A few MBT related questions

[STURM]

Greetings everyone. I have a few questions related to MBT's here and would appreciate any feedback. Thanks.

1. Have many MBT's apart from the T-72 and T-90 have a hull escape hatch?

2. Which was the first western MBT that was fitted with a 360 degrees panaromic sight enabling a hunter killer capability?

3. Would it be accurate to say that without any ERA, the T-72 and T-90 in certain areas like the reat turret area, engine compartment, etc, can be penetrated by 25/30mm sabot rounds and shoulder fired rockets?

4. Prior to the Malaysian army's Polish made PT-91M being fitted with a SAGEM VIGY 15 panaromic sight some years ago, did any other Russian designed tanks have a 360 degrees panaromic sight?

 

[kato]

1. Have many MBT's apart from the T-72 and T-90 have a hull escape hatch?

Almost all. M1 Abrams is an exception in not having one. Offhand, Leopard 2 doesn't have one in the variants with increased mine protection (A6M etc).

2. Which was the first western MBT that was fitted with a 360 degrees panaromic sight enabling a hunter killer capability?

If we add stabilization to that tally - probably MBT70/KPz70. The 1969 prototypes had an IR-capable stabilized 360-degree panoramic sight. When the MBT70 was cancelled, a similar production system (Zeiss PERI R12) was included with the Leopard 1A4 upgrade in 1974, which probably constitutes the first production MBT with hunter-killer capacity. The Leopard 1 previously had an unstabilized 360-degree periscope (TRP-2A) since 1965.

Next one after Leo 1A4 was probably - surprise - the Argentinian TAM in 1976, equipped with a Zeiss PERI R/TA (stabilized, no IR), followed by the AMX-30B2 in 1979 and then finally the M1 Abrams in 1980 and Challenger 1 in 1983.

 

[Waylander]

The M-package for the Leopard II retains the hull escape hatch, albeit a strengthened one.

And Kato forgot to mention the Leopard 2 had a true Hunter-Killer capability right from it's production start in '79 onwards.

 

[kato]

And Kato forgot to mention the Leopard 2 had a true Hunter-Killer capability right from it's production start in '79 onwards.

Yeah, but regarding "firsts" that's irrelevant

4. Prior to the Malaysian army's Polish made PT-91M being fitted with a SAGEM VIGY 15 panaromic sight some years ago, did any other Russian designed tanks have a 360 degrees panaromic sight?

Sure ... first one would be T-62 with TKN-3 in 1959*. Not that that constitutes hunter-killer capability, as it was only stabilized in the horizontal axis (mechanically) and therefore pretty much unusable on the move. TKN-3 in upgraded versions (including TKN-3M and TKN-3V) was also used in T-64, T-72 and T-80, though neither added vertical stabilization. T-90 was the first equipped with a fully stabilized panoramic sight (PNK-4S).

*T-55 iirc used vision blocks like M48 and M60.

 

[Waylander]

Well you added the AMX-30, Abrams and Challi to your list as well...

BTW, the Abrams only got his independent commanders sight in 1992 when production of the M1A2 started.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The 1950s Conqueror heavy tank had a rotating commander's sight designed for the hunter-kill type engagement. Just it was a cupola that rotated the commander with it not a periscope. The Swedish S-Tank also had a stabilised independently rotating periscope for this type of engagement.

 

[Waylander]

But both were not true hunter-killer sights and "just" added additional observation capabilities.
The Conqueror lacked the electronics albeit his mechanical system may be described as a precursor to modern hunter-killer designs IMHO
The S-tank can never get true hunter-killer capabilities due to the nature of it's design.

 

[kato]

Well, if we allow non-stabilized simple 360-degree sights without referring to hunter-killer, we'll probably have to go to before WW2...

 

[STURM]

Appreciate all the feedback, thank you.

Is an overide function for the commander, to enable him to rapidly deal with another target whilst the gunner is engaged, a standard feature in the FCS's of all 3rd generstion Western MBTs?

As some MBTs for costs reasons dont have a thermal imager for the commander and only for the gunner, I think it would be more accurate to say that they only have a day hunter capability . Until the Indian T-90S, fitted with the Catherine thermal imager, enter service I'm not sure if any Indian MBT has a 24 hour hunter capability. For that matter what about Pakistani T-80's and Russian army T-90's, do they have a commander's thermal imager?

Found this interesting link. Not surprised at all if most here have already seen it

2A46M Autoloader: T-72 model

It explains that T-72's and T-90's are vurnerable to a massive explosions if penetrated in the hull area not because of the carousel auto-loader, as commonly assumed, but because of where the ammo is stored to feed the auto-loader. It will be interesting to see if future Russian MBTs will have a seperate ammo storage with blow out panels.

 

[Feanor]

Russian Army T-90s should be getting Catherine starting this year, or early next. Iirc Indian Army T-90s have been getting them for a while now.

