T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

Not sure it APS is solution of you drive a tank into enemy. Some russian tanks do have APS, in a way of laser aiming detection, automatic turret aiming and smoke screen dispersal. You can see that in action. Wouldn’t save if let’s say, ATGM was guided last moment before the hit.

https://twitter.com/TheHumanFund5/status/1612627973651456001?s=20&t=PDr1EH4sVn1P0nPTSEdFdA

Also, how many times tanks can get shot by ATGMs until APS gives up? What about triggering APS laser detection and not actually engaging? There are so many ways how to defeat APS, it sucks against top attack munitions due to angle. There is reason why Russia doesn’t employ most modern APS en-masse. Technology is there, but it’s not worth the cost. Maybe on T-14 only.

Yes, they would just get destroyed closer or when APS is expended. Technology can’t fix stupid tactics. The way Russians employ their tanks look nothing like they do in Vostok exercises and makes tanks very vulnerable to all the elements. They are no longer an armoured fist, but a lone middle finger. Good to harass, punch a small hole or two, but that’s about it. Here’s the first.

Stop right there.

Firts they are trained as any tankers in a world with tactics when you deployed full tank company on the battlefield and you attack enemy with it when he also deployed his tanks on same. Any country in world use same tactics. Its different here, because you cannot depleyed it in same way. No enemy tanks on other side.
Second APS have lot of charges not 2-3, so it will be very hard to destroy single tank, especial if you have 2-3 or more, because rest can provide protectio to one who left with aps charges. We can se what happens in Palestina when trophy works...no destroyed tank like it was before him.
Third when some one hiy at you atgm, you will know from what side came it, so you can shoot it...because system will tell you, attack from left, or right...Vibetsk do it in chopers with voice and you also can see on screen direction of attack...same will be here.

New post Regular Today at 9:42 am
confused
Do I need to be academic to see other than a bad pattern of tank usage? Check videos available from both sides. What I am missing by seeing visual evidence of multiple identical situations that you can see?

I see perfectly nothing.
I am not an armored forces vet.
Nor educated&trained mechanized troops officer.
I was sitting in 55AM, 72M, 91A, L2A4, L2A5, L2PL, M1A2, Ch2.
I have watched several maneuvers from a first-person perspective from a VIP tribune.
I have even made a full day of training at one of the armor brigades for fun.
I have played with professional army sims multiple times, for fun as well.
In theory, I can operate RPG, Fagot, Konkurs or Spike.
Yet that makes me not keen to comment on the general use of armored forces because I am neither trained nor skilled, not even educated for that. Sorry.

Old APS do not cover top attacks but ArenaM and Afghanith do that.

No you cannot fool system by laser it only. !? He works when he see missiel in the air, radar see that. So after he see missiel he depliye counter mesures. You have ATGMs with out laser. AT-4 do not have it. So how will you get detect atgm crew when he use non guide atgm on you...this type of atgm are used from close distance. So laser worning system cant derect laser and wouldnt deploye smoke screen...

Any country in world use same tactics

This is insane statement. Even when battle formations are completely different? And tasks?

Its different here, because you cannot depleyed it in same way. No enemy tanks on other side

Never seen more outlandish statement, sorry! You probably didn’t hear about WW2 and tank breakthroughs, when Soviets did find gaps where enemy armour wasn’t as numerous and exploited it. It’s not a card game that you have to counter tanks with tanks. VDV didn’t need tanks to stop Ukrainians armour from pushing too far in Kherson. In combined arms, BTG should be able to operate in all environments against any threats. That’s the whole point. It’s more flexible than any western equivalents too.


Currently employed T-90M has radars and not laser-optical receivers?
AT-4 managed to damage T-90M from the front? It should be able to eat any CG/AT4 warhead on frontal and even sides.

Also, you are calling it non guided anti-tank guided missile? I did fire CG and believe me, 200 meters and it’s guided mostly by the wind. Also, frontal arc (and side armour in this case) even with most modern munitions is no go. It’s not a tank killer, it’s a tank scratcher. Even BMP—2M were able to survive multiple, at least 5 hits frontally before getting knocked out.

Do you serve in tank company or brigade and do you learn about tactics how to use combine forces od battlefield or you will crap me here how they use tanks in WW2 for breakthrough the enemy lines...

This isnt WW2, many things are changed in this 80+ years....if you have 2 million soldiers to sacrifice them for that kind of tactis then you go and tell that to the generals....

