The Soviet Tank Gamble

[Tavarisch]

It occurs to me that Soviet designers emphasize somewhat on low-hulls. The principle here is that the tank's low profile should make it harder to hit. But looking back on the previous Gulf Wars, the gamble hasn't paid off. T-72s , T-62s and T-55s still got their turrets blown off jack-in-the-box style, but several other factors play a role here as well.

But think about it, the entire purpose of a low hull is to give it a low-profile right? On a reverse slope position, the gun depression has to be low. Low profile of Soviet tanks means not being able to depress the gun very far down. This forces the tank to go either slightly forwards on the slope to be able to target enemies from hull-down which in this case negates the low-profile in the first place, or attempt a near-suicidal assault and charge over the slope while the enemy flings 120mm Sabots and TOW missile at you.

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.

This question in turn leads to another one. The low-profile of Soviet tanks has lead to a severe space problem within the tank, which is why some of the ammo is inside the fighting compartment. Very dangerous, as we have seen in the past few years. (Chechenya, Iraq, Georgia) 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?

Hopefully, any credible new design that isn't top-secret or based on rumors corrects this principle flaw.

Please, lads and ladies debate this topic with a modicum of civility. Surely enough there is credible evidence as to why this design is still overlooked?

 

[Chrom]

It
Please, lads and ladies debate this topic with a modicum of civility. Surely enough there is credible evidence as to why this design is still overlooked?

You portray tank as purery defencive weapon (far from being the case), and even that defencive weapon in quite isolated cirumstances. For example, marginaly prepared position will allow soviet tanks to take "hull down" position just as well as western tanks. Even unprepared position will give large benefit to soviet tank - funny, even more than for western tanks due to, exactly, lower hull. Average 1-1.5m roughness will give for T-72 almost 2 times better protection than for M-60 or even M1.

But of course soviet style viewed tank mainly as offensive (in tactical definition) weapon, leaving defensive actions largerly to self-propelled artillery or specialized anti-tank vehicles.

In all cases (offensive of defensive) soviets emphased the need for mobility.

Thus, they likes for smaller hulls as it gives very substancial advantage while being on the move - either attacking, or just relocating to different position after succesful shot.
In war against competent, equal enemy tank dug in discovered position - dangerless dead tank.

Always remember - hull down firing from unprepared position is quite isolated case in tank-to-tank battles.

As for ammo near the crew... this have very little to do with space. M60 or Leopard examples (even newer than T-64/T-72), which also had they ammo stored together with crew, or newer modernizations of T-72/T-90 - which separates ammo from crew - shows us what lack of space do not prevent separation ammo from the crew.

Face it, T-64/T-72 is ancient design, developed in years when noone had such feature as separate ammo compartment. In normal case, if USSR continues exists, in early 90x we would see new, revolutionary design in soviet service with all current gizmos like separate ammo, APS, ERA, thermals, etc. Just about in same time as (some of) such features became widespread between Western armies.

 

[Tavarisch]

You portray tank as purery defencive weapon (far from being the case), and even that defencive weapon in quite isolated cirumstances. For example, marginaly prepared position will allow soviet tanks to take "hull down" position just as well as western tanks. Even unprepared position will give large benefit to soviet tank - funny, even more than for western tanks due to, exactly, lower hull. Average 1-1.5m roughness will give for T-72 almost 2 times better protection than for M-60 or even M1.

But of course soviet style viewed tank mainly as offensive (in tactical definition) weapon, leaving defensive actions largerly to self-propelled artillery or specialized anti-tank vehicles.

In all cases (offensive of defensive) soviets emphased the need for mobility.

Thus, they likes for smaller hulls as it gives very substancial advantage while being on the move - either attacking, or just relocating to different position after succesful shot.
In war against competent, equal enemy tank dug in discovered position - dangerless dead tank.

Always remember - hull down firing from unprepared position is quite isolated case in tank-to-tank battles.

The fact is assaulting a target that is on the other side of the reverse slope is very risky. Yes, the Soviet Tank is for offense, but Soviet commanders know better than to simply go over a reverse slope and get themselves killed. Usual tactics dictate that 2 tanks in a platoon will be in cover providing support fire or observation from the slope, whiles the other two or three will perform the assault. The fact is that the ineffective barrel depression requires the T-series a more prepared hull-down position, consuming time. In the amount of time that is used for preparation, an enemy unit can a) go around you or b) Charge right at you while you get your entrenching tool out.

