10 replies to this topic

[Dexter]

Today T-90 MBT is to make up the steel fist of Russian Land Forces. It is one of the most migthy and versatile combat vehicles of the present day.
But what lurks behind its massively looking reactive armour?

Since the cold war russian tank development step by step followed western military efforts in modernizations, introducing new equipment when it was nessecery in means of security. A good example of such strategy was introduction of T-80 as an answer to mass deployment of Leopard 2 main battle tanks in western europe, or T-80U, designed specifically to counter M1A1 and Leopard 2A5 MBTs. One of such countering steps was meant to assure soviet armor superiority over upcoming M1A2 and expected new Leopard. This project was a massive upgrade to T-72 tank, which was known under the codename "Obiekt 187". The amount of changes was so huge, that new tank should've had obtained a new designation, rather than become another T-72 version. Upgrade touched almost every aspect of the tank, vital to combat efficiency. O187 had a new X-type 1200hp engine, completely new hull, due to new engine housing and new uparmored rectangular glacis (as opposed to V-shaped glacis classic to soviet MBTs), new welded turret with slightly larger and more efficient armor layout, new FCS, superior to the one of M1A1, new 2A66 gun, which was several calibers longer then previous 2A46, upgraded to work faster autoloader (thanks to the larger turret), new long awaited gunner's IR sights. And even being superior to western counterparts this tank was just an intermediate step between T-80U and completely new 5th generation soviet MBT. However these plans crashed against the bitter reality. The unfortunate story of Obiekt 187 ended with the Soviet Union . Without being able to field this tank due to cut founding ministery of defence took a desperate attempt to save at least some of work finished by uralvagonzavod engineers, and it was when T-90 came out. The decision was made to update T-72 only where it was life-nessecery, leaving most of the tank intact since T-72BM. This new child of reality was initialy named "Obiekt 188" in earlier project, then T-72BU during field tests, and finally got an original name T-90 with Yeltsin's blessing, though it was alien to uralvagonzavod naming system (this however was not the only dull aspect of the tank). T-90 did not recieve neither new engine, nor a new hull. Turret remained intact since T-72BM as well. The lack of armor thickness was partly compensated with it's new structure, partly with a new ERA, partly with an introduction of the "Shtora" active defence system. Other advantages from T-72BM consisted of a new FCS, remote machinegun control, borrowed from T-80U, and several minor upgrades including newer version of the 2A46 gun, new ammunition, and IR gunner's sights. The total amount of tanks produced is not clear, however it is definitely below 1000. To compare this tank to M1A2, here are some numbers: T-90 has 840HP V-84MS engine, with the weight of 48 tons it gives a power armament of 18HP/t, the one of M1A2 is 23HP/t. Considering M1A2's logistics problems and advantages on the road, T-90 in terms of overall mobility stands somewhere worse then M1A1 and better then M1A2. In terms of firepower M1A2 has a clear advantage, despite of archaic gun-loading system and thus performance limitation of manually-loading gun. The standart (on 2000m distance) peneteration capability of US M829E2 round stood somewhere near 700-750mm , which was similar, compared to 3BM-44 Russian rounds, but the introduction of M829A3 DU rounds in US Army rises M1's peneteration capability to 800-850mm. The same picture we see with tank's protection - 870mm agains SABOT rounds of M1A2, and T-90's is 800mm, and even this counts ERA effect.

In 1999 T-90 upgrade program was started, and the first stage, known as " Vladimir " upgrade, gave T-90 improved 1000HP V-92S2 engine, and his rightfully own welded turret and autoloader (which allowed to fire 12 rounds per minute, compared to previous 8 rpm ratio). Since then tank was constantly upgraded, with later engine replacement to 1200HO V-99, FCS and armor upgrades, BMS. All of this was enough for T-90 to become a new tank, which was T-90A.


Original can be found here

Edited by AlexArt, 06 June 2007 - 11:58 AM.

[Willink]

analysts say the russian T-80UK is russia's best mbt due to its excellence performance in the chenchen war.

I seem to recall the Russian armed forces using the T-80BV in the Chechen war, not the T-80UK or T-80U or the T-80UD, and that the T-80BV had performed poorly (at least in the opening operations around Grozny) whilst being destroyed by Chechen fireteams utilizing RPG-18's and costing some 26 tanks initially deployed to roll into the city. Howver this is a result of the asymmetrical warfare the forces were facing, although the ability of the shaped charges of RPG-7's and RPG-18's to defeat the T-80BV's armor must also be taken into consideration.

http://www.knox.army.../6warford95.pdf

[Dexter]

Yes, T-80A modifications (U, UD, UM, UK) never took part in any conflicts.

[Creator]

but the introduction of M829A3 DU rounds in US Army rises M1's peneteration capability to 800-850mm.

