Whats the Next Gen Tank?

[Waylander]

It is me who don't get your point.

My point is that todays long range, tube launched 125mm ATGMs are going to reveal your position.
The question is if it worth that your defense positions are revealed to the enemy and you are literally calling for an enemy artillery strike.
Or you better save your handfull of tube launched ATGMs for other ocassions like killing recon assets when you act as screening force, for attacking at long range during a shoot and scoot ambush or for use on an overwatch position while other elements attack.
Sniping at heavy enemy forces at extreme range when your have to defend a position is not the best choice to use your 3-6 ATGMs.

 

[eckherl]

Even when such weapon will be ready, I cant imagine situation of US long time monopoly on it. THus we should expect such weapon (or a different weapon of similar effectiveness) from both side in any 'high-end' conflict scenario, rather then one-sided possessing. If so, I expect just coming back to the current 'one-hit-one-kill' situation between two enemies with the most advanced DU APFSDSs.

The U.S has worked with countries like Germany, Britian and France with it`s ETC weapons systems and everyone has brought something to the design table. I would not rule anything out on what Russia or even what Ukraine has worked on, exception being that both countries really do not have a budget to conduct extensive testing. We will just have to see who has the fortitude to come out with it first.

And yes the one shot one kill with your best round will be around for quite some time to come.

 

[eckherl]

If so, why the American Army sponsors the MRM-KE ATGM program for its newest MCS-FCS vehicle? http://www.advfn.com/news_ATKS-MRM-Scores-First-Ever-Direct-Hit_7288469.html

Yes - this is one of many programs that we a currently working, again let me state getting this type of technology to work proficiently in a frontline combat enviroment is still in need of getting all the bugs worked out.
How long has the LAHAT top attack round been going thru testing.

 

[AGRA]

This subject remind me about APS/ERA on tanks. For 20 years western "analytics" claimed these are ineffective way to make inheritly "inferior" russian armor protection up to western standards. In reality, as we now know, russian passsive armor was at least as good as western examples, and APS/ERA made the protection superior . The APS/ERA are now proclaimed as high-tech future of armored warfare. The examples of LAHAT, a 5-6km range standard for all heavy AT missiles around the world, efforts to make guided APFSDS rounds - all these hints what 5-6km range for ATGM's is by far not as useless as you think.

Russian tanks of the T-64 family need to have the extra protection of APS/ERA to counter the higher level of exposure they must take on the battlefield to have firing arcs. The lack of barrel depression cause by extremely low roof hight means these tanks cannot take advantage of terrain masking like a western tank. The best armour is a hill...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cc/Hull_down_tank_diagram.png

I wouldn't want to rely too much on APS for ATGM defence. There are ways ATGMs can counter APS and successful interception of high velocity projectiles is a lot harder than a rather slow missile or RPG.

 

[extern]

Russian tanks of the T-64 family need to have the extra protection of APS/ERA to counter the higher level of exposure they must take on the battlefield to have firing arcs. The lack of barrel depression cause by extremely low roof hight means these tanks cannot take advantage of terrain masking like a western tank. The best armour is a hill...

The angle of elevation for T-90 is -5/+15 grad. ( http://www.zavod9.com/en/?pid=19 http://www.zavod9.com/en/?pid=18 ) While M1A2 MG was limited for -7-8 grad. Do you think, this 2-3 grad make big difference? How often you expect to fire from defence position hiding on the hill in real war?

I wouldn't want to rely too much on APS for ATGM defence. There are ways ATGMs can counter APS and successful interception of high velocity projectiles is a lot harder than a rather slow missile or RPG.

How wide APSs is common in western Armies? Did you hear ever about supersonic ATGMs (Chrizantema, Vikhr, BMPT's Ataka) , which is not countered by any contemporal APS?

 

[AGRA]

While M1A2 MG was limited for -7-8 grad. Do you think, this 2-3 grad make big difference? How often you expect to fire from defence position hiding on the hill in real war?

Depression of the M1 is 10 degrees, not 7-8. The 5 degrees difference is hugely important as can be seen in that graphic I linked to. In a real way reverse slope positions are the most important a tank can adopt. Or two step fighting holes which favour barrel depression as well.