The question of impromptu defense comes to mind. What if your S2 staff just reported an entire platoon of heavies coming down about 200m your way and you're on a slope? The Abrams maybe a fuel-hungry beast, but it's pretty fast for 68 tonnes. It can probably cover the distance fast enough to over-run the entire platoon on the reverse slope.

With more precise weapons being used and developed on ground, I think the T-72 turret is still quite a presentable target at hull-down. This is because in an unprepared state, the tank's gun depression is not good enough, meaning that the tank must move further up the slope and present more of it's surface area, given that the T-72 doesn't have any time to prepare, which is most likely the case. This completely negates the small profile of the T-72 in the reverse slope situation. So, what we can infer is that the low-hull makes reverse slope battles harder for Soviet Armor.

In any case, mobility maybe a factor, but Western FCS for tanks tend to be sophisticated enough to smoothly track a T-72 at full-speed and blow it up.

Even then, another danger presents itself in full. Cramped fighting compartment which also has ammo in it. By having a separated ammo compartment, it would be much safer. Sure, the tank may still be useless if the compartment blows up, but at least you save three men to fight another day. Oh, and you save yourself the bother of locating the Flying Turret as well. (well, not really. In most cases, the turret just lands where it used to be.)

Oh, and who says the ammo isn't separate from the crew on NATO tanks? As far as I know, the Leo 2, Abrams and Chally 2 feature this.

 

[Firn]

This is a topic which should be governed by reason not false pride.

Some soviet tanker experience in WWII:

We changed direction there and headed towards Dvinsk. We did not attack. It was very rare that we had to advance in a classical manner against organized defense lines. The Germans usually arranged some ambush, where they used “ArtStorms", sort of self-propelled artillery equipped with 75 mm guns. They moved quietly, had low-profile construction and easily disguised, were extremely hard to detect. We advanced in a march column order, as an advance point, a few tanks in front, the others at some distance. If the Germans arranged an ambush that meant that advance point would be knocked out surely. Those alive would get out, remaining tanks would open fire. However where to shoot? God knows! Germans already disappeared. After some shooting, we would fold up into a march column again and be after them. Once caught up with the enemy we would annihilate them.

Once we came across such an ambush. Two tanks, which were ahead of us, were burnt, the third one was retreating firing back. They stuck a billet right under the turret bed and it caught fire. Meantime we turned away from the road, the engines died, ran out of fuel. That is why we heard people scream inside the burning machine.

On the tactical defence a AFV with a low profile is easier to camouflage and to hide. The Stridsvagn 103 for example was based on the great successes of the Stugs and was built for such ambushes from hull-down positions. The latter would have been more difficult to achieve for the T-80 in an fluid battle.

All in all the soviet tank designs features have to be seen as part of whole and in context with the Soviet doctrine.

The very basics of the defense

 

[Tavarisch]

This is a topic which should be governed by reason not false pride.

Some soviet tanker experience in WWII:



On the tactical defence a AFV with a low profile is easier to camouflage and to hide. The Stridsvagn 103 for example was based on the great successes of the Stugs and was built for such ambushes from hull-down positions. The latter would have been more difficult to achieve for the T-80 in an fluid battle.

All in all the soviet tank designs features have to be seen as part of whole and in context with the Soviet doctrine.

The very basics of the defense

Allow me to point out the fact that we are strictly talking about reverse slopes. Of course a 103 is easier to hide and conceal on relatively flat land, but how does one go about doing it on a reverse slope whereby the elevation is a disadvantage?

Soviet Doctrine clearly dictates a massive tank assault to break through enemy lines. Clearly this was mainly for the open plains of Germany. What of hilly terrain?

 

[Firn]

Allow me to point out the fact that we are strictly talking about reverse slopes. Of course a 103 is easier to hide and conceal on relatively flat land, but how does one go about doing it on a reverse slope whereby the elevation is a disadvantage?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fARGfVA7Mm8"]Stridsvagn 103[/ame]

Soviet Doctrine clearly dictates a massive tank assault to break through enemy lines. Clearly this was mainly for the open plains of Germany. What of hilly terrain?

