2 on any possible level. (T-72 because of Iraq) and T-80 (because of Checheny where according to them they proved

its worth - nothing)

Well it IS true that Chechnya exposed some fundamental flaws in the T-80s design (vertically stacked ammo in the carousel) which make it more vulnerable to cook-offs than it really should be.
Wouldn't want to go to battle in one.
Give me a T-72B any day of the week.

Due to extreme power fanboys of NATO tanks on the internet I decided it would be great if we can have a debate on tanks vs tanks. For example which one is better then the other and which one has overall best war fighting capabilities. I want to start off with a comparison of T-90As and M1A2 SEPs, I would love to know which one is better with a honest and realistic comparison.

the main problem is that for a while there was a big gap in funding for the Russian tank, while the Abrams continued to get proper funding and attention.

In terms of protection they are very similar, which in my biased opinion is a win for the Russian tank as it is 20% lighter and uses rather less fuel and is easier to move around the place.

In terms of fire power the Russian tank matches the US tank with optics thanks to its excellent French thermal sights, but the US tank has better anti armour rounds. The Russian tank fights back with guided anti armour rounds with laser guidance, but the battle management and excellent C4IR of the US military means the US tank crew probably have better situational awareness on the battlefield.

Mobility, both are mobile and capable... but again the Russian tank is lighter but has less engine power.

Of course if you add in things the T-90A could have like Shtora, ARENA, Nakidka, or you look at the T-90AM with these upgrades then I would suggest it is very one sided unless you are Saudi Arabia and fuel is very cheap.

Of course I am biased.

The Abrams is not a bad tank, in fact it is a rather good one.

there is no safe place in a real war.