Tribute to the M1A1/2, for you Operation Ivy

[Srachka to Perdachka]

I joke around, but the Abrams is a good tank. Of course not nearly as good as the T-80 or T-90... but we will let it slide for now. Heres for you Ivy. :hug:

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Abrams_Pics/M1-Abrams-Title-1.gif
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Abrams_Pics/spearhead-1.jpg


http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Abrams_Pics/Abrams&M1A2.jpgThe M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank is made by General Dynamics Land Systems Division of USA. The first M1 tank was produced in 1978, the first M1A1 in 1985 and the first M1A2 in 1986. Production of M1A1 tanks for the US Army is complete. Over 8,800 M1 and M1A1 tanks have been produced - 3,273 M1 tanks were produced for the US Army. 4,796 M1A1 tanks were built for the US Army, 221 for the US Marines and 555 co-produced with Egypt. Egypt has ordered a further 200 M1A1 tanks with production to continue to 2005. 77 M1A2 tanks have been built for the US Army, 315 for Saudi Arabia and 218 for Kuwait.

For the M1A2 Upgrade Program, over 600 M1 Abrams tanks are being upgraded to M1A2 configuration. Deliveries began in 1998. Production of new M1A1 and M1A2 Abrams tanks is in its final phase for Foreign Military Sales.

Three versions of the Abrams tank are currently in service the original M1 model, dating from the early 1980s, and two newer versions, designated M1A1 and M1A2. The M1A1 series, produced from 1985 through 1993, replaced the M1's 105mm main gun with a 120mm gun and incorporated numerous other enhancements, including an improved suspension, a new turret, increased armor protection, and a nuclear-chemical-biological protection system.

The newer M1A2 series includes all of the M1A1 features plus a commander's independent thermal viewer, an independent commander's weapon station with second generation thermal imager; commander's display for digital colour terrain maps; second generation thermal imaging gunner’s sight with increased range; driver's integrated display and thermal management system, position navigation equipment, and a digital data bus and radio interface unit providing a common picture among M1A2s on the battlefield.

In February 2001, General Dynamics Land Systems was contracted to supply 240 M1A2 tanks with a system enhancement package (SEP) by 2004. The US Army planned to procure a total of 1150 M1A2 SEP tanks but decided to cancel future production of the M1A2 SEP from 2004. DRS Techologies has also been awarded a contract, the Firepower Enhancement Package (FEP), which consists on the upgrade of the US Marine Corps M1A1 tanks with second generation thermal imaging sights.



The M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank - Brief Historic Data.

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Abrams_Pics/m1.jpg
One of the first M1 Abrams tanks.


The Origins of the M1 Abrams MBT:

Back in October 1973, one event would decisively influence the future of the new American main battle tank: the "Yom Kippur" war in the Middle East. This war involved the largest concentration of tanks in combat since World War 2. After careful investigation of the events occurred during this conflict, the US Army concluded that the emergence of a new order of weapon lethality was dramatically revealed in the Arab-Israeli War of 1973. Facing the nature of this threat, the new US doctrine set as its priority the defense of NATO Europe against a quantitatively superior Warsaw Pact forces of greatly increased lethality. It accepted force ratios as a primary determinant of battle outcomes and argued the virtues of armored warfare and the combined arms team. This notion of stronger inter-service integration would to be introduced as the "air-land battle" concept in 1976, and to result in the AirLand Battle Doctrine in 1982.

The M1 Abrams tank represented a definitive change in US tank design since World War 2, and its design reflects the objective to be an adequate response to the main threat of that era - the overwhelming numerical superiority of the Warsaw Pact in practically everything when it came to conventional weapons. Until the late seventies/early eighties, NATO wouldn't have a MBT powerful enough in the three main basic tank design areas (firepower, protection, and mobility) to provide the necessary tactical superiority on the battlefield in order to compensate for the numerical inferiority.

However, designing such a weapon was easier said than done. Until then, no nation had been capable of developing a tank decisively superior in firepower, protection and mobility. The bottom line was that tank designers were forced to make compromises between weight and mobility, and this resulted, on the top of the scale, in tanks that had good firepower and an adequate protection, but rather poor mobility (like the British Chieftain), or on the other end of the scale, in tanks which had adequate firepower, mediocre protection, and good mobility (like the French AMX-30/32). The ability to build a tank which excelled in all three basic aspects of tank design was only possible through the incorporation of the new technologies that became available during the seventies.

The way the US Army worked out the development of the new tank was very different than the way the German/American MBT-70 project was approached - instead of trying to build the best tank in the world, they opted for building the best tank within a limited budget. With this perspective in mind, the following directives were established, by order of priority: crew survivability; surveillance and target acquisition performance; first-round and subsequent hit probability; minimal time to acquire and hit; cross-country mobility; complementary armament integration; equipment survivability; crew environment; silhouette; acceleration and desaceleration; ammunition and stowage; human factors; production; operational range; speed; diagnostic maintenance aids; growth potential; support equipment; and transportability.

In its quest for the best possible tank design and subsequent development at the lowest costs, the US Army opted for a competitive process between the Chrysler Corporation (which has built the M-60 series) and the General Motors Corporation (which has built the MBT-70), with allowance for alternative solutions. One of the main requirements was to reduce the unit costs compared to the failed MBT-70 project, and this defined what technologies were or were not to be used in the new tank.

In June 1973 contractors were awarded to both the Chrysler Corporation (which has built the M-60 series) and the Detroit Diesel Allison Division of the General Motors Corporation (which has built the MBT-70) to built prototypes of a new tank designated M1, and later named the Abrams tank (after Gen. Creighton Abrams). These tanks were handed over to the US Army for trials in February 1976. In November 1976 it was announced after a four-month delay that the Chrysler tank would be placed in production. Production commenced at the Lima Army Modification Center at Lima in 1979 with the first production tanks being completed in 1980.


http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Abrams_Pics/XM1-LRIP.jpg
One of the low-rate-initial-production (LRIP) M1 tanks at Aberdeen Proving Grounds right after introduction into service. This tank is painted in the old MERDC cammo scheme.

The M1 design benefited, since the start, from special armor, thermal imaging sights, advanced gun fire controls, and turbine engines.

The new special armor concept was developed by the British Army's research facility in Chobham, England, and was based on a classified system of layers of ceramic composites inside steel armor, mounted on top of a normal steel armor plate. This new armor, which became known as Chobham armor, offered exceptional protection against shaped charge warheads (ATGM's and HEAT ammunition). Consequently, the Ballistics Research Laboratory at Aberdeen Proving Grounds began a crash program to develop a similar improved armor to be incorporated into the new tank. The first production models of the basic M1 tanks issued to the US Army in 1981 weighed in at about sixty tons, combat loaded, and were equipped with normal steel armor plus a new composite special armor (which consisted of layers of both steel and non-steel armor plus heat and shock absorbing materials), capable of defeating HEAT rounds in addition to kinetic energy penetrators.

Although the standard production M1 tanks were designed to accept the German Rheinmetall 120mm gun whenever necessary, they were armed with the same M68A1 105mm rifled gun used on the M60 MBT. The advent of more advanced 105mm ammunition, specially DU penetrators like the improved M833 round, capable of penetrate 420mm of RHA inclined at 60° at 2,000 meters, would make it possible to delay the main gun upgrade until 1985.

The M1 was faster and more maneuverable than its predecessors in the M60 series, while offering a lower, smaller silhouette. Besides the substantial gains in performance, the Textron Lycoming AGT-1500 turbine engine was far more reliable than the diesel tank engines then in use with the Army. There was still another benefit. The engine change, despite a penalty in fuel consumption, also resulted in much quieter operation, so much so that soldiers encountering the tank in early maneuvers started calling it "Whispering Death".

With all these assets, plus a new fire control system that incorporated all the latest technologies (comprising a laser range finder, ballistic computer, gunner's thermal-imaging day and night sight, a muzzle reference sensor to measure gun-tube distortion, and a wind sensor), the M1 Abrams was a gigantic leap forward.



The M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tank


Increased Protection and Lethality: The M1A1 Abrams MBT

Improvements to the basic M1 Abrams were planned from the very beginning of its development to keep pace with the new Soviet tank designs. Thus, five models were produced. The original model, the basic M1, was produced from 1984 to January 1985. Total production: 2,374 tanks.

The second model, produced from 1984 to 1986, was the Improved Performance M1 (IPM1). The IPM1 was produced to take advantage of various improvements from the M1A1 program, before the full M1A1 was ready for production. These improvements consisted of a reinforced new suspension, various transmission modifications, improved armor protection,and the redesigned M1A1 turret gun mount and bustle rack, among others. The added weight (one ton) decreased performance only slightly.

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Abrams_Pics/Abrams-Drawings-01.gif

The third model, the M1A1, or M1 with Block 1 Product Improvement, started in August 1985. In addition to the improvements fitted to the IPM1 tank, the M1A1's major asset was to be the German Rheinmetall 120mm smoothbore cannon. US studies on the gun concluded it was overly complex and expensive by American engineering standards, so a version using fewer parts was developed, and designated the 120mm M256 gun. Along with the new gun came a number of associated changes to the fire control system.

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Abrams_Pics/M1A1-Abrams-Drawing.gif

Since the Korean War, the US Army found that the main tactical advantage in tank combat was the ability of seeing and engaging the enemy first - consequently, great emphasis was placed on getting the best acquisition technology possible, and as it turned out, the US pioneered all technologic improvements in this area, since the first image intensification night sights in the sixties, the thermal imaging during the seventies, and finally the millimeter wave multi-sensor of the nineties. The thermal sight had a dramatic effect during the Gulf War, since it enabled US tankers to see not only at night, but also through the "fog-of-war" and dismal weather conditions, like sand storms.

The 120mm M256 gun of the M1A1 tank fires various types of ammunition, the most known being the M829A1 APFSDS-T ammunition (kinetic energy round with long rod penetrator, made of depleted uranium, with a muzzle velocity of 1,676 m/sec, and a maximum effective range of 3,500 meters), also known as the "Silver Bullet" of Desert Storm fame. The M829A1 ammunition entered service in 1991.

Depleted uranium penetrators have density two and a half times greater than steel and provide high penetration characteristics, and a "pyrophoric" effect. When the DU penetrator hits a tank's armor, both the penetrator and armor partially liquefy under the tremendous pressure. Once the armour has been perforated, that part of the penetrator which has not melted, together with the molten armour and fragments that break away from the interior, ricochet inside the vehicle. This usually causes a fire, and if it reaches stored ammunition inside the tank, leads to catastrophic explosions.

The new 120mm M256 gun, firing the M829A1 APFSDS-T (Armor Piercing, Fin Stabilized Sabot and Tracer) "Silver Bullet" ammunition proved to be extremely successful against Soviet and Chinese made tanks that got in the way of the M1A1 Abrams tanks during Operation Desert Storm. Other rounds include the M829 (an early version of the M829A1, which entered service by 1985), and the M830 High Explosive Anti-Tank (HEAT, which has a maximum effective range of 3,000 meters). Estimated penetration performance (M829A1): 610 mm at 2000 meters.

The next generation ammunition, called 120mm APFSDS-T M829A2, entered service in 1994, and is the current armor penetrator ammunition being produced by by the General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems for the 120mm M256 gun of tanks M1A1 and M1A2. It is a technology improvement over the M829A1, the "Silver Bullet" of Desert Storm fame. The new ammunition's performance gains, while classified, result from several new features. These include the use of a special manufacturing process to improve the structural quality of the depleted uranium penetrator, plus the use of new composites for the sabot, which, together with a new propellant, provide superior penetrator performance. Combined, these features increase the muzzle velocity of the M829A2 approximately 100 m/sec greater than the M829A1 (to something around 1,776 m/sec), while operating at slightly lower pressure. Estimated penetration performance: 750 mm at 2,000 meters.

The 120mm APFSDS-T M829E3 is the third generation of depleted uranium armor penetrator tank rounds. It will replace the M829A1 and the M829A2 projectiles. Although its armor penetration performance is classified, this round is considered as the most powerful anti-armor ammunition in the world. The E3 round will provide the M1A1 and M1A2 Abrams tanks with greater armor penetration capability than previous generation depleted uranium penetrator rounds, while increasing accuracy. Estimated penetration performance: 960mm at 2,000 meters.

One of the most interesting modifications of the M1A1 series was the new armor composite including depleted uranium (DU) plate. This armor greatly increased resistance against kinetic energy rounds. During the Gulf War, M1A1 tanks could directly engage enemy tanks while in the enemy's line-of-sight with little risk from any eventual damage from incoming retaliatory fire. This means that M1A1 tanks could hit their targets, while Iraqi tanks couldn't hit, or, if they hit, couldn't damage M1A1 tanks. Also, due to DU armor, not a single US tank was penetrated from enemy fire. US tanks took many close direct hits from Iraqi Soviet-made T-72 and T-72M tanks, but enemy rounds were simply not able to penetrate the M1A1 tank's armor. The model that had this feature was called M1A1 HA (Heavy Armor), and had a protection equivalent to 600 mm against kinetic energy ammunition (APFSDS), and 1,300 mm against chemical energy warheads (ATGM's and HEAT ammunition).

The armor protection of today's M1A1 Abrams models is much better than that of the original M1A1 HA tanks that saw combat during the Gulf War (1991).


M1A1 Abrams MBT - Estimated Armor Protection Levels (1991)
M1A1HA, as deployed during the Gulf War, 1991 Against Kinetic Energy
(in mm of RHAe)
Against Chemical Energy
(in mm of RHAe)
Turret 600 - 680 1,080 - 1,320
Glacis 560 - 590 510 - 800
Lower Front Hull 580 - 630 800 - 900
RHAe = Rolled Homogeneous Armor Equivalent; an equivalent RHA thickness of a given armor type against a given armor piercing ammunition or missile (i.e. Kinetic Energy penetrators, like APFSDS DU long-rod penetrators or Chemical Energy projectiles, like HEAT ammunition and ATGM's). Modern composite (Chobham) armor may be several times more efficient against Chemical Energy than RHA of the same thickness.



M1A1 Abrams MBT - Estimated Armor Protection Levels (2002)
M1A1HC, M1A1HA, M1A1D Against Kinetic Energy
(in mm of RHAe) Against Chemical Energy
(in mm of RHAe)
Turret 800 - 900 1,320 - 1,620
Glacis 560 - 590 510 - 1,050
Lower Front Hull 580 - 650 800 - 970
RHAe = Rolled Homogeneous Armor Equivalent; an equivalent RHA thickness of a given armor type against a given armor piercing ammunition or missile (i.e. Kinetic Energy penetrators, like APFSDS DU long-rod penetrators or Chemical Energy projectiles, like HEAT ammunition and ATGM's). Modern composite (Chobham) armor may be several times more efficient against Chemical Energy than RHA of the same thickness.


During the Gulf War only 18 Abrams tanks were taken out of service due to battle damage: nine were permanent losses, and another nine suffered repairable damage, mostly from mines. Not a single Abrams crewman was lost in the conflict, while inside the protection of the M1A1's armor, by enemy fire. Casualties did occur, but in all known cases, the cause was fratricide from other US weapons. There were few reports of mechanical failure. US armor commanders maintained an unprecedented 90% operational readiness for their M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tanks.


M1A1 Abrams: The Backbone of the US Heavy Armored Force.

The M1A1 Abrams is still the backbone of the US heavy armored force; 4,796 M1A1 tanks were built for the US Army, 221 for the US Marines and 555 co-produced with Egypt. Egypt has ordered a further 200 M1A1 tanks with production to continue to 2005.

The M1A1 Abrams Tank Firepower Enhancement Program (FEP), a Marine Corps Systems Command initiative, is intended to increase the all weather, day and night target acquisition and engagement ranges and provide a far target location capability for the M1A1 Tank. The FEP system will include a scope of work that entails a suite of upgrades for the M1A1 Tank. These upgrades include a second-generation thermal sight and a north finding/target locating capability. The system will increase the tank crew's ability to detect, recognize, identify and accurately locate targets. Under the Firepower Enhancement Package, DRS Technologies has been awarded a contract for the GEN II TIS to upgrade US Marine Corps M1A1 tanks.

Also in production is the Tungsten Kinetic Energy Anti-Tank Ammunition, by the General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems. There are two types of tungsten ammunition available, the first being the Terminator (KEW) APFSDS-T: the "Terminator" is a close variant to the M829A1 ("Silver Bullet"). The Terminator is specifically configured for high-end performance in the hot extremes of the desert and is compatible with all standard NATO 120mm smoothbore tank cannons. The second tungsten penetrator ammunition type is the DM43A1 APFSDS-T: providing the greatest level of performance available, the DM43A1 is the product of a cooperative program between General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems and Rheinmetall GmbH of Germany, this cartridge also is compatible with all standard NATO 120mm smoothbore tank cannons.



M1A1D Abrams Main Battle Tank

The Force XXI: Digitization and the M1A1D.

The M1A1 fleet remains the majority of the US Armor Force. The M1A1D is a digitized M1A1 that provides improved situational awareness and far target designate capability. The installation of a digital appliqué command and control package on the M1A1 is necessary to achieve Force XXI required capabilities.

Another planned improvement is replacing the analog Turret Network Box (TNB) and Hull Network Box (HNB) with new digital units to eliminate the associated obsolescence problems and to allow the introduction of a built-in-test (BIT) capability to support the Force XXI maintenance structure. Digital TNB's and HNB's also allow future electronic growth by providing unpopulated VME card slots.


