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; If the probability of hit is almost identical against a 15m2 target and a 1m2 target, then differences in silhoutte ...
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%
but the key is the sensor system capability - emitters are sensor dependant. think of an emission as a wavelength. its effectiveness as a source is governed by the filter used for detection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by extern
- 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.
No. You assume that a volume of prescribed space requires greater protection due to sheer scale. That is just not so. Compartments are designed for penetration defence across a number of areas. eg a section of the abrams crew area is buttressed by an armoured magazine which is also a structural contributor.
the key to design is the effectiveness and thickness of the RHA equiv armour and the internal compartment design. there is no relationship to compartment vulnerability as outlined by you.
vehicle mass per se in modern armour has nothing to do with compartment vulnerability. its the effectiveness of the armour, (thickness and penetration numbers) - and the internal design of supporting structures/buttresses.
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
This is completely [Admin: txt deleted]. Show me ANY soviet document where its written what its somehow "acceptable" to exchange 6 soviet tanks for 1 NATO? You must be completely biased to even suggest what soviet generals would accept any tank what its so much worse. Moreover, we can safely conclude what in they height of SU (60x-70x-80x)soviet tanks were at least as good as NATO, and in many cases better in just every category - i.e. firepower, mobility, FCS, nightvision. Again - western propaganda [Admin: txt deleted], just as mythycal "east human wave hordes". As for 1200 rounds for german gun... thats true in some sence, but you are mistaken "general statistical round" for a very natural APFSDS round. IF you dont know, every round type have "wear coefficient" which shows how much barrels wear after that round shot. Most APFSFS rounds have wear coefficient near 4, most low-velocity HE and HEAT rounds near 1. Thats basicaly mean what a gun what is advertised as "1200 shots" gun can indeed do 1200 shots, but only with HEAT rounds. With APFSDS it will do only 1200/4 = 300 at most before replaced. In 80x produced 125mm russian tank guns have gun endurance for about 1000 rounds, which also meant they can fire only about 250 APSFDS rounds. Newer russian guns have somewhat better endurance, but newer rounds due to higher muzzle velocity also wears guns somewhat more.
Where did you get your numbers from in regards to barrell wear, I am a Master Gunner with the U.S Army (retired as of now) and you are way off on the numbers, just about every country that is making a attempt to design a mainbattle tank are choosing the 120mm over the 125mm, why is this you say, it is because of barrel wear. smoothbore versus rifling, with a smoothbore you can alway`s add some extra chrome for the lining, it is hard to add to the rifling lans because it would make them too brittle. As far as tactics go you need to study old Warsaw Pact battle doctrine, are they going to fight like this now of course not. I am not taking anything away from the T-90 it is a good tank, but you can only add so much armor and electronic gadgets before you just run out of room. The size of the tank does`nt make any difference in the world after the meeting engagement starts, in the world of TTS and TIS night sights you can see quite a bit and after you get a ballistic solution and good range return that vehicle is toast. My gunner engaged a IRAQI T-72 at 2800 meters and literally blew the turret off and this was a night time shot. I have talked to Russian officers on several occasions and they knew that if they went toe to toe with NATO`s tanks that they were going to take alot of casualties, but they are just like us in their order of battle they are going to hit you with air, artillery and the kitchen sink if they have to. I was truly amazed at their knowlege level of NATO armor and tactics that we were going to use. Any way you slice it` a human wave echolon style fighting and that ain`t western style propaganda. I think that we will all be in a world of shock with the next generation of tanks that Russia decides to field. I hate to say it but I will, the German Leopard 2 A6 is a better overall tank than the M1A2 and alot of my fellow Master Gunner armor specialists felt this way also.
Maybe not the Leo2A6 but the Strv122 or Leopard II E and HEL.
The main problem of the german Leo2A6 is that it is not equipped with a battlefield magament system.
I see this as a big advantage of the new Abrams or the Leo versions of other countries.
If the probability of hit is almost identical against a 15m2 target and a 1m2 target, then differences in silhoutte size would be of academic concern.
