T-90 in Comparison to Western Armour

[eckherl]

FCS tank. I also saw a video of Discovery chennel about this tank's working prototype 2 months before , but it was removed from youtube site due to author rights violation.

Wow - really cool looking gun, do you know the justifications for designing it like this and what some of the materials used in the design process.

 

[extern]

Wow - really cool looking gun, do you know the justifications for designing it like this and what some of the materials used in the design process.

It's for radar observability reducing. The ribs also give for the barrel some additional hardness relative to wight economy.

Due to drasticaly decrease of RPG and ATGM price, and increase of "human price", firing ATGM's and RPG's at infantry squad and even at single soldier become possibilty. In fact, most modern armies doctrines call for it. For example, soviet army realised it 30 years ago, and now ATGM/RPG with thermobaric warhead constitute a fair share of all ATGM's and RPG's in service.

It's true, but also true: no heavy vehicle you can defend reliebly from all directions against RPGs. So, in no vehicle, even the most heavy, the infantry will feel safe enough transported at urban area. In consequention, the Russian infantry in Chechenya prefered the most light vehicles (BMDs and MTLBs), but they'r sitting outsides armor there, observing the area. The tactics were follow: infantry is unmounted before entering the dangerous area, the vehicle goes after and gives fire support if need. So the infantry still has advance against the enemy, because the enemy has no such mobile high-tech fire stronghold. The same tactics of american infantry we can see in Iraq.

Infantry is infinitly more vulnerable than tanks even in urban enveronment, and it is better to lose 30 tanks than 100 soldiers - keep in mind most of these tanks will be repaired, while most of the soldiers will end under ground.

Your conclusion's also true, bu only if the tank crew survival is garanteed. If no, instead one infantry dead from ATGM shot (Lebanon-II) you can get 4 tankmen dead . The last gen cummulative IEDs and ATGMs may disarray your conclusion in some degree. It's why I allways accented the need for tank crew reducing...

 

[Chrom]

It's for radar observability reducing. The ribs also give for the barrel some additional hardness relative to wight economy.
It's true, but also true: no heavy vehicle you can defend reliebly from all directions against RPGs. So, in no vehicle, even the most heavy, the infantry will feel safe enough transported at urban area. In consequention, the Russian infantry in Chechenya prefered the most light vehicles (BMDs and MTLBs), but they'r sitting outsides armor there, observing the area. The tactics were follow: infantry is unmounted before entering the dangerous area, the vehicle goes after and gives fire support if need. So the infantry still has advance against the enemy, because the enemy has no such mobile high-tech fire stronghold. The same tactics of american infantry we can see in Iraq.
Your conclusion's also true, bu only if the tank crew survival is garanteed. If no, instead one infantry dead from ATGM shot (Lebanon-II) you can get 4 tankmen dead . The last gen cummulative IEDs and ATGMs may disarray your conclusion in some degree. It's why I allways accented the need for tank crew reducing...

Yes, infantry wouldnt go INSIDE. Understandable - infanty is useless inside. But TANK's gone pretty often slighly before infantry to draw fire - after all, tank will have very good chance surviving RPG hit , or even 3-4 RPG hits - infantry squad will bound to have casualities in such case. And there are snipers...

 

[extern]

Yes, infantry wouldnt go INSIDE. Understandable - infanty is useless inside. But TANK's gone pretty often slighly before infantry to draw fire - after all, tank will have very good chance surviving RPG hit , or even 3-4 RPG hits - infantry squad will bound to have casualities in such case. And there are snipers...

I think, nothing significantly new appeared in the infantry/armor combination since Berlin operation (1945 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8H7eNUpBy7Q ): the infantry cut out the RPGists from the rare side of vehicles, and the tanks/SPHs?/BMPs make the main fire input.

 

[eckherl]

It's for radar observability reducing. The ribs also give for the barrel some additional hardness relative to wight economy.
It's true, but also true: no heavy vehicle you can defend reliebly from all directions against RPGs. So, in no vehicle, even the most heavy, the infantry will feel safe enough transported at urban area. In consequention, the Russian infantry in Chechenya prefered the most light vehicles (BMDs and MTLBs), but they'r sitting outsides armor there, observing the area. The tactics were follow: infantry is unmounted before entering the dangerous area, the vehicle goes after and gives fire support if need. So the infantry still has advance against the enemy, because the enemy has no such mobile high-tech fire stronghold. The same tactics of american infantry we can see in Iraq.
Your conclusion's also true, bu only if the tank crew survival is garanteed. If no, instead one infantry dead from ATGM shot (Lebanon-II) you can get 4 tankmen dead . The last gen cummulative IEDs and ATGMs may disarray your conclusion in some degree. It's why I allways accented the need for tank crew reducing...

Yes the barrel is alot lighter with other benefits including thermal bending eliminations, quick change barrel from 120mm to 140mm. This is one of the projects currently being worked on, but the weight issue has not been resolved for the entire vehicle when combat loaded.

Alot of the tank units in Iraq are currently working with 3 man crews due to sniper fire also, thus another major drawback with armor operating in urbanized settings, if they are buttoned up they are pretty much blind at certain positions when vehicle is moving.

 

[Waylander]

With 3 man crews?
This is the first time I hear about that. Which position is not manned?

 

[eckherl]

With 3 man crews?
This is the first time I hear about that. Which position is not manned?

