The Soviet Tank Gamble

[FutureTank]

Originally Posted by Waylander
One has to temember that a smaller gun depression also has another disadvantage.
While riding cross country a tank with a smaller depression is more prone to hit the limits of his gun elevation and depression with the result that the aim is more often disrupted.

While modern stabilization systems have no problem staying on target during cross country rides they tend to come to their limits more often than one might think just due to the fact that one can stabilize only as much as your gun depression/elevation allows it.

When you quote a poster you are replying or commenting directly in response to that post. You do know that don't you? Have another look at Waylanders post - he is referring to the fact that because the soviet designs do not depress as far as western designs, when travelling across country the stabilisation system will hit its limits (ie not be able to keep the assigned point of aim) as well as a NATO design. This has bugger all to do with range. Even at a range of 20 meters if you cannot bring the barrel of your main armament to bear you cannot hit the target. Quoting factoids about the north african campaign will not change that fact.

Then you proceed to regale us with casualty figres and volume figures if a turret is penetrated. Why? This has nothing to do with the ability of a tanks stab system or the limits imposed by its design. Where did you get these figures? In one of your previous posts you claim the reason for the automatic loader is because the russian army could not find enough conscripts to put a loader in every tank. Now you claim the designers made this call to limit casualties? Which is it?

Your final paragraph is that adding 8 tonnes of armour adds an impost to the fuel consumption that only the US with its fleet of 5000 tanks can bear, but the Russians with a fleet of 15,000 cannot afford it? For starters you'd probably find the addition of 8 tonnes would have a barely perceptable increase in fuel usage - certainly a justifiable one give the benefits of uparmouring.

When is a tank travelling cross-country with stabilisation engaged other than in cases of expected combat?
"Even at a range of 20 meters if you cannot bring the barrel of your main armament to bear you cannot hit the target." - You seriously suggest this is the case with Soviet designs that use stabilisation? Soviet tankers are also trained to fire if stabilisation fails, and even if the sighting fails, by sighting through the barrel if all else fails. It seems to me the NATO tankers are similarly trained.
Claimed inability to hit a target goes to the size of the target at a given range, right?
Are you only able to think in single variables? Yes, there was a shortage in conscripts (still is), and yes they sought to limit casualties at the same time. Where do you think a surviving crew goes to after they get out? You think every Soviet tank HAD a crew?!
I'm not going to do the maths for you in either the question of internal tank volumes or the burden of additional fuel with increased weight. Lets just say that the "trivial amount" ends up in several thousand additional support vehicles for the Soviet Army, and that's just in the forces which woudl have been immediately committable to the West German front.

 

[FutureTank]

The design of the Object 430 (that became the T-64) in 1958 had nothing to do with demographics. The automatic loader was selected like the 5TD engine and low turret roof height (limiting depression) to drastically reduce the internal volume and hence armoured volume and therefore weight.

As to Soviet demographics they were hardly effected by a one person reduction of tank crew strength. Especially since this reduction resulted in an increased maintenance burden and more maintainers. Since the Soviets retained an active tank park of around 35,000 vehicles this is less than 1% of active army strength. Hardly a significant impact to go from four to three per crew.

The Soviet Union under Khrushchev dealt with the WW2 caused baby drain in the late 50s, early 60s by reducing the size of the ground force and replacing their combat power with nuclear missiles. New vehicles like the BMP were the solution to the reduction in infantry bayonets in the 60s, not reducing tank crew size.

Another example of FT fantasy. Not as bad as his belief that tank gun depression is dependent on how steep the front of a tank is angled (as in the Sherman) when its all about turret roof height... nfloorl:

You know far less than you think

 

[FutureTank]

It beggars my mind as to why you are still allowed to Post. The above is simply drivel. The M1's engine is more than capable of handling the extra weight derived from the HA package. In fact it has growth for more. The main reason it is governed is to prevent track separation at high speeds as it would simply run away and cause an accident.

The M1's survivability suite IS an iterative development of 1970's technology.

The ranges you quote are just nuts. No American TC will let an adversary approach to a range that makes the enemy's kill zone effective, period. They will be killed at the maximum range practicable and every relevant R&D program I am aware of is to extend the range and effectiveness of the M1's own kill zone to make this as sure a thing as possible.

And the list goes on and on. I just don't have the time and so admit defeat. It is my sincere wish that you be silenced as I am fed up with the pollution you attempt to pass as informed debate. It is a joke.

cheers

w

"The M1's engine is more than capable of handling the extra weight derived from the HA package." - yes of course, but it reduced top speed and endurance, hasn't it Its a matter of fact stated by the US Army. In fact you can put even more armour on the M1 until it only crawls at 40km/h on the road and has to be refueled every 100km, and still say the engine can cope.

