Μilitary Questions & Answers

Isos wrote:

nastle77 wrote:

Isos wrote:

GarryB wrote:Very few have the radar range to detect their target at launch and so the general location is given to the missile and it flys to the target location and turns on its own radar to scan for the target.

Some can be fed the targets general location, while others have to climb and scan for the target and then drop down to very low altitude for the flight to the target area.

As long as the island is not between the missile and the target when it turns on its radar to scan for the target it should be able to fly past islands and other items to get to a position to scan for the target.

Some longer range missiles can have way points so they actually approach their target from an unexpected direction.

Some new missiles have GPS guidance to hit the target in its base. Because their are lot of buildings and ships there, they can't use radar.

did the 80's version of harpoon have that feature ?

I don't think so. However they made new stocks of harpoons today. You will not found a harpoon from the 80s in US stock. Even if they don't really use them. Few ships of the US navy are armed with anti ship missile. They use their f18 with air lunched harpoons for anti ship missions.

reason I asked was because I was interested in the capabilities of harpoon in service with Japanese navy in the 80s

Some new missiles have GPS guidance to hit the target in its base. Because their are lot of buildings and ships there, they can't use radar.

Actually launching a Harpoon or other AShM at a target in port surrounded by other things like fishing boats or Piers etc would be a very rare thing that most AShMs will never have to deal with.

If you can find a target in a cluttered environment... identify it, and calculate its coordinates to use GPS guidance then good on you... with the flight time of missiles and the fact that targets can move I don't think GPS would be the sole method of guidance.

did the 80's version of harpoon have that feature ?

I rather doubt it. Harpoon finds its targets with its radar... which isn't perfect but should be good enough to distinguish a target ship compared with an island or sand bar.

Thanks for the explanation, was 80s version of harpoon capable of distinguishing targets in the littorals if there is a lot of rocks coves and cliffs ?

Lots of radar reflectors would make locating the target difficult but not totally impossible. The missiles brain would be not particularly sophisticated, but as shown in the Falklands war one problem not often discussed is that in war time you often put into service non military vessels... ie civilian vessels are put to use as troop transports or supply vessels and when the enemy start firing missiles at your ships like exocets then when you military vessels fire off chaff and decoys and jammers and the incoming missiles lose lock it is all together possible they might acquire those undefended civilian vessels and blow up your supply of heavy helicopters or ammo or your troop ships...

reason I asked was because I was interested in the capabilities of harpoon in service with Japanese navy in the 80s

Being subsonic it would have trouble against the Soviet navy, but against the Chinese navy of the period or pretty much any other navy in the region they should be capable.

Again... with the Falklands... the UK had Exocets in their own inventory so they should have been familiar with its capabilities yet they suffered.

GarryB wrote:

Some new missiles have GPS guidance to hit the target in its base. Because their are lot of buildings and ships there, they can't use radar.

Actually launching a Harpoon or other AShM at a target in port surrounded by other things like fishing boats or Piers etc would be a very rare thing that most AShMs will never have to deal with.

If you can find a target in a cluttered environment... identify it, and calculate its coordinates to use GPS guidance then good on you... with the flight time of missiles and the fact that targets can move I don't think GPS would be the sole method of guidance.

You are wrong. With observation sattelites you can easily identify and find coordinates of a ship in a port. Military ships are not parked with fishing boats in ports so it's not a problem. Even with Google earth you can do that.

If they are in port it means their radars are off. 1 missile per ship is enough. And in a surprised and coordinated attack you can make lot of dammage to a navy as your sattelite will give you real time situation and your ships can go like 20km (international waters) from a country.

If the ship is in port, that it is better to use TV guided missile like Kh-59MK2, where the operator will recognize correct ship on his TV screen.

Isos wrote:

GarryB wrote:

Some new missiles have GPS guidance to hit the target in its base. Because their are lot of buildings and ships there, they can't use radar.

Actually launching a Harpoon or other AShM at a target in port surrounded by other things like fishing boats or Piers etc would be a very rare thing that most AShMs will never have to deal with.

If you can find a target in a cluttered environment... identify it, and calculate its coordinates to use GPS guidance then good on you... with the flight time of missiles and the fact that targets can move I don't think GPS would be the sole method of guidance.

You are wrong. With observation sattelites you can easily identify and find coordinates of a ship in a port. Military ships are not parked with fishing boats in ports so it's not a problem. Even with Google earth you can do that.

