How many tank's make up 1 battalion in the Russian Army?
T-90 Tank
- Thread starter carman1877
- Start date
How many tank's make up 1 battalion in the Russian Army?
I think I've posted this on multiple occasions before. 31 tanks in a btln, 3 btlns in a rgt, 3 tank rgts and a MR rgt in a tank division (also a SAM rgt and self-prop arty rgt). There is also 1 tank btln in every MR rgt and one tank rgt in every MR division in addition to that.
There is a newer round that came out with in the last couple of years, Russian sources state that it performs better than Mango (BM-42M) and is comparable to M829A2, By their estimates. I have not seen any type of designation as of yet for this new projectile, which leads me to think that it ain`t even close to entering Russian inventory.
Well as I read T-90V has somewhat increased turret to acomodate KE lengthier rounds. Now I have read somethin about 3BM-44M and that newer BM-48 Svinjetc or something like that ... are you refering to 3BM-48 or something newer even?
And one more question ... are all 2A46M-1/2/3/4/5 variants guns of the same barell lenght?
It is not a matter of increasing late model T-90 series turrets to accomadate longer KE projectiles, that task was accomplished with modifications to the autoloader, please remember that it is located inside of the hull, the majority of it. Late model T-90 series have benefited with a all welded turret design to accomplish two things:
1. Cheaper to produce.
2. Offers better ballistic protection.
The projectile designations mentioned by you are not it, the round that Russia is working on is supposed to be a upgraded version of Mango.
No, they are of different sizes. Russian 2A46 series maingun tubes have been designed from lengths of 48caliber up to 55 caliber.
Why would not having a Panoramic sight be such a disadvantage.
Simple better field of vision more likely to survive.
For example gunner can keep an eye on whats going on in front of tank, whilst commander can look around 360 degrees for other threats.
While hunter-killer capabilities are a nice feature it can be substituted very well by an experienced TC, his binos and a good working crew.
IMHO independent TC sights really gained in importance with the introduction of small high quality thermals.
This really gives an advantage as the "all weather" (jup, the "" are intentionally
) combat capabilites are enhanced.
IMHO independent TC sights really gained in importance with the introduction of small high quality thermals.
This really gives an advantage as the "all weather" (jup, the "" are intentionally
) combat capabilites are enhanced.Well most thermals have a pretty good field of vision while placed in wide field so that cannot always be the case, if you would of made the statement for better command and control for a tank commander at night time for offensive engagements then yes. Not having a Panoramic sight for the tank commander doesn`t make the T-90 series or any other tank out there with out one any less of a tank, it all depends on your fighting style.
I agree it does not make the T 90 less of a tank but it does provide an improvement in combat ability.
Still, having the ability to look 360 degrees, day or night, without traversing the whole turret gives the tank many advantages.
1. Saves fuel, thus Commander can regular check whats at rear of him.
2. In urban areas when tank is restricted in movement, it will still have ability to check whats happening around him.
3. Importantly it will less likely alert potential targets, if the tank was well camoflaged.
I am only making the case for paranomic sight for the T 90 is because we all understand the importance of improving the crews ability to see all around. This has been and continous to be weakness of all armored vehicles.
As you stated command and control system, I have little knowledge on this system. Can you give me examples how it would improve any tanks fighting ability?
As any tank commander knows, one the most difficult things to do is night time movement, it is a challenge alone trying to follow the terrian and scan for targets, then a tank commander needs to ensure that he is keeping abreast with the rest of his platoon or tank company. This is what I liked about using one, all I had to to was scan my left or right flanks to see where my wing man or the rest of my platoon was located, no stragglers!
During engagements of multiple targets it was also pretty good when target prioritizing for my gunner.I think you can omit the urban war as reasons to have a panoramic sight. History has shown, Urban warefare is just not a tank's kettle of fish. Its not meant to fight in an urban surrounding, and its also not effective at fighting in urban surrounding, let alone being an attractive target to insurgents.
Ah, the old song "an tank has no business in urban warfare".
That's defenitely wrong.
A tank has no business in urban warfare as the primary weapon but it defenitely has it's role, and always have had this role, as a support platform for your light and mechanized infantry units.
But urban combat really wasn't the driving factor behind installing an independent TC sight. Hunter-killer capabilities have been an argument since the middle of cold wardespecially with the idea of reducing the time which is needed to service one target after another.
These days IMHO a good fully stabilizied independent TI for the TC is a must have.
There is no reason not to install it apart from saving some money. It doesn't hurt and during some situations a TC is glad to have it.
That's defenitely wrong.
A tank has no business in urban warfare as the primary weapon but it defenitely has it's role, and always have had this role, as a support platform for your light and mechanized infantry units.
But urban combat really wasn't the driving factor behind installing an independent TC sight. Hunter-killer capabilities have been an argument since the middle of cold wardespecially with the idea of reducing the time which is needed to service one target after another.
These days IMHO a good fully stabilizied independent TI for the TC is a must have.
There is no reason not to install it apart from saving some money. It doesn't hurt and during some situations a TC is glad to have it.
My friend that is where you and I differ, it is a known fact that if you take your tanks into a urbanized area be prepared to lose a bunch of them. I hear all this justification for my country placing armor into built up areas inside of Iraq and how successful we where fighting a bunch of misfits, what a bunch of crap, I can only be more thankful that the insurgents were only using RPG 7s. Fighting a better structured army inside of cities will be a major issue with tanks, hand held projectiles are becoming more and capable of causing a tank kill if not at least a mobility kill, we have placed all this additional armor protection on our tanks to where now we are at a point that they can barely move the bloody things, a uparmored LEO 2 will also suffer from this very same issue. With a better armed IFV or APC this is the route to go, a auto cannon is just as effective if not better in some circumstances, not unless you want to level the whole building structure.