Soviet Doctrine was a bit more complex than a massive tank assault, but this is should not be discussed here. But soviet tanks were certainly also built to operate in concert with the other arms in terrain which isn't flat. The particular decision has to do with that a low depression and high elevation increases cost and forces other changes like a higher and heavier turret.

Defense by tanks can not be reduced on the hasty hull down position on a reversed slope. There has been and there will be a great many excellent positions, in flat, hilly or urban terrain which isn't based on a reversed slope...

I guess that much of this take comes from the tank battles of Sinai in the Yon Kippur war

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzIfK1SJQRI&feature=PlayList&p=15DB4BBDDA0F7F1F&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=2"]Yon Kippur War[/ame]

Around minute 9.

 

[kato]

Clearly this was mainly for the open plains of Germany.

60-70% of Germany is not exactly flat.

One solution would be to not stand at the top of the hill, but rush down, and once you're on the slope, you have the necessary depression. If you're doing a rushing motion anyway, it makes sense.
In a holding position firing down a slope, one could also prepare with sloped embattlements.

Also remember that the tank battalion of course doesn't travel alone. If there's discovered troops on the reserve slope - which you see once you're at the top at the latest - the accompanying artillery will have to say something about it.

 

[Feanor]

Soviet tank design was built for a single, and very specific conflict. That conflict never happened. Instead Soviet armor was used in a variety of other conflicts, and other types of terrain, often with other doctrines. Hence why the flaw is a serious drawback.

Now to get into the specifics.

The fact is assaulting a target that is on the other side of the reverse slope is very risky. Yes, the Soviet Tank is for offense, but Soviet commanders know better than to simply go over a reverse slope and get themselves killed. Usual tactics dictate that 2 tanks in a platoon will be in cover providing support fire or observation from the slope, whiles the other two or three will perform the assault. The fact is that the ineffective barrel depression requires the T-series a more prepared hull-down position, consuming time. In the amount of time that is used for preparation, an enemy unit can a) go around you or b) Charge right at you while you get your entrenching tool out.

Soviet tank platoons I believe were 3 tanks strong, with 3 platoons and a command tank to a company.

The question of impromptu defense comes to mind. What if your S2 staff just reported an entire platoon of heavies coming down about 200m your way and you're on a slope? The Abrams maybe a fuel-hungry beast, but it's pretty fast for 68 tonnes. It can probably cover the distance fast enough to over-run the entire platoon on the reverse slope.

Then the Soviet tanks would most likely withdraw, using arty, air, or AT weapons to coutner the Abrams. This is not the job they're meant for.

With more precise weapons being used and developed on ground, I think the T-72 turret is still quite a presentable target at hull-down. This is because in an unprepared state, the tank's gun depression is not good enough, meaning that the tank must move further up the slope and present more of it's surface area, given that the T-72 doesn't have any time to prepare, which is most likely the case. This completely negates the small profile of the T-72 in the reverse slope situation. So, what we can infer is that the low-hull makes reverse slope battles harder for Soviet Armor.

What time period are we talking about? More precise weapons are a feature of modern armies after the most recent RMA. The T-72 would have been phased out in the 90s as the USSR went through it's own RMA.

In any case, mobility maybe a factor, but Western FCS for tanks tend to be sophisticated enough to smoothly track a T-72 at full-speed and blow it up.

Time period.

Even then, another danger presents itself in full. Cramped fighting compartment which also has ammo in it. By having a separated ammo compartment, it would be much safer. Sure, the tank may still be useless if the compartment blows up, but at least you save three men to fight another day. Oh, and you save yourself the bother of locating the Flying Turret as well. (well, not really. In most cases, the turret just lands where it used to be.)

Oh, and who says the ammo isn't separate from the crew on NATO tanks? As far as I know, the Leo 2, Abrams and Chally 2 feature this.

All 3 being later designs then the T-72. Designs experimenting with separate compartments did exist (iirc the Soviet T-84 designs considered the option, as did the Object 640).

 

[kato]

On the Leo 2, only the ready ammo in the turret is in an armored bunker. The other 27/29 rounds are stored left of the driver in an open rack.

At least on the A4 and A5, no idea if they changed it with the A6.

 

[Chrom]

Allow me to point out the fact that we are strictly talking about reverse slopes. Of course a 103 is easier to hide and conceal on relatively flat land, but how does one go about doing it on a reverse slope whereby the elevation is a disadvantage?