Loaders due to exposer when firing M240 machine gun from loaders mount, this should change with more of the gun shields getting pressed into service.

 

[Waylander]

And who loads the main gun?

 

[eckherl]

And who loads the main gun?

Heat round is battle carried and fired by TC or gunner if needed, gunner will continue to engage with coax and TC will use fifty cal which does pretty good at area suppression and punching out sides of most buildings.

 

[Waylander]

Looks confusing to me.
In the end instead of leaving the loader at home you could just let him stay buttoned up if you are afraid of snipers.

Just tell him not to come out and play with his M240.

Anyway, thanks for the info.

 

[eckherl]

Looks confusing to me.
In the end instead of leaving the loader at home you could just let him stay buttoned up if you are afraid of snipers.

Just tell him not to come out and play with his M240.

Anyway, thanks for the info.

Not all the units are doing this practice just the ones in certain parts of Iraq, also they keep the loaders hatch open in the event they need to get the driver out while under fire, standard practice is to get the gun over the back deck to evacuate him when possible thus giving him a clear exit route out of the vehicle, that commanders station is bad enough for the gunner to climb through especially on a M1A2 when you are all assholes and elbows to get out of a vehicle that has been hit.

 

[Waylander]

Ah, I see.
Do you need the turret to be at 6 o'clock if the driver wants to get out through it?
For such an event we have an emergency exit right under the ass of the driver and he is able to go through the turret nearly unimportant how it is directed.
Ok, we also have unprotected ammo right next to him.

 

[Izzy1]

Just a little off topic, but many years ago I heard a story that the auto-loader on the T-72 required the turret to be facing front during the loading process. Thus, after firing, the turret would always have to swing back forward if the tank was engaging targets that were'nt dead-straight ahead.

Is this true and is it still the case with Russian, Chinese and French auto-loaders?

 

[eckherl]

Ah, I see.
Do you need the turret to be at 6 o'clock if the driver wants to get out through it?
For such an event we have an emergency exit right under the ass of the driver and he is able to go through the turret nearly unimportant how it is directed.
Ok, we also have unprotected ammo right next to him.

For a clear safe exit through the turret yes, turrets can do funny things when the hydraulics and electrical controls start malfunctioning.
Getting out of M1 series tank when the gun is over the front is a very tight.

 

[eckherl]

Just a little off topic, but many years ago I heard a story that the auto-loader on the T-72 required the turret to be facing front during the loading process. Thus, after firing, the turret would always have to swing back forward if the tank was engaging targets that were'nt dead-straight ahead.

Is this true and is it still the case with Russian, Chinese and French auto-loaders?

Gun positioning is very important when lining up a new shell, Russian auto loader gun placement is 3 degrees above the horizontal position which it will automatically do each time the gun is fired, I do not know exactually what it is on the Leclerc or Type 90 but even though they have bustle mounted auto loaders I would think that it is close to that position. These systems when properly maintained are quite fast when loading especially when it comes to the bustle mounted systems.

 

[DaBunny]

The Merk is as heavy as every other western MBT.

In the end today every ready briogade of the US (Be ist 82nd, 101st, or 10th,...) is able to cope with everything that a 3rd world country could mobilize against them.

And the hiding factor is as questionable as always. You can hide an Abrams or a Leo II nearly as good as a T-90 or T-80.

In nearly real situations there is even no real difference between a MBT or an IFV.

The most important difference is the Infantry. There is no substitute for feet on the ground.

We could say that every man should have a .50bmg rifle and an M203 grenade launcher. They will certainly be able to handle any AK toting insurgents they come across, unless they get swarmed and all the weight of their weapons and armor slows them down when they just need to run.

That is probably my biggest concern. Our vehicles are road bound and our troops have to stay close to the vehicles for support.

Look at the way Hizb'allah was able to fight Israel without tanks, APCs or aircraft in Lebanon. They used ATGMs, RPGs and AKs to great effect. Sooner or later, everybody has to dismount and dig them out of their holes, IF they can manage to trap them in the first place.

With our heavy formations, we have to move our support troops to the front lines to service our vehicles.

I just wonder if those troops would be better used throwing lead, than pumping gas.

 

[Waylander]

For a clear safe exit through the turret yes, turrets can do funny things when the hydraulics and electrical controls start malfunctioning.
Getting out of M1 series tank when the gun is over the front is a very tight.

Ah ok, you do it to safety reasons. You are right, turrets can be very scary when they run wild.
We can adjust the turret manually at 6 o'clock and 11.40 o'clock.

 

[DoC_FouALieR]

I do not know exactually what it is on the Leclerc or Type 90 but even though they have bustle mounted auto loaders I would think that it is close to that position.

For the Leclerc, which has a bustle mounted autoloader with bustle ammo store, the gun has to be elevated a few degrees above the horizontal line, no matter if traversing or not.

 

[eckherl]

For the Leclerc, which has a bustle mounted autoloader with bustle ammo store, the gun has to be elevated a few degrees above the horizontal line, no matter if traversing or not.

I figured it was around that ball park figure, Thanks for the info.

 

[extern]

Interesting video about the Russian tanks in and around Moscow (1941).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lO8qW5X7Lg
The joint moving of tanks and infantry in winter condition has been shown. In one episode the skier is towed by tank, - it rather looks like dangerous 'sport' :unknown
Song: http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/sounds/lyrics/marsh-zashchitnikov.htm