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; Originally Posted by peschernik
Russians didn't attack, because in the first: Russians are very humane. s.
What do you mean?...
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 11,131
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by STURM
I think most if not all of us would agree that the end result, irrespective of the actual numbers of officers purged and even if the purges had never happened, would have been the same - many Soviet units being destroyed/decimated in 1941 and the Germans advancing as far as they did - due to a whole list of Soviet shortcomings And as you pointed out the quality of the Soviet officer corps during that period was not high to begin with. But would you agree that amongst the victims were officers [the most well known being Tuchachevsky] that could have later played a vital contribution in the Soviet Army's performance in the field and it's later recovery?
I have a personally very negative opinion of Tukhachevsky and his contributions. I strongly encourage you to order one of his books and to try to read it. His disaster in 1920, against Poland (I mean of all countries to lose to, Poland!) is an excellent demonstration of what kind of contributions one could expect from him.
Quote:
I had no idea that the number of officers liquidated in the purges were inflated for political reasons or as an excuse for the Red Army's poor performance in the early stages of the German invasion, thanks for pointing that out. Similiarly I have no idea how accurate his statement was but in an interview conducted the 70's, included in the 'World At War' series, a former Red Army officer claimed that in the Kiev military district many divisions lost even their regimental and battalion commanders due to the purges.
The document commonly mis-cited as ~39 000 executed, actually speaks of ~39 000 retired. Out of which ~20 000 are arrested, and ~3-5 000 executed. Over 25 000 of those "retired" return to military service (including those arrested) by iirc 1941. The overwhelming majority are back in military service by 1942. Their return however does little to save the RKKA the embarrassing defeats of the summer of '42 in Ukraine (Kharkov) and the North Caucus.
To put it bluntly Stalin couldn't execute the competent officers because he never had any.
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 11,131
Threads:
Just thought you guys might be interested to know, the venerable T-55 is indeed still in service, most notably with the machine-gun artillery division on the Kuril Islands. It's planned for replacement, but to me personally it came as a shock. I know some T-55s were replaced with T-80s on Sakhalin in 2005, and always thought that was the last of them. Apparently not.
Russians didn't attack, because in the first: Russians are very humane. And in the second: USA declared: if the USSR will attacks the western Europe than the USA will attack the USSR by nuclear weapons.
Oh, knock it off. The relative "humanity" of a given culture has nothing to do with tanks, so take your moralising elsewhere.
But if Soviets were counting on operational level breakthroughs, what advantages their tanks had against Western in this angle? What is the specific of this kind of war operations? Soviet tanks had to take part in this attack in two roles. First, when motorized infantry had to break holes in NATOs defense, tanks should help them (in front of every motorized company there was a tanks platoon). Second, tanks were planned to be flinged in this holes to destroy NATOs communications and rear.
Let's suppose that the second role was more important. We need to compose a list of requirements for tank, which mission is to take part in such operational level breakthroughs.
1) Manoeuvrability and shipping quality (because of Soviet vans could capture only 60 tons not more);
2) High speed;
3) Autonomous (to have an opportunity to fight far from their bases);
4) Ergonomically (crew need a very comfortable tank because of they almost lived their for a long term);
5) Good devices for reconnaissance and information acquisition to coordinate with their activity;
6) Let's suppose that its electronics, thermals, gun and armour are not so important (but I'm sure they are important anyway).
In which components of this list Soviet tanks were good?
Manoeuvrability? Similar as Western.
Speed? Similar.
Reliability? More than doubtful (just look at Soviet cars and you will understand everything ).
Ergonomic? As one Russian general said, after two hours in soviet tank you lose 80 % of your physiological abilities . The volume of T-72/80/84/90s turrets is near 2,5 m3, the same for the Leo II – 5 m3.
Reconnaissance and information acquisition opportunities? Weak optics, no thermals (don’t know about quality of French ones, but now we are talking about Soviet tactics and tanks).
The advantages were weight and price only. I don’t know the exact price for T-90, but comparable Ukrainian T-84 costs 3.5 mln. $ and Russians press was writing about dumping from Ukrainian side. Suppose that their price is the same. The price of Abrams is 6,9 mln. $, Leo II – less than 6 mln., Merkava IV – 5 mln. $. The fact is, ex-soviet tanks are almost as cheaper, as lighter.
One additional thing that the T-90 (and maybe T-80 too?) is missing is a 360 degree sight. A 360 degree sight allows for Hunter killer operations, which would be great for impromptu AT warfare.
We had this quote here before.
Over at Tanknet the ones which actually own the Janes Review said that no such article actually exists in it.
A T-72B (Not to talk of A/M/M1) is not going to be immune to modern KE rounds although modern heavy ERA is affecting KEs. Note that modern KEs like DM53/63 or M829A3 are also developed with heavy ERA in mind.
What do you mean with : "no such article actually exists in it." ?