In the survivability area the Army is working to develop and field a contingency armor package that is thin and lightweight, but with a high level of protection. These armor packages can be applied to either the side or front of Abrams tanks to provide additional protection as required by the mission. The Army is also seeking to fund resource upgrades to the M1A1 fire control system with the same 2nd Gen FLIR package on the M1A2.

The Army initiated an innovative M1A1 rebuild program in 1999 known as Abrams Integrated Management (AIM). In a partnership with the Anniston Army Depot in Anniston, Alabama, General Dynamics Land Systems is engaged in a refurbishment program of more than 1,000 M1A1 Abrams tanks. Under a unique partnership agreement private and public industry cooperate in the rebuilding the U.S. Army oldest M1A1's to a like-new condition by maximizing their core skills and capabilities.

The Abrams Integrated Management (AIM) Overhaul Program

The Abrams Integrated Management (AIM) Overhaul Program is an innovative teaming of the prime contractor, GDLS, and Anniston Army Depot (ANAD) to refurbish the tank to a like-new condition. The AIM Overhaul is the Army's under-funded program to sustain the nearly 7,000 Abrams Tanks as part of the total recapitalization plan. AIM is funded at 135 tanks per year which translates into a 12-year rebuild cycle for the active component. As the M1A2 fleet ages, the Army must expand AIM to include about 90 M1A2 SEPs per year beginning in 2012. With a 20-year rebuild cycle for the reserve component, the Army must implement a 90 tank per year program beginning in 2006.

Exploiting the unique strengths of both the manufacturer and the Army depot, the tank is completely remanufactured resulting in a nearly new tank. AIM Overhaul increases readiness, reduces operations and support costs, standardizes configuration, and minimally sustains the Abrams industrial base. The first M1A1s are now 15-years old and will approach 50-years old by the time the Army ultimately replaces them. With old equipment, sustainment is only part of the challenge; the Army must also maintain combat overmatch.

M1A1 tanks enter the process at Anniston Army Depot, Alabama, where the entire vehicle is completely disassembled with each component cleaned, inspected and evaluated for rebuilding, refurbishment, or complete replacement. While many of the rebuild components stay at Anniston, other parts are sent to one of several rebuild sites. These sites include General Dynamics' facilities in Scranton, Pennsylvania, Muskegon, Michigan, as well as other Army depots. Turret and hull subsystems are first worked on at Anniston and then shipped to Lima, Ohio, where the tank is reassembled, tested and accepted back into the Army's fleet.

AIM alone is a sustainment process only and does not insert new technologies nor address obsolescence. However, by exploiting the synergy created by integrating the AIM program with a viable Abrams recapitalization program, the Army has a cost-effective opportunity to apply and field these high-payoff projects. The current high-payoff projects include 2nd Generation FLIR, frontal & side armor upgrades, Vehicle Integrated Defense System (VIDS), digital turret & hull networks boxes with built-in test, and a new engine.The AIM Overhaul program is the optimum time/location to complete applied improvements. The AIM Overhaul program in its objective state will produce M1A1Ds. Currently the process applies many product improvements with some M1A1s receiving the M1A1D configuration retrofitted in the field.

The first year production of 45 tanks was completed in June 2000. Since inception the program has returned over 275 M1A1 tanks - as of November 2002 - in a like-new, zero mileage condition. The U.S. Army plans to fund the program over the next ten years at a rate of 135 tanks per year. The Army's Abrams modernization strategy includes a new tank engine program, the LV-100, the AIM program and a parts obsolesce program to reduce the operations and support costs and logistics footprint associated with the Abrams tank. These initiatives are funded by the Army to sustain its tank fleet over the next 25 years.


The M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tank.

The Force XXI: Maintaining Overmatch - The M1A2 SEP.

The M1A2 SEP (System Enhancement Program), is the digital battlefield centerpiece for Army XXI. It is the heavy force vehicle that will lead Armor into the next century and transition the close combat mission to the Future Combat System (FCS). The M1A2 SEP is an improved version of the M1A2. It contains numerous improvements in command and control, lethality and reliability. The M1A2 System Enhanced Program is an upgrade to the computer core that is the essence of the M1A2 tank. The SEP upgrade includes improved processors, color and high resolution flat panel displays, increased memory capacity, user friendly Soldier Machine Interface (SMI) and an open operating system that will allow for future growth. Major improvements include the integration of the Second Generation Forward Looking Infared (2nd Gen FLIR) sight, the Under Armor Auxiliary Power Unit (UAAPU) and a Thermal Management System (TMS).

The mission of the M1A2 Abrams tank is to close with and destroy enemy forces using firepower, maneuver, and shock effect. The M1A2 is being fielded to armor battalions and cavalry squadrons of the heavy force. During the Army's current M1A2 procurement program about 1,000 older, less capable M1 series tanks will be upgraded to the M1A2 configuration and fielded to the active forces. There is currently no plan to field the M1A2 to the ARNG. In 1999, the Army started upgrading M1s to the M1A2 System Enhancement Program (SEP) configuration. This sensor also will be added to older M1A2 starting in 2001. When the SEP enters production, all older M1A2 will eventually be converted to the SEP configuration.

M1A2 SYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM (SEP)

Further M1A2 improvements, called the System Enhancement Program (SEP), are underway to enhance the tank's digital command and control capabilities and to to improve the tank's fightability and lethality. M1A2 SEP tanks were scheduled to begin fielding in 2000. The M1A2 System Enhanced Program (SEP) is an upgrade to the computer core that is in essence of the M1A2 tank.

The SEP upgrade includes improved processors, color and high resolution flat panel displays, increased memory capacity, user friendly Soldier Machine Interface (SMI) and an open operating system that will allow for future growth. Major improvements include the integration of the Second Generation Forward Looking Infared (2nd Gen FLIR) sight, the Under Armor Auxiliary Power Unit (UAAPU) and a Thermal Management System (TMS).

The 2nd Generation Forward Looking InfraRed sighting system (2nd Gen FLIR) will replace the existing Thermal Image System (TIS) and the Commander's Independent Thermal Viewer. The incorporation of 2nd Gen FLIR into the M1A2 tank will require replacement of all 1st Gen FLIR components. From the warfighter perspective, this is one of the key improvements on the SEP.

The 2nd Gen FLIR is a fully integrated engagement-sighting system designed to provide the gunner and tank commander with significantly improved day and night target acquisition and engagement capability. This system allows 70% better acquisition, 45% quicker firing and greater accuracy. In addition, a gain of 30% greater range for target acquisition and identification will increase lethality and lessen fratricide.

The Commander's Independent Thermal Viewer (CITV) provides a hunter killer capability. The 2nd GEN FLIR is a variable power sighting system ranging from 3 or 6 power (wide field of view) for target acquisition and 13, 25 or 50 power (narrow field of view) for engaging targets at appropriate range.

Changes to the M1A2 Abrams Tank contained in the System Enhancement Program (SEP) and "M1A2 Tank FY 2000" configuration are intended to improve lethality, survivability, mobility, sustainability and provide increased situational awareness and command and control enhancements necessary to provide information superiority to the dominant maneuver force. The System Enhancement Program (SEP) allows for digital data dissemination with improved ability to optimize information based operations and maintain a relevant common picture while executing Force XXI full dimensional operation. This enhancement increases capability to control the battlefield tempo while improving lethality and survivability. Finally to ensure crew proficiency is maintained, each Armor Battalion is fielded an improved Advanced Gunnery Training System (AGTS) with state-of-the-art graphics.


System Enhancement Program upgrades are intended to:

improve target detection, recognition and identification with the addition of two 2nd generation FLIR's.
incorporate an under armor auxiliary power unit to power the tank and sensor suites.
incorporate a thermal management system to provide crew and electronics cooling.
increase memory and processor speeds and provide full color map capability.
provide compatibility with the Army Command and Control Architecture to ensure the ability to share command and control and situational awareness with all components of the combined arms team.
Additional weight reduction, embedded battle command, survivability enhancement, signature management, safety improvement, and product upgrade modifications to the M1A2 will comprise the "M1A2 Tank FY 2000" configuration. Initial fielding of the M1A2 to the Army's 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas, was completed in August 1998. Fielding to the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, Ft. Carson, Colorado is ongoing. Deliveries of the M1A2 (SEP) tank began in August 1999 and fielding began in the third quarter fiscal year 2000.

A multi-year contract for 307 M1A2 Abrams Systems Enhancement Program (SEP) tanks was awarded in March 2001 with production into 2004. The current Army plan allows for a fleet of 588 M1A2 SEP, 586 M1A2 and 4,393 M1A1 tanks. The potential exits for a retrofit program of 129 M1A2 tanks to the SEP configuration between 2004 and 2005. Initial fielding of the M1A2 to the Army's 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas, was complete by August 1998. Fielding to the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, Ft. Carson, Colorado ended in 2000. Fielding of the M1A2 (SEP) began in spring 2000 with the 4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood, Texas, and continues. Rolling over of the 1st Cavalry Division's M1A2 tanks to new M1A2 (SEP) tank began in 2001 and continues.

Increased funding for Stryker and Future Combat Systems (FCS) came as a result of Army decisions in 2002 to terminate or restructure some 48 systems in the FY '04-'09 Program Objective Memorandum (POM) long-term spending plan. Among the systems terminated were: United Defense's Crusader self-propelled howitzer and the A3 upgrade for the Bradley Fighting vehicle, GD's M1A2 Abrams System Enhancement Program, Lockheed Martin's Army Tactical Missile System Block II and the associated pre-planned product improvement version of Northrop Grumman's Brilliant Anti-armor (BAT) munitions, Raytheon's Stinger missile and Improved Target Acquisition System, and Textron's Wide Area Mine. The US Army planned to procure a total of 1150 M1A2 SEP tanks, however future Army budget plans suggest that funding may not be available after 2004.

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Abrams_Pics/M1A2-in-Iraq-2003.jpg

Continued Improvement:

While the M1A2 SEP and M1A1D provide improved combat capabilities overmatch; the Army is working to improve reliability, reduce logistical footprint, and lower Operations and Support (O&S) costs for the tank. This effort is focused on two initiatives that provide the force with the biggest "bang for the buck" in terms of O&S cost reduction, readiness improvement, and sustainment of combat overmatch. These initiatives include the following Abrams Engine Campaign and the Abrams Integrated Management Overhaul Program (AIM):

The AGT 1500 engine has served the Abrams tank well. It afforded a significant combat edge due to its lightweight, power, and stealth. However, the AGT 1500 is getting old and the fleet faces problems in maintaining this workhorse. The AGT 1500 represents 1960's technology and has been out of production since 1992. Declining reliability causes the engine to account for around 64% of the Abrams tank reparable O&S costs. The Army is focusing on the engine as a major element in easing the maintenance burden for the force while substantially reducing O&S costs.

PM Abrams has developed a two-phased program to improve engine readiness and lower costs. The first phase makes innovative use of a partnership with PM/AMC/industry to overhaul the existing AGT 1500 engine/components. This program is termed PROSE (Partnership for Reduced O&S Costs, Engine). Under PROSE, the government will "team" with the original equipment manufacturer to reengineer the production process and improve field support. The contractor provides quality parts and expert technical support, and the government (via its depots) provides the skilled labor and facilities.

The second phase of the engine initiative involves replacing the AGT 1500 engine with a new engine. There is great potential for improved tank readiness and long term O&S cost reduction in the implementation of this phase. This approach will not be cheap and will require a major decision by the Army. A 2 billion-dollar investment is required to replace the current engine with a new engine in the active component along, with a potential savings of 13 billion over the remaining life of the tank.

The PROSE process is expected to improve reliability by 30%. The benefits of the new engine are much more dramatic - the Army could achieve a 4-5 fold improvement in reliability, hopefully a 35% reduction in fuel consumption, a 42% reduction in the number of parts, and a 15-20% improvement in vehicle mobility. Life cycle engine O&S costs are projected to drop from 16 billion dollars over 30 years with the current engine to 3 billion dollars with the new engine.

The second piece of our O&S cost reduction strategy is the Abrams Integrated Management (AIM) program. The AIM process overhauls an old M1A1 tank to original factory standards, applying all applicable MWO's. The AIM Proof of Principle was completed in 1997, proving the cost-effectiveness of the concept and helping to define the scope. The AIM tank demonstrated an 18% O&S cost savings when compared to non-AIM tanks. The AIM overhaul concept is a cost-effective solution to address the problems of rising tank sustainment costs and increasing readiness concerns.

A series of live firing tests of the LAHAT - Laser Guided anti-tank missile developed by IAI/MBT (Israel Aircraft Industries-MBT Division) included the firing of 120mm missiles, adapted for smooth-bore guns used on Merkava Mk3, Merkava Mk4, Leopard 2A4/5/6 and M1A1/A2 Abrams tanks. The missile's trajectory can be set to match either tank (top attack) or helicopter (direct attack) engagement. Furthermore, the missile uses a tandem warhead which can defeat modern armour and reactive panels. The main warhead has a high penetration capability, defeating all known armored vehicles at high impact angles typical of top attack trajectories. The missile is designed for employment from 105mm - 120mm tank guns, as well as from launch tubes.



ARMAMENT


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


The main armament is the 120 mm smoothbore gun, US designation code M256, developed by Rheinmetall GmbH of Germany. The system manager for the 120 mm ammunition is Alliant Techsystems of Hopkins, Minnesota with second source by Olin Ordnance of St Petersburg, Florida. The 120 mm gun fires the following ammunition: the M865 TPCSDS-T and M831 TP-T training rounds, the M8300 HEAT-MP-T and the M829 APFSDS-T which includes a depleted uranium penetrator. Depleted uranium has density two and a half times greater than steel and provides high penetration characteristics.

The commander has a 12.7 millimeter (0.50 inch) caliber Browning M2 machine gun on a powered rotary platform and equipped with a x3 magnification sight. The elevation is from -10 to +65 degrees and the traverse is 360 degrees.
Starting with the M1A2 this powered platform and sight gave way to a larger commander's cupola and a manually operated machine gun mount. So, from the M1A2 onwards, the commander has to open the hatch and use the machine guns iron sights to engage targets. This was done because the room formerly taken up by the sight, the platform power assembly and the controls is now taken up by the CID and the thermal viewer.
The loader has a 7.62 caliber M240 machine gun on a Skate mount. The elevation of the M240 is from -30 to +65 degrees and the traverse rotation is 265 degrees. A 7.62 mm M240 machine gun is also mounted co axially on the right hand side of the main armament.


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

COUNTERMEASURES


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

On both sides of the turret the tank is fitted with six-barrelled smoke grenade dischargers, model L8A1, designation M250. A smoke screen can also be laid by an engine operated system.


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


The M1A2 SEP speeding up. (Photo: General Dynamics)

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

COMMANDER


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

The commander is responsible to the platoon leader and signed equipment, the reporting of logistical needs, and the tactical employment of his tank. He briefs his crew, directs the movement of the tank, submits all reports, and supervises initial first-aid treatment and evacuation of wounded crewmen. He is an expert in using the tank's weapon systems, requesting indirect fires, and executing land navigation.

The commander must know and understand the company mission and company commander's intent. He must be prepared to assume the duties and responsibilities of the platoon leader or PSG in accordance with the succession of command. These requirements demand that the commander maintain situational awareness by using all available optics for observation, by eavesdropping on radio transmissions, and by monitoring the inter vehicular information system (IVIS) or appliqué digital screen (if available).

The commander is seated on the right hand side of the turret. The commander's station is equipped with six periscopes which provide all round 360 degree view.

The Independent Thermal Viewer from Texas Instruments provides the commander with independent stabilized day and night vision with a 360 degree view, automatic sector scanning, automatic target cueing of the gunner's sight with no need for verbal communication, and back-up fire control.

The system consists of a gyrostabilized head housing the sensors, a hand control grip with a panel for selecting parameter settings, an electronics unit and a remote cathode ray tube display. The range of the viewer is -12 to +20 degrees in elevation and 360 degrees in azimuth. The magnification is x2.6 at 3.4 degrees narrow field of view and x7.7 at 10.4 degrees wide field of view.


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

GUNNER


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

The gunner searches for targets and aims and fires both the main gun and the coaxial machine gun. He is responsible to the commander for the maintenance of the tank's armament and fire control equipment. The gunner serves as the assistant commander and assumes the responsibilities of the commander as required. He also assists other crew members as needed. Several of his duties involve the tank's communications and internal control systems: logging onto and monitoring communications nets; maintaining digital links if the tank is equipped with the IVIS or appliqué digital system; inputting graphic control measures on digital overlays; and monitoring digital displays during the planning and preparation phases of an operation.

The gunner is seated on the right hand side of the turret . The Gunner's Primary Sight-Line of Sight, GPS-LOS, has been developed by the Electro-Optical Systems Division of Hughes Aircraft Company. The M1 and M1A1 Abrams tank have a GPS-LOS with a single axis stabilized head mirror. The system has daylight optics with x10 magnification narrow field of view and x3 magnification wide field of view, and unity magnification close-in surveillance with 18 degrees field of view. The night vision Thermal Imaging System, TIS, from Hughes has magnification x10 narrow field of view and x3 magnification wide field of view. The Thermal Imaging System creates an image based on the differences of heat radiated by objects within the field of view. The thermal image is displayed in the eyepiece of the gunner's sight together with the range measurement from a Hughes laser range finder. The M1A2 Abrams tank has a two-axis GPS-LOS which significantly increases the first round hit probability by providing faster target acquisition and improved gun pointing. The azimuth inertial stabilization allows target detection, recognition and acquisition at longer ranges than the single axis system. The Line of Sight excursion range is -16 to +22 degrees in elevation and + or - 5 degrees in azimuth. The stabilization accuracy is less than 100 microrads, and the bore sight retention is less than 100 microrads.