If they are in port it means their radars are off. 1 missile per ship is enough. And in a surprised and coordinated attack you can make lot of dammage to a navy as your sattelite will give you real time situation and your ships can go like 20km (international waters) from a country.

did Japan have GPS and satelite guidance for its ashm in the 80's ?

You are wrong. With observation sattelites you can easily identify and find coordinates of a ship in a port. Military ships are not parked with fishing boats in ports so it's not a problem. Even with Google earth you can do that.

If your anti ship missile is using GPS coordinates for targeting then it is not an anti ship missile it is a cruise missile.

the flight time of most anti ship missiles can mean quite a few minutes pass between detection and launch and impact... if the ship moves even 20m before missile impact then the missile will miss.

You obviously have a very low opinion of radar... the Kh-35 reportedly uses a high resolution MMW radar that can not only detect ships but also identify them based on their shape/radar signature.

As such even a large group of ships would not defeat its guidance and it could single out its target and home in on it even in a fairly cluttered environment.

If they are in port it means their radars are off. 1 missile per ship is enough. And in a surprised and coordinated attack you can make lot of dammage to a navy as your sattelite will give you real time situation and your ships can go like 20km (international waters) from a country.

If they are in port the ports air defence system and local air force offer rather better protection than their own air defence systems could offer.

could it also be that the Termits export version had no IR versions and had down graded seekers ?

Export versions of Termit were either radar or IR guided but not both. I believe India used the IR versions to good effect hitting Pakistani oil storage tanks. The sun had heated the tanks to the point where they were rather warm... when the sun went down the ground cooled faster than all that oil in those tanks so after dark the oil was still a warm target in a sea of cold land...

did Japan have GPS and satelite guidance for its ashm in the 80's ?

AFAIK only the Soviets had satellite guided AShMs in the late 1970s and 1980s.

How much micromanagement is allowed in military command? Field Marshal Model (God bless Him) would give command to units as small as a battalion which was way below his chain of command. Is giving orders to units two ranks below your command (like, a brigade commander issuing orders to companies, preferably via his company commanders) still acceptable as a way to lead troops?

GarryB wrote:If you use Mozila Firefox as a browser there is a Yandex translator add on that adds a tool bar that includes three buttons... one button will open a popup window with a translation for highlighted text, another button will translate highlighted text within a page into a different language and a third button that will open a new page with the full page translated.

In my experience so far the translations are better than google translate for Russian to English conversions.

because
Yandex translation : Russian -> English
Google translation: Russian -> NSA -> CIA - Political Censorship Comity Word Approval board -> English

Hi,

*After some additional research, i have edited my original question. No answer was posted at this time*

I have a question regarding the PT-91 Twardy polish main battle tank. I have checked the usual sources for basic information (army-guide, Wikipedia, army recognition etc.) and could not find a clear answer for my question.

I understand that it is an upgraded version of the T-72M1, a license produced export variant of the T-72A, which was produced in Poland and ex-Czechoslovakia.
Other such modernization examples include the T-72M4 CZ, or the M-84 from Yugoslavia, which i realize is not based on the T-72M1 but is based on the T-72 in general.

My question is : What where the terms of this license production agreement of the T-72M1 and subsequent modernizations?

Various sources i have found claim that production of the T-72M1 continued in Poland up untill 1994. Other countries also continued production post 1990.
Does this mean that the T-72M1 license production and export license was unaffected by the dissolution of the Soviet Bloc?

Also, the initial PT-91 tanks where basically T-72M1's with extensive upgrades retrofitted. However later models appear to have been newly constructed tanks.
These tanks obviously made use of the production lines for the T-72 export variants. Where they not subjected to certain copyrights belonging to the Russians?

I guess the real question here is : If a country purchased the license to manufacture the T-72M1 in the 80's, would it still be allowed to produce these tanks post 1990, without compensating Russia or renewing the license?
Furthermore, would that country be allowed to build a new tank (like the PT-91) which borrows heavily from the design of the T-72, and also utilizes the T-72 production line, again without compensating Russia or renewing the license?

Or were countries like Poland free to do as they pleased with the T-72M1 production license, including developing their own variants and producing these freely?

Sorry if this all sounds incoherent. I did my best try and make sense. English is not my mother language.

0nillie0 wrote:Hi,

*After some additional research, i have edited my original question. No answer was posted at this time*

I have a question regarding the PT-91 Twardy polish main battle tank. I have checked the usual sources for basic information (army-guide, Wikipedia, army recognition etc.) and could not find a clear answer for my question.