The Soviet tank designers were as a peer group without par anywhere in the world, except perhaps Sweden and Israel. Morozov's T-64 design ruthlessly achieved the aim of massively reducing internal volume in order to reduced armoured area and subsequently weight. They did so by using compact components: an automatic loader, in-line piston engine, crazy things like limiting crew height to the bottom 35% of the male population and reducing turret height and corresponding main gun depression.

They thought they could get away with it because of the offensive and artillery centric nature of Soviet doctrine. If the tank is always advancing behind a barrage who cares about the lack of depression for defensive fires or covering fires.

How wide APSs is common in western Armies? Did you hear ever about supersonic ATGMs (Chrizantema, Vikhr, BMPT's Ataka) , which is not countered by any contemporal APS?

Supersonic is no big deal. RAFAEL Trophy can knock out supersonic missiles. High speed just requires longer range sensors. Western APS use phased array radars that can detect the incoming at more than enough range.

 

[Chrom]

Russian tanks of the T-64 family need to have the extra protection of APS/ERA to counter the higher level of exposure they must take on the battlefield to have firing arcs. The lack of barrel depression cause by extremely low roof hight means these tanks cannot take advantage of terrain masking like a western tank. The best armour is a hill...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cc/Hull_down_tank_diagram.png

I wouldn't want to rely too much on APS for ATGM defence. There are ways ATGMs can counter APS and successful interception of high velocity projectiles is a lot harder than a rather slow missile or RPG.

The difference in exposure is very slim in real situtation, and can be completely avoided even with VERY minimal position preparation which you must do in defence anyway. Plus, with APS/ERA Russian tanks get MORE protection than western counterparts, and that is whats matter. Moreover, except rare case of unprepared defence in bad front-up position russian tanks actually are LESS exposed than western tanks, and always have wider best-protected arc (russian tanks have wider protected arc frontally). APS can reliably protect tank against current portable AT missiles, but ofc AT missilles continue development, same as APS and ERA.

I must stress it - small gun depression on soviet tanks was not becouse of inheritly "offencive" thinking of russian designers - contrary, in prepared defence the impact of low depression is minimal. Actually, these 5%-6% can hurt more when firing on-the-move during attack due to rought terrain.

 

[AGRA]

The difference in exposure is very slim in real situtation, and can be completely avoided even with VERY minimal position preparation which you must do in defence anyway.

Absolute nonsense. If you have to stop and do a bit of digging at every location in order not to expose your vehicles you are going to suffer very badly. The T-64 design is very good for driving into attack and prepared defence (as long as you have a lot of short guys in your army) but in any kind of engagement in between the two is at a disadvantage.

Using terrain to your advantage is what separates good tankers from losers – when the tank places you at a severe disadvantage because of its design then that will decrease your overall viability. Its not just used in defence but in providing a firing position to cover the move forward of your other units. Sure you don’t have to do this but then if the enemy is not suppressed by a huge artillery bombardment they will shoot you up as you move forward.

I must stress it - small gun depression on soviet tanks was not becouse of inheritly "offencive" thinking of russian designers - contrary, in prepared defence the impact of low depression is minimal. Actually, these 5%-6% can hurt more when firing on-the-move during attack due to rought terrain.

More nonsense – these tanks were designed in the late 1950s, early 1960s. T-72 was a low cost variant, T-80 improved, T-90 improved T-72 and so on. The fundamental design has not changed in almost 50 years. The spec given at this time was in-line with the Soviet Army’s offensive strategy – and was very effective, certainly would have turned NATO into a nasty red smear on West Germany anytime up until late 1990.

Plus, with APS/ERA Russian tanks get MORE protection than western counterparts, and that is whats matter.

APS and ERA are only cover-ups to systematic compromises in the survivability of the T-64 family of tanks. They are limited use applications compared to good armour, combustible ammunition compartmentalisation, and being able to use terrain to your benefit. They are also not purely the domain of the Russian tanks and can be just as easily added to western vehicles – many of which have already done so – providing even higher levels of protection.