The Hughes Laser Rangefinder for the M1 Abrams consists of a neodinium yttrium aluminium garnet, Nd:YAG, laser transmitter, a receiver and timing and logic electronics integrated into the tank's fire control system. The operator aims the rangefinder on the target and fires the laser. The laser beam is reflected back from the target into the receiver and the time of travel to and from the target provides an accurate range measurement for the fire control computer. The wavelength of the Nd:YAG laser is 1.06 microns which can be damaging to the eye. A new rangefinder, the Eyesafe Laser Rangefinder has been developed by Hughes for the Abrams tank which incorporates a Raman resonator which shifts the wavelength from 1.06 to 1.54 microns which is not damaging to the eye. The Hughes laser rangefinder has a firing rate of 1 shot per second and provides range accuracy to within 10 meters and target discrimination of 20 meters

The gunner has a Kollmorgen Model 939 auxiliary sight with magnification x8 and field of view 8 degrees.

The fire control computer is supplied by Computing Devices Canada of Ontario. The digital fire control computer consists of an electronics unit and a data entry and test panel. The range data from the laser range finder is transferred to the fire control computer. The fire control computer automatically takes data to calculate the fire control solution. The data includes i) the lead angle measurement, ii) the bend of the gun measured by the muzzle reference system of the main armament, iii) wind velocity measurement from a wind sensor on the roof of the turret and iv) the data from a pendulum static cant sensor located at the center of the turret roof. The operator manually inputs the data on the ammunition type and temperature, and the barometric pressure.


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

DRIVER


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

The driver moves, positions, and stops the tank. While driving, he constantly searches for covered routes and for covered positions to which he can move if the tank is engaged. He maintains his tank's position in formation and watches for visual signals. If the tank is equipped with a steer-to indicator, the driver monitors the device and selects the best tactical route. During engagements, he assists the gunner and commander by scanning for targets and sensing fired rounds. The driver is responsible to the commander for the automotive maintenance and refueling of the tank. He assists other crewmen as needed.

The driver's station at the center front of the vehicle is equipped with a monitoring panel showing the condition of vehicle fluid levels, batteries and electrical equipment. The driver has either three observation periscopes or two periscopes on either side and a central image intensifying periscope for night vision. The periscopes provide 120 degrees field of view.

The driver's night vision equipment enables the tank to maneuver at normal daytime driving speeds in darkness and in poor visibility conditions such as in dust, smoke and in battlefield obscurants. The Driver's Vision Enhancer, AN/VSS-5, developed for the US Army Communications and Electronics Command by Texas Instruments, is based on a 328 x 245 element uncooled detector array, working in the 7.5 to 13 micron waveband. The AN/VSS-5 provides a 30 degree elevation and 40 degree azimuth field of view. The field of regard is given as -50 to +20 degrees in elevation, and + or - 190 degrees in azimuth.

A Driver's Thermal Viewer, AN/VAS-3, developed by the Electro-Optical Systems Division of the Hughes Aircraft Company, is installed on the M1A2 Abrams tanks for Kuwait. The AN/VAS-3 is based on a 60 element cadmium mercury telluride, CdHgTe, detector operating in the wavelength band 7.5 to 12 microns. The cooling is provided by a Split Stirling 0.25 watt engine. The field of view is 40 degrees azimuth x 20 degrees elevation, and the field of regard is given as 100 degrees in azimuth and 40 degrees in elevation.


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

LOADER


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

The loader loads the main gun and the coaxial machine gun ready box; he aims and fires the loader's machine gun. He stows and cares for ammunition and is responsible to the commander for the maintenance of communications equipment. Before engagement actions are initiated, the loader searches for targets and acts as air or antitank guided missile (ATGM) guard. He also assists the commander as needed in directing the driver so the tank maintains its position in formation.

He assists other crew members as necessary. Because the loader is ideally positioned both to observe around the tank and to monitor the tank's digital displays, platoon leaders and commanders should give strong consideration to assigning their second most experienced crewman as the loader. Loading of the coaxial machine gun, as well as the stowage and care of ammunition, becomes the duty of the gunner. The absence of a loader also means the commander assumes a greater degree of responsibility for air and ATGM watch.


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



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

ENGAGEMENT


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

The gunner aligns the reticule in the Gunner's Primary Sight with the target. The range is determined by the laser rangefinder and the range data is transferred to the fire control computer. The gunner's sight displays a ready-to-fire indication together with symbology from the fire control computer and system operational status. The gunner checks the alignment of the reticule in the Primary Sight with the target and the ready to fire indication and fires the gun.




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

SAFETY AND SURVIVABILITY


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

The hull and turret of the M1 are protected by advanced armour similar to the Chobham armour developed by the UK Ministry of Defence. The survivability of the M1/M1A1 main battle tank has been battlefield proven. The tanks survived without damage after sustaining direct hits by T-72 tank rounds. Of 1,955 Abrams M1A1 tanks in battle, no crew members were killed by enemy fire, four tanks were disabled and four tanks were damaged but were repairable.

The M1A1 tank incorporates steel encased depleted uranium armour. The depleted uranium provides a higher level of protection against anti-tank weapons.

The stowage for the main armament ammunition is in armored ammunition boxes behind sliding armour doors. Armour bulkheads separate the crew compartment from the fuel tanks. The tank is equipped with an automatic Halon fire extinguishing system which is activated within 2 milliseconds of a fire outbreak and extinguishes a fire within 250 milliseconds. The top panels of the tank are designed to blow outwards in the event of penetration by a HEAT projectile and access doors which are kept in the closed position provide protection for the crew. The loader has to depress and hold a switch to open the access doors: the doors close automatically when the switch is not depressed.

The tank is protected against nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) warfare and is equipped with a 200 SCFM, clean conditioned air system, a Radiac Radiological Warning Device, AN/VDR-1, and a chemical agent detector. The crew are equipped with protective suits and face masks.


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

PROPULSION


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

The M1 is equipped with an AGT 1500 gas turbine engine from Lycoming Textron. The Allison Transmission, X-1100-3B, provides four forward and two reverse gears.

[Marmot1]

Wow nice thx

[Mudcat]

woot

[Falco]

Good post woot

[catdat]

Outstanding!

(maybe a little misguided about those T-whatevers though)

http://www.jodyharmon.com/knights.jpg

http://www.jodyharmon.com/army%20wars.jpg[/quote]

[Dennis G]

yeah, Great post guys woot

[Srachka to Perdachka]

well i think the end of the world is coming, it's been how many hours now that this post has been up and Ivy still hasnt blessed me with his usual " woot " Seriously folks, repent your sins now, the world is coming to an end soon

[Operation Ivy]

Hey man thxs :hug: , but ive already been to that site, ive read that article like 20billion times because i have no life :D

That site has lots of good info on the Leo, Abrams, Chally,Merk and the Osrio

woot woot
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/main.html

and T-80-90=gay p-)

Hope everyone else enjoys it :hug:

[Operation Ivy]

O and Catdat i see you found Jody Harmons Art page, phew there are some damn good pics on that site :D

[catdat]

Ivy -

I knew about Jody's site long ago (he was the 2nd AD artist I think and I was 1/66 2nd AD). Yes I really enjoy his stuff. If I could afford it I'd get him to do my Cow House Creek pic.

I suspect that top pic is a tribute to 66th Armor, "The Iron Knights", and the Army's oldest Armor Brigade.

catdat

[Operation Ivy]

Catdat do you know about this site,lots of M1 Tankers on this site

http://www.trackpads.com/home/

and one more quick question what was your job while you were in the 1/66 2ndAD? like a TC,engineer,driver exc exc

[Srachka to Perdachka]

T-980 vs Abrams righ here right now, T-90 would own.

[hank]

T-980 vs Abrams righ here right now, T-90 would own.

nuh huh! Seriously though awe0t 9uqwjnase iuh, do we really need to do this here? Why don't you start a thread and pay proper homage to the T-980? I mean, I haven't even seen any pics of it. :D

hank

[Operation Ivy]

T-980 vs Abrams righ here right now, T-90 would own.

O really
http://img20.photobucket.com/albums/v60/OpIvy/MTA.gif

;)

[hank]

T-980 vs Abrams righ here right now, T-90 would own.

O really
http://img20.photobucket.com/albums/v60/OpIvy/MTA.gif

;)
Dude, I knew you could settle this. But, don't you think it needs a caption in Russian?

Here is what it should say: "f9 owe rif nf aw e ru ghafm".

Add that and it will be perfect, Ivy. ;)

hank

[Operation Ivy]

Here ya go
http://img20.photobucket.com/albums/v60/OpIvy/Animation1MT.gif

[Operation Ivy]

EDIT :oops:

[hank]

Here ya go
http://img20.photobucket.com/albums/v60/OpIvy/Animation1MT.gif

He were a poet and didn't know it. Perfect!

hank

[catdat]

Operation Ivy wrote:

Catdat do you know about this site,lots of M1 Tankers on this site

http://www.trackpads.com/home/

and one more quick question what was your job while you were in the 1/66 2ndAD? like a TC,engineer,driver exc exc

I was a young 19k10 right out of AIT & Basic (C-1-1 for 19 wks sucks).
I was a Loader and Driver when I wasn't chaising Tail in killeen or Austin :)

I'll check that site out hadn't seen it b4! thanks for the heads up Ivy.

catdat

[Lysander]

Here ya go
http://img20.photobucket.com/albums/v60/OpIvy/Animation1MT.gif

The "DOINK" cracks me up! rofl

[AVZ]

http://www.robcurtis.com/galleries/OIF%202003%20Web%20Gallery/OIF%202003%20gallery-Images/209.jpg

[FDF_Hemppis]

Tank...

HEY! I thought hits under the belt weren't allowed! :slap:

[Macs.]

http://www.robcurtis.com/galleries/OIF%202003%20Web%20Gallery/OIF%202003%20gallery-Images/209.jpg

Pff, you could atleast add a "graphic" warning, for ivy. ;)

[Operation Ivy]

wtf is this, what good thread gone to shame p-)

[UoUo]

Back in October 1973, one event would decisively influence the future of the new American main battle tank: the "Yom Kippur" war in the Middle East. This war involved the largest concentration of tanks in combat since World War 2. After careful investigation of the events occurred during this conflict, the US Army concluded that the emergence of a new order of weapon lethality was dramatically revealed in the Arab-Israeli War of 1973. Facing the nature of this threat, the new US doctrine set as its priority the defense of NATO Europe against a quantitatively superior Warsaw Pact forces of greatly increased lethality. It accepted force ratios as a primary determinant of battle outcomes and argued the virtues of armored warfare and the combined arms team. This notion of stronger inter-service integration would to be introduced as the "air-land battle" concept in 1976, and to result in the AirLand Battle Doctrine in 1982.



:D

[SeanAshi]

Israel has a long history of trashing superior Soviet equipment. woot

[LordHalbert]

I took a closer look at that destroyed M1A1 and I noticed something:

http://www.deviarts.com/m1a1.jpg

Do you see that hole, that hole is made in the strongest part of the M1A1. That's a slab of depleted uranium. I know of only one thing that can do that and that's a sabot round from another M1A1/M1A2.

Please comment on my observation.

[FallenAngel]

disabled American tanks were sometimes destroyed by other Abrams or USAF using Hellfires/GBUs so it wouldn't fall into enemy hands.

[LordHalbert]

Could that hole be made with a Hellfire ?

May be it was a GBU.

In fact if you look at the barrel you'll notice the bore evacuator has been shredded by a force behind it. That seems to support an explosion emminating from the hole. If you look, you'll notice blast marks radiating out from the hole.

[soma]

They hit it with hellfires, which failed, other tank rounds, some worked, and eventually gave up on some and blew it up from the inside as well.

[dejawolf]

it was maverick.
RPG hit it in the side, started fuel leakage, which poured onto engine, and fire erupted. crew tried to supress engine fire, but it continued to erupt.
turret floor was eventually filled with .50 caliber rounds, and a thermite grenade was thrown into the tank.

later it was struck with mavericks, to finish the job.

there can be many holes in the front turret of a modern tank, but only the ones that are penetrations matter.

[instantmilkshake]

Can anybody tell me why the t90 is better than the M1? Just curious here...

[saigonsmuggler]

T-90 is better than a M1A1/A2 because:

- T-90 has unprotected and unvented ammo bustle in the autoloader which usually means the turret goes into low earth orbit if penetrated.

- T-90 has inferior optics and fire control.

- T-90 has inferior 125mm cannon and inferior ammunition (L:W ratio is inferior to US M829, M829A1/A2/A3 ammo.

- T-90 has inferior armor (even with forged turret version and Kontakt-5 ERAs).

- etc....

So you can see for yourself that the T-90 is a better tank because a few "knowleageable" members here said so. It must then be so!

But hey they're cheap compare to Western tanks so you can buy them by the buckloads...

[Mudcat]

turret goes into low earth orbit if penetrated.


Doink....pop...weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!! :D

[instantmilkshake]

Why do Abrams use human loader?
Why are tank guns smooth bored?

[Fintin]

Why do Abrams use human loader?
Why are tank guns smooth bored?

for the human loaders...i have heard its cause there are lets bits to break then...an auto loading system brings in thousands of new pieces...all of which can break...human loader you have one guy...who can be substitued if he gets hurt

as far as smooth bored....i havnt a clue

[FDF_Hemppis]

Why do Abrams use human loader?
Why are tank guns smooth bored?

for the human loaders...i have heard its cause there are lets bits to break then...an auto loading system brings in thousands of new pieces...all of which can break...human loader you have one guy...who can be substitued if he gets hurt

as far as smooth bored....i havnt a clue

A human loader is faster, more reliable, weights less and has less mechanical parts to brake (p-))

Guns are smoot bored because of sabots*

* A "sabot" round is fin-stabilised, hence it does not require rifles to make it spin around its longitudinal axis for stabilization effect.

EDIT: WOOHOO!! second star! woot woot

[Operation Ivy]

damnit i wanted to answer those questions :D

[FDF_Hemppis]

damnit i wanted to answer those questions :D

I'm just sooo fast..

*smokin'* p-)

[bloddyaxe]

well the T-90 has lower siluette than the M1, Explosive reactive armor, diesel engine, greater cross-country mobilty, greater range, gun-launched ATGMs, might have active-defence systems such as arena or drozhd, at least five times cheaper and its russian so you probably could store it in a lake for a few decades, bring it back up, let it dry and it would work.

[UoUo]

diesel engine should be better then a torbine engine?

[FDF_Hemppis]

diesel engine should be better then a torbine engine?

I'd think so. See many trucks/heavy machinery with gas-turbine engines? no? What about diesel? millions.

[saigonsmuggler]

diesel engine should be better then a torbine engine?
Well depends... if you have the resources (as in huge fuel convoys) like the US Army and have resources to protect your fuel supply, the turbines are good:

- lower weight than diesel (so you can pile more armor onto your tank :))
- multi-fuel capable
- less noise signature

but you give up on these things:

- reasonable torque at low rpm's of the diesel
- lower heat signature of the diesel
- lower fuel consumption of the diesel

If it's up to me (but it never is) I would rather have the diesel.

[FDF_Hemppis]

- multi-fuel capable
- less noise signature


1st What do you mean by "multi-fuel capable"

2nd I thought gas-turbines were far more noisy than diesels? That's why no other tank uses them...

[saigonsmuggler]

well the T-90 has lower siluette than the M1, Explosive reactive armor, diesel engine, greater cross-country mobilty, greater range, gun-launched ATGMs, might have active-defence systems such as arena or drozhd, at least five times cheaper and its russian so you probably could store it in a lake for a few decades, bring it back up, let it dry and it would work.
Explosive armor as in ERA as a good point? And that is because???

ERAs can be a menace for dismounted troops around your tank (assuming that they are on your side of course). Once a Kontakt-5 ERA module goes off, and it is a huge tile, that area is left naked (not the good nakedness, the bad one).

Gun-launched ATGM is a good thing??? First of all the gun-launched ATGM is limited in diameter to the caliber of the gun. This limits its effectiveness. Second, why bother with an ATGM (which is HEAT) when you can throw a DU sabot (kinetic) at the other guy's armor??? All modern armor (of the Chobham type) are much more effective when dealing with HEAT than with kinetic penetrators.

Greater cross country mobility of the T-90??? The suspension of the T-90 is no where near the current suspension of the M1A1/A2, Leopard 2 or Challenger 2 for that matter.

Diesel??? Hmm ok i have to agree with u here.

Active defense??? Ok that's a plus for the T.

Stored in a lake for a few decades??? Dude the T-90 is outdated as it is now (compare to Western tanks)... A few more decades in a lake?? I would just rather leave it in the lake.

[FDF_Hemppis]

ERAs can be a menace for dismounted troops around your tank (assuming that they are on your side of course). Once a Kontakt-5 ERA module goes off, and it is a huge tile, that area is left naked (not the good nakedness, the bad one).