Soviet Doctrine clearly dictates a massive tank assault to break through enemy lines. Clearly this was mainly for the open plains of Germany. What of hilly terrain?

No, not nessesary tank assault. Actually, soviet doctrine rather required artillery to burn passage throu enemy lines. Tanks are not meant to be used in "frontal" assault against enemy defence. Tank divisions are designed for maximum mobility, they are meant to break behind enemy lines throught ALREADY made (by artillery, aviation, etc) passage and then wreck as much havoc as possible behind enemy lines.

As for gun depression... there is no doubt what greater depression is good and give sizeable benefits. Noone questioning that. But you try to present it as "holy grail", winning answer in any situation. But reality is far from that. Gun depression is very important in rare situations and quite usefull in many other situation - but in most cases this advantage could be compensated by other means or by short preparation. As i said, there will be cases when all this is not possible or dont work - then tought luck.

Clearly, T-xx is compomise in that regard, and soviet designers thought lower siluette and weight give advantage much more often than additial gun depression.

 

[Chrom]

On the Leo 2, only the ready ammo in the turret is in an armored bunker. The other 27/29 rounds are stored left of the driver in an open rack.

At least on the A4 and A5, no idea if they changed it with the A6.

Yes, as i said separate ammo compartment is 80x designs feature, and even then keep in mind absolutely most NATO tanks didnt had it till 90x.

Moreover, there is still big question how much this separate ammo compartment really reduces crew casualities. I havent seen any credible research on that matter.

P.S. Always keep in mind time period. T-64/T-72 were great tanks for they time, untill about later 80x. Then western hull designs came ahead. In about that time USSR also planned to phase out T-64/T-72 and replace in with something new, but we all know what happened...

 

[Tavarisch]

@ Firn

Nice video, it gives me the impression that the S-tank is actually a large turret with wheels. Never knew anything about the thing, but now I do. Thanks. (PS: That depression thing is a very cool feature.)

@ Feanor

I should've added the other tank platoon to that sentence. Sorry about that.

More precise weapons, i.e weapons after the Second Gulf War. The Abrams was accurate enough at that time to actually hit a T-72. (Read a source about the M829 having serious accuracy issues before they made the M829A1 version, forgot the source)

I am was under the impression that the T-72, especially the '85 and after variants of the B production model, would still equip forward Soviet formations, such as the GSFG. Unless they had T-80s only, which wouldn't be really a surprise for.

Russian tanks still lack the ammo compartment separation. It may not be all that great, but I'm sure the crewmen would be thankful to not fly with the turret (or be burned in the process) when a penetration occurs. Current tanks in Russian service seems to still be stuck with this flaw.

@Chrom

I don't deny the fact that T-64s and T-72s were a great threat to NATO in the Cold War, but today aircraft make short work of them, much to their detriment. However, their ability to launch AT-11s would be a very useful advantage up until today. They still pose a threat, though I doubt an individual T-72B will be able to stand up to something like a Leo 2A4 in a frontal attack.

I wasn't aware of a new tank development before the Soviet collapse. Enlighten me please.

 

[Firn]

@ Firn

Nice video, it gives me the impression that the S-tank is actually a large turret with wheels. Never knew anything about the thing, but now I do. Thanks. (PS: That depression thing is a very cool feature.)

It seems the Svedish designer studied WWII very carefully and clearly noticed just how well the Stug III did and how cost-effective it was. Both the terrain and the strategic situation of Sveden suits and suited such type of AFV very well. According to Wikipedia they claimed until the spring of 1944 ~ 20000 tanks. While such numbers are alway a bit problematic there can be no doubt that it was an excellent, cost-effective AFV who was in the tactical defense very much respected by the soviet tankers as their own accouts prove.

One could perhaps remark that the Soviets built the T-55 in the spirit of the T-34 (cheap, very reliable, robust, large gun, universal tank) with a nod to the Stug III (cheap, reliable, heavily armored front, large gun, very low silhouette).

 

[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.

 

[Feanor]

More precise weapons, i.e weapons after the Second Gulf War. The Abrams was accurate enough at that time to actually hit a T-72. (Read a source about the M829 having serious accuracy issues before they made the M829A1 version, forgot the source)

You mean... after 2003?

I am was under the impression that the T-72, especially the '85 and after variants of the B production model, would still equip forward Soviet formations, such as the GSFG. Unless they had T-80s only, which wouldn't be really a surprise for.