Besides its all really academic. If any T-90S was to go up against a western force we would detect it first and quickly target it for destruction with our C4ISR system. The 500lb guided bomb that hits the roof of the T-90S is not going to be stopped by APS or ERA.

 

[extern]

Supersonic is no big deal. RAFAEL Trophy can knock out supersonic missiles. High speed just requires longer range sensors. Western APS use phased array radars that can detect the incoming at more than enough range.

The Israelis claim too much. Sometimes it's too far from to be real. Another Israeli company IMI even claims, its 'Iron Fist' APS can hit an income APFSDS rod ( http://www.imi-israel.com/news.aspx?FolderID=73&docID=692 ). So get away from armor and go for Israeli goods
The problem with supersonic interception is not only the ESA radar (russian Arena uses ESA for years apropos), but the need for discrimination between actual and false targets. If it reacts to supersonic missile, so it will naturally react also to 30 mm autocannon rounds, to 125 mm HEATs etc. Ha-ha, the Trophy promoters initially didnt claim anti-supersonic capabilities. only after their Israeli competitor was rised with Iron Fist, they started speak about 'all kind of missiles'.

 

[Waylander]

Height of the crew shouldn't be a problem.
While overall interior space is for sure more limited in the Ts it still allows bigger people to operate them.

My father served on T-55 and T-72 without problems with its 1,85m and he was not the tallest or only one.

 

[extern]

Height of the crew shouldn't be a problem.
While overall interior space is for sure more limited in the Ts it still allows bigger people to operate them. My father served on T-55 and T-72 without problems with its 1,85m and he was not the tallest or only one.

Oh! is your family is from the former GDR? We in USSR allways had great respect for the Eastern Germans, starting from the youth contacts and ending by the industrial cooperation.

OK, the 'crampy' T-72 space - is a part of the mythology. In reality since T-72 has only 3 member crew, and a loader needs a lot of space for his work (much more, then the driver for example), T-72 seems to be only slightly behind Abrams in space per capita ratio, of course if to except a loader from an equation.

The same situation is - with the allegedly lack of defence. If one look on the T-90 turret, he see, the turret dimention allow for T-90 to be with the same or better (if with ERA) protection then any western tank.

You can look now on the comparison sketch of T-90 and Merkava-IV turrets in similar scale (pic 1). You can see that even without ERA the dimention of the frontal armor is very close to the heaviest Western Tank.

(pic 2-3) The geometric frontal and lateral cross-section of the Russian T-tanks is much lesser, then on the Western tanks (with exept of Leclerq). So, even a Western MBT fire hiding behind the hill, its big turret is still visible and can become a target as well.

 

[Waylander]

Jup, I was the first male family member joining the Bundeswehr army causing my granddad (Former colonel in the NVA) and the rest of my male family members (All with some years experience in the NVA) making some interesting comments...

 

[Chrom]

Absolute nonsense. If you have to stop and do a bit of digging at every location in order not to expose your vehicles you are going to suffer very badly. The T-64 design is very good for driving into attack and prepared defence (as long as you have a lot of short guys in your army) but in any kind of engagement in between the two is at a disadvantage.

Using terrain to your advantage is what separates good tankers from losers – when the tank places you at a severe disadvantage because of its design then that will decrease your overall viability. Its not just used in defence but in providing a firing position to cover the move forward of your other units. Sure you don’t have to do this but then if the enemy is not suppressed by a huge artillery bombardment they will shoot you up as you move forward.

In absolutely most cases T-xx series tanks can use terrain advatage just as well as other western tanks. As i said, there are RARE exceptions. Saying " in any kind of engagement in between the two is at a disadvantage" is obviosly GREATLY overestimating the likehood of such event. Moreover, in MOST over cases (i.e. then tank is NOT standing still on UNPREPARED position, FRONT UP) western tanks are MORE exposed. And let me tell you, the likehood of such event is much higher. Now, you dont admit it? Dont you also think what western tanks should have something to compensate for THAT vulnerability? Something what should compensate for SMALLER best-protected frontal arc?