Yes, ERA can be dangerous to accompanying troops, so can be the tank blowing up... Besides, the new generation plates don't always blow away (If I understood correctly) Pros (added protection) outweight the cons (possibly dangerous to accompanying troops)



Gun-launched ATGM is a good thing??? First of all the gun-launched ATGM is limited in diameter to the caliber of the gun. This limits its effectiveness. Second, why bother with an ATGM (which is HEAT) when you can throw a DU sabot (kinetic) at the other guy's armor??? All modern armor (of the Chobham type) are much more effective when dealing with HEAT than with kinetic penetrators.


It's an added benefit. Missiles reach to much longer ranges than sabots. And I'd say the diameter of the gun is more than enough*

*A modern HEAT charge has something like 7-8:1 diameter to penetration ratio, so i.e. a 125mm diameter heat charge would in theory penetrate 1000mm of steel. That's not enough for the front of the turret, but it's pretty much more than enough for anywhere else. And let's not even begin on top-attack profile missiles, they don't ask if you have chobham or regular steel ;)




Greater cross country mobility of the T-90??? The suspension of the T-90 is no where near the current suspension of the M1A1/A2, Leopard 2 or Challenger 2 for that matter.


And you know this by how? Suspension design isn't exactly dark magic, and I'm pretty sure the Russians haven't sat on their asses on that matter either... I'm sure the modern T-series of tanks is well covered on that issue.



Diesel??? Hmm ok I have to agree with u here.


A diesel is definitely a better way to go. Benefits can be found by googling, or if required I can post some points here.



Active defense??? Ok that's a plus for the T.


Has cons and pros. Mostly pros, thought. Most of the "Russian" systems are to be seen on every one of the major tanks on their future versions. Russia, US, Israel, Germany and France all have their own development programs making new stuff to find and kill the enemy more efficiently.



Stored in a lake for a few decades??? Dude the T-90 is outdated as it is now (compare to Western tanks)... A few more decades in a lake?? I would just rather leave it in the lake.

T-90 maybe isn't on the sharpest edge of development anymore, but outdated? Seriously... :roll:

You have to remember that Russians build their tanks on a different principle than westerners do. They rely on smaller size, speed, agility, and cross country performance. Whereas westerners seem to by with more armor, better electronics and easier to maintain.

-Regards, Hemppis :)

[Ghostwolf]

A human loader is faster, more reliable, weights less and has less mechanical parts to brake (p-))


There are some countries whose MBTs use autoloader, like Japan's Type 90, the French Leclerc and Israel's Merkava and etc. What is their reason for choosing an autoloader rather than human loader?

[Hullebullen]

Smaller turret?

[Operation Ivy]

2nd I thought gas-turbines were far more noisy than diesels? That's why no other tank uses them...

Complete opposite ;)

[UoUo]

A human loader is faster, more reliable, weights less and has less mechanical parts to brake (p-))


There are some countries whose MBTs use autoloader, like Japan's Type 90, the French Leclerc and Israel's Merkava and etc. What is their reason for choosing an autoloader rather than human loader?

Thw merkava dont have an autoloader.

[Havoc]

I just couldnt stand and watch this conversation.

If Chobham armor is so damn advanced so why it was pentrated by 60's invented RPG-7 or 23mm AAgun?

Also if you compare M1 and T-90, there is also weight what matters. M1 65 tons Vs. T-90 45 tons. In pavement and on desert it doesnt matter, but if you go to places like chechnya, you cant do anything with abrams there.

About superior gun, ammo and optics. Ok they are good in desert where you can shoot up to 5 km's, but in russian soil, there is effective shooting range about 1 km or less. So what M1 can do in the desert with long shooting ranges, T-90 do it better in short ranges.

The new Kontakt-5 ERA with shtora selfdefense system outclass most american tank ammo and hellfire missiles. That what is said from first gulf war, about M1 survived direct hit from T-72. Ok its true but you have to remember that the iraqis had downgraded export T-72's.

Also those technical things what are used these two tanks. Russia has allways made their tanks to use after nuclear strike. When M1 looses its allmost every electric helpequipment, T-90 keeps going. (Nuclear strike is not very common in warfare :D )

But as you can see that M1 and T-90 are made to different nation with different soil.

[UoUo]

Wait...people...didn't the M1 made to face the Russian tanks?

[FDF_Hemppis]

2nd I thought gas-turbines were far more noisy than diesels? That's why no other tank uses them...

Complete opposite ;)

Well you learn something new every day here. False knowledge now corrected :)


I just couldn’t stand and watch this conversation.

C'mon in, there's plenty of room left ;)



If Chobham armor is so damn advanced so why it was penetrated by 60's invented RPG-7 or 23mm AAgun?


When did this happen? And RPG or 23mm AA penetrates the Russian tanks from sides of back just as easily ;)



Also if you compare M1 and T-90, there is also weight what matters. M1 65 tons Vs. T-90 45 tons. In pavement and on desert it doesn’t matter, but if you go to places like Chechnya, you cant do anything with Abrams there.


This is what I was trying to say in my previous post about the different principles in design. We have very soft ground here in Finland, hence the use of the "light" T-72 before (and now too). But now we have the much heavier Leo2, well see how it performs in a soft ground like ours. (Probably just fine, me thinks)



About superior gun, ammo and optics. Ok they are good in desert where you can shoot up to 5 km's, but in Russian soil, there is effective shooting range about 1 km or less. So what M1 can do in the desert with long shooting ranges, T-90 do it better in short ranges.


This is, again, true for Finland too. Shooting distances in here for tanks are generally in the hundreds of meters. At those distances it's the one with quicker trigger finger who wins, and not the one with longer range weapon system.



said from first gulf war, about M1 survived direct hit from T-72. Ok its true but you have to remember that the Iraqis had downgraded export T-72's.


This one has more to with things like where was M1 hit? And downgraded or not, what kind of ammo was used matters more, IMO...



Also those technical things what are used these two tanks. Russia has always made their tanks to use after nuclear strike. When M1 looses its almost every electric help equipment, T-90 keeps going. (Nuclear strike is not very common in warfare :D )


Sooo... The M1 isn't NBC & EMP protected?? OpIvy, this can't be true, can it?



But as you can see that M1 and T-90 are made to different nation with different soil.

Agreed. Very much so :D

[FDF_Hemppis]

A human loader is faster, more reliable, weights less and has less mechanical parts to brake (p-))


There are some countries whose MBTs use autoloader, like Japan's Type 90, the French Leclerc and Israel's Merkava and etc. What is their reason for choosing an autoloader rather than human loader?

Finnish 130mm coastal gun (http://www2.mil.fi/merivoimat/esikunta/toim_kalusto_17.dsp) uses one, too ;)

Why autoloader? Well, I don't know...But I'll guess :P

AFAIK autoloader is faster in theory. Rounds are loaded in cases of X number of ammunition at a time*. And as long as the tank shoot the same kind of ammo (in the one case) it reloads very quickly. However if you have to change ammo type, the autoloader must change the whole case of ammo, and it takes longer than for a human to load 1 different round...

*think of a revolver where you have i.e. 6 rounds in a roll

(Please note that I'm no expert on autoloaders, and I'm just talking out of my head, so all this might be utter BS...)

[Operation Ivy]

This tank is protected against biological and chemical warfare (NBC) with a 200 SCFM clean conditioned air system, a Radiac Radiological Warning Device, AN/VDR-1 and a chemical agent detector

Also how can you say the Abrams wouldnt do good in Russia when thats where it was designed to fight, East Germny and Russia p-)

[Operation Ivy]

(Please note that I'm no expert on autoloaders, and I'm just talking out of my head, so all this might be utter BS...)

Well when an autoloader can load a round a round every 2-3 seconds then you know there worth it ;)

[FDF_Hemppis]

Thanks, Ivy! I knew there was something fishy about Abrams not having NBC-protection...

And maybe it was designed to make it trough Russia, but it will still get stuck on the mud* like the rest rofl

*Remember the photo sometime ago where a Leo2 was in mud up its tower ;)

[Havoc]

Quote:

If Chobham armor is so damn advanced so why it was penetrated by 60's invented RPG-7 or 23mm AAgun?



When did this happen? And RPG or 23mm AA penetrates the Russian tanks from sides of back just as easily

Now in iraq. If T-80 or T-72/90 series tank does have proper Kontakt-5, like it did not have in Chechnya, it will survive.


Quote:

said from first gulf war, about M1 survived direct hit from T-72. Ok its true but you have to remember that the Iraqis had downgraded export T-72's.



This one has more to with things like where was M1 hit? And downgraded or not, what kind of ammo was used matters more, IMO...


They did use same ammo what is used in Finland, Not DU ammo.


Quote:

Also those technical things what are used these two tanks. Russia has always made their tanks to use after nuclear strike. When M1 looses its almost every electric help equipment, T-90 keeps going. (Nuclear strike is not very common in warfare )



Sooo... The M1 isn't NBC & EMP protected?? OpIvy, this can't be true, can it?

Never heard or read anywhere that its EMP protected. That is really different from NBC protection.


Quote:
(Please note that I'm no expert on autoloaders, and I'm just talking out of my head, so all this might be utter BS...)


Well when an autoloader can load a round a round every 2-3 seconds then you know there worth it

Manual loaded the 2-3 first ammos are quicker loaded than autoloader. Tested and proven.

[FDF_Hemppis]

Never heard or read anywhere that it’s EMP protected. That is really different from NBC protection.


I know it's different. I'm in no way sure of this, I was just thinking it might be, with (I think) most military electronics nowadays being EMP protected... It would make sense, that after nuclear/EMP attack you don't have 2000 pieces of scrap metal in the battlefield ;)
Maybe Ivy could shed light to this matter?





(Please note that I'm no expert on autoloaders, and I'm just talking out of my head, so all this might be utter BS...)


Well when an autoloader can load a round a round every 2-3 seconds then you know there worth it

Manual loaded the 2-3 first ammos are quicker loaded than autoloader. Tested and proven.

Can you provide source for this?
(not meant in a negative way, I'm just interested to read about this)


PS. And look! 4 pages of serious discussion and it's not a flame war yet, it's amazing ;) :D

[Havoc]

From T-72M1 manual is told that it takes 8-12 secs to reload new ammo in. That was tested by Finnish army personel. T-72m1 and t-55m. I dont find good source from anywhere. All of those are BS!

[FDF_Hemppis]

Oh, how come I didn't notice another Finn? :roll:

Kannattaa käydä täältä (http://www.mil.fi/paaesikunta/paaesikunta/sotatalous/) lukemassa STAE1&2, niistä saa jo kivasti irti pansuista :D

[Havoc]

I think i still remember how T-72 works :lol:

[FDF_Hemppis]

Here's a little something to read for all you tank-fans out there:

03.2.2 Summary

Most of the Main Battle Tanks (MBTs) currently in active service represent second generation equipment developed in the late 1970's and in the 1980's. The old first generation MBT's will largely be taken out of service early in this century, due to the small calibre of the main gun, the insufficient capability of the ammunition and the low level of ballistic protection.

Only a small number of third generation MBTs (or even fourth generation according to some sources) have been developed so far (e.g. LECLERC, CHALLENGER 2). Most of the new tanks are improved versions of second generation technologies (e.g. MERKAVA MK III, M-1 A-2 ABRAMS SEP, LEOPARD 2A5, LEOPARD2A6, STRV 122). The focus is currently on increasing the penetration and demolition effect of the ammunition, achieving improved protection and introducing advanced electronic solutions in C3I-systems. The calibre of the main gun seems to be settled in the Western Countries to 120 mm and in Russia to 125 mm.

Russia is improving the night vision equipment of its T-90 and T-80 series tanks by means of thermal camera technology, increasing protection with self-protection systems (Shtora-1, Arena, Drodz) and further developing the standard 125 mm cannon and its ammunition. Russia has also started a serie production on all welded turret for T-90S MBT, which enlargens the crew compartment by 160 liters in volume. A new trend is also presented not only by the Black Eagle (Omsk 1987), mounted on a T-80 chassis and equipped with a new turret and a probably 130-140 mm cannon, but also by the prototype of T-95.

The T-95 is announced to be a radically new concept rather than a variant of an existing MBT. All of the technical data, outline and configuration features of the T-95 are still secret. However it is said to weight some 50 tons, dimensions are believed to be similar to the existing Russian T-series and the calibre of the main gun is 135 mm fitted with a new Fire Control System. The new turret is predicted to be unmanned and the new autoloader is most likely located below the small turret.

APFSDS (Armour Piercing Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot) rounds will be used as the main ammunition type against armoured targets. The muzzle energy using the in service arrow projectiles (wolfram or DU, L/D 30, muzzle velocity 1600-1800 m/s), is some 9-12 MJ. Existing APFSDS rounds can penetrate approximately 650-900 mm (RHA). Penetration of the front armour of a third generation MBT has been calculated to require a muzzle energy of some 18 MJ. An attempt has been made to meet this requirement by increasing the calibre and lengthening the barrel. Apart from test items, no cannons of this kind are in service yet.

Russia will still maintain its laser-guided anti-tank missiles fired from the tank's main gun. The maximum range of the missiles is 5000 m and the tandem warhead can penetrate some 900-950 mm (RHA). The missiles can also be fired from a moving tank.

The ammunition employed in the main tank weapon includes a multi-purpose hollow projectile and a fragmentation grenade which carries a time or impulse fuse and sends out a directed fragment burst.

Modern tanks are fitted with a sophisticated fire control system, which enables the target to be identified and hit up to a range of some 2500-3000 m in approximately 4-6 seconds even in all weather contions and when the tank is moving.

The development expected to take place in the near future will focus on the Automatic Target Tracking (ATT), Thermal Sights, integration of command and control systems (C4I) and the development of Battlefield Combat Identification (BCI) systems. Other further development projects concentrate on additional armour for the hull and turret, which is possible without an increase on weight with a new smaller and lighter power pack.

The current MBTs will still be in operational use after the year 2020. Vetronics and the integration of the various sub-systems of MBTs will be further developed. This will enable efficient range of fire up to 3500-4000 m when on the move. The main gun calibre used in the west will not increase in the near future. New weapon technologies, eg. Electro-Magnetic Guns, are likely to be introduced extensively after the year 2020. The penetration of kinetic energy ammunition will exceed 1000 mm in the near future.

MBTs will partly be replaced by new platforms based on an entirely new technology after the year 2020.

Light tanks are wheeled or track-mounted vehicles, and they are considerably lighter than main battle tanks. They typically also carry a thinner armour, and their weapons vary from rifle-calibre guns to tank cannons, depending on the purpose and need. The most important types of light tanks are Infantry Fighting Vehicles (IFVs).

Developments in armour protection has led to a small increase in the calibre of IFV main guns. A modern IFV is equipt with a 25-40 mm automatic cannon and 1-3 machine guns. IFVs are also fitted with a modern anti-tank missile system. Exceptionally, the Russian BMP-3 has a 30 mm automatic gun and a 100 m cannon capable of firing High Explosives (HE) and laser-guided Anti-Tank Missiles.

The standard equipment of a modern IFV includes a Thermal Sight for the gunner (TS), a Fire Control System (FCS) and laser range finder. The TS and FCS technologies employed in Russia cannot be expected to reach Western standards in the foreseeable future.

Perforation of the new IFVs on the frontal sector requires an ammunition capable of penetrating more than 100 mm (RHA). The newest APFSDS rounds penetrates as much as 130-140 mm RHA. The efficiency of the current HE rounds has been improved by increasing the fragment size and armour piercing features. The new multi-purpose rounds include MPLD-T and SAPHEI-T projectiles.

The current progress in weapon systems of the IFVs will increase the effective range of fire up to 3000 m. Enemy IFVs will remain their main targets, although anti-helicopter action will also assume a more prominent role. Sophisticated Night Vision Equipments will also enable IFVs to be used effectively at all times of the day and night.

In a CTA (Cased Telescoped Ammunition) system, for example, a 40-45 mm round will be incorporated entirely inside the propelling charge, which will reduce the size of the ammunition. The system will also be simpler than the present ones, more reliable and easier to maintain. In a twin-calibre weapon system, the gun barrel can be replaced with one of another calibre without making any structural changes to the other parts of the weapon. The barrel calibre is being established at 30/40 mm or 35/50 mm. The advantages of the system include cost efficiency, a comprehensive range of ammunition and opportunities for further development. The aim in developing IFV weapon systems is to avoid any increase in turret size. An other alternative is an Over Head Weapon Station (OWS) where the gunner's station is inside the chassis.

[Ghostwolf]

A human loader is faster, more reliable, weights less and has less mechanical parts to brake (p-))


There are some countries whose MBTs use autoloader, like Japan's Type 90, the French Leclerc and Israel's Merkava and etc. What is their reason for choosing an autoloader rather than human loader?

Thw merkava dont have an autoloader.

You're right, I mistaken the Merkava Mk4's 10 round revolving magazine for an autoloader.



(Please note that I'm no expert on autoloaders, and I'm just talking out of my head, so all this might be utter BS...)

Well when an autoloader can load a round a round every 2-3 seconds then you know there worth it ;)

Could it be that the 120mm round is too heavy for some loaders (such as Asians) to handle and therefore switched to automatic loading? a 120mm tank rounds weighs about 42 lb(or 19 kg) and to load one round into the gun breech within 3 second, for most Asians that may be too exhausting.
Then again the Korean K1A1 MBT doesn't have autoloader, so I could be wrong.