"The main reason it is governed is to prevent track separation at high speeds as it would simply run away and cause an accident" - you mean it doesn't work at those speeds. Accidents is where one says OOPS. Everything else has different terminology.

"iterative development" - this is a term used in project management, not in operational use of a production model. So you are saying the M1 was still an ongoing project in 1988? In fact the Army rushed the M1 into production, and subsequently it took three years to field it.

"No American TC will let an adversary approach to a range that makes the enemy's kill zone effective, period. " - yes of course. So which TC had a say in where the hills, forests and structures are located when choosing a position? You take what you get and you go with it, was the tanker law in Europe during the Cold War. Choosing a position is subject to orders that are NOT "see if you can find a max LOS and hope the Russians come through it". Ever heard of tank vs tank engagements at 50m? Neither side INTENDED to fight those either at any time in history of armoured warfare, but it happened.

We are free to communicate civilly, or not. Your choice.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

When is a tank travelling cross-country with stabilisation engaged other than in cases of expected combat?
"Even at a range of 20 meters if you cannot bring the barrel of your main armament to bear you cannot hit the target." - You seriously suggest this is the case with Soviet designs that use stabilisation? Soviet tankers are also trained to fire if stabilisation fails, and even if the sighting fails, by sighting through the barrel if all else fails. It seems to me the NATO tankers are similarly trained.
Claimed inability to hit a target goes to the size of the target at a given range, right?

Perhaps Marc should have explained to you how stabilisation works in the vertical axis as the tank is in motion. He can be excused for not doing so as someone making the sort of assertions you do would be extremely foolish to do so without such a basic level of understanding.

As the tank moves across the ground its hull pitches up and down as it climbs and descends bumps and slopes. Even tanks with very high suspension arm movement like the Merkava (60cm) will pitch up and down a lot as most ground is extremely uneven (even plains and deserts). As the tank pitches up and down the stabilisation system detects this and adjusts the elevation of the gun to compensate so it stays on the level required to engage the target.

Now this is where the T-64 and descendants come into trouble. If a tank has only minimal gun depression then if it pitches up above the angular differential between the maximum depression and the line to the target then the gun can’t continue to train on the target. So the target is lost. If the tank continues to pitch up beyond the maximum depression then the stabilisation systems frame of reference will no longer relate to the target’s actual location and the gun won’t be tracking the target when the tank returns to a level pitch.

So apart from being limited in its ability to use terrain to hide itself while keeping its gun bearing on a target the lack of depression also reduces the ability of stabilisation to compensate for moving across country.

 

[Marc 1]

Perhaps Marc should have explained to you how stabilisation works in the vertical axis as the tank is in motion. He can be excused for not doing so as someone making the sort of assertions you do would be extremely foolish to do so without such a basic level of understanding.

Yes, quite right Abraham, I had just assumed that Future Tank would know how it worked - after all he seems to know a lot more about armoured warfare than people who have served in armoured or mechanised units.

Then again, maybe there was that clue that he really does not have the first schmik about what he is tallking about when he told us that soviet tanks are able to depress their main armament to"18 degrees of depression".
Vis:

Originally Posted by FutureTank View Post
It is certainly a much faster way of getting out of the mortar fire. Backing up down a slope can be tricky sometimes.
This, is actually how the Soviet tankers do it, depressing their guns over the side which allows, depending on the model, up to 18 degrees of depression.

Hmm, I blame myself...nfloorl:

 

[FutureTank]

Yes, quite right Abraham, I had just assumed that Future Tank would know how it worked - after all he seems to know a lot more about armoured warfare than people who have served in armoured or mechanised units.

Then again, maybe there was that clue that he really does not have the first schmik about what he is tallking about when he told us that soviet tanks are able to depress their main armament to"18 degrees of depression".
Vis:

Originally Posted by FutureTank View Post
It is certainly a much faster way of getting out of the mortar fire. Backing up down a slope can be tricky sometimes.
This, is actually how the Soviet tankers do it, depressing their guns over the side which allows, depending on the model, up to 18 degrees of depression.

Hmm, I blame myself...nfloorl:

Hmmm, sorry, that was meant to be 8 degrees of depression, not 18. You should have pointed that out sooner since it was clearly wrong.
The published depression is about 6 degrees, but in fact 2 more more can be achieved. However, I don't see much difference between 6 and 9 degrees. Most hull-down positions will have been occupied well before engagement, and crew can just get out and remove enough soil to allow the extra 3 degrees if it is that crucial.