More nonsense – these tanks were designed in the late 1950s, early 1960s. T-72 was a low cost variant, T-80 improved, T-90 improved T-72 and so on. The fundamental design has not changed in almost 50 years. The spec given at this time was in-line with the Soviet Army’s offensive strategy – and was very effective, certainly would have turned NATO into a nasty red smear on West Germany anytime up until late 1990.

Yes, that is why T-xx series have some deficiences. But lets not exxagerate them, or bring here imaginable ones.

APS and ERA are only cover-ups to systematic compromises in the survivability of the T-64 family of tanks. They are limited use applications compared to good armour, combustible ammunition compartmentalisation, and being able to use terrain to your benefit.

As i said, lets not bring imaginable defeciences. And lets not generalize them in West vs East subject.
1. Good armor - as we now know T-xx serie composite armor was/is just as good as counterporary western armor. No need to cover up anything here.
2. Combustible ammunition compartmentalisation - a real plus of SOME (but not all!) western tanks. For example, counterporay Leo HAD NOT Combustible ammunition compartmentalisation. Leclerc also store large part of its ammo NOT in separate compartment.
3. And being able to use terrain to your benefit - i already covered it. In most cases T-xx actually can use terrain BETTER than western tanks due to lower siluette. You concentrate only on ONE case where western tank have advatange and completely ignore 10 other much more likely cases where T-xx have advantage in terrain using.

They are also not purely the domain of the Russian tanks and can be just as easily added to western vehicles – many of which have already done so – providing even higher levels of protection.

Sure. But they didnt. Becouse they didnt developed ERA/APS. For whatever reason - political shortsightness, lack of fund, lack of scientific know-how...

Besides its all really academic. If any T-90S was to go up against a western force we would detect it first and quickly target it for destruction with our C4ISR system. The 500lb guided bomb that hits the roof of the T-90S is not going to be stopped by APS or ERA.

LALALA. It is much more likely what M1A2 will be destroyed by russian MLRS or tactical missiles which have much faster responce time and much harder to avoid. And USA fighters will be brought down by S-300. And NEW-York will be nuked to glass anyway. If you want to degrade the discussion of tank warfare to "whoever have better aviation/artillery/ICBM's"...

 

[AGRA]

OK, the 'crampy' T-72 space - is a part of the mythology.

Thanks and to Waylander for the clarification. That the T-64-90 family can only fit midgets (under 150cm) is a common perception in the west. While I’ve scrambled all over a T-72 we weren’t allowed inside…

The same situation is - with the allegedly lack of defence. If one look on the T-90 turret, he see, the turret dimention allow for T-90 to be with the same or better (if with ERA) protection then any western tank.

Only when sitting on level ground. Which is the front profile for an advancing or retreating tank but not a western tank in the primarily tactical position, on the reserve slope. If you actually put a high depression tank (-10 deg) or one designed for the reserves slope like the S-Tank or Merkava on the ground angle it will be on behind any type of fold in the ground you will find the turret profile is much less. This is why the Merkava has the wedge shaped turret gradually rising. It’s a 3m high tank but on a reverse slope you will only have a few cm exposed above the gun barrel.

In absolutely most cases T-xx series tanks can use terrain advatage just as well as other western tanks. As i said, there are RARE exceptions.

This is tactical nonsense – or maybe just the way the Soviets trained to fight? In western armies tankers are trained to find the reserves slope position to fire from, be it in defence or in firing in support of an attack. The Merkava turret is designed entirely from the perspective of being in a reverse slope position.

You can cling to this supposition as much as you want but it’s not the way we are trained to, will and have fought. The reverse slope IS the primary un-prepared fighting position of a western tank force. Our tanks are designed for it and even the latest tank the Korean K2 ‘Black Panther’ adds a height adjustable suspension that even increases reverse slope protection by allowing for higher slope angles to be utilised.

1. Good armor - as we now know T-xx serie composite armor was/is just as good as counterporary western armor. No need to cover up anything here.

Crap. No way the composite armour on the T-64-90 is chronologically equal to those in the west.