[Levan]

there is a one very big minus in all russian tanks. their life space is very small and crew becomes tired after a few hours spent inside. thats why in israel-arab wars the effectivness of arab tank forces was so low. they just got hedeaches and other such sh//t.
at he same time more cofortable western tanks where better suitable for living and fighting.
also you mus see how additional sabots are placed in the tank. there are almost everywhere!!! even as I can remeber few of them are placed ander drivers seat. imagine how is it to ride a tank sitting on pare of HE 125 mm shells))

chehcens used to hit russian tanks inbetween its steel wheels< from side. than the RPG roun penatrated the hull of tank and strikes exactly at the shell located in reloader. so the turret goes in to hell as well as all the ammunition located not in the special compartmnent but in the living space where crew works. no survivers. I remember someone here protested the origin of Jevelin fire test. he sad there must be explosives in tank so he goes apart... whell he was right, there was an explosive. it was the tanks shells. I am sure the tank was combat loaded for getting more realistic results of what happens when a anti tank missile hits such tanks. as you meybe already mentioned the tarret after blast hits groun after a 5-9 seconds, stright from the earth orbit. very sad.

[saigonsmuggler]

Havoc, I almost did not respond to your ridiculous assertions but anyway here it goes:

- The two M1A1s with rear penetrations was from Bradley's 25mm Bushmaster cannon.

- You DO realize that Kontakt-5 ERA is only on the turret and glacis? RPGs will go thru the rear of the T-90 just as easily. The turret sides/rear and hull sides/rear are NOT protected by ANY Kontakt-5 modules.

- Abrams were NOT penetrated on the front turret or glacis. There was ONE SINGLE INSTANCE of penetration on the hull side by RPG. This "lucky" shot went in between the two side skirt protective panels and proceeded to penetrate the side hull.

- Most Abrams losts in OIF were the result of RPG hitting and igniting extra ammo, gear and fuel stowed on the OUTSIDE turret racks. The resulting (usually) fuel then dripped onto the engine deck, thus igniting the engine. Tanks were then usually abandoned. Then you see the Iraqis dancing on them afterward and ridiculous claims like yours then made.

[saigonsmuggler]

http://www.robcurtis.com/galleries/OIF%202003%20Web%20Gallery/OIF%202003%20gallery-Images/209.jpg

Pff, you could atleast add a "graphic" warning, for ivy. ;)
Confirmed as Maverick hit. This is the "Cojone Eh?" tank. Abandoned due to RPG hit causing engine fire. After the Iraqi's happy dance, USAF pasted it with two Mavericks.

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/US-Field-Manuals/abrams-oif.pdf

[Operation Ivy]

Im not sure about EMP on the Abrams ill get back to you on that when i feel like looking, im to lazy right now :D

I didnt notice but someone said the tanks we sold to Eygpt didnt have Chobham armor on them, well they do, they just dont have some DU armor on them like our Abrams do p-)

If catdat is still around mabe he can tell us about EMP on the Abrams :D


Most Abrams losts in OIF were the result of RPG hitting and igniting extra ammo, gear and fuel stowed on the OUTSIDE turret racks. The resulting (usually) fuel then dripped onto the engine deck, thus igniting the engine. Tanks were then usually abandoned.

Just about to state that, the only time an RPG actaully penetraded the Abrams would be when they hit the vents in the back of the tank

[Havoc]

there is a one very big minus in all russian tanks. their life space is very small and crew becomes tired after a few hours spent inside. thats why in israel-arab wars the effectivness of arab tank forces was so low. they just got hedeaches and other such sh//t.
at he same time more cofortable western tanks where better suitable for living and fighting.
also you mus see how additional sabots are placed in the tank. there are almost everywhere!!! even as I can remeber few of them are placed ander drivers seat. imagine how is it to ride a tank sitting on pare of HE 125 mm shells))

chehcens used to hit russian tanks inbetween its steel wheels< from side. than the RPG roun penatrated the hull of tank and strikes exactly at the shell located in reloader. so the turret goes in to hell as well as all the ammunition located not in the special compartmnent but in the living space where crew works. no survivers. I remember someone here protested the origin of Jevelin fire test. he sad there must be explosives in tank so he goes apart... whell he was right, there was an explosive. it was the tanks shells. I am sure the tank was combat loaded for getting more realistic results of what happens when a anti tank missile hits such tanks. as you meybe already mentioned the tarret after blast hits groun after a 5-9 seconds, stright from the earth orbit. very sad.

I dont have seen any other russian tanks inside than T-55 and T-72. Both are Finnish modified. I was a T-72 gunner and i surely can say that there is no problem to be in there for many hours not even a day.


- The two M1A1s with rear penetrations was from Bradley's 25mm Bushmaster cannon.

Well allmost same HE ammo?


- You DO realize that Kontakt-5 ERA is only on the turret and glacis? RPGs will go thru the rear of the T-90 just as easily. The turret sides/rear and hull sides/rear are NOT protected by ANY Kontakt-5 modules.

There are some modifications made atleast for T-80 where there is few ERA blocks in the back.


- Abrams were NOT penetrated on the front turret or glacis. There was ONE SINGLE INSTANCE of penetration on the hull side by RPG. This "lucky" shot went in between the two side skirt protective panels and proceeded to penetrate the side hull.

Did i said that they are pentrated from the front? There is big difference between RPG and 125mm ammo. Have you noticed that there are "death trap" for ammo between turret and hull at front of M1?

[Levan]

I dont have seen any other russian tanks inside than T-55 and T-72. Both are Finnish modified. I was a T-72 gunner and i surely can say that there is no problem to be in there for many hours not even a day.



that is very simple, there is no hot weather in Finnland. But in hot countries this becomes a big issue. I have seen many comments from israelis who sad that unability to fight a long time inside russian tanks downed dramatically fighting ability of arab tank forces.

[Levan]

The M-1 was hited by Bradly vehicle. Bradly as I know used depleted uranium ammunition.

any way even the most powerfull tank can be hit and destroyd by aging weapons/ question is how it ensures the surviveability of the crew. no doubt destroyed M-1 are looking more "beautiful" then his russian counterparts. which ususaly have no turrets. :|

[scrybe]

no doubt destroyed M-1 are looking more "beautiful" then his russian counterparts. which ususaly have no turrets. :|

You are definately right there... for what it's worth.

[FDF_Hemppis]

that is very simple, there is no hot weather in Finnland.

Well, maybe not hot weather like in the middle east, but goddamn that we don't have hot weather? It was hot enough when I was in the army! ;) +24 to +31C for six weeks straight... I wasn't even funny anymore :|

[UoUo]

that is very simple, there is no hot weather in Finnland.

Well, maybe not hot weather like in the middle east, but goddamn that we don't have hot weather? It was hot enough when I was in the army! ;) +24 to +31C for six weeks straight... I wasn't even funny anymore :|

LoL 24c in the summer... :D In the sinai desert (where we fight with Egept) it something like 40c in the summer....

:D

[FDF_Hemppis]

that is very simple, there is no hot weather in Finnland.

Well, maybe not hot weather like in the middle east, but goddamn that we don't have hot weather? It was hot enough when I was in the army! ;) +24 to +31C for six weeks straight... I wasn't even funny anymore :|

LoL 24c in the summer... :D In the sinai desert (where we fight with Egept) it something like 40c in the summer....

:D

I repeat myself ;)


Well, maybe not hot weather like in the middle east

20...25C, in the night, yes. And it's all about what you're used to. To us +30C is hot, while some might consider it to merely mild. On the other hand, temperature can also drop to -50C in the winter.

Anyways, be it +30 or +40C, it's pretty much the same things to look out for. +30 gets you dehydrated pretty quickly, too :D

[Hydro]

If Chobham armor is so damn advanced so why it was pentrated by 60's invented RPG-7 or 23mm AAgun?



In Gulf War 1, a Warrior AFV (not a tank), was hit by an APFSDS round in a friendly fire incident from a Challenger 1. Not damaged, due to the Chobham armour plates.

Chobham is good. Very good.

[Havoc]

Doesnt challenger ammo is something else that APFSDS? Couse rifled cannon. Americans and germany use those.

Well if it is just tacticks why america loses their tanks in Iraq. Atleast they lost exercise fight against Canada with Leopard 1! :lol:

[Firefly26]

You know, autoloaders sound nice and all, but damn that would suck to be a TC and have to watch for everything everywhere. Its nice to have that loader because its an extra set of eyes, and it just makes everybody's duties easier. Extra guy to pull watch, fill water cans, man the MG on the left flank, etc...

[Havoc]

Thats why there is wingmen!

[saigonsmuggler]

Doesnt challenger ammo is something else that APFSDS? Couse rifled cannon. Americans and germany use those.

Well if it is just tacticks why america loses their tanks in Iraq. Atleast they lost exercise fight against Canada with Leopard 1! :lol:
Challenger 2's use British-designed 120mm rifled cannon. This fact presents two problems and some advantages:

- APFSDS does not need rifling for stabilization. Actually rifling reduces the penetration potential for a APFSDS rod. However, the Brits circumvents this penalty by putting the APFSDS rod inside a rifling band, so the rifling does not impart a significant spin to the APFSDS rod.

- APFSDS velocity cannot be maximized in a rifled cannon as compared to an identical round fired in a smoothbore one. This affects range, accuracy and penetration potential.

- But the advantage is that you can fired non-fin-stabilized ammunition (such as HE, HEAT, HESH rounds) much more accurately and with longer range and accuracy.

Also the ammunition is a two-part ammo - DU penetrator and propellant package. This two-part design does not allow for very efficient L:W ratio of the APFSDS long rod penetrator.

About the Abrams in OIF - a simple fact that flammables stowage in the turret bustle caused most of the Abrams losses. Simply revise the stowage rules can eliminate this as a major cause of loss for the Abrams in future battles. And it is CONFIRMED that the US Army is already acting on this.

[Danzer]

You know, autoloaders sound nice and all, but damn that would suck to be a TC and have to watch for everything everywhere. Its nice to have that loader because its an extra set of eyes, and it just makes everybody's duties easier. Extra guy to pull watch, fill water cans, man the MG on the left flank, etc...

Yeah very nice but don't forget a huge factor. Fatigue.
Loading a few rounds quick can be done by a human operator but how long can he keep up?

Hot temperatures in a turret, crouching, heavy lifiting.
Humans may be quick for the first few shots but after that they tempt to slip, and autoloaders don't make misstakes.

But i don't say that the M1 isn't a pretty little tank :hug:

[FDF_Hemppis]

and autoloaders don't make misstakes.


As long as they work... :|

[Danzer]

and autoloaders don't make misstakes.


As long as they work... :|

Just as a human loader ;)

[Firefly26]

In a world of 1st shot 1st kill, I would rather have an extra set of eyes than an autoloader. Besides, with the technology put in to the 1st shot kill capability of the FCS, the gunner should't need more than 2 or 3 rounds, and then of course there is the adrenaline factor, which I am sure would definitely be kicking in during a tank engagement.

[Operation Ivy]

But i don't say that the M1 isn't a pretty little tank

little......i dont think soo :D

[FDF_Hemppis]

and autoloaders don't make misstakes.


As long as they work... :|

Just as a human loader ;)

Touché :D

[Firefly26]

Are there any tankers here reading this?

[FDF_Hemppis]

Well, at least OpIvy and Havoc are both tankers...

[gbos]

The M-1 was hited by Bradly vehicle. Bradly as I know used depleted uranium ammunition.

any way even the most powerfull tank can be hit and destroyd by aging weapons/ question is how it ensures the surviveability of the crew. no doubt destroyed M-1 are looking more "beautiful" then his russian counterparts. which ususaly have no turrets. :|

To be fair you can’t compare different era equipment. T-72 were designed to face M60 and believe me they have good chances blowing their turrets off. ;)

[gbos]

2nd I thought gas-turbines were far more noisy than diesels? That's why no other tank uses them...

Complete opposite ;)

Yes but I have the impression (I might be wrong but I think I remember correct) that it is far more easy to spot the direction of the sound in turbine engines because of the higher frequency. In other words you may spot the sound earlier in diesel engine but you can pinpoint it earlier in turbine engines. Anyway it is not that important. Tanks give very visible visual effects. :roll:

[gbos]

If Chobham armor is so damn advanced so why it was pentrated by 60's invented RPG-7 or 23mm AAgun?



In Gulf War 1, a Warrior AFV (not a tank), was hit by an APFSDS round in a friendly fire incident from a Challenger 1. Not damaged, due to the Chobham armour plates.

Chobham is good. Very good.

I wouldn’t put much faith in this statement. Anyway I‘d rather not be into a Warrior if it was hit by a 120mm APFSDS or even a 105mm APFSDS.

[gbos]

I just couldnt stand and watch this conversation.

If Chobham armor is so damn advanced so why it was pentrated by 60's invented RPG-7 or 23mm AAgun?

Also if you compare M1 and T-90, there is also weight what matters. M1 65 tons Vs. T-90 45 tons. In pavement and on desert it doesnt matter, but if you go to places like chechnya, you cant do anything with abrams there.

About superior gun, ammo and optics. Ok they are good in desert where you can shoot up to 5 km's, but in russian soil, there is effective shooting range about 1 km or less. So what M1 can do in the desert with long shooting ranges, T-90 do it better in short ranges.

The new Kontakt-5 ERA with shtora selfdefense system outclass most american tank ammo and hellfire missiles. That what is said from first gulf war, about M1 survived direct hit from T-72. Ok its true but you have to remember that the iraqis had downgraded export T-72's.

Also those technical things what are used these two tanks. Russia has allways made their tanks to use after nuclear strike. When M1 looses its allmost every electric helpequipment, T-90 keeps going. (Nuclear strike is not very common in warfare :D )

But as you can see that M1 and T-90 are made to different nation with different soil.

1 km shooting range! They were lucky. The unit I was serving operated in an area that 200 meters of plain ground was the maximum you can get :). I also feel sorry for the driver that will try to maneuver a 65 tones beast there. It will probably go down a 100m cliff trying passing a small bridge. Fortunately we will not place the Leo2 there.

[Operation Ivy]

Well, at least OpIvy and Havoc are both tankers...

heh i wish p-)

[Danzer]

hmm dunno if these have been posted yet

Jackaroo's another M1 on the barbie

:cantbeli:

http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2004/Aug/040804.cfm

August 2004
Abrams M1A1 Tank

The Government will equip the Australian Army with a fleet of 59 United States M1A1 Abrams Integrated Management main battle tanks to replace the ageing Leopards. The project cost is about $550 million. The Abrams tanks are significantly more capable than the current tank and will contribute to the Army becoming more lethal in future close combat. The Government accepted Defence’s advice that the Abrams is the best capability and the best value for money with the lowest risk of the three replacement tank options examined.

[Firefly26]

Leopard 1s to keep everyone in perspective.

[Levan]

The M-1 was hited by Bradly vehicle. Bradly as I know used depleted uranium ammunition.

any way even the most powerfull tank can be hit and destroyd by aging weapons/ question is how it ensures the surviveability of the crew. no doubt destroyed M-1 are looking more "beautiful" then his russian counterparts. which ususaly have no turrets. :|

To be fair you can’t compare different era equipment. T-72 were designed to face M60 and believe me they have good chances blowing their turrets off. ;)

offblowing turrets are common basicaly to russian tanks. as it was mentioned because of specific weapons comparttment.
Isrelis faught well with there M-60 and Merkavas against modern russian T-series.

[Levan]

The M-1 was hited by Bradly vehicle. Bradly as I know used depleted uranium ammunition.

any way even the most powerfull tank can be hit and destroyd by aging weapons/ question is how it ensures the surviveability of the crew. no doubt destroyed M-1 are looking more "beautiful" then his russian counterparts. which ususaly have no turrets. :|

To be fair you can’t compare different era equipment. T-72 were designed to face M60 and believe me they have good chances blowing their turrets off. ;)

offblowing turrets are common basicaly to russian tanks. as it was mentioned because of specific weapons comparttment.
Isrelis faught well with there M-60 and Merkavas against modern russian T-series.

[saigonsmuggler]

The main problem for the T-6X, T-8X and T-9X is the unprotected ammo carousel of the autoloader. If either the turret or the hull is penetrated, more often than not, the open main gun rounds in the carousel are ignited, causing catastrophic explosions.

Note that in the design of the Black Eagle, the Russian has ammo storage to the vented bustles of the M1-design. Actually the external vent plates are practically identical to that of the M1 series.

[East]

they don't use auto loaders because they can select the kind of round fired ie. heat, sabot if they don't.

[esl]

If Chobham armor is so damn advanced so why it was pentrated by 60's invented RPG-7 or 23mm AAgun?



In Gulf War 1, a Warrior AFV (not a tank), was hit by an APFSDS round in a friendly fire incident from a Challenger 1. Not damaged, due to the Chobham armour plates.

Chobham is good. Very good.

I wouldn’t put much faith in this statement. Anyway I‘d rather not be into a Warrior if it was hit by a 120mm APFSDS or even a 105mm APFSDS.
You are correct the round was 120 HESH.