Nobody here did bring any provement for it. Only was said the probability to hit target (tank or ICV) from 2000 m is close to 90% according to Waylander strong personal evidence. Assume so, OK. But the problem of target detectability still remain, and I just have started with it. Thus the issue of tank dimention is still actual. Leave the camouflage factor for a moment - it can be used by both side as well, but the tank with lesser dimention still will have lesser observability.
By way Waylander didnt say if the targets he have hit were moving straight or with acceleration. In last case I cannt imagine how any FSC can deal with hit dispersion.
Last edited by extern; October 14th, 2006 at 12:24 PM.
Non moving, constant moving and non constant moving standard targets as well as Tx, M48s, Hotchkiss, etc. hard targets.
And training with AGDUS (like MILES but a little bit more modern) against other combined arms units.
I don't want to say that it makes no difference, all I want to say is that a smaller silouette just makes not much difference. In the end so few that our gunners felt no difference in detecting MBTs and IFVs.
Maybe not the Leo2A6 but the Strv122 or Leopard II E and HEL.
The main problem of the german Leo2A6 is that it is not equipped with a battlefield magament system.
I see this as a big advantage of the new Abrams or the Leo versions of other countries.
Right now we are still experiencing some teething issue`s with this, alot of breakdowns and field support isn`t up to par yet. It will be a good system after all the bugs have been worked out with us at least, I do not know the dependability level that Sweden is having with theirs.
In the end so few that our gunners felt no difference in detecting MBTs and IFVs.
Depending who hides them If all things were so good as you say, why all armored vehicle designers around the world are so buisy to reduce observability of their perspective machins and to reduce their weight (FCS) ?
Put the observability problem aside for a moment. Now some additional thing: if tank B is more low that tank A, with the same weight the B has good possibility to have got stronger frontal armor. Just imagine for you 'smooth deformation' from A to B.
Depending who hides them If all things were so good as you say, why all armored vehicle designers around the world are so buisy to reduce observability of their perspective machins and to reduce their weight (FCS) ?
Put the observability problem aside for a moment. Now some additional thing: if tank B is more low that tank A, with the same weight the B has good possibility to have got stronger frontal armor. Just imagine for you 'smooth deformation' from A to B.
Roughly put, that would assume a T-series weighs the same as an LeoII/Abrams...
Edit:
What I'm trying to say is that:
If Western sights don't have a problem seeing the silhouette of the T's, then size is of little matter here.
If probability to hit is not an issue due to quality of Western FCS/guns, then size doesn't matter.
I don't know if T's have more armour per volume. But T's are much lighter, so probably not. The Western MBT's then have the advantage of more internal real estate.
Last edited by Grand Danois; October 14th, 2006 at 01:42 PM.
The FCS program is in the line because the US want to be able to deploy more forces by plane. Or do you really think the US think that they can substitute 70ton Abrams with 20ton FCSs?
And again I want to put the French Leclerc and the Japanese Type 90 into the discussion.
They both have an autoloader which would have given the developers the opportunity to make them as small as the Tx.
But they are MLC 50.
This makes me think "Why did they do this?", if a smaller tank would be the better option?
Depending who hides them If all things were so good as you say, why all armored vehicle designers around the world are so buisy to reduce observability of their perspective machins and to reduce their weight (FCS) ?
Put the observability problem aside for a moment. Now some additional thing: if tank B is more low that tank A, with the same weight the B has good possibility to have got stronger frontal armor. Just imagine for you 'smooth deformation' from A to B.
With western technology for managing the battlefield it doesn`t matter what size the tanks are, ie: drones, sattelites and electronics. We have been playing around with the idea of lighter tanks for years now,not for sustainability on the battlefield but for a rapid response until the heavy armor can arrive, the Sheridian filled this gap for us but is too obsolete to be continued. We will never get rid of the heavier tanks until everyone decides to do so. The bigger the tank the more that you can do with it for protection.
