If practice rounds = live ammunition, then more or less yes. Practice rounds are just 14.5mm rounds fired from main gun. They dont affect main gun wear, and are very cheap.
T-90 in Comparison to Western Armour
- Status
Okay - so then they used sub caliber systems for live fire training. We also use them, matter of fact the additional 50 cal mounted as part of the TUSK upgrade for counter sniper fire is actually a modified training device that has been used for training for quite awhile now. My interpatation of firing practice rounds is actual caliber training main gun ammunition, which we still average 300 rounds on a annual basis including most reserve units. There is nothing more exciting than getting the actual effects plus the smell of cordite and watching that big breech mechanism recoiling back.
Well, there is practically no diffirence in casual training between real round and 14.5mm round - apart of exciting smoke and smell of cordite of course
. After all, the round is fired from main gun itself, using FCS as normal round.Simulator training is conducted year round by U.S tank crews, kind of set up along the lines of a simulator used by aviation to assist in training pilots. Our system is called a UCOFT which stands for:
U - Unit
C - Conduct
O - Of
F - Fire
T - training
This system can give you over 1,200 different battle scenario`s for engagement training including taking out helicopters.
Yes - I do see the benefits for this type of training but it is important that tank crews fire the actual big caps also. This system that is used by Russia doesn`t allow then to practice offensive engagements either I do believe.Well, there is practically no diffirence in casual training between real round and 14.5mm round - apart of exciting smoke and smell of cordite of course
Training
Could countries using Russian built tanks use more western types of training and improve or the equipment isn't designed to function for that long? I know that the Russians have a different way of thinking when it comes to building tanks and also for aircraft as well.
Could this be a reason that Russian built and sold tanks over the years don't fare well in different battles? Since they train the personnel in most cases in the host country?
Could countries using Russian built tanks use more western types of training and improve or the equipment isn't designed to function for that long? I know that the Russians have a different way of thinking when it comes to building tanks and also for aircraft as well.
Training does play a major factor on how well a unit performs incombat, Russian vehicles tend to get a overly bad rap due to the fact that some of the militaries around the world are poorly trained or out gunned by a better coordinated opponent. And yes quality control issues on Russian weapons platforms used to leave alot to be desired but that may be changing with the introduction of new weapons systems or vehicle upgrades.
The tanks crew fire normal rounds too. Just not as often. Really, i dont see big difference here - nearly all types of training could be made with small calibre rounds, and that without much restrictions usually associated to using big 125mm rounds.I dont quite understand what you mean under "offencive engagements"
As i said, to judge USSR/Russia built vehicles we need to look at wars similar enemies. Iraq/Iran war, Indo-Pakistan war, some other smaller wars come as example. Else we could also find many smaller wars where "new" USSR technic obliterated older western technic without much losses. E.g. initial Afganistan invasion, or some even smaller engagements.
I dont think USSR vs Turkey, for example, would be much different than US vs Iraq.
While there were (quite) a lot of literature about 1st Chechen war and associated defeat - there is relatively few scarce sources about 2nd Chechen war and associated success. Strange if you ask me. English sources are even more scarce - to the point of almost non-existant.
Wiki have relative good collection of basic facts about both Chechen wars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Chechen_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War
Sadly, i dont know any worthwhile in-depth analysys or even simple book for 2nd Chechen war. There are few articles written about that matter, but they are mostly one-sided and too small anyway.
Plus, most articles deal only with humanitarian and political aspects, they barery touch actual military tactic, troop weapons or engagements.
What I meant by offensive engagements is having the ability to hit targets while on the move, meaning practice ranging, laying the target reticle on the most vehicle visible mass while inducing lead and pulling the trigger and hopefully being able to score a vehicle hit. And I did not even mention anything about Russian tanks ability to wage war.
I do not know if you ever have fired a tank main gun round before, but this is something that does take major practice for the entire crew, as some of the other tankers here on this forum would tell you. Even when tankers are in the habit of firing target practice KE projectiles they get one hell of a experience when they have to fire a true combat load KE projectile.
Hmm, i fail to see whats the problem with firing 14.5mm round against moving target. Sure, its timing is a bit different compared to true APFSDS round (close to HEAT rounds) - but they use the very some FCS and other technicues with true APFSDS rounds. If anything, firing 14.5 mm practice rounds allow more diverse training - f.e. tankers could fire such round against each other in complex training "game". Also they could fire a lot of such rounds if needed - 10, 20,30 a day, what is impossible even with 125mm practice rounds.
And again, it is not if tankers do not fire real 125mm rounds at all. They still fire them, just less often. All important qualification tests are also done with real rounds.
You think that they should shoot 14.5 rounds at each other:shudder I do not think that you are grasping at my explanation on offensive engagements.
Disregardng "each other" argument, which obvously happens rarery and possible only with 14.5 mm anyway - what then you mean under "offencive engagements"? As i said, 14.5mm rounds are perfectly fine for training against moving target - including "practice ranging, laying the target reticle on the most vehicle visible mass while inducing lead and pulling the trigger and hopefully being able to score a vehicle ".
How is this subcaliber device installed on a T-90, will it allow them to engage targets in a stabilazation mode.
Small barrel is inserted inside big 125mm barrel. The 14.5 ballistic data is pre-entered in tank FCS. As much as i know - all modes are avalaible, including stabilization.
- Status