[esl]

About the Abrams in OIF - a simple fact that flammables stowage in the turret bustle caused most of the Abrams losses. Simply revise the stowage rules can eliminate this as a major cause of loss for the Abrams in future battles. And it is CONFIRMED that the US Army is already acting on this.

something wrong here. RPG detonated by racks of baggage means increase standoff. THat is extra armor. REmove baggage and round penetrate turret?

[HardThunder]

If Chobham armor is so damn advanced so why it was pentrated by 60's invented RPG-7 or 23mm AAgun?



In Gulf War 1, a Warrior AFV (not a tank), was hit by an APFSDS round in a friendly fire incident from a Challenger 1. Not damaged, due to the Chobham armour plates.

Chobham is good. Very good.

I wouldn’t put much faith in this statement. Anyway I‘d rather not be into a Warrior if it was hit by a 120mm APFSDS or even a 105mm APFSDS.
You are correct the round was 120 HESH.

FYI The US 120mm Has no HESH ammo

Only APFSDS, and HEAT





About the Abrams in OIF - a simple fact that flammables stowage in the turret bustle caused most of the Abrams losses. Simply revise the stowage rules can eliminate this as a major cause of loss for the Abrams in future battles. And it is CONFIRMED that the US Army is already acting on this.

something wrong here. RPG detonated by racks of baggage means increase standoff. THat is extra armor. REmove baggage and round penetrate turret?

APU fires. Most M-1s that you see on fire. You will note that it is always at the rear. After adding the new APU the US has had a great many fires on M-1s any place we have M-1s. The APU is the major case for the fires.

Now what happen to that lowly 19K? cat 83? 83? Huff Try TCQC 1974,75-89

The 64th is just a bunch of Elephant heads now the 1/63 , and 3/63 at the time, much much better tanker unit. ANd Augsburg was the only place Real Tankers llived. If you did not start as a 11E they you never started being a real tanker!

[HardThunder]

Oh buy the way! A T-90 is far better because it is a renamed T-72.

Now all we have to do is rename the M-1 and it will be far better .

The truth is I do not feel that the Leo 2A6 is better then an M-1A2 non sep.

I do not feel it is better then a M-1A1 . Lest any T-anything

The Leopard 2A6 is a nice tank. BUT the Germans have not seen combat in over 50 years, and little of what they have made has seen combat or been in any kind of combat area outside of what you would find in Germany.

Also it just does not have the armor. The Sweds have a nice armor set for it.

I The Leopard is a BMW of Tanks. The M-1 is the High Tec Hummer.

at four round to a max of 1500 meters a min with a T-80/90 is just out classed. And that is just one area. The Nuk tips super hot self target finding Missile that can also be used as an Active ABM system just sounds to good to believe from a 125mm Tube launch system.

We had a 152mm tube launch missile that was in active use, and very good, and even it had problems. Land Launched Missiles under normal combat conditions have not worked very well. Long Time of flight, guidance, inability to move, and shoot at the same time is just a few of the problems. The Hellfire is another animal, in another class.

[mailmannz]

A human loader is faster, more reliable, weights less and has less mechanical parts to brake (p-))


There are some countries whose MBTs use autoloader, like Japan's Type 90, the French Leclerc and Israel's Merkava and etc. What is their reason for choosing an autoloader rather than human loader?

A human loader also gives you another set of hands to help with sentry, maintenance and making the coffee etc :)

Mailman

[sp2c]

Oh buy the way! A T-90 is far better because it is a renamed T-72.

Now all we have to do is rename the M-1 and it will be far better .

The truth is I do not feel that the Leo 2A6 is better then an M-1A2 non sep.

I do not feel it is better then a M-1A1 . Lest any T-anything

The Leopard 2A6 is a nice tank. BUT the Germans have not seen combat in over 50 years, and little of what they have made has seen combat or been in any kind of combat area outside of what you would find in Germany.

Also it just does not have the armor. The Sweds have a nice armor set for it.

I The Leopard is a BMW of Tanks. The M-1 is the High Tec Hummer.

at four round to a max of 1500 meters a min with a T-80/90 is just out classed. And that is just one area. The Nuk tips super hot self target finding Missile that can also be used as an Active ABM system just sounds to good to believe from a 125mm Tube launch system.

We had a 152mm tube launch missile that was in active use, and very good, and even it had problems. Land Launched Missiles under normal combat conditions have not worked very well. Long Time of flight, guidance, inability to move, and shoot at the same time is just a few of the problems. The Hellfire is another animal, in another class.

Leo 2a6 pwns the T-series

[[AFSOC]]

this is an old ass thread almost a year...

[Koz]

This is retarded. The M1A1HA/M1A2SEP is a better tank then the T-90.

The T-90M with K-5 has 800mm KEP and 1200mm KEP. The M1A2SEP has 960mm KEP and 1500mm CEP.

The T-90M has it's ammo stored in a carousel autoloader on the turret floor, meaning the turret pops off when off explodes, killing the crew. The M1xx has it's ammo in a separate bustle, protecting the crew from ammo explosion

The T-90M's autoloader can load a shell every 6.5 seconds. A human loader on the M1xx can load one 3 seconds while stationary and 5 seconds while moving. A loader can also search for targets, fire a machine gun, and operate the radio.

The latest Russian sabot only gets 600mm of penetration. This can only penetrate the glacis, even then the after armor effects would not be impressive. The AT-11 Sniper gets 800mm of penetration, this again can only penetrate the glacis, but with bad after armor effects. The missile also requires the T-90 to be stationary and to track the target for 14 seconds at max range, the M1xx can get off 2 aimed shots in this time. The M1xx can fire the M289A3 which gets 960mm, this can kill the T-90 at 2km and probably at 2.5km.

The T-90M's slew rate is slower then the M1xx.

The T-90M needs to be taken back to a depot for almost any kind of maintenence. Most of the M1xx's maintenence can be done in the field.

The T-90 is a good tank if you're going on the cheap and can be lethal if used well but I'd much rather tank in an M1A2SEP.

There are tons of other things, need I go on?

[sp2c]

leo2a6 pwnz Abramsez too p-)

[Koz]

leo2a6 pwnz Abramsez too p-)

Why? The only real advantage the Leopard has is it's greater range then the M1xx.

The two tanks are very much equal.

[Brozozo]

What is the latest model of the M1 series right now? Operational or in development, regardless. Is it still the M1A2SEP? Anybody know?

[Koz]

What is the latest model of the M1 series right now? Operational or in development, regardless. Is it still the M1A2SEP? Anybody know?

It is the M1A2SEP. The program is in effect killed, there won't be much more tanks upgraded to that level.

Despite the fact that tanks are proving essential in Iraq.

[nagant_m44]

- multi-fuel capable
- less noise signature


1st What do you mean by "multi-fuel capable"

2nd I thought gas-turbines were far more noisy than diesels? That's why no other tank uses them...

The T-80 uses a gas-turbine.

[M4ko]

Whoever was talking about M1's suspension: you dont see M1s doing that.


http://img84.exs.cx/img84/7104/t9023yg.jpg


I might not be able to compare offensive and defensive capabilites of both tanks since tehres tons of arguments from both sides taht can be created around it. But i can tell you that t-90's mobility and agility far surpasses that of M1. So lets see M1 even hit t-90 first before we can argue about t-90's defense. And stop comparing t-72s with M1s.

[Koz]

The suspension is one of the best things about the Abrams, it provides a very smooth ride. I've watched video of M1s jumping that Aberdeen proving ground. I've even talked to the tank commander of the tank. Don't buy propaganda photos of tank's doing jumps.

T-90S power to weight ratio: 18hp/ton
T-90M's power to weight ratio: 25hp/ton
M1A2SEP's power to weight ratio: 21hp/ton

Yes, the T-90M does have a higher power to weight ratio. But the M1's turbine has much better acceleration and start up characteristics. Basically, the mobility of a T-90 is not much more then a M1.

[Brozozo]

The suspension is one of the best things about the Abrams, it provides a very smooth ride. I've watched video of M1s jumping that Aberdeen proving ground. I've even talked to the tank commander of the tank. Don't buy propaganda photos of tank's doing jumps.

T-90S power to weight ratio: 18hp/ton
T-90M's power to weight ratio: 25hp/ton
M1A2SEP's power to weight ratio: 21hp/ton

Yes, the T-90M does have a higher power to weight ratio. But the M1's turbine has much better acceleration and start up characteristics. Basically, the mobility of a T-90 is not much more then a M1. True, from some documentary I saw a while back the M1s suspension coupled with its gun stabilization system give it its phenomenal fire on the move ability. Its suspension is also responsible for the M1s outsatnading cross country speed.

[HardThunder]

First off with for the guy with the FLying T-72.

The DAY the The XM-1 was typed classified as the M-1 Abrams it was rolled out to the press, and did the first ever Tank Flying demonstration. AND is tank flying (without breaking anything, and being able to recover ) was any kind of mark for how good a tank is, the T-Whatever would come out dead last of those from MBT producing nations, aside from the T-whatever half offs, and look alikes.It just something that looks great, it is also a great way to say "Hay I am a target shoot me first"


The suspension is one of the best things about the Abrams, it provides a very smooth ride. I've watched video of M1s jumping that Aberdeen proving ground. I've even talked to the tank commander of the tank. Don't buy propaganda photos of tank's doing jumps.

T-90S power to weight ratio: 18hp/ton
T-90M's power to weight ratio: 25hp/ton
M1A2SEP's power to weight ratio: 21hp/ton

Yes, the T-90M does have a higher power to weight ratio. But the M1's turbine has much better acceleration and start up characteristics. Basically, the mobility of a T-90 is not much more then a M1.

True but torque is the real thing, and the M-1 is governed. Meaning that it has full combat power all the time. No tank is better at climbing hills.(and living to tell about it, a hillo on day one is the same on day 9000).

BTW this is a IN use, in combat system. Not a dream system, or a what we could do, or did to a few. And SEP is very much alive! It has been given an end time, and numbers, that is all, and those are not hard numbers, or times.


[quote=Koz]TTrue, from some documentary I saw a while back the M1s suspension coupled with its gun stabilization system give it its phenomenal fire on the move ability. Its suspension is also responsible for the M1s outsatnading cross country speed.

Well that is what it is all about. On the move. Anyone can play bunker. Iraq did!

[sp2c]

leo2a6 pwnz Abramsez too p-)

Why? The only real advantage the Leopard has is it's greater range then the M1xx.

The two tanks are very much equal.

it's called flamebait :-*$

[Shiftyfive]

Whoever was talking about M1's suspension: you dont see M1s doing that.


http://img84.exs.cx/img84/7104/t9023yg.jpg


I might not be able to compare offensive and defensive capabilites of both tanks since tehres tons of arguments from both sides taht can be created around it. But i can tell you that t-90's mobility and agility far surpasses that of M1. So lets see M1 even hit t-90 first before we can argue about t-90's defense. And stop comparing t-72s with M1s.

Three of the best battle proven russian tank killers

http://img229.exs.cx/img229/1418/m1a1pic579zp.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

http://img229.exs.cx/img229/5070/1027932un.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

http://img238.exs.cx/img238/5752/1031221om.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

http://img100.exs.cx/img100/7466/challenger220british20battle20.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

[HardThunder]

See



http://img229.exs.cx/img229/5070/1027932un.jpg

That is a real jump shot.

BTW does the PT-76/T-72 lover know anything about tanks other then having seen a jumping pic?

[Sir Zach of R.]

http://www.jodyharmon.com/knights.jpg

What's with the art from the Song of Roland?

[Shiftyfive]

The T90 is basically a upgraded T72 with some T80 parts added into the mix and a upgraded electronics suite. After the T72 continual dismal performance the Russians had to change its name to help get rid of the stigma of a very poor tank design.

The T90 has the same serious flaw as the T80 thru T64 which is the very poor ammunition storage, which also hampers the tanks ability to carry more effective sabot rounds.

Yes the T90 has active counter measures, and a later mark of a copy Israeli ERA and a rip off of Western composite armor, but one only has to remember Russia’s serious problems with quality control to doubt about those systems overall performance.

But the main advantage a US M1 of any mark would have over a Russian crewed T90 or any of its family is the fact US tankers are battle tested and are some of the best trained and lead tankers in the world, not to mention the tankers are volunteers while the Russians use conscripts who have historically been lacking in performance. This is largely due to their poor training, lack of training, and serious short falls in their senior leadership. Russia plans to move away from conscripts but I will not hold my breath on that one. Conscription is not so much the problem but the underlying Russian social issues that stem from it and surround it are the problem. The Israelis use conscription and they are not only also some of the best combat tested tankers in the world, but they continually hand the Russian tank equipped arabs their asses.

Its no wonder that the most succesful unit to use both Russian tactics and vehicles is the US opfor training unit, whose job is to wip the asses of the Blue forces for a better learning experience so when it comes to the real thing they will be ready for what the bad guys throw at them.

http://img161.exs.cx:81/img161/3845/brdm2withat53pr.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

http://img161.exs.cx:81/img161/5002/2parkedbmps1de.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

vismod

http://img161.exs.cx:81/img161/9652/dawnrollout27hr.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

http://img161.exs.cx:81/img161/5710/cdrstanksmed7fc.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

[Shiftyfive]

The 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment

May 21, 2004, 07:41

The mission of the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment “BLACKHORSE” is to serve as the world’s premier opposing force. Located at the National Training Center (NTC) Ft. Irwin, Calif., the 11th ACR conducts combat operations as the 60th Guards Motorized Rifle Division, providing the U.S. Army the most capable and lethal combined-arms opposing force anywhere in the world. The 11th ACR’s mission at the NTC focuses around training brigade task forces to achieve proficiency in their mission essential tasks, improve their ability to synchronize and employ the combined arms team, and enhance their combat readiness. The 11th ACR executes these combat operations during 10 rotations a year while at the same time maintaining its own U.S. Army BLUFOR skills.Reviewing the Blackhorse year, troopers of the regiment engaged in heavy MILES combat in October against the 3rd ACR “Brave Rifles.” Fighting across three corridors and conducting a week of continuous operations, both ACRs came out to the rotations exhausted but exhilarated at the training conducted. The capstone of this hard fought rotation was the “Lucky 16” dinner, a celebration of the “Cav Spirit” attended by members of all three active armored cavalry regiments (2nd ACR, 3rd ACR, and the 11th ACR).

The following rotation was against the 1Bde of the 101st Airborne (Air Assault) Division, a unique training challenge that pitted the premier mechanized force of the U.S. Army against the world’s premier air assault force. Both sides learned valuable lessons for future combined arms operations.

Following rotations pitted the Blackhorse against the 1st Cavalry Division and the 3rd Infantry Division. The 1st Cav and 3rd ID trained hard in the rainy, windswept desert of the NTC. Each BCT left better trained and with a higher METL assessment.
The OPFOR refined its mission by conducting AC/RC, joint, and coalition operations. January’s rotation introduced the 1-221 Cavalry from the Nevada National Guard as an augmentation unit to the 11th ACR. The 1-221 Cav “Wildhorse” became the 11th ACR’s 3rd Squadron for rotation 98-04. Acting as an independent tank battalion, the 1-221 Cav added another facet to the NTC battlefield. This force multiplier validated the 11th ACR motto “One Team, One Fight.”

The 11th ACR was also augmented by the Princess Patricia Canadian Light Infantry and by Marines from 29 Palms and Camp Pendleton during rotations 98-04 through 98-06. These light fighters provided the BLUFOR with an infantry threat attacking simultaneously at night against both flanks. All of these units fought with the intensity of seasoned OPFOR units.
The completion of FY98’s first campaign concluded with the Expert Field Medical Badge and Expert Infantry Badge training and competitions. These first class NCO-run events improved trooper proficiency and raised esprit de corps. The EFMB, run by 1/11 ACR, awarded 19 badges from a field of 76 medics. The EIB, run by 2/11 ACR, awarded 157 badges from 292 troopers.
Immediately following our chance to hone our BLUFOR skills, we again went into battle in two rotations, against the 1st Cavalry Division and the only CONUS brigade of the 1st Armored Division. The regiment concluded these two hardfought rotations with a regimental change of command. COL Guy C. Swan III passed the 11th ACR colors to COL John D. Rosenberger, 58th Colonel of the Blackhorse. Without pause, the regiment continued its hostile, uncooperative OPFOR mission to all BLUFOR units rotating through the NTC.

The August rotation brought the 116th National Guard Brigade Combat Team to the NTC, a unit consisting of units from 41 states. This rotation was the first time in nearly seven years that a National Guard BCT had fought the OPFOR. The Secretary of the Army, Louis Caldera, and the Army Chief of Staff, General Reimer, visited while the National Guard
was conducting force on force. The factfinding visit introduced the Secretary of the Army to the mission of the 11th ACR OPFOR and also to the National Training Center’s mission.

The 11th ACR’s fleet of combat vehicles continues to consist primarily of the M551 Sheridan, portraying the T-80 and BMP-1/2. Future vehicle modifications for the OPFOR fleet include the OPFOR Surrogate Vehicle (OSV). This vehicle, currently funded through FY00, will enhance the capabilities of the OPFOR. The vehicle consists of a M113A3 chassis with a Bradley turret and fire control system and a BMP-2 visual modification. This vehicle, along with its capability to carry dismounts, will provide a more realistic combined arms challenge to the visiting units of Force XXI.