Google autoloader in combination with the T-72 or T-80 and you will find either stills, or a YouTube video of how one looks and works.

The 125mm T-72 gun is actually much shorter inside the turret than one might suppose from knowledge of manually loaded weapons. The rammer comes up to it. The gun breech is shorter than that in the 120mm weapon, and has no other protrusions like safety guards on the manual loaded guns. It can in fact travel greater distance in the vertical than is apparent from the outside because the only contact it has is with the stub case ejector.
It seems to me that the T-64 and T-80 autoloader, although not storing the ammunition in same way, would also allow this space for the breech to travel in the vertical. This is what allows the greater than often published depression of the gun.

At least this is what I have been told, and having not seen this myself, I can only rely on that information. I have no reason to suspect that that source was wrong.

I'll see what it says regarding the accuracy and adjusting calibration in the T-80 gunner's manual, and get back to you.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

This, is actually how the Soviet tankers do it, depressing their guns over the side which allows, depending on the model, up to 18 degrees of depression.

Wow! Even if the gun mounting would actually allow you to lower the gun so much it would be a one shot wonder. In recoil the breech would hit the turret roof and knock itself out of battery and the crew out of their wits... And you can’t, the T-72’s mantlet and turret structure does not allow for depression of the gun below 6 degrees. Its physically impossible unless you remove everything in the gun except the barrel...

Maybe FT should do a geometry course so he can actually understand what is going on... Because the gun barrel is not mounted directly above the front hull roof it's angle does not determine maximum depression. What determines depression is turret roof height to allow for the recoiling of the breech. Why some turret designs have a lifting flap to allow for more depression, eg LAV-105.

 

[Marc 1]

Requesting help from other serving or ex serving ARA or Ares pers.

I received this as a reply from Future Tank. As FT has basically called me a liar on this and therefore I'll need some external backup, can anybody confirm the role of Infantry for FT since he doesn't believe me?

Exchange below:



Marc1. The only combat arm that can sieze and hold ground regardless of season, weather or terrain is infantry. That is a fact. At the end of the day, grunts win battles. But this is a pointless discussion because all modern armies are combined arms teams individual corps are not used in isolation.


FT: I really do not comprehend what it is they teach in the Australian Army if I have to explain this to you. The role of infantry in mobile warfare is NOT to "sieze and hold ground". That was true in the Napoleonic Era! The role of infantry, and the entire combined arms group, is to to get to the enemy Presidential Palace and blow the president's brains out with the biggest gun they have. The role of infantry in such an operation is to support armour ON THE MOVE.



Re: Role of Infantry

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc 1
You know, I was going to issue a detailed rebuttal of your points, but then you decide to tell me, someone who spent 6 years of my life as an infantryman that I didn't know my job. Here is the official role of the Royal Australian Infantry Corps:

"The role of Infantry is to seek out and close with the enemy, to kill or capture him, to seize and hold ground and to repel attack, by day or night, regardless of season, weather or terrain."

Infantry Officer | Defence Jobs


It's been 14 years since I wore a uniform, so you'll have to forgive me that what I had written was not word for word. Infantry is the only corps that can achieve this.

Sayonara, you are not worth wasting any more time on.

FT: I'm not impressed by ranks, only by ideas. If an LT has a better idea than a LTGEN, I'd go with the LT.

So the recruitment site is your final argument? A final statement on the future doctrine of the Australian Army is in the first sentence of the LT job description for the first three years? You are right, I was wasting my time.

Taking and holding positions is for the supply troops
Taking and holding position only works well if you are the first to that position

Are you trying to impress me with 6 years in the Army? Brigadier H.A. Young CO Canadian 6th Brigade also thought he knew what he was doing, and he had been in the Army far longer than you. Read about it, will you. pp.119-12, Tank Tactics, Roman Jarymowycz.


Other links:

http://www.dfrt.gov.au/Decisions/2004/Reasons for Decision Combat Clerk and Soreman.pdf (second sentence, second para)

RAINF - Stay ARMY - ARMY (second sentence first para. Gee it must be important to be the second thing that is said)

Governor General of Australia ~ Speeches (paraphrased in the 5th paragraph - but what would Major General Michael Jeffery AC CVO MC (Retd) know?)