2. Combustible ammunition compartmentalisation - a real plus of SOME (but not all!) western tanks. For example, counterporay Leo HAD NOT Combustible ammunition compartmentalisation. Leclerc also store large part of its ammo NOT in separate compartment.

Which is a great problem for the Leopard 2 but not the M1A1/A2, CR2, Merkava Mk 3/4 which either have all combustible ammunition compartmentalised or stored in armoured bins or individual containers. The T-64-90 tanks even go so far as to having the turret crew sit on the ammunition and have spare sections strapped to surfaces behind their heads!

This is why T-72s after penetration have a very high frequency of catastrophic detonation. There are have been plenty of M1A1/A2, CR2, Merkava Mk 3/4 penetrated by the enemy but no catastrophic detonations, none causing crew deaths. The tanks and their crews are returned to action after being knocked out whereas the T-72s became funeral pyres.

Sure. But they didnt. Becouse they didnt developed ERA/APS. For whatever reason - political shortsightness, lack of fund, lack of scientific know-how...

Ahh ERA? Who developed that? Actually it was the Germans – and the Israelis were the first to field it… How many T-64-90s have actually being delivered to users with APS? And from what time? In the 1970s? When the west had Chobham armour tanks and the Soviets were resorting to filling pockets in the cast steel turrets with Styrofoam hoping it would keep a 66mm HEAT rocket out? Even then most of the factories didn’t have the Styrofoam so just delivered the tanks with empty armour pockets…

LALALA. It is much more likely what M1A2 will be destroyed by russian MLRS or tactical missiles which have much faster responce time and much harder to avoid. And USA fighters will be brought down by S-300. And NEW-York will be nuked to glass anyway. If you want to degrade the discussion of tank warfare to "whoever have better aviation/artillery/ICBM's"...

Not quite. The battle for air supremacy is primarily fought in the electronic spectrum and the lack of serious investment in the past 15 years and computing power has lead to a serious shortfall in the Russian systems ability to even come close to challenging those of the west. When one loses air superiority then one loses the capacity to lay down systematic artillery barrages as was seen with Hezbollah shooting individual 107mm rockets from within bushes – nice terror tactics but woeful and non existent suppression of the IDF.

If Russia is going to resort to nuclear weapons it will get more than it can take back on its own cities. While nuclear weapons will mean the US and Russia will never go to war on the scale of WW2/GPW it doesn’t stop proxy wars or other engagements in which these weapons will get a work out.

From a minor sense and a macro sense the west currently has significant to total military technical supremacy. I also doubt the Russian’s have maintained their superiority in the practice of operational art allowing them to conduct stunning manoeuvres that confound slower moving and more predictable western militaries.

 

[AGRA]

If it reacts to supersonic missile, so it will naturally react also to 30 mm autocannon rounds, to 125 mm HEATs etc. Ha-ha, the Trophy promoters initially didnt claim anti-supersonic capabilities. only after their Israeli competitor was rised with Iron Fist, they started speak about 'all kind of missiles'.

No problem. The type of radar system in Trophy has no problems discriminating between a shell and a missile, no matter what speed, within the range required to launch a countermeasure against a supersonic incoming. Lack of access to high power computing and complex software is a real bitch, sometimes I feel sorry for the Russian’s trying to achieve through brute force or engineering elegance what software can do and more.

Besides even if it didn't who cares. You launch a countermeasure anyway... Trophy is also able to defeat 120mm/125mm HEAT projectiles and in the latest version KE projectiles.

The Hard Kill (HK) mechanism of Trophy and other western APS is far more effective than those of Russian APS like Arena and doesn’t relay on a spray of splinters (creating a danger zone around the tank to friendly and civilian forces) and other low effect countermeasures that can only stop some of the more vulnerable types of missiles. The HK of Trophy is highly accurate and highly lethal.

Also because Trophy HK is not an area weapon there are a large number of units available to fire against incomings from all angles and in barrages. Once you’ve launched your frontal arc Arena you can’t do anything. Trophy can keep on engaging in the same arc until it runs out of all HK shots.

Compared to Tophy Arena is expensive antiquated junk.