Are you serious ? This article is not only one of the most famous Jane's International Defence Review articles and surely one of the most cited in some of the most authorative studies of the sector, but has also another "twin" article , publied just an year before, (vol 29 n. 7 July 1996) always on Jane's International Review named "Russian tanks immune to attack says German expert " on the tests conducted by the equipe of Manfred Held (naturally with the same empyrical results) which, in a first istance, persuaded the Pentagon at envoy L. Ness to validate the results obtained by the german equipe .
Truly i don't understand what is your point ; i have noted that you have even accepted apologies from another poster on this subject when ,of course it was completely right !!!
What he means is that the article is a fake and that in truth there is no such article in the paper issue of Jane's International Defence Review July 1997.
Whether that is true or not I don't know but it should be easy to check for anyone who has access to Jane's back issues.
However, the article is on Jane's website, which definitely is a point:
[quote=DavidDCM;214891]What he means is that the article is a fake and that in truth there is no such article in the paper issue of Jane's International Defence Review July 1997.
Whether that is true or not I don't know but it should be easy to check for anyone who has access to Jane's back issues.
However, the article is on Jane's website, which definitely is a point:
Of course it is on Jane's website ...........if someone would post even only the name of any authorative study or analysis in which those Jane's articles are cited (or even only the tests of Held or Ness) would fill 30 -40 pages !!!
I truly cannot understand as in 2011 someone ,with even only ,by far, a serious interest or specific knowledges in the sector, can still be unaware of one of the most famous and cited Jane's article on '90 years (together with the other article of '96 which i have cited) for no other reason that those tests ,conducted by a German equipe in a first istance , and a Pentagon's equipe subsequently provided for the NATO military scientifical community an unavoidable, experimental proof of the well knowed Soviet habit at hard disinformation with theirs export models .
I was certain that Waylander was joking , but after a while i have observed it accepting the apologies on this subject of another poster without reveal its joke, so i have started to believe that it was serious.
Of course it is on Jane's website ...........if someone would post even only the name of any authorative study or analysis in which those Jane's articles are cited (or even only the tests of Held or Ness) would fill 30 -40 pages !!!
I truly cannot understand as in 2011 someone ,with even only ,by far, a serious interest or specific knowledges in the sector, can still be unaware of one of the most famous and cited Jane's article on '90 years (together with the other article of '96 which i have cited) for no other reason that those tests ,conducted by a German equipe in a first istance , and a Pentagon's equipe subsequently provided for the NATO military scientifical community an unavoidable, experimental proof of the well knowed Soviet habit at hard disinformation with theirs export models .
I was certain that Waylander was joking , but after a while i have observed it accepting the apologies on this subject of another poster without reveal its joke, so i have started to believe that it was serious.
Yeah, alright, we've got your point and now calm down. Boiling your blood because of a internet discussion is never worth it, and whether this article actually exists or not or whether what it says is true or not will not change the course of our world, so lay back and relax and you'll be most welcome on defencetalk.com.
Yeah, alright, we've got your point and now calm down. Boiling your blood because of a internet discussion is never worth it, and whether this article actually exists or not or whether what it says is true or not will not change the course of our world, so lay back and relax and you'll be most welcome on defencetalk.com.
I am sorry for having debuted here on defencetalk.com with a first intervention with an apparent "strong" tone , it was not mine intention .
It is surely true that reality, in its substance, is never changed by information , but is equally true that information (or lack of it) can ,conversely, change drammatically its perception ,therefore it is very important to don't let twisted or warped informations to spread ,because them generate ,in the same way warped or twisted opinions which like you well know , just on those subjects are very commons (......unsubstantiated platitudes and metropolitan legends) .
In any case ,thanks for the welcome, i am truly happy to be here .
But if Soviets were counting on operational level breakthroughs, what advantages their tanks had against Western in this angle? What is the specific of this kind of war operations? Soviet tanks had to take part in this attack in two roles. First, when motorized infantry had to break holes in NATOs defense, tanks should help them (in front of every motorized company there was a tanks platoon). Second, tanks were planned to be flinged in this holes to destroy NATOs communications and rear.
Let's suppose that the second role was more important. We need to compose a list of requirements for tank, which mission is to take part in such operational level breakthroughs.
1) Manoeuvrability and shipping quality (because of Soviet vans could capture only 60 tons not more);
2) High speed;
3) Autonomous (to have an opportunity to fight far from their bases);
4) Ergonomically (crew need a very comfortable tank because of they almost lived their for a long term);
5) Good devices for reconnaissance and information acquisition to coordinate with their activity;
6) Let's suppose that its electronics, thermals, gun and armour are not so important (but I'm sure they are important anyway).
In which components of this list Soviet tanks were good?
Manoeuvrability? Similar as Western.
Speed? Similar.
Reliability? More than doubtful (just look at Soviet cars and you will understand everything ).
Ergonomic? As one Russian general said, after two hours in soviet tank you lose 80 % of your physiological abilities . The volume of T-72/80/84/90s turrets is near 2,5 m3, the same for the Leo II – 5 m3.
Reconnaissance and information acquisition opportunities? Weak optics, no thermals (don’t know about quality of French ones, but now we are talking about Soviet tactics and tanks).