Please excuse the thread hijack.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Hmmm, sorry, that was meant to be 8 degrees of depression, not 18. You should have pointed that out sooner since it was clearly wrong.
The published depression is about 6 degrees, but in fact 2 more more can be achieved. However, I don't see much difference between 6 and 9 degrees. Most hull-down positions will have been occupied well before engagement, and crew can just get out and remove enough soil to allow the extra 3 degrees if it is that crucial.

More falsehoods. The front of the T-72's hull does not limit the depression of the gun barrel until at least 10 degrees of depression. This idea that you can rotate to the side and have less obstruction to your depression is completely false. 6 degrees is the limit thanks to the mantlet, breech, roof and recoil movement. It has nothing to do with anything outside the turret.

 

[Marc 1]

Hmmm, sorry, that was meant to be 8 degrees of depression, not 18. You should have pointed that out sooner since it was clearly wrong.

Umm, I did, but as usual you ignored it and took off on a tangent:

Originally Posted by FutureTank View Post
It is certainly a much faster way of getting out of the mortar fire. Backing up down a slope can be tricky sometimes.
This, is actually how the Soviet tankers do it, depressing their guns over the side which allows, depending on the model, up to 18 degrees of depression.

Marc1: Angles of depression I have been able to find: T54/55 -5 degrees, T62 -5 degrees T-64 ? T-72 -6 degrees T-80 -4 degrees. T-90 ? degrees. I cannot find 18 degrees - unless you are talking elevation which is of course the exact opposite and would prove that you really do have no idea. One of the main reasons that limits main armament depression in an MBT isn't necessarily the hull, but the fact that there is not enough height inside the turret to allow the breech to recoil. It is one of the main reasons why western tanks are higher.

I've been looking forward to using this emoticon...:nutkick

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Read about it, will you. pp.119-12, Tank Tactics, Roman Jarymowycz.

Yep everything you ever need to know about warfare can be found on pages 119 to 12... whatever that means...

The example of infantry shooting the president in his palace is a classic example of infantry holding and seizing ground.

Infantry have this role because until a nuclear powered humanoid robot comes along (aka Terminator) a trained unit of humans with weapon is the only thing that can occupy all the space and time occupied by humans.

Tanks are a transitory weapon. They only exist on the battlefield for a proportion of time - that time being when the tank is crewed, fueled and operational. They are also far too big to access most human space. They do however have a range of advantages compared to a human in being involved in kinetic weapons fight. All of this is why proficient armies utilize combined arms teams to control the battlespace.

 

[FutureTank]

I received this as a reply from Future Tank. As FT has basically called me a liar on this and therefore I'll need some external backup, can anybody confirm the role of Infantry for FT since he doesn't believe me?

Exchange below:



Marc1. The only combat arm that can sieze and hold ground regardless of season, weather or terrain is infantry. That is a fact. At the end of the day, grunts win battles. But this is a pointless discussion because all modern armies are combined arms teams individual corps are not used in isolation.


FT: I really do not comprehend what it is they teach in the Australian Army if I have to explain this to you. The role of infantry in mobile warfare is NOT to "sieze and hold ground". That was true in the Napoleonic Era! The role of infantry, and the entire combined arms group, is to to get to the enemy Presidential Palace and blow the president's brains out with the biggest gun they have. The role of infantry in such an operation is to support armour ON THE MOVE.



Re: Role of Infantry

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc 1
You know, I was going to issue a detailed rebuttal of your points, but then you decide to tell me, someone who spent 6 years of my life as an infantryman that I didn't know my job. Here is the official role of the Royal Australian Infantry Corps:

"The role of Infantry is to seek out and close with the enemy, to kill or capture him, to seize and hold ground and to repel attack, by day or night, regardless of season, weather or terrain."

Page Not Found | Defence Jobs

It's been 14 years since I wore a uniform, so you'll have to forgive me that what I had written was not word for word. Infantry is the only corps that can achieve this.

Sayonara, you are not worth wasting any more time on.

FT: I'm not impressed by ranks, only by ideas. If an LT has a better idea than a LTGEN, I'd go with the LT.

So the recruitment site is your final argument? A final statement on the future doctrine of the Australian Army is in the first sentence of the LT job description for the first three years? You are right, I was wasting my time.

Taking and holding positions is for the supply troops
Taking and holding position only works well if you are the first to that position

Are you trying to impress me with 6 years in the Army? Brigadier H.A. Young CO Canadian 6th Brigade also thought he knew what he was doing, and he had been in the Army far longer than you. Read about it, will you. pp.119-12, Tank Tactics, Roman Jarymowycz.