Through it all, the regiment continues to focus on family and community relations. The regiment supports two veterans associations, the Blackhorse Association and the 11th Armored Cavalry Veterans of Vietnam and Cambodia. The annual Blackhorse Round-Up was recently held in New Orleans affording 11th ACR troopers of past and present to continue the traditions of Cav camaraderie. The 11th ACR looks forward to next year’s San Diego Round Up in July 1999. This reunion will include a trip to Fort Irwin where Blackhorse troopers will visit the newly dedicated 11th ACR Museum.

The 11th ACR’s force structure continues to evolve. Ironhorse 1st Squadron portrays the OPFOR armor. Eaglehorse 2nd Squadron portrays the OPFOR mechanized infantry. Packhorse Support Squadron provides logistical, chemical,
engineer, intelligence and maintenance support to the regiment. The round-out units consist of the 1-221 Cavalry Squadron, from the Nevada National Guard, and the recent addition of the 1/180 Field Artillery battalion, from the Arizona National Guard.

The 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment has continued to set the standard for the combined arms army. Rotation after rotation, we live by our motto, “Find the Bastards, Then Pile On.” We will always stand ready to fight.
ALLONS!

[platform389]

The T90 is basically a upgraded T72 with some T80 parts added into the mix and a upgraded electronics suite. After the T72 continual dismal performance the Russians had to change its name to help get rid of the stigma of a very poor tank design.

The T90 has the same serious flaw as the T80 thru T64 which is the very poor ammunition storage, which also hampers the tanks ability to carry more effective sabot rounds.

Yes the T90 has active counter measures, and a later mark of a copy Israeli ERA and a rip off of Western composite armor, but one only has to remember Russia’s serious problems with quality control to doubt about those systems overall performance.

http://www.angelfire.com/mi4/armania/armor/armour/t72/T72M1.html

Here is an interesting little site about the armor performance of the East German T-72. Since these were hand me downs from the Russians when they were equipped with the T-80, the usual qualifications about export equipment don't apply.


Comment: Although remarkably well armoured for a 40 ton tank, the principal design flaw is related to the tendency to set on fire once penetration ocurrs. The cramped interior, the huge autoloader and the lack of compartmentalisation of ammunition favors the striking of propellant charges with catastrophic consecuences. Usually, the fire spreads quickly into the ammunition cassette, promoting a high order detonation and blowing the turret off after incinerating the tank interior.

[Shiftyfive]

The T90 is basically a upgraded T72 with some T80 parts added into the mix and a upgraded electronics suite. After the T72 continual dismal performance the Russians had to change its name to help get rid of the stigma of a very poor tank design.

The T90 has the same serious flaw as the T80 thru T64 which is the very poor ammunition storage, which also hampers the tanks ability to carry more effective sabot rounds.

Yes the T90 has active counter measures, and a later mark of a copy Israeli ERA and a rip off of Western composite armor, but one only has to remember Russia’s serious problems with quality control to doubt about those systems overall performance.

http://www.angelfire.com/mi4/armania/armor/armour/t72/T72M1.html

Here is an interesting little site about the armor performance of the East German T-72. Since these were hand me downs from the Russians when they were equipped with the T-80, the usual qualifications about export equipment don't apply.


Comment: Although remarkably well armoured for a 40 ton tank, the principal design flaw is related to the tendency to set on fire once penetration ocurrs. The cramped interior, the huge autoloader and the lack of compartmentalisation of ammunition favors the striking of propellant charges with catastrophic consecuences. Usually, the fire spreads quickly into the ammunition cassette, promoting a high order detonation and blowing the turret off after incinerating the tank interior.

I had a excellent article from Russia on a test against a T72 turret by their own weapons and its performance. Wish I could find it - it even had good pics of all the holes of were their weapons penetrated into the turret.


Man that will just ruin your day

http://img56.exs.cx:81/img56/5390/t72turretblow7wu.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

[Mailman]

One of the German tanks at the Imperial War Museum here in London has multiple hits from Allied tanks on it. Never ceases to amaze me how "putty" like the armour looks after being hit.

Regards

Mailman

[nagant_m44]

The T90 is basically a upgraded T72 with some T80 parts added into the mix and a upgraded electronics suite. After the T72 continual dismal performance the Russians had to change its name to help get rid of the stigma of a very poor tank design.

The T90 has the same serious flaw as the T80 thru T64 which is the very poor ammunition storage, which also hampers the tanks ability to carry more effective sabot rounds.

Yes the T90 has active counter measures, and a later mark of a copy Israeli ERA and a rip off of Western composite armor, but one only has to remember Russia’s serious problems with quality control to doubt about those systems overall performance.

http://www.angelfire.com/mi4/armania/armor/armour/t72/T72M1.html

Here is an interesting little site about the armor performance of the East German T-72. Since these were hand me downs from the Russians when they were equipped with the T-80, the usual qualifications about export equipment don't apply.


Comment: Although remarkably well armoured for a 40 ton tank, the principal design flaw is related to the tendency to set on fire once penetration ocurrs. The cramped interior, the huge autoloader and the lack of compartmentalisation of ammunition favors the striking of propellant charges with catastrophic consecuences. Usually, the fire spreads quickly into the ammunition cassette, promoting a high order detonation and blowing the turret off after incinerating the tank interior.

I had a excellent article from Russia on a test against a T72 turret by their own weapons and its performance. Wish I could find it - it even had good pics of all the holes of were their weapons penetrated into the turret.


Man that will just ruin your day

http://img56.exs.cx:81/img56/5390/t72turretblow7wu.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

They could easily fix all the problems with the T72 if they wanted too. Im sure they can put in a smaller autoloader and a separate ammo compartment. If they did that and they made the tank with composite armor and a state of the art electronic suite then it would be a good match for the abrams

[HardThunder]

Shiftyfive

Very nice argument, and great presentation of evidence.

(Jumping tank pics)

NIce photos of the NTC, and Presentation about Field training.

Great info on the 11th ACR


platform389

Very nice data on the T-72, and link.

Mailman
Good observation

I thank all of you. Very nice read today.

nagant_m44
"They could easily fix all the problems with the T72 if they wanted too. Im sure they can put in a smaller autoloader and a separate ammo compartment. If they did that and they made the tank with composite armor and a state of the art electronic suite then it would be a good match for the abrams"

I just do not see it, and what would be the point. The basic design is the problem. Yes the T-64 was a great Evolutionary jump from the T-34,55,62 line, Which was a evolutionary step from the Christy tanks. But the basic design is the problem. A smaller autoloader would only make for smaller rounds, and less ammo. The ammo itself is worthless in today’s world. Two part ammo, with set size for the warhead/projectile, and charge. Very limiting for tank ammo. You saw the pictures of old 105mm hits on the front of the T-72. Yes it did say that Penetration was limited over the heaviest armored areas at greater then 1500 meters, but what is not said is the tremendous amount of shock in being hit at all. The 105mm guns could hit targets at over 4000 meters. That’s a great deal of shooting they could do before the T-72 closed to 1500 meters. Needless to say many T-72s would have been taken out before they even closed to 1500 meters. At that point it would have been a question of numbers, and crew skill. OK that’s the 1980s, and Old tanks.

Going back to basic problems with the T-72/90. It has been said that they T-90 uses better armor then the T-72, and also that it can shoot better. But going back nothing would seem to show this to be true. Not to any extensive amount to allow anyone to consider using it to fight someone armed with anything but older T-?? tanks.
The Western tanks have shown over, and over again that they cannot only take a hit from not only Russian Guns, but other western tank guns as well (not that we are happy that has happen). The One-piece ammo used for many western tanks shows that even it is at some of its design limits because of overall space. The Long rod penetrators, and heat projectiles have large portions of the projectile inside the casing of the round itself.

So going back to the T-72/90. Working from the bottom up. Basic suspension needs to be changed to a Hydro pneumatic one. Drive train/power train needs to be able to give greater toque on demand, and better reliability. Tank armor changed to better base armor, design, and use. Ammo loader removed, and if needed placed in sealed area outside of crew area. Main Gun, and Ammo replaced. Fire control systems, and Command fire control systems Replaced, to match current western levels. Crew training in Tactics, Field knowledge, Gunnery, in both crew, and team. Crew motivation enhanced.

So in the end what are we talking about. A new tank, a new army, and years to make it workable. If you start training a army today, it takes years before that army will even be ready for the first fight. Even at that, you will have to retrain them, after, building on what your learned, and building.

[Mailman]

Nice post Hard...and you hit the nail on the head. If a new tank was to be designed by the Russians it would be years, possibly a decade, before the new tank is designed, all its flaws ironed out, fielded and the men trained to use the weapon effectively.

I think the Russians are stuck with what they have not because they cant design something better but because national pride would stop them from buying their AFV from other countries.

Regards

Mailman

[Koz]

Well the Russians already have the Black Eagle, which has it's own bustle autoloader and the T-95, which is completely new design.

[sergey31]

I did not want to do it........ But you guy's made me (sorry for the hijack)

I prefer lighter and more maneuverable.
Of course something more easily maintained and nice countermeasures.

I'm not saying which tank is better but simply my preference (to each it's own i guess).
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/t90/images/t90_1.jpg
This can take care of pretty much any tank and much longer range then "regular" powder propelled rounds. Up to 2.5 times longer range.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/t90/images/t90_6.jpg
.....
http://www.********************/Russe/vehicules_lourds/T-90/T-90_RUSSE_12.jpg
http://www.battletanks.com/images/T-90-S.jpg
http://www.battletanks.com/images/t90d.jpg
http://www.tanksim.com/images2/t90_2.jpg
http://www.aviapress.com/engl/ace/ace72163.jpg
http://armor.vif2.ru/Tanks/MBT/t-90s.jpg
http://armor.vif2.ru/Tanks/IMAGES/t-90001.jpg
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/t80/images/t-80_1.jpg
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/t80/images/t-80_2.jpg
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/t80/images/t-80_3.jpg
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/t80/images/t-80_4.jpg
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/t80/images/t-80_8.jpg
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/t80/images/t-80_9.jpg
http://www.soviet-empire.com/arsenal/army/tanks/t80/t80_u_002.jpg
http://www.soviet-empire.com/arsenal/army/tanks/t80/t80_u-m1_001.jpg
http://www.soviet-empire.com/arsenal/army/tanks/t80/t80_uk_001.jpg
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/t-80-arena.jpg
http://www.jedsite.info/tanks/tango-numbers-su/t-80_series/unknown/t80-unknown_001.jpg
http://www.jedsite.info/tanks/tango-numbers-su/t-80_series/unknown/t80-unknown_011.jpg
http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/IMAGES/t-80um001.jpg

Interesting article for those who know nothing about.
http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/EQP/arena.html

cool drawing (wish it was bigger)
http://hobbyoutlets.com/revellag/images/rvls3104.jpg


http://www.aviapress.com/book/oth/oth107/oth107_4.jpg
http://www.aviapress.com/book/oth/oth151/oth151_7.jpg
http://www.aviapress.com/book/oth/oth151/oth151_3.jpg
http://www.aviapress.com/book/oth/oth131/oth131_13.jpg
http://www.aviapress.com/book/oth/oth131/oth131_11.jpg
http://www.aviapress.com/book/oth/oth131/oth131_9.jpg
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/t-90_d01f2.jpg
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/t-90s-pict1.jpg
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/t-90-pict1.jpg
http://www.********************/Russe/vehicules_lourds/T-80UD/T-80UD_RussianArms_Russie_03.jpg
http://www.********************/Russe/vehicules_lourds/T-80UD/T-80UD_Russie_05.jpg
http://www.********************/Russe/vehicules_lourds/T-80UD/T-80UD_Russie_07.jpg

[HardThunder]

http://www.jodyharmon.com/knights.jpg

What's with the art from the Song of Roland?

Way do you think it is used?

It was a cover for Armor mag. You could look it up.

http://www.knox.army.mil/center/ocoa/ArmorMag/index.htm

The mags are index using excel. And very hard to find things.

[HardThunder]

[quote="sergey31"]I did not want to do it........ But you guy's made me (sorry for the hijack)

I prefer lighter and more maneuverable.
Of course something more easily maintained and nice countermeasures.

I'm not saying which tank is better but simply my preference (to each it's own i guess).

Not to pick on you. Or to say you said anything other then what you did. And (I will pick on you a bit on that) If you like the looks of the grand child of the T-34 then so be it.

But lets take a look. What is being said, and showen.
This thing.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/t90/images/t90_6.jpg

1.Would everyone be will to say "It cost a great deal more then a Conventional round"?
2.Would everyone be will to say that Russia has few of them in service, let alone any at all (OK maybe not everyone, but it is very questionable how many they have)?
3.Would everyone be will to say that given the Complicates, and problems with normal missiles without any understand of the greater problem of a tube launch system that the stated performance and Stated abilities of such a small missile in those circumstances is more the questionable?
4. Would everyone be willing to question the so-called range of the missile given its small size, and use of the limited fire control system to even identify any target at such range?
5. Would everyone be willing to question the so-called “On target” performance of the missile given its small size. With the stated, range, and guidance system little room remains for any warhead at all, let alone one that would cause any damage to a AFV.
6.Would everyone be willing to question why even present this type of highly questionable, and expensive system with the inherent development problems, and issues if the primary system was of any worth in the first place?

Oh I love this. Why would anyone place a one use ERA system on any AFV? Everyone knows that base armor is much better then once use armor of questionable value. If the base armor is no good then you add other forms of add on armor is much better, and can provide a less limited protection, and without the issues.
http://www.********************/Russe/vehicules_lourds/T-80UD/T-80UD_RussianArms_Russie_03.jpg

This is another good one.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/t90/images/t90_4.jpg

"The T-90 tank is protected by both conventional armour-plating and explosive reactive armour (ERA).

The T-90 is fitted with the Shtora-1 defensive aids suite which is produced by Electronintorg of Russia. This system includes infrared jammer, laser warning system with four laser warning receivers, grenade discharging system which produces an aerosol screen and a computerised control system."

Ok so if I just lase it it pops smoke, the crew goes into Shock, have no more “smoke” to use in the hope of hiding, become disoriented, the IR jammers do something to IR light Waves with questionable value of any kind because I already have a range, and if it does anything to “Disrupt” my view all it will do is look like a bright beacon for me to shoot at.

Hay I am all for it, put that on evrythng they have!

This one is good.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/t-80-arena.jpg
The very expensive mini me ABM system. Now it has been stated that I fire anything at it, and it homes in on the incoming projectile, and fires a claymore type charge at it. Of course selecting the correct change to “Intercept” the incoming projectile. But of course no one knows how many Russia has, because so few have even been seen, and with it blazing away with its mini me ABM radar of course no one sees a problem with any of this idea.
I hope that North Korea, and other like nations use this for everything. ANd a larger form for HQs.

[BIGSHaW]

Just wanted to drop my 2cents...
To HardThunder

Concerning ERA, T-90 uses Kontakt-5 ERA witch has proven to defeat effectivly not only HEAT projectiles but also SABOT rounds including American "Silver Bullet" with DU rod.
Now the argument of adding this armour kit is legitemate one, however u have to take in consideration that IF Russian forces were adequately founded this simple upgrading wouldn't be the only option, but I must say it delivers a hell of a bang for the buck.

[Pandy]

Just wanted to drop my 2cents...
To HardThunder

Concerning ERA, T-90 uses Kontakt-5 ERA witch has proven to defeat effectivly not only HEAT projectiles but also SABOT rounds including American "Silver Bullet" with DU rod.
Now the argument of adding this armour kit is legitemate one, however u have to take in consideration that IF Russian forces were adequately founded this simple upgrading wouldn't be the only option, but I must say it delivers a hell of a bang for the buck.

But I have to ask one question, and this is if... if the United States and Russian went at it... you think T-95 would survive a tactical nuclear bomb?

[BIGSHaW]

Pandy, sacrasm aside, I m not an advacate for T-xx series, infact claiming taht T-90 is superiour to M1 is absolute ingornace, however when we compare Western designs and Eastern side, we have to understand the doctrine those designs were born.
T-72 is what it is NOT because Russian tank designers suck ass, (no, in fact Russia always been one of the leaders in Tank industry) its because of the doctrine and the demands that were placed on designers by the goverment. USSR didn't need a superb expensive design (which again if the order came through I bet my last teeth they woulda designed u M1)

Right now Russia is in crappy position cuz they got all those designs that do not meet current needs, (but again back in 80s these designs were superb for what they meant to be used for, I mean Soviets woulda been at English channel no problemo but besides the point) I think they are taking all the options they can to make their old designs more suited for today's battlefield and today's Russian Army state.

[M4ko]

OH my im not even going to continue arguing here. Yea your right I dont know much about tanks as you do about M1's.

Shiftyfive you definately are an ignorant one.

"3 of the best proven russian tank killers"?

Did you know that its 2005 outside? When was an M1 fighting a T90? btw an M1 cant hit **** on the move.

HardThunder you just have to be a redneck, you sound so freaking dumb. Go save ukranians from soviet repressions lol. uncle sam's brainwashed child.

[sergey31]

Some nice videos...
http://www.aviation.ru/www.rusarm.ru/video/T-90S_2.wmv
http://www.aviation.ru/www.rusarm.ru/video/T-90S_3.wmv

[Hadamar]

Just wanted to drop my 2cents...
To HardThunder

Concerning ERA, T-90 uses Kontakt-5 ERA witch has proven to defeat effectivly not only HEAT projectiles but also SABOT rounds including American "Silver Bullet" with DU rod.
Now the argument of adding this armour kit is legitemate one, however u have to take in consideration that IF Russian forces were adequately founded this simple upgrading wouldn't be the only option, but I must say it delivers a hell of a bang for the buck.