I understand that it is an upgraded version of the T-72M1, a license produced export variant of the T-72A, which was produced in Poland and ex-Czechoslovakia.
Other such modernization examples include the T-72M4 CZ, or the M-84 from Yugoslavia, which i realize is not based on the T-72M1 but is based on the T-72 in general.

My question is : What where the terms of this license production agreement of the T-72M1 and subsequent modernizations?

Various sources i have found claim that production of the T-72M1 continued in Poland up untill 1994. Other countries also continued production post 1990.
Does this mean that the T-72M1 license production and export license was unaffected by the dissolution of the Soviet Bloc?

Also, the initial PT-91 tanks where basically T-72M1's with extensive upgrades retrofitted. However later models appear to have been newly constructed tanks.
These tanks obviously made use of the production lines for the T-72 export variants. Where they not subjected to certain copyrights belonging to the Russians?

I guess the real question here is : If a country purchased the license to manufacture the T-72M1 in the 80's, would it still be allowed to produce these tanks post 1990, without compensating Russia or renewing the license?
Furthermore, would that country be allowed to build a new tank (like the PT-91) which borrows heavily from the design of the T-72, and also utilizes the T-72 production line, again without compensating Russia or renewing the license?

Or were countries like Poland free to do as they pleased with the T-72M1 production license, including developing their own variants and producing these freely?

Sorry if this all sounds incoherent. I did my best try and make sense. English is not my mother language.

i think licensed production meant that the T-72s that were produced in other countries were assembled from some parts from USSR/Russia so even after the dissolution of USSR, Russia should provide some basic elements for the production of the tanks (if the license production had to be continued)

George1 wrote:

0nillie0 wrote:Hi,

*After some additional research, i have edited my original question. No answer was posted at this time*

I have a question regarding the PT-91 Twardy polish main battle tank. I have checked the usual sources for basic information (army-guide, Wikipedia, army recognition etc.) and could not find a clear answer for my question.

I understand that it is an upgraded version of the T-72M1, a license produced export variant of the T-72A, which was produced in Poland and ex-Czechoslovakia.
Other such modernization examples include the T-72M4 CZ, or the M-84 from Yugoslavia, which i realize is not based on the T-72M1 but is based on the T-72 in general.

My question is : What where the terms of this license production agreement of the T-72M1 and subsequent modernizations?

Various sources i have found claim that production of the T-72M1 continued in Poland up untill 1994. Other countries also continued production post 1990.
Does this mean that the T-72M1 license production and export license was unaffected by the dissolution of the Soviet Bloc?

Also, the initial PT-91 tanks where basically T-72M1's with extensive upgrades retrofitted. However later models appear to have been newly constructed tanks.
These tanks obviously made use of the production lines for the T-72 export variants. Where they not subjected to certain copyrights belonging to the Russians?

I guess the real question here is : If a country purchased the license to manufacture the T-72M1 in the 80's, would it still be allowed to produce these tanks post 1990, without compensating Russia or renewing the license?
Furthermore, would that country be allowed to build a new tank (like the PT-91) which borrows heavily from the design of the T-72, and also utilizes the T-72 production line, again without compensating Russia or renewing the license?

Or were countries like Poland free to do as they pleased with the T-72M1 production license, including developing their own variants and producing these freely?

Sorry if this all sounds incoherent. I did my best try and make sense. English is not my mother language.

i think licensed production meant that the T-72s that were produced in other countries were assembled from some parts from USSR/Russia so even after the dissolution of USSR, Russia should provide some basic elements for the production of the tanks (if the license production had to be continued)

Most of the countries that kept the T72 lines open tried to cheat to some extent. Poland wanted to contract cheaper Soviet parts, then Bumar Labedy would re-export the Twardies at more expensive price making a profit. The idea for Poland (and for countries like Slovakia and the Czech Rep) initially was to keep a token force of these tanks, but to move as fast as possible out of the Soviet standards. This meant that most of the T72's were on the chopping block. Basically the Poles idea at the time was to modernize the force as much as possible while getting all the Soviet pieces out when it was possible. This was guided by the alleged dismal performance of the T-family in Kuwait and Iraq. Also license means that a huge number of parts and their subsequent ToT are obtained, thus making it easier to counterfeit parts. With the Russian State in the gutter, who wa going to collect those fines for counterfeited goods.

BTW PT-91 is not a new tank...

Walther von Oldenburg wrote:What would be the best sources to learn about conduct of land warfare , from small unit tactics up to operational (brigade and above) level? I have some intuitive understanding of this but it's not comprehensive enough I think.