Other links:

http://www.dfrt.gov.au/Decisions/2004/Reasons for Decision Combat Clerk and Soreman.pdf (second sentence, second para)

RAINF - Stay ARMY - ARMY (second sentence first para. Gee it must be important to be the second thing that is said)

Governor General of Australia ~ Speeches (paraphrased in the 5th paragraph - but what would Major General Michael Jeffery AC CVO MC (Retd) know?)

Please excuse the thread hijack.

You should have posted everything, and not only what you choose, in the order and context in which it was sent, with no omissions, and in the Australian Army thread.

If you ask Major General Michael Jeffery if he agrees with your Infantry role definition or mine, I know he would agree with mine given his command of the SAS. Trust me, no one in the Infantry wants to be in combat more than the absolute minimum despite better pay. The first to be attacked in 1991 were not Iraqi tanks, but the Iraqi command infrastructure, repeatedly, by the Coalition ground, air and naval forces. Iraqi tanks were an afterthought.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I don't see much difference between 6 and 9 degrees. Most hull-down positions will have been occupied well before engagement, and crew can just get out and remove enough soil to allow the extra 3 degrees if it is that crucial.

Gun depression is not about being in a hull down position. Its about using a reverse slope position to create a hull down effect. There are many hull down positions available on level ground, including the two step fighting hull.

Nor is gun depression something only useful in a prepared defensive position. As a tank moves across the battlefield its crew try and use terrain to reduce their exposure to enemy fires and observation. Being able to depress your gun enables you to utilize everything from a gentle slope to a retaining wall to get more of your tank under cover.

As to the difference in -5 degrees depression and -10 degrees... Well to someone without any practical experience 5 degrees may not sound like a big number since there are 360 degrees in a circle. But its a 100% difference (sound better) and is highly significant considering the dominance of horizontal relationships in land combat.

If the Israeli Army had been equipped with Soviet designed tanks in 1973 their would be no Israel. Syrian tanks would have literally driven under their guns through the Golan and into northern Israel and not stopped to they reached Haifa and Tel Aviv. But by being able to depress their guns the Centurions were able to limit their exposure to enemy fires enough to be able to sell themselves dearly and stop the invasion.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

If you ask Major General Michael Jeffery if he agrees with your Infantry role definition or mine, I know he would agree with mine given his command of the SAS. Trust me, no one in the Infantry wants to be in combat more than the absolute minimum despite better pay. The first to be attacked in 1991 were not Iraqi tanks, but the Iraqi command infrastructure, repeatedly, by the Coalition ground, air and naval forces. Iraqi tanks were an afterthought.

Even I can't take this crazy trolling and flame baiting anymore.

Words of wisdom:

"Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."

 

[Marc 1]

You should have posted everything, and not only what you choose, in the order and context in which it was sent, with no omissions, and in the Australian Army thread.

You really want to dig yourself deeper? The rest of the PM you sent me (yep all three pages) won't fit on here, so I'll post the 15,000 words of the second of three shall I? See next post.

If you ask Major General Michael Jeffery if he agrees with your Infantry role definition or mine, I know he would agree with mine given his command of the SAS.

Your arrogance is quite astonishing - you know a Major General, ex SAS now Ex Governor General and Military Cross recipient is going to agree with you?

Trust me, no one in the Infantry wants to be in combat more than the absolute minimum despite better pay. The first to be attacked in 1991 were not Iraqi tanks, but the Iraqi command infrastructure, repeatedly, by the Coalition ground, air and naval forces. Iraqi tanks were an afterthought.

And again further twaddle and answers to questions nobody has asked. I think you get 'promoted' here on the forum for number of posts, not number of words, do give that a thought before posting pointless trivia again.

 

[FutureTank]

Umm, I did, but as usual you ignored it and took off on a tangent:

Originally Posted by FutureTank View Post
It is certainly a much faster way of getting out of the mortar fire. Backing up down a slope can be tricky sometimes.
This, is actually how the Soviet tankers do it, depressing their guns over the side which allows, depending on the model, up to 18 degrees of depression.

Marc1: Angles of depression I have been able to find: T54/55 -5 degrees, T62 -5 degrees T-64 ? T-72 -6 degrees T-80 -4 degrees. T-90 ? degrees. I cannot find 18 degrees - unless you are talking elevation which is of course the exact opposite and would prove that you really do have no idea. One of the main reasons that limits main armament depression in an MBT isn't necessarily the hull, but the fact that there is not enough height inside the turret to allow the breech to recoil. It is one of the main reasons why western tanks are higher.