So i am idiot when i said that we all use same tactics in battlefield when we have big tank companies in attack...look how US and polish army use mighty abrams on battlefield or training...its the same way as they teach in Russia or in my country...

Dear God, no I didn’t call you and idiot, just weird statements that I don’t subscribe to. I have no doubt that when it comes to nitty gritty, you will know your tank inside out. The thing, I really don’t agree with you on many points and let’s leave it there. Especially at training. I have served in now quite famous M113s that you can probably find destroyed in Ukraine now.

No tank experience myself, apart from smelling exhaust of German Leopard 2s and Polish T-72s. It’s no a secret that NATO armies have very uneven training, like let’s take Germans for example. Their tankers barely have 3rd world army training. Not to mention their tank readiness. Soon dutch tankers will also be only able to train on world of tanks. Italians also are quite badly trained. And this is from military alliance that should have same standards, but their training and missions are totally different.

Russian training is only comparable to Chinese. I am talking about big armoured pushes, massive artillery strikes, combined operations, rest of the world just play games and call it a day. Conventional exercises, even latest NATO ones are just hot air and PR show

I have watched them. The ONLY combat maneuver they did was fire on the move… No shoot and scoot, no “hunting”, just a basic drill. Tank biathlon in Russia starts with this basic drill that is the whole highlight. When NATO had Soviets as rivals then they did have proper war games lasting for days, it’s all just show. Sorry offtopic, but I think all the NATO armies apart from US have very rudimentary training. Saying this from quite dated experience as I have participated in internationals myself and now remembering it, it was poor, even worse if Americans weren’t involved

Regular's missing the forest for the trees. Persistent surveillance and lightning fast kill-chains broke the battlefield. Its no longer feasible to overrun the enemy's defenses through speed and aggression using armored spearheads. The suicidal Kherson offensives by Ukraine involving entire mechanized brigades should have already dissuaded you from this idea.

Instead what we are seeing are both sides - Russia and NATO fumbling around looking for ways to restore the offensive capability of armor. Indeed Russia's constantly experimenting (BMPT, UGVs, Armata, etc.) looking for smarter ways to break this deadlock and they are getting there; they just need more time. In the meantime there is no need to implement the riskier tactics especially not when there is no real urgency. Ukraine's not getting anymore stronger than they were at the start of this conflict while Russia's only became even more powerful than they were ever.

The point is, that western propaganda assists Ukro one in claiming inevitable peremoga due to increasing Ukrowehrmacht military power and technological advantage.
It can't be more stupid than that, yet remember to whom they are talking to...

So GarryB, you think in modern warfare were we have drones for scaning the fields when fight is going,

I don't think recon drones stop operating when your forces are moving forward or are attacking a position.

Where are these videos of Russian tanks being used coming from if not from drones?

you say APS and his radar is problem because enemy will known were are your tanks and what they are doing, because of radar signiture. Well they already know they are because of drones, so why is radar problem then.

APS systems with operating MMW radar signals would allow real time remote passive tracking of Russian armoured forces that would allow ambushes to be planned in advance... even for long range artillery rockets to lay minefields rapidly and for enemy ambush formations that operate all over the place pretending to be civilians to be directed to attack soft targets without tanks attached.

The only reason for them to not widely deploy APS systems is because of the emissions from the detection systems, the cost of the system would be recovered very quickly by defeating incoming threats that would otherwise require tanks to be abandoned and later recovered or lost... saving a dozen tanks would easily cover the cost of the system being fitted to all the tanks.

Let them use new tactics, still you will have advantage ower them, because ATGM will be uselles against tanks because aps will kill it. Mines, you can always put on tanks mine diggers or how you call it and with them mines will be digg and move on side.

ATGM can still be used against other vehicle types and of course against helicopters.

I don't know why they are not deploying them widely... what I am doing is speculating as to why that might be.

They do not fear failure of equipment... it would be better for it to fail in Syria or Ukraine than in Poland or Lithuania... the equipment and weapons are for war, not just parades so getting them battle tested and any problems or issues fixed or solved is important for the Russian military moving forward.

I would think experience probing enemy positions with tanks will have highlighted that BMPTs are useful vehicles because a BMPT and a tank would compliment each other... perhaps eventually a BMPT vehicle and a remote controlled T-72 could be used... when the technology is refined.