There was a book written back in the 1990's documenting an American unit's participation at the National Training Center at Fort Irwin. Excellent look at the whole picture, operations to logistics, of a combined tank - mechanized infantry combat group. Believe the author was Stoddard and a quick look at Amazon reveals one used paperback copy for $100. Now where in blazes did I put my copy

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Most of the countries that kept the T72 lines open tried to cheat to some extent. Poland wanted to contract cheaper Soviet parts, then Bumar Labedy would re-export the Twardies at more expensive price making a profit. The idea for Poland (and for countries like Slovakia and the Czech Rep) initially was to keep a token force  of these tanks, but to move as fast as possible out of the Soviet standards. This meant that most of the T72's were on the chopping block. Basically the Poles idea at the time was to modernize the force as much as possible while getting all the Soviet pieces out when it was possible. This was guided by the alleged dismal performance of the T-family in Kuwait and Iraq. Also license means that a huge number of parts and their subsequent ToT are obtained, thus making it easier to counterfeit parts. With the Russian State in the gutter, who wa going to collect those fines for counterfeited goods.

BTW PT-91 is not a new tank...

First : thanks to you and George1 for the answer !

So the PT-91's are all based on converted T-72M1's ? Meaning the "youngest" PT-91 actually dates back to like '94 or something?

Secondly :
The reason i asked all this is because i was thinking (after reading up on projects like the PT-91 and the Croatian M-84D or M-95 Degman) :

Hypothetically : Would it be possible for a NATO (or NATO aligned) country that had previously license manufactured a T-72 tank (for example like Poland in the early 90's), to at present day restart the production line (provided that it had the needed parts and ToT and facilities etc. ) for a modernized version of the T-72 based on the original chassis (again, with improvements). Keep in mind i am not asking if it would be a good idea to do so, just if it where possible. I realize that even IF such a thing was even possible, it would be easier and cheaper to just buy stored T-72's from wherever and just upgrade them.

And also : what would be the "obligations" that this country would have to present day Russia, if it went ahead and restarted such a production line.

Finaly : Which country was the last to halt indigenous production of NEW T-72's and what year was this?

Thanks again for the good information guys.

Why modern tanks use a smoothbore gun instead of a rifeld one? What advantages does it has?

DerWolf wrote:Why modern tanks use a smoothbore gun instead of a rifeld one? What advantages does it has?

Rifling wears out meaning the barrel has to be changed more often. Fin stablisation of modern rounds no longer requires the accuracy generated by rotation used in rifled barrels.

The most effective rounds for a MBT are APFSDS and HEAT.

Neither of which like being spun rapidly by rifling.

A dart projectile like an APFSDS round cannot be spun fast enough to stabilise it... that is why there is an FS in the designation... fin stabilised.

For HEAT rounds the plasma jet of molten material it blasts at the target is dispersed when it spins rapidly.

the only rounds that benefit from spinning are full bore rounds like HE shells and full bore armour piercing rounds... of which the latter are no longer used.

HE shells are used against point targets but hitting bunkers accurately is not as important as hitting enemy armour accurately.

A rifled gun is heavier and thicker than a smoothbore. It also is harder to clean properly.

The rifling slows the round down as it imparts spin so for a given length a smoothbore allows a higher muzzle velocity than an equivalent rifled gun of the same length.

This means a smoothbore can have a higher velocity or can be shorter.

Smoothbores are cheaper and easier to make... and as I mentioned above the most important rounds a modern MBT fires prefer smoothbore guns.

The main country sticking to the rifled main gun is the British and they do so because of the HESH round.

This is a full calibre HE round that is designed to flatten against a target tanks armour on impact and then detonate with a base mounted fuse. The large surface area of the HE sends shockwaves through the armour plate and makes large metal fragments scab off (called spall) inside the armour to shred the crew and internal fittings.

It doesn't penetrate the armour but it is very effective and lethal.... on WWII tanks that don't have spaced armour.

In Desert Storm a Challanger tank accidentally fired upon a Warrior IFV, and at the time it was claimed the Warrior had super armour that could shrug off tank main gun ammo.

The reality is that the round fired was a HESH and it flattened and exploded on the addon armour on the side of the Warrior, which included spaced armour, so of course the vehicle was not damaged by spall which was contained inside the addon armour box.

Not a super IFV... just a crap anti armour round.

Being full calibre it needs a rifled gun.

Against soft targets it is still a very effective round but a delay fuse on a standard HE round that explodes inside the target is even more effective.

Hi, The American air strike on the Syrian army, killing 62 soldiers and wounding 100 more according to the Russian defense ministry. What happened to the deployed full alert ready to fire s 400 units? What could have happened to the active air defence units around the site attacked?

