T-90 in Comparison to Western Armour

[Waylander]

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.

 

[eckherl]

T-90 vs. Western Tanks

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.

 

[extern]

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.

 

[Grand Danois]

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.

 

[Waylander]

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?

 

[eckherl]

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.

 

[gf0012-aust]

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...

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.

 

[Chrom]

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....

 

[eckherl]

T-90 vs. Western tanks

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.

 

[eckherl]

T-90 vs. Western tanks

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.

 

[gf0012-aust]

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....

err, this is the run off where a certain european country were found to have polluted the results by (ahem) "cheating". the results were null and voided. although not publicly stated they were found to be influencing the FCS using electronics on a nearby hill.

It also ignores the basic realities of:

tank crew competency
test parameters
small sampling


the fact that some of those results don't reflect any of the live firing data obtained for tanks like the Chally2 in open training.

would I trust the greek test process or data pulled from results on a typical gunnery event on the salisbury plains? (enough said!)

would I trust the greek test process or data pulled from combat conditions for british tanks during the Gulf War events? (enough said!)

 

[gf0012-aust]

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.

I'd have to leave that to the member involved to answer himself. I'd be uncomfortable giving that kind iof detail in an open forum as I'm unsure of its appropriateness...

he is on here most days, so you'll find out very quickly if he elects to pop his head up...

 

[eckherl]

T-90 vs. Western tanks

I'd have to leave that to the member involved to answer himself. I'd be uncomfortable giving that kind iof detail in an open forum as I'm unsure of its appropriateness...

he is on here most days, so you'll find out very quickly if he elects to pop his head up...

If he doesn`t want to discuss it, I understand. I should be more careful with the information that I am throwing around out there.

 

[Waylander]

Jup, but I don't think that you or anybody else in this thread already compromised OPSEC/PERSEC.

 

[Chrom]

err, this is the run off where a certain european country were found to have polluted the results by (ahem) "cheating". the results were null and voided. although not publicly stated they were found to be influencing the FCS using electronics on a nearby hill.

It also ignores the basic realities of:

tank crew competency
test parameters
small sampling


the fact that some of those results don't reflect any of the live firing data obtained for tanks like the Chally2 in open training.

would I trust the greek test process or data pulled from results on a typical gunnery event on the salisbury plains? (enough said!)

would I trust the greek test process or data pulled from combat conditions for british tanks during the Gulf War events? (enough said!)

My point being is NOT relative comparasion of tank guns & crew, my point being to show you what even against tank-sized target you cant expect 100% hits all the time - no matter how sophisticated FCS is. Crew quality, test parametrs, etc. doesnt matter - they all prove my point - there is REAL situations where you cant expect 100% hits, SO in these situatiations size DOES matter. I dont understand how this OBVIOUS logic avoid you.

would I trust the greek test process or data pulled from combat conditions for british tanks during the Gulf War events? (enough said!)

Err, what results? Are you gonna again tell us what "british tanks during the Gulf War events" could hit any tank sized target in any weather conditions/situations/on the move/ etc from 5000m in 100% cases with first shot? Let me NOT believe you...

 

[gf0012-aust]

My point being is NOT relative comparasion of tank guns & crew, my point being to show you what even against tank-sized target you cant expect 100% hits all the time - no matter how sophisticated FCS is. Crew quality, test parametrs, etc. doesnt matter - they all prove my point - there is REAL situations where you cant expect 100% hits, SO in these situatiations size DOES matter. I dont understand how this OBVIOUS logic avoid you.

are you being intentionally obstructive or are you now letting peurility of behaviour enter the debate?

the subtle hint that was being flagged with the greek test example was that everyone knew that the tests were compromised because none of the results reflected battlefield or training data where a raft of real world geographical, topographical, historical and persistent data was available.

you trot out the greek tests as an example - when the greek tests were compromised from day 1 due to electronic interference by one of the bidding countries.

try not to be pithy, its not serving you well in here.

please make the effort to understand what is being said by a number of us rather than respond with what is becoming blatantly apparent - an increasing climb to sarcasm because you don't like the answers.

There are tankers in here, there are armourers in here, there are people who've been involved with ballistics programmes, and there are people (at least 3 of us) who've been part of a procurement assessment team. there is one person in here who is more than familiar with how FCS work because they evaluate them as part of their job.

we're more than aware of how data gets used and abused to serve a companies marketing spin.

the fact that you're still focussing on 100% kills as evidence of flawed statements shows that you haven't bothered to absorb what some of us have been persistently saying.

make the effort rather than see this as a knowledge competition.