APS is future on any combat vechicle, not just on tanks...APS with 360° protection...

I agree, but they need to get them right before they spend big money on them and deploy them everywhere on everything and it wont be until they are widely deployed that their costs will come down and new features added and performance improves even further.

Do I need to be academic to see other than a bad pattern of tank usage? Check videos available from both sides. What I am missing by seeing visual evidence of multiple identical situations that you can see?

Do you glance once at something and then decide its future, or do you bother to gather evidence and find out as much as you can before casting your expert judgement?

See one video and you can fix everything...

Impressive... when you don't even know if anything is even wrong yet.

and yet, multiple footage and interviews state how it is.

The Russian military controls what is released and what is not... do you think you have the full picture, or just what you are allowed to see?

Also, how many times tanks can get shot by ATGMs until APS gives up? What about triggering APS laser detection and not actually engaging? There are so many ways how to defeat APS, it sucks against top attack munitions due to angle.

Love how you talk about APS like it is one system... APS is Drozd or Arena or Afghanits or Standard on Russian vehicles, Shtora is not active, it is passive and tries to blind or jam or hide the tank with lasers or dazzlers or smoke respectively.

First model Drozd and second model Drozd II and Arena could not intercept diving weapons because they were mainly intended for use against RPGs which are the most widely deployed conventional threat to tanks on a modern battlefield... later models of ARENA could intercept diving top attack missiles but the original could always defeat top attack missiles like BILL 2 which overflew tanks and fired warheads down at the roof of the target. That is why the ARENA munitions were fired high up into the air, so they could defeat such missiles as they approached too. (also it meant fragments from the intercept munitions could be fired down into the ground reducing the danger zone for friendly troops... no point in launching munitions that kill 50 friendly soldiers standing near your tank to shoot down an ancient RPG that wouldn't penetrate your vehicles armour even with a direct hit).

Ukraine's not getting anymore stronger than they were at the start of this conflict while Russia's only became even more powerful than they were ever.

Indeed... when the amazing Challenger IIs arrive... a flight of four Hokums with 12 Vikhrs each should be able to deal with them from 8km away...

It is amusing that so many were claiming Russia was open and vulnerable to drones... well everyone is... that is the whole point of drones, but ironically Russia is rather better off than most.

Well when it comes to tanks no other country on the planet has the array of anti tank weapons that the Russians deploy... and they are all modern and very capable... in fact like their land attack precision guided missiles they are actually spoiled for choice.

There are gaps in their range of murder bots, but they are filling those gaps too.

GarryB wrote:Where are these videos of Russian tanks being used coming from if not from drones?

In addition, these drone videos are often accompanied by audio recordings of negotiations - for a native Russian speaker, it is clear from these negotiations that the drone operator directs the tank's actions live, acting as a target designator and a fire spotter.

T-90M Proryv-3s in action.

Oh another reason to have usable reverse speed:

Most users here will say that if the T-72 or T-90 needs to retreat from a vulnerable spot, it can just turn around and go into cover and that exposing the back and side of the tank isnt important.

Well, assuming that this is ok, this "turning around" is impossible in most areas of the frontline in the ukraine. This is because most of the time tanks drive only on roads, because the land outside of roads is too muddy and/or its completely mined. If the tank turns around it will most lilkely get stuck or hit a mine. This is why in almost all videos russian tanks on high roads just reverseon the paved road theyre on, and because theyre so slow in reverse, they stay visible for a long time to ATGMs. They also try to turn around with near neutral steering but thats even slower and the tank still stays on an exposed(often higher than the surrounding area) road, just with its backside exposed to the enemy.

Tanks only drive on roads.

Solely!
And only in reverse!
That is why the tank that runs fastest on reverse wins!
France is a superpower!
Superpower skills came along with a white flag.
Sale incoming!

limb wrote:Oh another reason to have usable reverse speed:

Most users here will say that if the T-72 or T-90 needs to retreat from a vulnerable spot, it can just turn around and go into cover and that exposing the back and side of the tank isnt important.

Well, assuming that this is ok, this "turning around" is impossible in most areas of the frontline in the ukraine. This is because most of the time tanks drive only on roads, because the land outside of roads is too muddy and/or its completely mined. If the tank turns around it will most lilkely get stuck or hit a mine. This is why in almost all videos russian tanks on high roads just reverseon the paved road theyre on, and because theyre so slow in reverse, they stay visible for a long time to ATGMs. They also try to turn around with near neutral steering but thats even slower and the tank still stays on an exposed(often higher than the surrounding area) road, just with its backside exposed to the enemy.