Incorrect. In the begining americans had announced that muzzle velocity of this shell is 1830 m/s. Calculations were showing that peneteration capability must lie somewhere between 800-850mm. Later it had been found out that real M829A3 muzzle velocity is only 1555 m/s. It means that peneteration capability is not higher than 770mm at 2km distance.

[Dexter]

Our shell's muzzle velocity is higher due to lower weight. It is actually quite hard to believe that our rounds which must have either low subcaliber or low length/thickness ratio due to autoloader restriction, with tungsten penetrator, could have about the same effectiveness as the US long DU shell.

[Pendaelose]

There reaches a point where the details of a round or missile matter less and less because once you reach a certain scale any dedicated anti-tank weapon can very easily penetreate the armor of any tank, where as a weapon that is not a true anti-tank weapon doesn't even have a chance.

Target durability is not a linear scale, it leaps from one class to another to the point that each class is nearly impervious to weapons benieth itself.

Infantry are squsishy to all anti-infantry weapons. Flak vests, sappy plates, helemts... they all improve troop survivability, but they are still very easy to take down on the field, and a wounded soldier is just as out of the fight as a dead one.

Armored Cars and other light vehicles are typicly entirely imune to basic anti-infantry weapons... but if you pull out any kind of anti-material or anti-vehicle weapon they are toast. Stopping small arms 100% of the time is absolutly no defense against a 50cal round or explosives.

Armored Fighting vehicles such as the bradly are totaly unimpressed by those weapons. Sure, you can destroy the weapons, or damage the tracks with lighter weapons, but the guys in side are still safe, and in 90% of cases they can still kill the guy who shot them. Then they just have to wait for a recovery team to tow them back home. You need an AT4, M-19, or 30mm gun to break one. Even many APC-type units lack the firepower to take out a target as armored as themselves.

Tanks are no different. If its not a true anti tank weapon its not going to hurt the tank. "dissabling" a tank by blowing a track is not nearly as lethal as people make it out to be. Just because it can't drive in a stright line doesn't mean it can't kill everyhitng in a 1 mile radius.... and you just made it mad. However, any real tank killer such as other tanks, heli's with AT missiles, or Jets can kill another tank with imputence. Its not a mater of "my armor is 8 inches thicker, I can survive more shells", its simply I shot you, you're dead.

Armor and Rounds matter less and less because these catagories are steadily becomeing more distinct and the weapons to break them become more specialized. Getting the first shot matters more. The real advances in tanks are in the targeting and survaleince systems. Battlefield awareness abilities such as Radar, satilite, and the targeting info of other friendly tanks fed directly to the tank and crew has become far more important than the gun itself. When there is no armor that can withstand the penetration of high end weapons armor and penetration can both be thrown out the window when looking at field effectivness.

Mobility, Acuracy, Range, Rate of fire, and Battlefield awareness become the desciding factors within the confines of any single class of target/weapon. You don't need bigger bullets, you just need to hit first and more often, and hope you have backup if something bigger than you shows up.

Ofcourse there are exceptions... lucky shots, or hard/soft spots on most targets (from infantry to Tank and everywhere in between), but it does nothing to lessen the point made. And I'm willing to bet these trends will only contenue and will become even more distinct. Unless new "super armors" are developed in the future nothing will change, we'll simply get better and better at the things that now matter.

[Dexter]

You definitely make a point, but not quite accurately. It does work,but only to the point when it comes to the tank. And since this thread is mainly about tanks, i can't help but argue on this matter.

Though i believe that battlefield of the future is going to be based on the pushthebutton warfare, this still is not the case yet. Tank's armor and antitank weapons are still in competition. As an example i can provide the fact that M1A2 has quite a low chance to take out another M1A2 on the range of 2km. In case you are not familiar with the ways antitank weapons work - i shall describe principle behind APFSDS rounds: it's a long steel arrow, with either tungsten or DU penetrator, diameter of about 1/4 of the gun's caliber, and incredible velocity thanks to low weight. As you may have already guessed, velocity tends to fall with a higher range, and with it effectiveness decreases too. Thus armor defines not the threshold beneath which no weapon is effective, but the range at which it's effectiveness will exceed the threshold. For most cases it varies between 2 and 1 km, which does make a difference.

And situation with the dedicated AT weapons is even closer to the balance. ATGM's firing range does not affect it's effectiveness, but tank anti-HEAT protection levels and HEAT penetration capability are so close to each other that "my armor is better" debate could really take place. In chechnya there were cases when insurgents fired about 7-8 RPG-7 rounds at a single T-72B and they were still operational.

On the other hand, tank's "eyes" are not that much of a field for improvements. The only significant step towards better visual recognition was made with introduction of thermal sights, but today everybody has them. BMS could improve overall effectiveness of tank platoon's actions, but again, if not everybody, then at least major military powers have them. And there's not too much to improve in the quality of the certain system, as well as there aren't too many systems left to introduce.