It was 300 km away. Locked up on the other direction. Furthermore US command lied about strike coordinates i'm 100% sure. Also ADS on position was a couple of Shilkas and SA-3. The US had never gone bombing there, so the troops weren't affraid of air raids. This was typical american accident or not.

The role of the S-400 battery is not to defend ground targets from air attack.

Its purpose is to prevent an air attack against friendly aircraft, or to deal with any potential attacker if they choose to attack a Russian aircraft.

As such they will monitor air traffic and activity but wont track ground strikes...

Do u mean the s 400 / 300 would spare the enemy air crafts intruded in to the space guarded by it provided the aircrafts target ground assets?

The S-400 battery is no policing a no fly zone and cannot simply shoot down any unidentified aircraft in it field of view.

It will have rules of engagement and wont really know what the aircraft it detects are actually doing... when it detects aircraft flying over Allepo it can't tell if they are attacking ground targets or if they are looking for targets.

If the Fighter escorts of a Su-24 try to scare off a Pakistani F-16 that wont leave it alone and that F-16 is stupid enough to open fire then that S-400 battery might get authorisation to shoot that F-16 down, but it wont get authorisation without provocation.

hy garry
i have some questions.
as far as i know in a turbine jet engine when the temperature is high efficiency is low. same whit pressure.
is that true also for ramjet or scramjet?
can be a tank filled with some cold substance like freon and pulverized near the nozzle so that the thrust can increase? because i know that thrust increase when the cold air from above and below surface of turbine jet meet the hot air.
that can be done at a aircraft too?

as far as i know in a turbine jet engine when the temperature is high efficiency is low. same whit pressure.

No.

A normal gas turbine tries to compress air and then adds fuel to super heat that air so that it leaves the rear very hot and very fast... the more you heat it the more it expands and the faster it leaves the rear of the engine... more gas and faster gas means more thrust.

You want the gas to get as hot as you can possibly make it, but you can't make it too hot or the internal parts of your engine will melt.

is that true also for ramjet or scramjet?

Really the same for all types of jet engine, though a turbo prop engine uses the gas turbine to spin a propeller and it gets its thrust from that propeller so the exhaust gas temperature and speed is not important... it is just the mechanism that turns the blades to generate thrust.

A turbo fan uses a turbojet to turn a large fan to move cold air to produce thrust too but that cold air goes through the afterburner and is much more efficient than a turbojet because a large volume of air that is cold and oxygen rich can burn more fuel and heat up a lot more making more thrust in a turbofan engine than a pure turbojet.

If you want high subsonic cruise a big turbofan like on a Boeing is best but for supersonic speed the high exhaust gas speed of a turbojet or low bypass turbofan is best.

A scramjet or ramjet is for high speed flight so very high temperature and high speed gas exhaust is best.

can be a tank filled with some cold substance like freon and pulverized near the nozzle so that the thrust can increase?

You want to add heat and volume, not reduce it. the main exception is for very fast aircraft where the heat of the air flowing into the engine can overheat the parts of the engine.

The two main types of engine injection systems is a water injection system... usually used on bombers during takeoff to add mass to their exhaust... it tends to lower exhaust temperature and not burn very well (so you get a lot of very black smoke) but the added volume of what rapidly turns to steam adds a lot of thrust.

The other injection system is like the MiG-25 that uses alcohol injection, but this is injected into the inlet to cool down the front compressor blades/fan. the liquid is of course flammable and ignites and adds weight but also adds to combustion... it means the engine can operate at higher speeds and higher temperatures which allows the aircraft to fly faster for longer.

Of course an after burner is a fuel injection system that injects raw fuel into the exhaust to increase thrust... it has more effect in a turbofan as there is more oxygen rich air from the bypass air (air that does not go through the core high pressure turbojet core) so it burns better.

because i know that thrust increase when the cold air from above and below surface of turbine jet meet the hot air.

The thin cold air at altitude allows much higher flight speed because there is less friction with the air and very cold air expands more when heated than warm or hot air. The fact that is thinner is compensated for by flying faster so more air is scooped up, so when heated it expands more and slows down the aircraft less than thicker warmer air nearer the sea surface/ground level.

BTW hi there... hope you are well.

i'm doing fine. altought winter is coming and i'll be freezing
so basically don't work....i have taken example from the storm formation clouds when two fronts one cold other hot meet each other .....

another question would be if you can make some sort form of propulsion from a gas bring to plasma state like in tokamak devices then guided out with the help of a magnetic shield?