This is a discussion on T-90 in Comparison to Western Armour within the Army & Security Forces forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; I do not agree that T-90 is meant to be sacrificed in higher numbers than other tanks, especially because nowadays ...
I do not agree that T-90 is meant to be sacrificed in higher numbers than other tanks, especially because nowadays no country is able to fight like this against its opponents.
As for the sovjets in the past, numerical superiority was a part of their strategy but not their only advantage and tactic.
And Chrom is right if he says that until Abrams and Leo IIs appeared in the european theater the arms race in terms of tanks went well for the sovjets.
But I have a problem with the theory that the size of the Ts is an advantage.
I always have in mind that the Leclerc and the Type 90, both of them equipped with an autoloader, are as big as other western tanks.
Seems like western manufacturers don't think that making the tank smaller is a good way to improve its capabilities.
But I have a problem with the theory that the size of the Ts is an advantage.
I always have in mind that the Leclerc and the Type 90, both of them equipped with an autoloader, are as big as other western tanks.
Seems like western manufacturers don't think that making the tank smaller is a good way to improve its capabilities.
It IS advantage, and quite big, there is no doubt. Else we would see 800-tons tank right now. Another question, what soviet designers sacrificed for this advantage. From my POV, several things:
1. Crew comfort
2. Ammo protection
3. Cramped space for all systems.
If these disadvatages will outweight low profile - we never know. In peace times and low-scale conflicts they are certainly more important than smaller size.
The 800 ton argument is a little bit overrated, isn't it?
It is not like that Abrams, Leos, etc. perform much more worse in bad terrain or are much more visible just because they are bigger.
For sure there is a weight border and I think that western tanks are reaching this border with their newest versions.
I have the luck to have a dad who served on T-72 and when we compared the terrain we had problems with than I see that the Leo II does not have a remarkable problem because of its weight.
The 800 ton argument is a little bit overrated, isn't it?
It is not like that Abrams, Leos, etc. perform much more worse in bad terrain or are much more visible just because they are bigger.
For sure there is a weight border and I think that western tanks are reaching this border with their newest versions.
I have the luck to have a dad who served on T-72 and when we compared the terrain we had problems with than I see that the Leo II does not have a remarkable problem because of its weight.
Isn't the emphasis on the advantage of smaller MBT's academic? I recall speaking to a US Master Gunner who stated that to qualify you had to persistently hit a 1 sq metre moving target at various distances and also at speed. he came though the WarPac NATO era of tank warfare and finished off on Abrams. He certainly never regarded the small footprint of the T series as a hindrance to scoring as he regarded his training as balancing the ledger.
there are "lots" of dead T series tanks out at Aberdeen where they practice "live". I was left in no doubt that they had played against real T-80's, T-72's, T-62's as well as M-60 russian mockups
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
Last edited by gf0012-aust; October 13th, 2006 at 10:28 PM.
I totally agree with you.
It is a sort of academic thought to say that a KE round which passed a T close by would have hit an Abrams or Leo at its edge.
For example all of our gunners had not more problems to hit IFVs, APCs and T series hard targets during maneuvers than to hit enemy MBTs and normal targets.
And especially in the normal middle european terrain where fighting at more than 2km is rare this should be no problem.
I totally agree with you.
It is a sort of academic thought to say that a KE round which passed a T close by would have hit an Abrams or Leo at its edge.
For example all of our gunners had not more problems to hit IFVs, APCs and T series hard targets during maneuvers than to hit enemy MBTs and normal targets.
And especially in the normal middle european terrain where fighting at more than 2km is rare this should be no problem.
Its not about visiblity, just pure chance to hit. I dont even speak about RPG's and ATGM's - the advantage of smaller size here is apparent. But even with modern guns and FCS its much easer to hit bigger target than smaller - else, of course, all modern tanks would have no problem to hit any target up to 5000m. I dont know exactly what FCS is capable now, but in 80x average T-80 and Leo tankers was trained to hit targets at about 2000m - and 50% hits was considered VERY good in exercises. Firing from the move on rought terrain against moving targets gave much worse results. So we can conclude what even at these distances small size will bring sizeable (lol) advantage. Of course, the difference is not that big - but the size of T-90 is also not that smaller. Its about 30% difference we are speaking here - which, depending of situation, could give 5-25% higher miss chance. If you friend is going to tell us what hitting 1 m2 target is as easy from 2000m as hitting 15m2 target... than i wouldnt believe to that friend about other things he tells also.
P.S. Honestly, i also dont think what soviet designers considered small size as big battle advantage. Probably the driving point was to make cost & weight smaller, which could be considered tactical and strategical advantage. You know - bridges, frozen rivers & lakes, air & railroad transportability, fuel consumption, etc.
Last edited by Chrom; October 13th, 2006 at 11:08 PM.