Limb, legacy Soviet tanks used manual gear and two lever system to change direction: the combination of the two made for them much more easier to turn on position than to go in reverse speed as they could do it on the spot.
And they would expose just the rear hull in doing so as the turret will be instead still be pointed in the direction of enemy.
So, I would bet that even if they would completely change the gear into a CVT they would still do the same trick.

Tanks only drive on roads.

In the ukraine, almost always yes, due to ,minefields and mud. Not even M113s or MTLBs are light enough not to get stuck in the donbass mud, a T-72 would instantly get stuck if it got off a paved road.

Solely!
And only in reverse!
That is why the tank that runs fastest on reverse wins!

13 year olds called. they want their shitty joke back

Limb, legacy Soviet tanks used manual gear and two lever system to change direction: the combination of the two made for them much more easier to turn on position than to go in reverse speed as they could do it on the spot.
And they would expose just the rear hull in doing so as the turret will be instead still be pointed in the direction of enemy.
So, I would bet that even if they would completely change the gear into a CVT they would still do the same trick.

Neutral steering or no, the tank would still have to turn around and expose its backside. Pointing its gun in the general direction of the enemy wouldnt prevent it from getting hit by ATGMs from concealed positions and if the tank is in a killzone.

Idk how you guys gloat about how easy it would be hit the bustle of a leopard from the side, but think its no biggie if a T-72 or T-90 has to expose its back armor when retreating from a killzone, instead of reversing while showing only its frontal and side armor at the enemy..

limb wrote:In the ukraine, almost always yes, due to ,minefields and mud. Not even M113s or MTLBs are light enough not to get stuck in the donbass mud, a T-72 would instantly get stuck if it got off a paved road.

The term is canalized. Its a very disadvantageous position to be in no matter what vehicle you have. No amount of reverse speed can save your ass as the most likely indication that you're even under attack is when they took out the rear most vehicle, then the furthest in the front. What, you're going to move forwards and backwards the whole time like street floyd on meth?

That being said, the solutions to mud and mines are not technical but organizational. You simply don't mount "big arrow" mechanized offensives during the mud season, and you actually do your homework and prep lanes through minefields before or as you go along (use MICLICs) so your units can actually properly maneuver.

limb wrote:Idk how you guys gloat about how easy it would be hit the bustle of a leopard from the side, but think its no biggie if a T-72 or T-90 has to expose its back armor when retreating from a killzone, instead of reversing while showing only its frontal and side armor at the enemy..

Not from the side, from the front. Theoretically the profile best protected and statistically the likeliest exposed to enemy fire. Only you put some chink in that armor when you don't have to because German quality lol.

And I imagine getting out of dodge much faster would offer much higher chances of survival than reversing slowly trying to present your strongest armor to the threat. You have no idea where the next attack might come from and your armor is only good for a very limited arc. And you do that by turning and putting it in the fastest gear you can manage.

If they only have to reverse a few metres then reversing might make sense, but if they have to move a kilometre or more then even if it has a fast reverse speed turning around would still make more sense because it can cover that distance much faster moving forward with its turret pointed at the enemy suppressing their positions with fire.

Plus if there is the threat of mines what idiot would drive anywhere in reverse with a mine plough attached to their tank?

The weird thing is if you watch combat videos with tanks in them most of its super slow and methodic movements by armor that can be quickly reversed, if necessary. Tanks advance at the pace of a mild jog because, surprise, surprise the gunner and commander have to scan every possible vantage point for threats. Move too fast you might miss an angle or two and get shot for your sloppiness. The one time a tank was dashing like in WT it got ventilated by a tank it never saw:

Best defence against getting shot by a tank or a missile is smoke not reverse speed... moving quickly under cover of smoke decreases the chance of a lucky hit... remaining stationary or reversing directly back creates the equivalent of a stationary target which is the easiest type of target to hit.

You have spent a time when you could take a cold beer to comment on some impotent barking ...

Who had not a single clue about tanks whatsoever, aside from the fact that made of steel, drive, and shoot.

I salute your determination for carrying education, yet hardly believe in results knowing the target has no brain.

Anyway, have a beer lads

A respected American philosopher once said...

Beer... the cause of, and solution to, all of lifes problems...
Homer J Simpson.