Depending who hides them If all things were so good as you say, why all armored vehicle designers around the world are so buisy to reduce observability of their perspective machins and to reduce their weight (FCS) ?
because the current doctrine is for the creation of RDF or expeditionary forces. the wheel has come full circle on the notion of heavy gunned light weight air transportable mobility...
Quote:
Originally Posted by extern
Put the observability problem aside for a moment. Now some additional thing: if tank B is more low that tank A, with the same weight the B has good possibility to have got stronger frontal armor. Just imagine for you 'smooth deformation' from A to B.
the assumption is that the 2 tanks are made of armour with the same density characteristics - and that is just not so. I've been trying to point this out with respect to differences in construction characteristics of RHA measured material. it also ignores basic issues of volume, mass and footprint. its possible to start extrapolating index figures by looking at ground pressure numbers etc in conjunction with other "known" variables.
its is entirely possible to deliver a vehicle with x times greater penetration resistance that is also x times less in weight than its equiv RHA baseline. One of the Def Professionals in here is involved with the development and design of armoured material and he can attest to that being a real life issue and something that he's currently involved with. New metallurgy advances make that a deliverable and deployable capability right now.
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
because the current doctrine is for the creation of RDF or expeditionary forces. the wheel has come full circle on the notion of heavy gunned light weight air transportable mobility...
the assumption is that the 2 tanks are made of armour with the same density characteristics - and that is just not so. I've been trying to point this out with respect to differences in construction characteristics of RHA measured material. it also ignores basic issues of volume, mass and footprint. its possible to start extrapolating index figures by looking at ground pressure numbers etc in conjunction with other "known" variables.
its is entirely possible to deliver a vehicle with x times greater penetration resistance that is also x times less in weight than its equiv RHA baseline. One of the Def Professionals in here is involved with the development and design of armoured material and he can attest to that being a real life issue and something that he's currently involved with. New metallurgy advances make that a deliverable and deployable capability right now.
For RDF forces the wheeled vehicle is a excellent choice for this, there was a time a while back as to where we were looking at the AMX 10 RC to replace the M551`s for the 82nd airborne but that fell through, the Striker does pretty good with the 105mm platform, only draw back is that it is top heavy. I would like to ask in regards to the advancement in armored material that is out there and maybe we are talking about the same material, do they have it processed to a point as to where it will handle extreme cold ambient temperatures with out becoming brittle and breaking apart on impact from a maingun round.
The trials in Greek republic ...
In Hunter Killer test -
Leclerc - 65% targets hit (20 targets)
T-84 47 % targets hit
Chell2 40 % targets hit
Enouth said i think... either way, if the hit probabilty is lower than 100% than obviously size DOES matter....
Ah! smoothbore versus rifling, one part ammunition versus two part. Let me throw this out there also, could it be that crew training is going to play a major factor in this? When one of my tank battalions showed up for annual gunnery live fire exercises we had to allocate close to 200 rounds of main gun ammunition for each crew, if we decided to also perform a table 12 platoon gunnery qualification the allocation went up to 250 rounds, tell me what other major miltary force out there conducts that amount of live firing of tank ammunition, if they are not at the range then they are in the UCOFT tank simulators back in garrison. The Russians are lucky if they get to shoot 5 rounds per year for each crew. We estimated that our tank crews displayed a 78% first round hit on IRAQ vehicles during the first Persian Gulf war, taking everything in consideration that is just plain outstanding. Size did not play a factor in our meeting engagements, U.S tank crews are trained to use their TIS night sights as a primary sight due to weather conditions, dust and smoke on the battlefield, if you pick up a hot spot you can hit it. If you look at the terrian in Europe do you really think that hiding a tank is going to be a issue, it will not matter what the size of the vehicle is. Where Russian tanks come as a advantage is being able to cross smaller bridges and road networks which is quite common in eastern Erope.
If all things were so good as you say, why all armored vehicle designers around the world are so buisy to reduce observability of their perspective machins and to reduce their weight (FCS) ? 