Shell's active guidance may become a further step in tank's system package improvement, but this shell will meet armor eventually. Armor itself may evolve, incorporating active protection systems, but it will still remain armor - the thing that allows tank to survive more hits. Railguns? Electromagnetic reactive armor would make a counter.

PS Radar data isn't being fed to tanks, it is for spotting planes

[Pendaelose]

I did give myself an alibi of saying there are exceptions , and I'll agree range is one of them, but if you compare AT guns to weapons such as Air-to-Ground missiles it puts the guns on the bottom of the scale. Hellfires and other tank killers make the armor look like it was paper thin. Also, there are several types of AT rounds. The DU being one of the more common, but there are also the ones that shoot super heated metals into the tank, though for the life of me I can't think of what they are called, as well as rocket assisted and all sorts of other "non-standard" shells.

Also, how much tank-on-tank is in open fields? The side with the weaker tank will certainly prefer to keep them in urban areas where the figtning will be close enough for thier own guns to crack the other guys armor. Yes, I know everyone usauly trys to avoid sending tanks into any urban area, but thats only because we're usauly using tanks vs people who don't have tanks of thier own. In the situation you described where one tank can survive another's at 2Km is not always true both ways, and you certainly don't want to be on the wrong end of that 2Km duel. A city levels the playing field and makes all the tanks squishy to each other because suddenly your fighting at 100-500meters

Though my point is more towards the trend. You make a good point that at long range tanks still effectivly use thier armor, and armor is being improved all the time, but on a whole the weapons deveopment is definatly out pacing the armor. Its not a question of will it, but rather when will it have left it behind? If we look at the time lines this, and most ZH mods, are based on I'm pretty sure it would have already happened. (though even in my own mod I still use the clasic ZH shot for shot balance, so its kinda "meh")


and true, you wouldn't feed radar directly to a tank, but you do let them know any intel it provides. Any aircraft in the area are such a threat to a tank that even a handful of enemy aircraft in the area is enough reason to pull back all the armor until air superiority is restored.

and while its not a "tank" AA units certainly would be linked to larger area radar in addition to using thier own.

but I'm really not trying to get into specifics or trudging through details. I'm simply making the point over the overall trend.



btw, I wasn't a tanker, but I am a veteran, and did basic training at Ft Knox KY, so I got alot of time around tanks and apreciate their special beuty. Though, I personaly spent alot more time wandering through the woods with a rifle and radio, so infantry worries are closer to home for me.

Edited by Pendaelose, 31 August 2007 - 05:04 PM.

[Dexter]

Ok, i'll let myself use some quotes, otherwise it would be quite hard to follow separate lines.

but there are also the ones that shoot super heated metals into the tank

There are no such things, believe i know what im talking about.

as well as rocket assisted and all sorts of other "non-standard" shells.

90% of rockets are either HEAT or HEF, no other choices, at least among those that could be used against a tank.

The side with the weaker tank will certainly prefer to keep them in urban areas where the figtning will be close enough for thier own guns to crack the other guys armor.

Or for somebody to throw molotov at the top of a tank. Or ATGM flanking. Really, i think that taking tank into urban battle is a mistake.

If we look at the time lines this, and most ZH mods, are based on I'm pretty sure it would have already happened.

This mod is pretty much based on our, contemporary timeline, and as i already mentioned armor still serves it's purpose now. Overall each tank has a chance to destroy other tank, even T-54 has a chance to waste M1A2, but armor serves in this case as a penetration probability reducer. The better your tank is armored, the more chance your enemy's shell will hit impenetrable (for the given enemy) area, which eventually leads to prolonged firing exchange.
And of course tanks are easily countered with CAS, as well as CAS can be countered with close range AA such as Tunguska. Success is defined by proper usage. But guys were talking about tank head on.
You are probably not aware, but technical armor-oriented forums are all filled with similar conversations. And actually, tanks are still being developed with the aim for such dueling situations. To one degree or another it IS going to affect outcome of the battle.

and true, you wouldn't feed radar directly to a tank, but you do let them know any intel it provides. Any aircraft in the area are such a threat to a tank that even a handful of enemy aircraft in the area is enough reason to pull back all the armor until air superiority is restored.

This is rather for battalion command, not for the tanks. And i actually don't see how it is now different from the cold war era times.

and while its not a "tank" AA units certainly would be linked to larger area radar in addition to using thier own.

Yeah, but that's a whole different story

btw, I wasn't a tanker, but I am a veteran, and did basic training at Ft Knox KY, so I got alot of time around tanks and apreciate their special beuty. Though, I personaly spent alot more time wandering through the woods with a rifle and radio, so infantry worries are closer to home for me.

Following this logic, being a VVS IAS officer i should probably feel more comfortable with planes, but... I still like tanks

Edited by Dexter, 31 August 2007 - 06:05 PM.