 

[Chrom]

Only when sitting on level ground. Which is the front profile for an advancing or retreating tank but not a western tank in the primarily tactical position, on the reserve slope. If you actually put a high depression tank (-10 deg) or one designed for the reserves slope like the S-Tank or Merkava on the ground angle it will be on behind any type of fold in the ground you will find the turret profile is much less. This is why the Merkava has the wedge shaped turret gradually rising. It’s a 3m high tank but on a reverse slope you will only have a few cm exposed above the gun barrel.

This is tactical nonsense – or maybe just the way the Soviets trained to fight? In western armies tankers are trained to find the reserves slope position to fire from, be it in defence or in firing in support of an attack. The Merkava turret is designed entirely from the perspective of being in a reverse slope position.

You can train all you want - but tank MUST move between your so called "unprepared positions in reverse slope what also make difference between 6% and 9-10% depression". See how NARROW such case? Moreover, tank what DONT move is easy prey... and dont tell me it isnt becouse only few pages before you talked about allmightly artillery and aviation what will kill anything standing even on PREPARED postion. How you want to attack/change position? How you will defend without mobility? Again, you case is very isolotated. It is BEST IDEAL case - but also most unlikely case no matter how well trained are the tankers. And if western tankers want to achieve anything meaningfull while STATICALY DEFENDING only... and even STATICALY DEFENDING ON REVERSE SLOPES only... i'll say LOL. They already lost in such case.

As for 3m... ya, it is true IF you find suitable cover. But if not? Most plains have about 1m ground cover, and anything above 1m IS exposed. It easy to see how much advantage give lower siluette to T-xx series in average case.

You can cling to this supposition as much as you want but it’s not the way we are trained to, will and have fought. The reverse slope IS the primary un-prepared fighting position of a western tank force. Our tanks are designed for it and even the latest tank the Korean K2 ‘Black Panther’ adds a height adjustable suspension that even increases reverse slope protection by allowing for higher slope angles to be utilised.

As i said, you can train all you want but reality is something different.

Crap. No way the composite armour on the T-64-90 is chronologically equal to those in the west.

You sure know what T-xx series PIONEERED composite armor? What they have composite armore DECADES before western tanks? What T-64B/ T80U/T80UD composite armor gave BETTER protection than counterporary M1/M1A1/Leo tanks? It is not a secret now, you know...

Which is a great problem for the Leopard 2 but not the M1A1/A2, CR2, Merkava Mk 3/4 which either have all combustible ammunition compartmentalised or stored in armoured bins or individual containers. The T-64-90 tanks even go so far as to having the turret crew sit on the ammunition and have spare sections strapped to surfaces behind their heads!

This is sure one of T-xx problem, just not generalize it over West vs East.

This is why T-72s after penetration have a very high frequency of catastrophic detonation. There are have been plenty of M1A1/A2, CR2, Merkava Mk 3/4 penetrated by the enemy but no catastrophic detonations, none causing crew deaths. The tanks and their crews are returned to action after being knocked out whereas the T-72s became funeral pyres.

There was rather few "catastrophic detonation" on t-72 series. Sure, they have much higher chance than M1xx series. But most so-called "catastrophic detonation" on t-72 series are just regular fire burn-out, which also happend pretty often with M1xx and Mercava series after penetration.

Ahh ERA? Who developed that? Actually it was the Germans – and the Israelis were the first to field it… How many T-64-90s have actually being delivered to users with APS? And from what time? In the 1970s? When the west had Chobham armour tanks and the Soviets were resorting to filling pockets in the cast steel turrets with Styrofoam hoping it would keep a 66mm HEAT rocket out? Even then most of the factories didn’t have the Styrofoam so just delivered the tanks with empty armour pockets…

It was russian. It is undediable. Well documented, etc/ Experemental works started as early as in 20x, more or less matured in 60x. Wasnt fielded due to all common fears of "explosives on the tank armor", infanty injures, etc. Israel first fielded it - after that the resistance of soviet generals was broken and ERA got in service less than HALF year after Israel used it. More advanced ERA than Israel ones.
Chobham armor, etc... now the RHA armor estimates of M1 and M1A1 with so-called Chobham armor are pretty well known. They was worse protected than counterporary T-64B/T-80B/T-80UD. As for tanks with empty pockets... well, nonsense. Again, let me remind you - USSR used composite armor DECADES before M1.

