T-90 Tank

[nevidimka]

Okay, lets get on the same sheet of music here:

Open warfare interpetation for me stands for open terrian conflict, fields, hills, woods and major road networks. With that said I will still stand by my statement that the BMPT is not well suited for this type of conflict, that the Tunguska is designed specifically to handle all airborne threats which is needed to protect Russian forces when moving at a large scale. Why BMPT when you have BMP 2 and 3 series vehicles that are used for infantry support vehicles, both vehicles can lay down enough suppressive fire to support infantry operations in open terrian, infantry is your best tank support that you can get, you will use them to support flank and rear positions in both offensive and defensive operations, infantry is needed to clear out cities not tanks, even BMP series vehicles can lay down better suppressive fire due to weapons *auto cannon* angle of attack in elevation. Everyone has used tanks to clear out cities and have taken major losses including the IDF, even they are changing their approach to this type of scenario with heavier APCs that can be decked out with auto cannons and ATGM systems. tanks are best suited for eating up as much real estate as possible, take away your opponents ground of operations and he loses, going into cities to flush him out is time consuming and takes away valuable assets that are needed in the main fight.

You do realize that I do in fact talk with experience on this subject.

Well, I understand what you mean by open warfare for tanks and how you see the use of the Tunguska as better for the role of tank support compared to BMPT, and how you see the role of BMPT better suited for urban warefare. But you have to realise I wasnt challenging you for a fist fight, rather I was asking your opinion on the matter, as to why the manufacturer quoted the role of the BMPT as such with regards to Afghanistan war as 1 of their reasons. Also considering they have experienced urban war in Chechnya n yet came out with such a role for the BMPT.

Another point is the BMPT has not been requested nor accepted by the Russian Army. They are still evaluating the use of it, so the manufacturer's role for the vehicle may not hold if the Russian army finds it otherwise like you say.

 

[eckherl]

Well, I understand what you mean by open warfare for tanks and how you see the use of the Tunguska as better for the role of tank support compared to BMPT, and how you see the role of BMPT better suited for urban warefare. But you have to realise I wasnt challenging you for a fist fight, rather I was asking your opinion on the matter, as to why the manufacturer quoted the role of the BMPT as such with regards to Afghanistan war as 1 of their reasons. Also considering they have experienced urban war in Chechnya n yet came out with such a role for the BMPT.

Another point is the BMPT has not been requested nor accepted by the Russian Army. They are still evaluating the use of it, so the manufacturer's role for the vehicle may not hold if the Russian army finds it otherwise like you say.

Sorry if I came off that way, I am actually enjoying our conversation in regards to the BMPT and it is rewarding to get other peoples perspectives on these subject matters.

 

[nevidimka]

From your point, I can see that you like the idea of a BMPT very much for a Urban warefare, and at such do you think this type of weapon should be intorduced into NATO countries which seems to be occupied in urban warefare all the time these days?

 

[Waylander]

The difference between for example Russia and some NATO countries is that these NATO countries field or introduce more survivable IFVs.
The main problem of the BMP series is that it is still not armored that great all around while new western IFVs (Ulan/Pizarro, new CV9035, Puma, etc.) get you the ability to go into towns with tem without having to fear some guys with an old RPG or a Dushka giving you something to think about from the flanks.

Upgrade programs and new designs took into account the existing problems of urban warfare without the need to add additional vehicles to your army.
The same goes for several upgrade programs for MBTs.

Making your existing vehicles urban ready without taking away your capability to perform a classic mechanized campaign is IMHO more economical than designing a new additional vehicle which will never be introduced in countable and usefull numbers.

 

[Chrom]

The difference between for example Russia and some NATO countries is that these NATO countries field or introduce more survivable IFVs.
The main problem of the BMP series is that it is still not armored that great all around while new western IFVs (Ulan/Pizarro, new CV9035, Puma, etc.) get you the ability to go into towns with tem without having to fear some guys with an old RPG or a Dushka giving you something to think about from the flanks.

This is wrong on 2 levels:

1. High firepower give very good protection on its own, greatly reducing IFV's and infantry causalities.
2. No western IFV (not even tanks!) is reliable protected from flanks - even against old RPGs. Absolutely most current western IFV's cant even frontally withstand 70x-timefrime RPGs.
3. No western country plan to equip substantial part of own forces with very heavy IFV's (aka converted tanks). May be with exception of Isarael...

Upgrade programs and new designs took into account the existing problems of urban warfare without the need to add additional vehicles to your army.
The same goes for several upgrade programs for MBTs.

Specialized solution always will be better than general ones. Stating that, these is of course a lot of room in improvement "general" means for urban warfare - like improving tanks, etc. But still tanks (or any other "general" solution) will be never as good as current/future versions of BMP-T.

Making your existing vehicles urban ready without taking away your capability to perform a classic mechanized campaign is IMHO more economical than designing a new additional vehicle which will never be introduced in countable and usefull numbers.

We'll see how it develops in future. May be in not-so-far future unmanned vehicles will occupy that niche.

 

[eckherl]

From your point, I can see that you like the idea of a BMPT very much for a Urban warefare, and at such do you think this type of weapon should be intorduced into NATO countries which seems to be occupied in urban warefare all the time these days?