With more and more budget cuts that countries are facing inregards to their militaries, you must ask yourself if you can afford to rumble your couple of million dollars worth of platform down a city street while you have someone with the capability to attack it from 360 degrees with a better handheld device. Countries need to look at a lighter vehicle with a high angle weapons system for support, I find it ironic that the Strykers are actually more effective in Iraq for flushing out insurgents over tanks, plus they are cheaper to operate and they can navigate the streets better.
Have we come to a point that we have placed to much faith in counter measure devices, could be the case.
We might be not that far away from each other as you may think.
IMHO the premier heavy support vehicle in urban areas for our infantry should be the IFV with some lighter platforms as support right down to jeeps with HMGs and GMGs.
I also like the Wiesel in this role because it offers your light infantry the ability to get a 20mm everywhere one wants it.
But, and this might be were we differ, I see a a platoon or two of tanks as a usefull addition to lets say a mechanized infantry bn.
They are still able to take more fire frontally and with the right urban combat kit they can be handy in a limited number of situations.
Bring it around a corner and put a handfull of HEs into a building which is occupied by the enemy and offers stiff resistance. Than bring it back into your lines.
Sure against a real army one is going to loose some tanks in this support role but it won't be a walk in the parkmfor your infantry units either.
Just remembering my basic engineer training brings back a whole bag of nasty ideas with which one can turn a city into a hellhole for every entering force not to talk of what our combat engineers and light infantry units are able to do.
IMHO the premier heavy support vehicle in urban areas for our infantry should be the IFV with some lighter platforms as support right down to jeeps with HMGs and GMGs.
I also like the Wiesel in this role because it offers your light infantry the ability to get a 20mm everywhere one wants it.
But, and this might be were we differ, I see a a platoon or two of tanks as a usefull addition to lets say a mechanized infantry bn.
They are still able to take more fire frontally and with the right urban combat kit they can be handy in a limited number of situations.
Bring it around a corner and put a handfull of HEs into a building which is occupied by the enemy and offers stiff resistance. Than bring it back into your lines.
Sure against a real army one is going to loose some tanks in this support role but it won't be a walk in the parkmfor your infantry units either.
Just remembering my basic engineer training brings back a whole bag of nasty ideas with which one can turn a city into a hellhole for every entering force not to talk of what our combat engineers and light infantry units are able to do.
I'd have to say that I'm closer to Waylanders thinking on this.
The issue is always one of doctrine. The same arguments have been used wrt jungle warfare and the use of MBT's. Australia in Vietnam showed that a different doctrine altered the reality. (Vietnam is a good example as both aust and the US had different philosophies and both were in theatre at the same time)
ditto for urban warfare IMO - support for the mbt is a higher priority - it doesn't neutralise the ability - just the initial employment.
eg, look at Singapores view of dealing with an MBT threat.
@gf0012-aust and Waylander
Yes I agree that if you do not have anything else available for infantry support in urban areas of operations then during the initial phase of clearing out all bad guys that tanks are a resourceful tool to use, I just feel that in this modern day there is technology in weapons systems and command and control that smaller vehicles could be used to assist in this unpleasant task. Waylander, the U.S also does this with their armor support, send out a platoon of tanks to a infantry company or attach a entire tank company to a infantry battalion. Fighting in urban scenarios is just a nasty setting for a tank crew to be in, it was always a crap shoot that your infantry support did not overlook something.
I would be interested in getting material on how Singapore handles urban environments and armor threats, does anyone have good reference material on this.
Yes I agree that if you do not have anything else available for infantry support in urban areas of operations then during the initial phase of clearing out all bad guys that tanks are a resourceful tool to use, I just feel that in this modern day there is technology in weapons systems and command and control that smaller vehicles could be used to assist in this unpleasant task. Waylander, the U.S also does this with their armor support, send out a platoon of tanks to a infantry company or attach a entire tank company to a infantry battalion. Fighting in urban scenarios is just a nasty setting for a tank crew to be in, it was always a crap shoot that your infantry support did not overlook something.
I would be interested in getting material on how Singapore handles urban environments and armor threats, does anyone have good reference material on this.
Infantry support is paramount to survival of any tank formation participating in MOUT. The Russians learned their lesson the hard way in 1994 when they rolled their armor columns into Grozney. They encountered stiff resistance from Chechen rebels, many of whom were veterans of the Soviet armed forces. On top of that, Russian communication was notoriously insecure and many of their radio transmissions were being listening into. The result was not pretty.
With that said, tanks can provide valuable direct fire support against fortified positions in urbanized terrain. Other vehicles may fill this role, and perhaps perform better at it, but we are on the subject of tanks afterall. Light anti-tank weapons are by far the biggest threat to modern day MBT in urban areas. Perhaps the availability of active defence systems will enable tanks to play a greater role.
With that said, tanks can provide valuable direct fire support against fortified positions in urbanized terrain. Other vehicles may fill this role, and perhaps perform better at it, but we are on the subject of tanks afterall. Light anti-tank weapons are by far the biggest threat to modern day MBT in urban areas. Perhaps the availability of active defence systems will enable tanks to play a greater role.
I know a guy from Taiwan that trained with Singaporeans when he was serving his 2 years. I'll ask him about it if I see him online. Problem is I haven't seen him in a few months, so can't promise I'll be able to give you an answer.