 

[Waylander]

I think refers to the independent commanders sight and not the gunners main sight.

AFAIK no T-90 version which is in regular service has a seperate TI for the commander.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

But both were not true hunter-killer sights and "just" added additional observation capabilities.
The Conqueror lacked the electronics albeit his mechanical system may be described as a precursor to modern hunter-killer designs IMHO
The S-tank can never get true hunter-killer capabilities due to the nature of it's design.

Not true in the slightest. Hunter killer capability is for the commander to acquire a target off axis from the bore sight of the gun and press a button which will then bring the gunner's sight and the main gun to bear on this target. It doesn't matter if it’s an analogue or digital solution. Both the Conqueror and S-Tank could do this. For the S-Tank the commander’s sight was gyro stabilised to compensate for vehicle movement.

 

[T.C.P]

I have MBT related question as well, I think I asked this Q before but didn't get a definite answer.
What is the main function of the Russian SHTORA and if it is so effective(like the Russians claim they are) then why are no western tanks equipped with a similar system.

 

[T.C.P]

Since this is a thread about tanks, I think, I can post this here, you guys should check out the new type-59G upgrades for the Bangladeshi army.
Type 59G Main Battle Tank | Bangladesh Military Forces | BDMilitary.com - The voice of the Bangladesh Armed Forces
Type 96 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Feanor]

That's a re-tooled T-54/55 variant. Nothing special. Ukraine and Russia have been offering complete rebuilds with a ton of new toys for years now. Iirc Peru recently went for a Ukranian offer along those lines.

TCP I feel stupid linking you to wikipedia, but in a nutshell it has the basics right, and it saves me typing a paragraph. [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shtora"]Shtora - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:VDayParade2009.jpg" class="image"><img alt="VDayParade2009.jpg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/15/VDayParade2009.jpg/300px-VDayParade2009.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/1/15/VDayParade2009.jpg/300px-VDayParade2009.jpg[/ame]

Just fyi for simple stuff like that you can always google.com

 

[T.C.P]

I read the wikipedia thing before, anyways the main part of my Q was why doesn't any Western tank have any similar system, I mean even the Chinese Type-96G and type 99 have one.

 

[Waylander]

Not true in the slightest. Hunter killer capability is for the commander to acquire a target off axis from the bore sight of the gun and press a button which will then bring the gunner's sight and the main gun to bear on this target. It doesn't matter if it’s an analogue or digital solution. Both the Conqueror and S-Tank could do this. For the S-Tank the commander’s sight was gyro stabilised to compensate for vehicle movement.

I always thought that the conqueror system was only very limited and was only able to lay the gun into the general direction.

The S-Tank on the other hand is not able to achieve this as he always has to move the whole hull.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I have MBT related question as well, I think I asked this Q before but didn't get a definite answer.
What is the main function of the Russian SHTORA and if it is so effective(like the Russians claim they are) then why are no western tanks equipped with a similar system.

SHTORA is a soft kill device that disrupts the guidance systems used by many anti tank missiles. These systems work by emitting a general IR dazzler signal that disrupts the semi-automatic command line of sight tracking system used by the anti tank missile to hit the target.

There are lots of western tanks that have similar jammers. The US had 2,600 Loral VLQ-6 Missile Countermeasures Device delivered after ODS in 1991-92 well before SHTORA was even unveiled. These have been used operationally on Bradleys and Abrams in OIF.

Most of the contemporary active protection systems have a soft kill element as well. These are more capable targeting a laser beam straight into the seeker head of missile launcher sight to disrupt target and missile tracking.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I always thought that the conqueror system was only very limited and was only able to lay the gun into the general direction.

The S-Tank on the other hand is not able to achieve this as he always has to move the whole hull.

The Conqueror cupola brought the gun to bear onto the target in both azimuth and elevation. The range finder was integrated into the cupola.

The S-Tank’s hunter killed system was not limited by the fact that the hull had to move to bring the gun to bear. It could even do this on the move. That is the commander finds a target off axis and hits the button to bring the main gun to bear and it would literally steer onto the target and adjust the suspension to bring the gun to the right elevation even while driving.

This kind of process is well within the capabilities of mechanical equipment. Obviously digital electronic devices make it a lot easier to install and maintain.

 

[STURM]

What is the main function of the Russian SHTORA and if it is so effective(like the Russians claim they are) then why are no western tanks equipped with a similar system.

As Abraham Gubler said Shtora only works against SACLOS/wire guided ATGWs and would be useless against IR missiles like Javelin, Ingwee and Spike. Apart from it's high cost another problem with Shtora is that it is reportedly very power hungry.

The Russians have made it clear that they will refuse to supply any components, including Kontakt 5, Shtora, Arena, etc, for Russian designed MBTs made outside of Russia. The Russian arguement is that countries such as Poland and Ukraine have violated the licensing agreement,awarded during the Cold War, to manufacture Soviet MBTs, by exporting MBT's.