I've been looking forward to using this emoticon...:nutkick

Well, I missed that.
As for the emoticon, officers are also gentlemen, even after they live the forces. You were probably not one even when you were in them.

 

[Marc 1]

Sorry guys, but I'd hate to be accused of trying to mislead...
The relevant exerpt is in red, you can make of the garbage (both his and mine) before and after what you will:

Edit: Incidentally the purple text I doubt. This bloke was a LtCol during Desert Storm, so I'm not sure how he was able to brief people on his activities during desert storm when he was a major.


Re: how I think

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marc 1: Gee what a can't win situation but if they do have the advantage of ground they have lost the initiative. Crumbs, why did the poms and Europeans even bother trying to defend? If the outcome was so clear cut why didn't the soviets just roll across the border? It can't have been for nuclear reasons as the soviets had the only real anti ABM system operational around Moscow and more warheads than NATO.
FT: Its good for domestic politics if the public believes they have a viable Army, that's why. It also removes significant numbers from the unemployment pool, aids development, serves civil defence purposes, etc.
Had Australia suffered the sort of losses the Soviets did in the Second World War, you may have understood why the Soviets never attacked, but I guess it was not in your Army education content. The Soviet STRATEGIC posture was defensive since 1954. Its just that their operational doctrine, HAD IT COME TO WAR, would have been offensive. The best offensive is a quick offensive, because after that it becomes attrition. Only attritional warfare requires tank designs that ensure crew survival so they can get into the next tank. Attritional warfare is a far deadlier option in warfare than the offensive. NATO didn't even use the term 'operational' in their doctrinal texts until 1960s, and the US Army officers still had to be explained what it means in the 1980s
I'm getting weary of spelling out the basics to you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FutureTank
However, not one NATO ... (text omitted) force securing initiative by means of the offensive.

Marc 1: Of course they can't guarantee the ground advantage. But being the defender the NATO forces are going to use natural obstacles and ground to their best advantage - be stupid not to.
FT: Did you miss out on your military history courses? On the offensive the point is to destroy the enemy's capability to conduct combat by destroying their logistics. Defended positions are left behind to be dealt with by the artillery and air support. This is what happened for the last three years of combat on the Eastern Front. When Montgomery tried to fight his way into the teeth of such a defensive position during the Normandy breakout, he lost so many tanks they had to scrape armoured course finishing classes for tankers to replace crews in UK and Canada. There were Canadian infantry units that had 50% losses sustained in hours of combat. Red Army learned this in 1941/42. The Soviet military liaison officer with 21AG HQ who SAID SO, but since he was only a "Russian" no one listened to him.
And I repeat, securing ground advantage involves FINDING SUITABLE GROUND. What do you do when no suitable ground advantage can be found?

Quote:
Originally Posted by FutureTank
Securing initiative is at the very core of 20th century military thought, and tanks...(text omitted) Cavalry as armour is the Arm of decision, not waiting.

Marc1: What is that all about? On the one hand you praise the cavalry/armour as being the arm to gain initiative, no argement there the term we used to use was 'shock action' IIRC. Then try to discredit infantry because they are nowhere as mobile? The only combat arm that can sieze and hold ground regardless of season, weather or terrain is infantry. That is a fact. At the end of the day, grunts win battles. But this is a pointless discussion because all modern armies are combined arms teams individual corps are not used in isolation.
FT: I really do not comprehend what it is they teach in the Australian Army if I have to explain this to you. The role of infantry in mobile warfare is NOT to "sieze and hold ground". That was true in the Napoleonic Era! The role of infantry, and the entire combined arms group, is to to get to the enemy Presidential Palace and blow the president's brains out with the biggest gun they have. The role of infantry in such an operation is to support armour ON THE MOVE. The only time they stop is to refuel and load up. They fight, eat, sleep and shit on the move. Period. And, they do it wherever the tank goes. Can you assure me that a wheeled vehicle, even an 8x8, can go everywhere a tank goes? One of the major modifications to the M1 was to allow faster refuelling because even seconds matter. Israelis claim that because of the Merkava design they can rearm a tank in under 10 minutes even with exhausted crews. In fact the support people just shove it through the back, allowing the crew extra few minutes of rest

Quote:
Originally Posted by FutureTank
The issue of this tank design effectiveness, based on analysis of the 1991 Gulf... (text omitted) You may be more privileged in having access to this information.