Not quite. The battle for air supremacy is primarily fought in the electronic spectrum and the lack of serious investment in the past 15 years and computing power has lead to a serious shortfall in the Russian systems ability to even come close to challenging those of the west. When one loses air superiority then one loses the capacity to lay down systematic artillery barrages as was seen with Hezbollah shooting individual 107mm rockets from within bushes – nice terror tactics but woeful and non existent suppression of the IDF.

We are not speaking about CURRENT situation in Russia aviation. Still i must point out what russian radars and SAM network are at least as good as NATO ones. NATO aviation datalink get superior only 5-6 years ago - before they was inferior or absent at all. And even that superior datalink is not THAT suprior. S-300/S-400 serie is for sure superior to PAC-2/PAC-3 serie, and have numerical superiority. West have nothing like "Grad", "Smerch", "Iskander" - at least not to same scale. Russian artillery is STILL best in the world. Now, what else you want? And USA reliance to GPS weapon... especeally in case of war with Russia.. LOL.

If Russia is going to resort to nuclear weapons it will get more than it can take back on its own cities. While nuclear weapons will mean the US and Russia will never go to war on the scale of WW2/GPW it doesn’t stop proxy wars or other engagements in which these weapons will get a work out.

Now, you want me convince what Russia cant win a war with a whole world? Sure, it cant. But not becouse some T-xx series defeciency, or bad aviation. Numbers - whats why such win is impossible.

From a minor sense and a macro sense the west currently has significant to total military technical supremacy.

As i said, military supremacy mainly cuz of pure superior numbers, not military technic superiority.

I also doubt the Russian’s have maintained their superiority in the practice of operational art allowing them to conduct stunning manoeuvres that confound slower moving and more predictable western militaries.

Russian trained for such warfare, so why not? I can also doubt what NATO armies can "conduct slower moving and more predictable manouvering" in real war///

 

[AGRA]

Moreover, tank what DONT move is easy prey... and dont tell me it isnt becouse only few pages before you talked about allmightly artillery and aviation what will kill anything standing even on PREPARED postion. How you want to attack/change position? How you will defend without mobility?

Yes that’s terrible if said tank was fighting all by itself…

Fortunately but is the concept of an ‘army’ in which case a range of individuals and units all work together to achieve a desired aim – in this case using the practice of ‘Fire and Movement’. Several tanks remain stationary in their reverse slope position surveilling the threat area ready to immediately engage in precise fire against any target – or doing so – while other tanks move forward and find their own reverse slope position in advance of the covering tank. Once they are in position the covering tank moves forward and ‘leapfrogs’ the tank on a reverse slope position and begins to move forward. There are variations on this theme but the basics are the same.

As for 3m... ya, it is true IF you find suitable cover. But if not? Most plains have about 1m ground cover, and anything above 1m IS exposed. It easy to see how much advantage give lower siluette to T-xx series in average case.

Nonsense the world is a bumpily place even in supposed flat areas like plains and deserts.

ou sure know what T-xx series PIONEERED composite armor? What they have composite armore DECADES before western tanks? What T-64B/ T80U/T80UD composite armor gave BETTER protection than counterporary M1/M1A1/Leo tanks? It is not a secret now, you know...

Maybe its not a secret in Russian self-propaganda but its total garbage. Just as the Soviets had little difficulties using espionage to sample western Chobham armour so do we with yours. It offered far less protection than the special ceramic tiles in a steel matrix of western tanks. The fillers of the Soviet samples offered only marginal extra protection against HEAT warheads and none of the abrasive nose break up against KE penetrators.

This is sure one of T-xx problem, just not generalize it over West vs East.

It is a generalisation because western tanks are designed for survivability. The Leoaprd 2 and Leclerc may have ammunition stored in a carousel (horizontal axis) but its in the most heavily armoured part of the tank, the glacis with strong side armour. Unlike the T-64-90 tanks where its in the middle and quite vulnerable to lateral fires.