The advantages were weight and price only. I don’t know the exact price for T-90, but comparable Ukrainian T-84 costs 3.5 mln. $ and Russians press was writing about dumping from Ukrainian side. Suppose that their price is the same. The price of Abrams is 6,9 mln. $, Leo II – less than 6 mln., Merkava IV – 5 mln. $. The fact is, ex-soviet tanks are almost as cheaper, as lighter.
You repeat myths about tanks of USSR.
«Reconnaissance and information acquisition opportunities? Weak optics, no thermals.» USSR optics was very good. No thermals? USSR uz night vision devices from very old time, for example: IKN-8 (ИКН-8) night vision device for tank Т-34-85 (1944).
High speed, Autonomous, Good devices, Armor, Armament.
Tanks of cold war:
TM60 Patton (Produced 1960-1987)
Gun 105 mm. Armor: vs KE Turret 210 Hull front:170-250, vs CE Turret: 250
Night sight device, night vision device, laser rangefinder and electronic fire control.
Max. operational range 500 km. Speed 48 km/h (road)
Leopard 1 (1965)
Gun 105 mm. Armor: vs KE Turret: 180-190 Mantle: 230 Glacis:140 Lower front hull: 120 Turret: 200-270, vs CE Turret: 200-270
Operational range 600 km (on road) Speed 62 km/h
T-64
Gun 125 mm
Armor: According to a declassified CIA report from 1984, the US then assessed that the T-64A and T-64B had the same protection level of 370-440mm vs KE and 500-575mm vs CE. The T-64 was designed to be protected against all 1960s 105mm ammunition. BTVT estimates T-64A max as glacis 335mm vs KE/450mm vs CE, turret 410mm vs KE/450mm vs CE. GSPO estimates T-64B as 380-450mm versus KE and 500-560mm versus CE. BTVT estimates T-64B as 350-500mm versus KE and 450-600mm versus CE.
PN-1-49-23 night sight, night vision TBN-4PA for the driver and a TNP-165A for the tank leader,
TPD-43B (ТПД-43Б) sight - laser rangefinder, cross-wind sensor, ballistic calculator, navigation device. ERA Kontakt-1.
Operational range 700 km (road, with external tanks). Speed 60 km/h
T-72
Gun 125 mm
Armor (T-72B & S w/K-1 ERA): vs KE Turret: 280-550 Glacis: 485 Lower front hull: 250 vs CE Turret: 580-850 Glacis: 670-910 Lower front hull: 250. BTVT estimates T-72B max as glacis 485mm vs KE/900mm vs CE; turret 540mm vs KE/900mm vs CE.
night sight device, night vision device, laser rangefinder and electronic fire control, navigation device, devices for underwater driving of the tank in a river (not more than 1000 m).
Operational range 700 km (road, with external tanks). Speed 60 km/h
M1 Аbrams (1981)
Gun 105 mm
Armor: vs KE Turret: 400 Glacis: 400, vs CE Turret & Glacis:700-800.
Operational range 480 km with NBC system: 565 km. Speed Road: 72 km/h
M1A1 (1985) Gun 120 mm. Armor: vs KE Mantle & Turret: 450 Glacis: 350-490 Lower front hull:430-470, vs CE Turret: 800 Glacis:510-800 Lower front hull: 570-790
Leopard 2 (In service 1979-present)
Gun 120 mm. Armor: vs KE Turret: 550-600 Glacis: 250-300, vs CE Turret: 800
Operational range 550 km. Speed 72 km/h
T-80U
Gun 125 mm
Armor: BTVT estimates T80U w/K-5 max glacis 800mm vs KE, turret 860mm vs KE; turret 1200mm vs CE glacis 1100mm vs CE
1A46 fire control system includes a laser range finder, a ballistics computer, and a more advanced 1G46 gunner's main sights, as well as thermal imaging sights. ERA Kontakt 5.
Operational range 600 km (road, with external tanks). Speed 80 km/h
T-80U(M) TO1-PO2 Agava gunner's thermal imaging sight.
Reliability? Simplicity in use and reliability are known qualities of weapons of the USSR.
Old tanks of the USSR perfectly work even now. 40 years after their production. (War in Georgia. Only old T62\64 and T-72 was there.)
I stand corrected and am sorry for dumping the article.
I have to admit that I took the comments by several posters over at Tanknet for face value which apparently wasn't true.
Nevertheless it would have been enough to point me to the article without the rather harsh tone.
It's a mistake and not the end of the world and it doesn't change my statement that modern KE penetrators which are designed with heavy ERA in mind get degraded by it but aren't as much affected as older ones.
@peschernik
Night vision equipment was indeed widespread on Sovjet/WarPac combat vehicles.
The same cannot be said about thermal imagers. A thermal imager is a huge step above the active/passive IR technology used before.
Only these days is Russia able, due to license produced french thermals, to equip it's vehicles (and it's export vehicles) with high quality thermals in serious numbers.
).
. The volume of T-72/80/84/90s turrets is near 2,5 m3, the same for the Leo II – 5 m3. 