Marc1: No, not privy to anything more than you can find except a briefing from an Australian Army engineer LtCol who was resonsible for the breaches in the minefields/obstacles that 3 US divisions used. I don't know about it being 'interestingly quiet'. If I were a tanker, I wouldn't be releasing a book boasting about standing off 3km away in the total dark and plinking Iraqi tanks that couldn't even see you. And when the Iraqi's did get a shot that many of the shots didn't penetrate. Yeah, be a great book - in the same way that strangling kittens is not really seen as socially acceptable. On the Abrams wiki page it lists 20 tanks disabled/destroyed during GW1. Possibly one M1 was disabled due to Iraqi MBT fire. M1 Abrams - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
FT: I was at his briefing before he made LTCOL. The number of engineer battalions was more than doubled over usual divisional OOB under his command if the memory serves me right. You mentioned the MANY tank engagements, and now you are talking about one shot? There is such a thing as statistical analysis. I'm sure it was conducted, so I am curious why it had not been released if it would sound so great. Maybe because direct comparison between Latest 1991 M1 upgrade and unmodified Iraqi T-72 would not look so good, what with all the other factors thrown in? What was that you were saying about twisting, deflecting, and obfuscating the discussion?

Quote:
Originally Posted by FutureTank
Abraham Goubler (whom I will not reply due to his lack of civility) is of course right in that the force has no choice but to fight regardless of it facing medium or heavy opponent.

Marc1: And he is correct. Don't blame the yanks for bringing a gun to a knife fight.
FT: lol That's the best joke I have heard in a long time. Until 1979 the yanks brought a nuclear warhead to a gun fight After that they brought a double-handed sword to a knife fight

Quote:
Originally Posted by FutureTank
But, here is what was said in the Soviet Union at the time before the 1991 Gulf War
(Heaps deleted)
this dynamism was seen to be displayed by the Iraqi command!

Marc1: Even so, for the Iraqi tankers including the much vaunted and supposedly well equipped and lead Republican Guards to have maybe knocked out one Abrams that cannot be just the US advantages listed by the soviets. They have a vested interest in making excuses for their product because they obviously want to sell more of them.
FT: Yes, but ultimately an Iraqi officer had to give orders. Soviets only sent training personnel to train the trainers with the initial batch of deliveries of every piece of technology. That was during the Iran-Iraq War. So what is the Soviet fault in designing the T-72, that they failed to foresee incompetence on the level of an entire military structure of the client?

The Soviet doctrine at the time was in
Quote:
Seizing the initiative at the .... (text omitted) strategic considerations in Iraq not making that decision.
Marc1: But Saddam didn't, so its a moot point.
FT: The Soviet Union never attacked NATO either, so the whole discussion is a moot point, but neither you, nor the dozens of people like you over the years admit this. So who is twisting, deflecting, and obfuscating?

Quote:
Originally Posted by FutureTank
All this is called a "wider perspective" which the premise of this thread, as many similar threads on many other forums, lacks.

Marc1: What wider perspective? Go and reread the question asked by Tavarisch. He asked the question and it has been answered. If you think explaining that the soviets value surprise is part of the answer, or that surprise surprise a soviet general is making excuses for the poor performance of the tanks supplied to Iraq is necessary then go ahead, bring then up, but don't expect these points are going to change the basic truth that soviet tanks were designed to a price, for a specific type of offensive manouvre warfare and are generally inferior IMO to the latest generation of NATO MBT's.
FT: I think that you are neither reading the original [two] questions, nor your own answers! Soviet tanks were designed during a certain period of history. After that the modifications one can make to them are limited by design. It is therefore a given that any western tanks that were designed AFTER the Soviet designs went into production would be superior. AND, because they have more room inside, more modifications and upgrades are possible. However, with miniaturisation in electronics this proved to be unnecessary.
I think you have a problem with understanding that a tank is a complex system, and its design is guided by balancing many influences, and a single answer will not suffice
Tovarisch's two questions are predicated on the "hull-down" hang up, notably he says Sure, they could prepare a position on a slope in minutes with the built in dozers for the T-72s (and it's cousins after the T-64). But it probably takes the enemy less time to charge their tanks over that slope while they get things sorted out. but this is tactical illiteracy! One does not start to prepare a hull-down position with the enemy approaching in sight, and within minutes of overrun!
His second question is based in logistical illiteracy that My suggestion would be to widen the hull to allow a larger auto-loader carousel OR dump the carousel idea completely and use a bustle mounted loader instead, as the Ukrainians have done with their shiny new Oplots. The last thing one wants to do is not have the extra ammo at all, the carousel only has 28 rounds, maybe good for short-term ops but what about those week long ones? Aside from widening the hull would require drastic changes to national rail infrastructure, what tank ONLY uses their original load for a week in combat involving other tanks? Even in the infantry support role a tank is likely to go through its load in a couple of days. You should inform Tovarisch how many DU rounds alone the US tanks went through in the 100 hours of Desert Storm

Quote:
Originally Posted by FutureTank
Where tanks are concerned, in 1992 Soviet/Russian view was that
Quote:
"Tanks are an endangered species when the other side enjoys control of the air." Quality beats quantity, but there still has to be enough of it to matter.
All this is really old news.