There was rather few "catastrophic detonation" on t-72 series. Sure, they have much higher chance than M1xx series. But most so-called "catastrophic detonation" on t-72 series are just regular fire burn-out, which also happend pretty often with M1xx and Mercava series after penetration.

A few? How many T-72s did the Yugoslavians and Iraqis lose in battle? If it was such a minor problem why did the Russian army launch a special investigation. Which came up with a solution – change the ammunition – but because of the impoverished state of the Russian defence industry has not being implemented…

It was russian. It is undediable. Well documented, etc/ Experemental works started as early as in 20x, more or less matured in 60x. Wasnt fielded due to all common fears of "explosives on the tank armor", infanty injures, etc. Israel first fielded it - after that the resistance of soviet generals was broken and ERA got in service less than HALF year after Israel used it. More advanced ERA than Israel ones.

Well its not the first occasion when two or more different engineers have come up with the same solution. Even then ERA is only a band aide to a problem, multiple strike attacks counter ERA quite effectively.

But why no further mention of APS? Because the Soviet/Russian systems are ineffective? Admittedly you got them into service quicker than wester APS but since its just Claymore mines bolted on the outside of tanks that wasn’t hard…

Chobham armor, etc... now the RHA armor estimates of M1 and M1A1 with so-called Chobham armor are pretty well known. They was worse protected than counterporary T-64B/T-80B/T-80UD. As for tanks with empty pockets... well, nonsense. Again, let me remind you - USSR used composite armor DECADES before M1.

Yes and it was crap armour… US experimental tanks in the 1950s had early composite armour but they weren’t mass-produced because of the limited additional benefit.

We are not speaking about CURRENT situation in Russia aviation.

We aren’t? What are we talking about then? Bizzaro world? Seems like it…

 

[Waylander]

In fact the frontal hull of the Leo is not the best protected part of the tank. Not on the Leos till A4 and the gap is even wider when we talk about A5 and A6. Only with the adaption of additional hull armor (Strv 122, Leo IIA5DK, Leo IIE and Leo IIHEL) this weakness has changed a bit.
And the ammo is not in a carousel but in a normal ammo holder next to left of the driver. So when your hull is penetrated either the ammo or the driver (Or both) is affected.

And Merks also caused nearly catastrophic ammo explosions during the Lebanon operation.
The problem is the reserve ammo normally transported in the rear section. If the enemy gets a shot at the rear section of the tank and penetrates it can rip a Merk literally apart.

 

[extern]

In fact the frontal hull of the Leo is not the best protected part of the tank. Not on the Leos till A4 and the gap is even wider when we talk about A5 and A6. Only with the adaption of additional hull armor (Strv 122, Leo IIA5DK, Leo IIE and Leo IIHEL) this weakness has changed a bit.

It's not problem of Leo2 only. Any MBT has weaken areas on the frontal armor, including M1A2, Merkava-IV etc. You can well see the sKetches with the pictured weaken zones: 1-2) Abrams 3) Abrams vs Type-90 4) MerkIV

 

[extern]

No problem. The type of radar system in Trophy has no problems discriminating between a shell and a missile, no matter what speed, within the range required to launch a countermeasure against a supersonic incoming.
Besides even if it didn't who cares. You launch a countermeasure anyway... Trophy is also able to defeat 120mm/125mm HEAT projectiles and in the latest version KE projectiles.

You claim too much, even the developer of Meil Ruakh (Trophy) doesnt say, it can to kill KE.

The Hard Kill (HK) mechanism of Trophy and other western APS is far more effective than those of Russian APS like Arena and doesn’t relay on a spray of splinters (creating a danger zone around the tank to friendly and civilian forces) and other low effect countermeasures that can only stop some of the more vulnerable types of missiles. The HK of Trophy is highly accurate and highly lethal.

The kill mechanism of Trophy is just the same like of Russian Arena or Drozd APS. Anyone can see it on the picture. And the coming RPGs kill DOES dangers the infantry since it makes them blown.