Its not about visiblity, just pure chance to hit. I dont even speak about RPG's and ATGM's - the advantage of smaller size here is apparent. But even with modern guns and FCS its much easer to hit bigger target than smaller - else, of course, all modern tanks would have no problem to hit any target up to 5000m.
actually modern FCS make it to much easier to hit smaller mobile targets. MG Qualification requires hitting a moving 1m2 target at various distances - the target is 1m2 - it doesn't matter whether the target mass is 10m2 or 15m2, they still have to hit the target to qualify - at various ranges, and whilst mobile.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrom
If you friend is going to tell us what hitting 1 m2 target is as easy from 2000m as hitting 15m2 target... than i wouldnt believe to that friend about other things he tells also.
Not sure if you're talking about waylanders father, or my MG contact. If its re my contact, then he is a master gunner - you do realise whats required to get to that level?
he certainly isn't prone to exagerration (at a certain age I'd say that older soldiers don't have time for it) unless they're trying to line up extra curricular comfort in a strange town .
I haven't come across a real tanker yet who embellishes the truth. thats usually the province of excitable kids or enthusiasts. This is a bloke who has actually shot at other tanks in combat - and has been shot at in return. I've never heard him exagerrate anything - quite the opposite in fact. tankers will normally only open up in front of other tankers. getting info from them is like pulling a tooth at a dentist, painful and long.
my only exposure to armour was peripheral involvement with the australian Leo 1 upgrade, and with a couple of armoured vehicle ballistics validation programs. I do however have no reason to disbelieve him as all of what he said was supported by people from KraussMafei when they were involved with our programs.
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
actually modern FCS make it to much easier to hit smaller mobile targets. MG Qualification requires hitting a moving 1m2 target at various distances - the target is 1m2 - it doesn't matter whether the target mass is 10m2 or 15m2, they still have to hit the target to qualify - at various ranges, and whilst mobile.
No matter how good FCS is there are still conditions where its struggle to hit its target.
Quote:
Not sure if you're talking about waylanders father, or my MG contact. If its re my contact, then he is a master gunner - you do realise whats required to get to that level?
he certainly isn't prone to exagerration (at a certain age I'd say that older soldiers don't have time for it) unless they're trying to line up extra curricular comfort in a strange town .
So, if we believe that MG, we now know what a modern tank, in perfect training condition, just after perfect maintainance, from a almost new gun, a very high-skilled master-gunner can hit 1m2 target at 2000m range in almost 100% cases. Still, i wouldnt believe him if he says what hitting 1m2 is as EASY as hitting 15m2 target no matter what range. And if we are speaking about average Joe in average tank firing in less than favorable condition with smoke, rain, etc against maneuvering target... Either way, no matter how good FCS and gunner is, where is always some distance and conditions where FCS and gun cant provide 100% hit probability against tank target. Be it 2000m or 3000m or 4000m.
No matter how good FCS is there are still conditions where its struggle to hit its target.
Of course - who said that modern FCS was perfect? none of us that I recall.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrom
So, if we believe that MG, we now know what a modern tank, in perfect training condition, just after perfect maintainance, from a almost new gun, a very high-skilled master-gunner can hit 1m2 target at 2000m range in almost 100% cases. Still, i wouldnt believe him if he says what hitting 1m2 is as EASY as hitting 15m2 target no matter what range. And if we are speaking about average Joe in average tank firing in less than favorable condition with smoke, rain, etc against maneuvering target... Either way, no matter how good FCS and gunner is, where is always some distance and conditions where FCS and gun cant provide 100% hit probability against tank target. Be it 2000m or 3000m or 4000m.
I gather from the tone of your replies that you are being more than a little contrary because you don't like the answers. You're passing judgement without knowing any detail of the training conditions.
1) the gunnery tests he qualified on were over 16 years ago. the tests however have been refined from that point. they may well be more difficult
2) the master gunner tests the other gunners - they are required to meet the same tests
3) the tests weren't done with brand new tanks - they were "run as brung". some were decidedly old (as in any tank unit)
4) nobody is stating that FCS results in 100% kill rates - but certainly new FCS with modern guns in a euro engagement scenario of less than 2000m would be at optimum parameters to maximise a kill.
5) you're either misinterpreting my comments on kills at different ranges - or you're being a little pernicious. my reference was that he quite clearly stated that qualification requires killing a 1m2 target at speed at various ranges (point blank to maximum) and score very very high ratios (which is classified). Persistent training makes things easier - it doesn't make things easy.
6) If you're familiar with the gunnery qualification - then you are well aware that they shoot under adverse conditions. smoke, fog, rain, manouvering targets are the conditions de rigeur for anyone to be qualified in the US tank corp - perhaps you're relating limitations and standards to another military using different benchmarks.
Nobody at aberdeen (or salisbury hill, or puckapunyal etc) passes gunners based on perfect conditions. Gunnery training is not scripted for setting high pass rates at all.
Contact and kill ratios are far higher now in modern armies than they ever were in the past - but nobody is suggesting 100% pass rates - that would be abject and unadulterated rubbish of the highest order.