Marc1: Waffle. That has been the case since tankbuster Hurricanes roamed the skies over the wester desert or the Stuka and Henschel's over the eastern front. Now with LGB's and any aircraft that can carry or designate can go 'tank plinking'.
FT: But there still had to be enough of such aircraft to matter. If there were enough aircraft, why make tanks? Stalin said that the Red Army needed Schturmoviks more than air itself, but did not order the tank production to slow down The A-10 went into service three years before M1. Maybe the M1 was a waste of time?

Quote:
Originally Posted by FutureTank
As it happens I do like Soviet tank designs. They show elegance of thought, innovation, balance, economy and a strong fit to the doctrinal principles under which the force which uses them will operate.

Marc1: So, the soviet designs work well for soviet doctrine - that's a given. What is also a given is that they also were employed in large numbers because the soviet union believed in the doctrine quantity over quality. That's not a philosophy that washes well in the west or even probably in modern Russia. Even China is going away from quantity to quality.
FT: No, its not that they believed in quality over quantity, but in speed over protection. Quantity was imposed by the virtue of strategic and operational planning. Quantity only mattered in local tactical breakthroughs, and every level of ground force organisation was to be afforded a chance at achieving this, and that required quantity
Times change, and so do strategic planning considerations, and their influence on engineering design of military systems
I

 

[FutureTank]

One has to temember that a smaller gun depression also has another disadvantage.
While riding cross country a tank with a smaller depression is more prone to hit the limits of his gun elevation and depression with the result that the aim is more often disrupted.

While modern stabilization systems have no problem staying on target during cross country rides they tend to come to their limits more often than one might think just due to the fact that one can stabilize only as much as your gun depression/elevation allows it.

The T-80B manual gunnery section shows a little box with a switch that says travel mode and combat mode. This allows the stabilisation to be disengaged during travel mode. (ref. Object 219R: reminder for the gunner, p.15, Moscow 1987)

 

[Tavarisch]

Seems a lot has transpired when I was gone. I have been able to, at least briefly, bring myself up to speed with the argument.

First off, more civility if you will. To both parties that is. Throwing off insults, sarcastic statements and jokes only serve to further provoke other people, not strengthen your argument.

It seems that the topic has fast moved from the argument that I expected, which was whether or not the low-height turret in a Soviet/Russian Tank should be replaced, to an argument meant to defend and attack each point presented by each person. It's okay with me, but I was expecting more of suggestions as to what to do with the so-called "flaw". (since not everyone regards a low-height turret to be such)

In any case, to clear up on Semantics...

I was talking about SOVIET TANKS, however since most tanks in Russia's inventory were made from that time-period, it is only fair to support your arguments with examples of the present time. (That means the current era in case people like FT misinterprets.)

 

[Marc 1]

Seems a lot has transpired when I was gone. I have been able to, at least briefly, bring myself up to speed with the argument.

First off, more civility if you will. To both parties that is. Throwing off insults, sarcastic statements and jokes only serve to further provoke other people, not strengthen your argument.

It seems that the topic has fast moved from the argument that I expected, which was whether or not the low-height turret in a Soviet/Russian Tank should be replaced, to an argument meant to defend and attack each point presented by each person. It's okay with me, but I was expecting more of suggestions as to what to do with the so-called "flaw". (since not everyone regards a low-height turret to be such)

In any case, to clear up on Semantics...

I was talking about SOVIET TANKS, however since most tanks in Russia's inventory were made from that time-period, it is only fair to support your arguments with examples of the present time. (That means the current era in case people like FT misinterprets.)

Apologies for the unseemly breakdown of civility - it was probably mutually provoked. However the topic being lead astray - I'll not be sticking my hand up for that.

On subject - the simple answer is a taller turret with the trunions mounted higher. The probable next gen solution though is an auto loader, an unmanned turret and crew in the hull. The gun can then be mounted as high as you wish without incurring the weight penalty of enclosing the entire space for crew survivability.

Cheers,