Not 20 years later they wouldn't.

Russian tanks still lack the ammo compartment separation. It may not be all that great, but I'm sure the crewmen would be thankful to not fly with the turret (or be burned in the process) when a penetration occurs. Current tanks in Russian service seems to still be stuck with this flaw.

Because current Russian tanks in service were practically all made in the USSR, and ALL were designed in the USSR.

I don't deny the fact that T-64s and T-72s were a great threat to NATO in the Cold War, but today aircraft make short work of them, much to their detriment. However, their ability to launch AT-11s would be a very useful advantage up until today. They still pose a threat, though I doubt an individual T-72B will be able to stand up to something like a Leo 2A4 in a frontal attack.

Of course they're outdated today. The T-64 isn't even in active duty service in the Russian army. The T-62 is with the 42 MRD. But the 42nd MRD doesn't exist any more (3 motor rifles brigades have been formed out of it) and right before the recent rounds of reforms, there were rumors about T-90 deliveries to the NCMD. I would think it logical to replace the older T-62s first.

The T-72 was due to start being replaced in the 90's, with the Object 187 which was supposed to be the intergenerational tank, while the Object 195 was supposed to be the next (4th) generation tank.

I wasn't aware of a new tank development before the Soviet collapse. Enlighten me please.

Object 187(MESHWAR - Òåõíèêà - "Îáúåêò 187"), Object 640(Black Eagle T-80UM2), and Object 195(T-95) all existed in the Soviet days as projects, as far as I know.

 

[Tavarisch]

You mean... after 2003?



Not 20 years later they wouldn't.



Because current Russian tanks in service were practically all made in the USSR, and ALL were designed in the USSR.



Of course they're outdated today. The T-64 isn't even in active duty service in the Russian army. The T-62 is with the 42 MRD. But the 42nd MRD doesn't exist any more (3 motor rifles brigades have been formed out of it) and right before the recent rounds of reforms, there were rumors about T-90 deliveries to the NCMD. I would think it logical to replace the older T-62s first.

The T-72 was due to start being replaced in the 90's, with the Object 187 which was supposed to be the intergenerational tank, while the Object 195 was supposed to be the next (4th) generation tank.



Object 187(MESHWAR - Òåõíèêà - "Îáúåêò 187"), Object 640(Black Eagle T-80UM2), and Object 195(T-95) all existed in the Soviet days as projects, as far as I know.

Yeah, I was always wondering why they even bother to have T-62s in service. Why not upgrade some of those older T-64s and sell those really old T-62s to some other country? Or make them target practice.

So, the rumored T-95 project and the Ob 640 were Soviet designs? I thought they were designs made by private individual companies... Maybe if the Soviets live up till the late nineties they would've been on the Victory Day parades. But, 4th Generation tank designs are not a good reason for a communist dictatorship (at least in a de facto sense) to live on it seems. (Ironically, communism is AGAINST dictatorship)

Looks like the T-90 must have had some of it's designs from the 187, looks really similar. Would the muzzle break have made a difference at all?

 

[Feanor]

The T-90 became what the Object 187 was supposed to be. The stop-gap design combining the best features of T-72B and T-80U. Interestingly enough the original name for the Object 187 was supposed to be T-90.

 

[Tavarisch]

Was the 187 considered an economy tank like the T-72? Or was it suppose to be a economic and technological compromise between the T-72B and T-80U?

And speaking of T-80s, isn't it more economic to build a T-90 nowadays? Tests conducted state that the T-90 out performs the T-80U, though I am entirely unsure of whether this is true. 1.3 million USD for something like this is a pretty good deal if you have the money, in comparison with the T-80Us 5 million plus.

 

[StevoJH]

Was the 187 considered an economy tank like the T-72? Or was it suppose to be a economic and technological compromise between the T-72B and T-80U?

And speaking of T-80s, isn't it more economic to build a T-90 nowadays? Tests conducted state that the T-90 out performs the T-80U, though I am entirely unsure of whether this is true. 1.3 million USD for something like this is a pretty good deal if you have the money, in comparison with the T-80Us 5 million plus.

The T80 is out of production, Russia is currently only producing the T90.

 

[Tavarisch]

The T80 is out of production, Russia is currently only producing the T90.

So T-80 plants are making T-90s?