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
I dont know exactly what FCS is capable now, but in 80x average T-80 and Leo tankers was trained to hit targets at about 2000m - and 50% hits was considered VERY good in exercises.
50% is a very bad result. Round about 90% is the objective during normal Bundeswehr live fire exercises. And there you also don't use brand new tanks, guns, perfect calibrated FCS, etc. You use the tanks of your company and these tanks may have stood there for some month while the company fullfilled other tasks like basic training for new recrutes or oversea missions.
These live fire exercises are conducted during nealry every weather condition with yourself moving and against moving targets.
We even achieved more than 60% with a broken laser range finder.
I think, you miss something, gentelmen. Lesser dimention means lesser observability in all electromagnetic waves. It is common law and its very true for tanks as like as for aircraft and ships (and it's certainly true for the lasts!). In billowy European terrain it is even more important: you mostly see (if yes) a turret of enemy tank. More than 50% of hits in 1st and 2nd Lebanon campaigns were on tanks turrets. Compare the profile of T-90 turret with M1A2 and you will see a difference. It is more that 2 time crossection difference. Also if we compare the cross-section of crew compartment we found some 3 time difference in frontal cross-section square. We must to take in to consideration, that only those APFSDSs do some damage who hit the compartment projection. For example, the volume of crew compartment of Leo2 is like 13 m2, and All the volume of T-80 is 13 m2! If you say, it doesnt make any difference, I'll put to use my rights don't belive in that. Obviosly, western tanks need MORE armor for the SAME protection comparing to T-series.
Also think please, if FCS and the MG of contemporal tanks are so accurate, why dont you start hunting on helos, aircrafts and even isolated soldiers with APFSDS?
Last edited by extern; October 14th, 2006 at 11:00 AM.
I think, you miss something, gentelmen. Lesser dimention means lesser observability in all electromagnetic waves. It is common law and its very true for tanks as like as for aircraft and ships (and it's certainly true for the lasts!).
Thats incredibly poor science to argue that less volumetric mass = lower observability. That is just not so with current sensor systems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by extern
In billowy European terrain it is even more important: you mostly see (if yes) a turret of enemy tank. More than 50% of hits in 1st and 2nd Lebanon campaigns were on tanks turrets. Compare the profile of T-90 turret with M1A2 and you will see a difference. It is more that 2 time crossection difference. Also if we compare the cross-section of crew compartment we found some 3 time difference in frontal cross-section square. We must to take in to consideration, that only those APFSDSs do some damage who hit the compartment projection. For example, the volume of crew compartment of Leo2 is like 13 m2, and All the volume of T-80 is 13 m2! If you say, it doesnt make any difference, I'll put to use my rights don't belive in that. Obviosly, western tanks need MORE armor for the SAME protection comparing to T-series.
Thats a complete fallacy. Volumetric mass has nothing to do with armour protection. armour is benched against an RHA equivalency - but that figure has nothing to do with actual armour dimensions.
We tested applique panels that had a higher RHA than the nominal thickness of panels that were actually 30-40% thicker.
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
We don't say that it makes no difference but as gf0012-aust said it is rather academic.
It is the same like when some people talk about if the one tank has some meters more range than the other one.
As I said before our gunners did not even notice a difference in finding and killing IFVs and APCs instead of MBTs and there the difference is even bigger.
We even make our tanks look bigger by adding natural coverage which breaks up the silouette.
And this is much more important than if a turret is a little bit bigger or smaller.
We even make our tanks look bigger by adding natural coverage which breaks up the silouette.
And this is much more important than if a turret is a little bit bigger or smaller.
agreed. look at the israeli philosophy for merk 4. thats a humongous turret - and its made visually bigger by adding RPG seductors such as droplinks etc so as to increase the chances of a "miss". The israelis even added fibre glass moulds to some early designs so as to create mass break up and a primary contact point.
gunners trained to track acquire and shoot at a moving/oscillating 1m2 target at various ranges just see a target - and shooting at a wheeled highly mobile AFV can be a whole lot harder. hence why 120mm tyred assault vehicles are enjoying a resurgence. Their turrets are a whole lot smaller than an equiv MBT sporting the same calibre.
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
Thats incredibly poor science to argue that less volumetric mass = lower observability. That is just not so with current sensor systems.
It is true for any sensor systems: if your target has 2 time lesser emission in any wave the distance of detection is reduced by some 20%
Quote:
Thats a complete fallacy. Volumetric mass has nothing to do with armour protection. armour is benched against an RHA equivalency - but that figure has nothing to do with actual armour dimensions.
- You didnt understand about what I say, sorry. Try to defend a fregat ship for the same RHA with only 60 t armor as Abrams has, and you will understand your inability to do so. Make some calculation, how much armor is need to defend 10 m3 and 100 m3 of volume respectively with 1000 mm RHA equivalent armor (of any kind), and you'll found that you need ~5 time more armor for 100 m3 compartment defence.