I have to agree with Waylander on some of the western designs that have taken into account the Urbanized engagement factor especially with the PUMA design, it truly is a outstanding vehicle for multi mssions. What concerns me the most with the tank Urbanized kits is the amount of additional weight that is placed on the vehicle, especially with the belly armor. I also believe that alot of these improvised packages will end up scattered on the cross country battlefield due to tank speed, terrian, running into structures and artillery fire, it is bad enough that we have to be careful with side skirts, just ask any tanker that. I think ultimately the answer lies in advanced technology that can be given to the regular combat infantryman fighting in a urbanized environment, especially with UAV, Robotics, optics and handheld weapons. Having a vehicle totally dedicated like the BMPT for most militaries would be something that they most likely could not afford or see the justification in spending, this very well may be the reason why BMPT has not officially been welcome into the Russian Army structure, Those Russian generals are pretty savy and more than likely would like to settle for a multi tasked vehicle also.

 

[Feanor]

The verdict is still open with me on this vehicle, to me it is totally ass backwards to use it for tank support when it is better suited for infantry support, Russia should go back to the initial design concept on how to fight and operate this vehicle, maybe they will if it doesn`t get cancelled due to lack of funds and doesnt recieve wide scale acceptance by the Russian Army, kinda like the BMP 3 when it was going thru its design phase.

I truly like this approach in a urban tactical vehicle, gee can you tell.

It's an innovative and very interesting idea, I definetly agree with that. What I'm saying is that it's role so far has been stated to be a tank support vehicle for urban operations, and as such I see no way to work it into the current structure of the Russian armed forces. Now starting next year we will transferring to a brigade format, and perhaps that will make room for the inclusion of the BMPT either at brigade level as a detachment, or perhaps into the individual tank formations.

 

[extern]

Hi! Something very interesting: the Russians have invented a grenade launcher (RPG-30) able to count a contemporal APS. The false grenade deceives an enemy APS. If so it could be really serious problem for any tank on the battlefield:

 

[SkolZkiy]

Yep in news I've about this
http://www.lenta.ru/news/2008/11/19/rpg/
Here is said that it has too granades - first is a fake that engages enemy active defense systems and the other 105-mm hit the target.

PS sory for mistake =(((( not TOO granades but of course TWO +))))

 

[extern]

Here is said that it has too granades - first is a fake that engages enemy active defense systems and the other 105-mm hit the target.

Other one asimmetric warfare. Needed to adjust same principle with Sniper-Invar barrel-lunched ATGM.

 

[eckherl]

Hi! Something very interesting: the Russians have invented a grenade launcher (RPG-30) able to count a contemporal APS. The false grenade deceives an enemy APS. If so it could be really serious problem for any tank on the battlefield:

The decoy projectile can also be replaced with a more effective round to help counter ERA correct. But yes, armor will have to counter even more effective handheld systems in the future.

 

[nevidimka]

The decoy projectile can also be replaced with a more effective round to help counter ERA correct. But yes, armor will have to counter even more effective handheld systems in the future.

It is meant to defeat an APS. The decoy dont need to be a more effective round as its not gonna reach the ERA if the tank has APS.

 

[eckherl]

It is meant to defeat an APS. The decoy dont need to be a more effective round as its not gonna reach the ERA if the tank has APS.

Realize that, was told of a possible additional design concept that would offer a different projectile to replace decoy round to help assist with ERA panel/block defeat.

 

[extern]

Realize that, was told of a possible additional design concept that would offer a different projectile to replace decoy round to help assist with ERA panel/block defeat.

Kinda two rockets pointed to the same place

 

[nevidimka]

Realize that, was told of a possible additional design concept that would offer a different projectile to replace decoy round to help assist with ERA panel/block defeat.

Oh ok, but then that would be usefull if the tank does not have any form of APS on board.

 

[Feanor]

Oh ok, but then that would be usefull if the tank does not have any form of APS on board.

Or if the tanks APS fails to intercept the projectile.

 

[tatra]

The decoy projectile can also be replaced with a more effective round to help counter ERA correct. But yes, armor will have to counter even more effective handheld systems in the future.

The main rocket already has a tandem warhead (i.e. blow out single ERA layer and then main armor), so you are suggesting the baby round to a third warhead (so you can knock out 2 layer ERA and then the main armor).

 

[Viktor]

According to Russian Mod ... how mutch of T-90V do they plan to induct in Russian army by 2015?

 

[eckherl]

The main rocket already has a tandem warhead (i.e. blow out single ERA layer and then main armor), so you are suggesting the baby round to a third warhead (so you can knock out 2 layer ERA and then the main armor).

Yes, there has been a rumor of such a set up, at least in the testing stage.

 

[Feanor]

According to Russian Mod ... how mutch of T-90V do they plan to induct in Russian army by 2015?

I'm not sure. The official 2015 re-armament plan has already fallen behind schedule, and given how little is being said about it I'm guessing it's done with. There has been a recent claim that the Russian Army will re-arm 20-30% of it's equipment in the next 2-3 years, with 80-90% re-armament planned by 2020. The statement was very vague and seems more like a goal rather then an actual time table.

However in regards to specifically the T-90A (I'm assuming that's what you mean by T-90V) two btlns have been inducted this year, up from 1 per year for the last two year (06-07) up from half a btln (04-05). So if we assume the production growth trend will continue we may see 2 or 3 btlns next year, and 3 or 4 the year after that. I'm going to see if I can find anything more specific and will get back to you on that.