 

[Chrom]

are you being intentionally obstructive or are you now letting peurility of behaviour enter the debate?

the subtle hint that was being flagged with the greek test example was that everyone knew that the tests were compromised because none of the results reflected battlefield or training data where a raft of real world geographical, topographical, historical and persistent data was available.

you trot out the greek tests as an example - when the greek tests were compromised from day 1 due to electronic interference by one of the bidding countries.

try not to be pithy, its not serving you well in here.

please make the effort to understand what is being said by a number of us rather than respond with what is becoming blatantly apparent - an increasing climb to sarcasm because you don't like the answers.

There are tankers in here, there are armourers in here, there are people who've been involved with ballistics programmes, and there are people (at least 3 of us) who've been part of a procurement assessment team. there is one person in here who is more than familiar with how FCS work because they evaluate them as part of their job.

we're more than aware of how data gets used and abused to serve a companies marketing spin.

the fact that you're still focussing on 100% kills as evidence of flawed statements shows that you haven't bothered to absorb what some of us have been persistently saying.

make the effort rather than see this as a knowledge competition.

I think its YOU intentionally play dumb dude.
Answer me 2 clear questions:
1. Can any current FCS provide 100% hit chance at any range in every condition?
2. Is the chance to hit the target dependable from the target size?

P.S. Also, i dont understand how you can influence FCS from a "nearby hill". If THAT is indeed true, i would name said FCS as total crap unsuitable even for training purposes.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I think its YOU intentionally play dumb dude.
Answer me 2 clear questions:
1. Can any current FCS provide 100% hit chance at any range in every condition?
2. Is the chance to hit the target dependable from the target size?

P.S. Also, i dont understand how you can influence FCS from a "nearby hill". If THAT is indeed true, i would name said FCS as total crap unsuitable even for training purposes.

for crying out loud sport - how many times do we have to go through this? - read the damn posts made prev and properly before commenting.

1) No - and if you've bothered to pay attention from all the comments provided - nobody has ever said it will be.

2) thats one factor. of course size of target is related to probability of hit - but its one factor - read the myriad of posts again and pay attention to what has been said rather than arc up and post argumentative responses.

as for the P.S. - you're obviously an expert in ewarfare as well and understand how systems can be spooked even if encrypted?

the back and forth arguing finishes as of now. grow up and learn to debate without behaving like an argumentative 10 year old.

any subsequent posts that continue in the prev vein will be killed off.

This isn't a school playground. Try to behave and post like an adult. You've already had your posts edited twice for inapprop language (ie scatalogical invectives) - don't go for the "hat trick" (ie 3 warnings). Read the forum rules to understand the implications of the "hat trick" warning.

If you can't control yourself then either don't post at all or find another forum where you can argue to your hearts content and keep company with some soul mates.

 

[Chrom]

1) No - and if you've bothered to pay attention from all the comments provided - nobody has ever said it will be.

Good!

2) thats one factor. of course size of target is related to probability of hit - but its one factor - read the myriad of posts again and pay attention to what has been said rather than arc up and post argumentative responses.

Even better! So, as YOU have admitted size DOES matter. So, smaller size IS advantage.

as for the P.S. - you're obviously an expert in ewarfare as well and understand how systems can be spooked even if encrypted?

Obviously i'm not expert in ewar, but you dont need to be an expert to conclude what if some mythical electronic block "from a nearby hill" can affect FCS of at least 3 different tanks of different design, than any enemy will use that block for sure. As such, any FCS suspectible to such ewar is total crap. Btw, even if you somehow prove what i'm mistaken and such block exist, it will still prove my point - what in REAL condition, when enemy can use such ewar, size will matter even more than usuall due to lower hit chance of such FCS.

This isn't a school playground. Try to behave and post like an adult. You've already had your posts edited twice for inapprop language (ie scatalogical invectives) - don't go for the "hat trick" (ie 3 warnings). Read the forum rules to understand the implications of the "hat trick" warning.
If you can't control yourself then either don't post at all or find another forum where you can argue to your hearts content and keep company with some soul mates.

You know, that goes both ways. I admit what i showed not-so-pretty behavior, but some phrases in your posts are also not something you can be proud of...

 

[gf0012-aust]

Obviously i'm not expert in ewar, but you dont need to be an expert to conclude what if some mythical electronic block "from a nearby hill" can affect FCS of at least 3 different tanks, than any enemy will use that block for sure. As such, any FCS suspectible to such ewar is total crap.

its not crap at all, it is possible to interfere with a FCS - ewarfare is a proper disciplined element of force dislocation.

the US for example can, has and does use spoofing of an enemies e-systems to disrupt battlefield coherency.

i don't know why you insist on debating about warfighting issues which you are obviously oblivious about. both nato and warpac forces were intending to use ewarfare as a disruption technique when war started.

the greek test where interference was used was designed to disrupt competitors tanks. it is common knowledge within most blackhat circles...