The very expensive mini me ABM system. Now it has been stated that I fire anything at it, and it homes in on the incoming projectile, and fires a claymore type charge at it. Of course selecting the correct change to “Intercept” the incoming projectile. But of course no one knows how many Russia has, because so few have even been seen, and with it blazing away with its mini me ABM radar of course no one sees a problem with any of this idea.
I hope that North Korea, and other like nations use this for everything. ANd a larger form for HQs.

ERA and the ARENA system will be overmatched by LOSAT and CKEM.

http://www.missilesandfirecontrol.com/our_products/antiarmor/LOSAT/product-LOSAT.html
http://img237.exs.cx/img237/5844/losat16007uo.jpg
http://www.missilesandfirecontrol.com/our_products/antiarmor/CKEM/product-CKEM.html



[/quote]

[sergey31]

In that case.... Western armour can be outmatched by this also.

There's always two sides, but Russian tank (anti-tank) countermeasures are always a +
http://www.aviation.ru/www.rusarm.ru/video/Khrizantema_1.wmv
http://www.aviation.ru/www.rusarm.ru/video/Khrizantema_3.mpg

[HardThunder]

Just wanted to drop my 2cents...
To HardThunder

Concerning ERA, T-90 uses Kontakt-5 ERA witch has proven to defeat effectivly not only HEAT projectiles but also SABOT rounds including American "Silver Bullet" with DU rod.
Now the argument of adding this armour kit is legitemate one, however u have to take in consideration that IF Russian forces were adequately founded this simple upgrading wouldn't be the only option, but I must say it delivers a hell of a bang for the buck.

I am going to have to call you on that one. Show me the US test data, as the US is the only Country that could do the test! Anyone saying that did is in simple terms "Full of It" . Or are you just "saying things"



Pandy, sacrasm aside, I m not an advacate for T-xx series, infact claiming taht T-90 is superiour to M1 is absolute ingornace, however when we compare Western designs and Eastern side, we have to understand the doctrine those designs were born.
T-72 is what it is NOT because Russian tank designers suck ass, (no, in fact Russia always been one of the leaders in Tank industry) its because of the doctrine and the demands that were placed on designers by the goverment. USSR didn't need a superb expensive design (which again if the order came through I bet my last teeth they woulda designed u M1)

Right now Russia is in crappy position cuz they got all those designs that do not meet current needs, (but again back in 80s these designs were superb for what they meant to be used for, I mean Soviets woulda been at English channel no problemo but besides the point) I think they are taking all the options they can to make their old designs more suited for today's battlefield and today's Russian Army state.

I would have to say that Russian tank have always lost to western tanks, and only overcame german tanks of WW-2 because of number, and they had western tanks, ammo, and support.


OH my im not even going to continue arguing here. Yea your right I dont know much about tanks as you do about M1's.

Shiftyfive you definately are an ignorant one.

"3 of the best proven russian tank killers"?

Did you know that its 2005 outside? When was an M1 fighting a T90? btw an M1 cant hit **** on the move.

HardThunder you just have to be a redneck, you sound so freaking dumb. Go save ukranians from soviet repressions lol. uncle sam's brainwashed child.

First off saying the M-1 can not hit anything on the move is just crazy. The M-1 was the prime weapon in destroying the world 3rd largest army. Sorry young one. No I deal in real facts. Not people that make baseless accusations, or default to slanderous remarks because they have no knowledge, or a canted perception of the real world. You young man need to look at yourself! You need to work on your facts, and your conduct!


Just wanted to drop my 2cents...
To HardThunder

Concerning ERA, T-90 uses Kontakt-5 ERA witch has proven to defeat effectivly not only HEAT projectiles but also SABOT rounds including American "Silver Bullet" with DU rod.
Now the argument of adding this armour kit is legitemate one, however u have to take in consideration that IF Russian forces were adequately founded this simple upgrading wouldn't be the only option, but I must say it delivers a hell of a bang for the buck.

It does not work. Look around even Red China, a country that uses Russian Tanks, and designs does not put it on its newest designs.

Compact Kinetic Energy Missile (CKEM) is just an R&D thing supported by the Gov. and will end . Losat is a dead project. No need. The major tank killers are Tanks, and Aircraft in that order. With something like 10 anti-tank weapons the US does not need another one. Some of the systems have not been used in the last two wars(at lest not on tanks, or AFVs).



And now the Black Mamba aka Black Eagle.
Oh yes, A clear change of past tanks but is it real, or just a moving mockup?
In the first pictures it has 7 road wheel sets per side, in later photos it has 6.
In the first photos it had a very large gun, but later it was said it is a 125mm, not the 152mm it was stated to have had, and looked like it could be, What was shown when they rolled it out for its first show and tell.
It has also been said now that it will have the standard 125mm gun found on the T-72 that can not hit anything over 1500 meters at all, and is only effective at around 1,000 meters (you have a good chance of hitting something at that range, not killing any western tank).


Now back to the redneck – being that feels he has to default to accusation, made up bs, and flaming to make no point what so ever. I was on tanks for many years. I Was on M-48s, M-60s of all types, and had many, many classes about them, armor protection, Gunnery, Ballistics, weapons of all type, and a number of other things that have nothing at all to do with this topic. I also have used many of the Russian weapons. And have studied AFVs, and weapons for over 40 years. About the only person I do not question, or think is full of stuff is Foss. BUT Foss also just reports what he is told, and if he finds, or thinks its BS says so in a very nice way. I do not work for Janes, so I have no such limitations. Anyway Foss is a good man. David is also good, and fun to talk to. His books are very good, he puts a great deal of work into them, and the studies for them.

Now, seeing as you did not understand the simple way I put the fact out, maybe you could tell me M4ko what is it your having problem understanding besides conduct? Or is it just everything?

[sergey31]

Lately there’s been allot of dumb newbs on this forum.... Who know sh1t about anything Russian WW2 and current stuff but still try to say something that sounds like a pile of BS. :roll:

[BIGSHaW]

To HardThunder,

If u want prove of the effectiveness of Kontakt-5 then I suggest some research before u question my integrity, but to point u out in right direction I suggest starting with this

http://www.janes.com/



Jane's International Defence Review 7/1997, pg. 15:

"IMPENETRABLE RUSSIAN TANK ARMOUR STANDS UP TO EXAMINATION

"Claims that the armour of Russian tanks is effectively impenetrable, made on the basis of test carried out in Germany (see IDR 7/1996, p.15), have been supported by comments made following tests in the US.

"Speaking at a conference on Future Armoured Warfare in London in May, IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness explained that US tests involved firing trials of Russian-built T-72 tanks fitted with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour (ERA). In contrast to the original, or 'light', type of ERA which is effective only against shaped charge jets, the 'heavy' Kontakt-5 ERA is also effective against the long-rod penetrators of APFSDS tank gun projectiles.

"When fitted to T-72 tanks, the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU penetrators of M829 APFSDS, fired by the 120 mm guns of the US M1 Abrams tanks, which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles.

"Richard M. Ogorkiewicz"

If u want to know more about mechanics behind Kontakt-5 then here is a great page
http://perso.numericable.fr/~vfofanov/

Finally if u still don't buy it, I suggest u stop by Tank Net forums http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?act=idx where there are many respectable ppl who do not bs when it comes to armour. But seeing how u are the tanker urslef and all u must be already member in there.

And lastly,




It has also been said now that it will have the standard 125mm gun found on the T-72 that can not hit anything over 1500 meters at all, and is only effective at around 1,000 meters (you have a good chance of hitting something at that range, not killing any western tank).

Hmm, u know this statement really makes me wonder how much u really know about tanks.....I mean Russian APFSDS round flies with the straight projectory for 2500m....and I don't see any "meat" to ur claim.

[M4ko]

dont even argue with this THunder dude, hes obviuosly a brainwashed american christian.

"Russian tanks were always outmatched by western ones, russian tanks only overcame germans in ww2 by sheer numbers"

Tanks were invented 40 years prior to ww2, and Russia had a very badly shaped army during that whole period, so what the hell are you talking about?
Russian tanks did not overcome germans by sheer number and western armor. as industrial power took full spin in 2nd half of ww2 and so did the quality of Russian armor went up. go do more unbiased research. stop being ignorant. You deal "real facts" from christian war websites and books. But i know its pointless to argue with yout i know how these hardheaded christians are. I would refrain from insulting your inteligence just becuase of your age, Im guessing your around 40.




im done here, just wanted to drop support for other guys here.

[Pandy]

dont even argue with this THunder dude, hes obviuosly a brainwashed american christian.

"Russian tanks were always outmatched by western ones, russian tanks only overcame germans in ww2 by sheer numbers"

Tanks were invented 40 years prior to ww2, and Russia had a very badly shaped army during that whole period, so what the hell are you talking about?
Russian tanks did not overcome germans by sheer number and western armor. as industrial power took full spin in 2nd half of ww2 and so did the quality of Russian armor went up. go do more unbiased research. stop being ignorant. You deal "real facts" from christian war websites and books. But i know its pointless to argue with yout i know how these hardheaded christians are. I would refrain from insulting your inteligence just becuase of your age, Im guessing your around 40.




im done here, just wanted to drop support for other guys here.

Nice!

[Pandy]

Pandy, sacrasm aside, I m not an advacate for T-xx series, infact claiming taht T-90 is superiour to M1 is absolute ingornace, however when we compare Western designs and Eastern side, we have to understand the doctrine those designs were born.
T-72 is what it is NOT because Russian tank designers suck ass, (no, in fact Russia always been one of the leaders in Tank industry) its because of the doctrine and the demands that were placed on designers by the goverment. USSR didn't need a superb expensive design (which again if the order came through I bet my last teeth they woulda designed u M1)

Right now Russia is in crappy position cuz they got all those designs that do not meet current needs, (but again back in 80s these designs were superb for what they meant to be used for, I mean Soviets woulda been at English channel no problemo but besides the point) I think they are taking all the options they can to make their old designs more suited for today's battlefield and today's Russian Army state.

Oh no, I was just saying the fact that the T-95, most likely will only be in Russian Service, that they are not going to sell them. (Never know in the future of course, but right now, no.) And second, if the United States and Russia were going to fight a war against each other, do you think we're going to have a major tank battle with the M1 and T-95 in the field? Most likely not, due to the overwelming fact that nukes will most likely pounding the earth like hotpockets.

[HardThunder]

To HardThunder,

If u want prove of the effectiveness of Kontakt-5 then I suggest some research before u question my integrity, but to point u out in right direction I suggest starting with this

http://www.janes.com/



Jane's International Defence Review 7/1997, pg. 15:

"IMPENETRABLE RUSSIAN TANK ARMOUR STANDS UP TO EXAMINATION

"Claims that the armour of Russian tanks is effectively impenetrable, made on the basis of test carried out in Germany (see IDR 7/1996, p.15), have been supported by comments made following tests in the US.

"Speaking at a conference on Future Armoured Warfare in London in May, IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness explained that US tests involved firing trials of Russian-built T-72 tanks fitted with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour (ERA). In contrast to the original, or 'light', type of ERA which is effective only against shaped charge jets, the 'heavy' Kontakt-5 ERA is also effective against the long-rod penetrators of APFSDS tank gun projectiles.

"When fitted to T-72 tanks, the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU penetrators of M829 APFSDS, fired by the 120 mm guns of the US M1 Abrams tanks, which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles.

"Richard M. Ogorkiewicz"

If u want to know more about mechanics behind Kontakt-5 then here is a great page
http://perso.numericable.fr/~vfofanov/

Finally if u still don't buy it, I suggest u stop by Tank Net forums http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?act=idx where there are many respectable ppl who do not bs when it comes to armour. But seeing how u are the tanker urslef and all u must be already member in there.

And lastly,




It has also been said now that it will have the standard 125mm gun found on the T-72 that can not hit anything over 1500 meters at all, and is only effective at around 1,000 meters (you have a good chance of hitting something at that range, not killing any western tank).

Hmm, u know this statement really makes me wonder how much u really know about tanks.....I mean Russian APFSDS round flies with the straight projectory for 2500m....and I don't see any "meat" to ur claim.

A personal page? What is this a joke?
http://perso.numericable.fr/~vfofanov/

A Link to the front page of Janes? Another Joke?
What next adds for Russian tanks. Adds for Russian tanks are like old adds for Cigarettes. They say they can do everything, but in the end they kill you.

First off Richard M. Ogorkiewicz has nothing to do with the US. He never has had anything to do with it, and it was his father that was the one that made all the books, and was Considered the tank exspert over 40 years ago.

Well from what the Free world has seen, and in test fielded T-72s could not hit anything at any range under 1,500meters, and most of the time could only hit targets at under 1,200 meters. And anyone with a basic understanding in current affairs would know this as Iraq lost two wars.

Last I was a founder of Tankers Net. And know Wade, Warfield, and many of the others. I qiut because of the BS with the ABM on russian tank stuff, and the rest. Warfield spent all his time Promoting the Russian tanks, and is no longer printed in Armor Mag. Most people Consider him another (XXXXXX). FYI BIGSHaW you should DISCOUNT any add on system. Why? Because anyone can add to what they already have that works. Our USMC M-60A3s of the first gulf war (Misidentified as M-60A1s) had blazer armor on them. Something no one ever saw before until they pulled them off the ships. Also you Klondike 5 armor will only work once!

FYI Russian tanks have lost in all post WW-2 battles other then one war. That is a fact. All. And the one they did happen to win at they outnumbered the others. In all other battles they also outnumbered those they did battle with, and lost.

Finland does not even use the T-72 as its main battle tank any more. They use German tanks, and sent the T-72s to Inf Support.

Russia itself used T-62s in its last war, after losing a great many tanks. In fact in the previous time Russia was there, with modern tanks, one Division was torn up, and a tank Regiment was almost completely destroyed, without fighting a single tank. No western Country has lost even a Company (and the US has not even lost a Tank, from tank to tank combat- from the enemy) outside of those Poor Israeli tankers that had to fight off an army on the banks of the Suez.

Saying “Well we have this, and we have that, and this over hear” Please. The facts are Russian tanks lose. Why would they have Magical systems unless it did not work in the first place. Going back to Richard M. Ogorkiewicz Claims. Well, please. The guy is not a US citizen, has nothing to do with US defense, or Intelligence, and had nothing to do with the Current designs, or upgrades of any tank in the west. But amazingly he somehow got key details of a US top secret test on a Russian protective system that the US spirited away from Russia with, and made it public from an allied country. I never did buy into a few things he said. His father was a great man. Richard was just making money from his fathers name.

One more time. Russian tanks Have lost, over, and over again. Even with Russians using them, and fighting no tanks.

Last the Black Mamba AKA Black Eagle is, and Has been a dead project. Russia went with the T-90. No T-95.

[sergey31]

Gust give it up newbie..... You sound more and more like an immature idiot who tries to fight after losing one.

[Jippo]

Well from what the Free world has seen, and in test fielded T-72s could not hit anything at any range under 1,500meters, and most of the time could only hit targets at under 1,200 meters. And anyone with a basic understanding in current affairs would know this as Iraq lost two wars.

Bull****. T-72 is well capable of hitting targets to 2500-3000m distance. Problems at those ranges may start if the tank is moving and the target is moving, and the gunner is inexperienced. But 3000m is not a problem to a tank sized static target. 1500m is the battle sight for APFSDS.




Finland does not even use the T-72 as its main battle tank any more. They use German tanks, and sent the T-72s to Inf Support.


Also not correct, Leo 2's will go to infantry support, while the T-72's will remain in the armored brigade equipment. Training of new crews for T-72 has stopped, and the whole armored brigade concept will be outphased in the future but at the moment situation is as explained. Leo'2 will be part of two mechanized formations.


-jippo

[Koz]

He's actually right. Under perfect conditions the T-72 can hit basketball sized targets out to 4km. Add windage or anything of the like and it drops off considerably

[BadKarma26]

"OUR TANK IS BETTER THAN YOUR TANK!!!!!1!!111!"

Shutup.

http://www.harcirepulo.hu/B-2/B-2_JDAM-et_dob.jpg

[HardThunder]

"OUR TANK IS BETTER THAN YOUR TANK!!!!!1!!111!"

Shutup.

http://www.harcirepulo.hu/B-2/B-2_JDAM-et_dob.jpg

That has got to be the very best picture of the new TSu-45 I have evr seen. The very bestt in Russian invention.

As for you rude little kids. Your lostt, as Russian tanks have for 60 years!

[Jippo]

"OUR TANK IS BETTER THAN YOUR TANK!!!!!1!!111!"

Shutup.

http://www.harcirepulo.hu/B-2/B-2_JDAM-et_dob.jpg

That has got to be the very best picture of the new TSu-45 I have evr seen. The very bestt in Russian invention.

As for you rude little kids. Your lostt, as Russian tanks have for 60 years!

I'm not a kid anymore. :)

This is not a pissing competition. I didn't say anything like "T-72 is better than tank X", now did I?

Hard Thunder, you just made a statement which incorrect to a degree that it is utter rubbish. If you can't stand people correcting your false statements, it is your problem. It is better to not talk about things you do not know anything about if you can't take the critique afterwards.


-jippo

Ps. I have no reason to lie about the facts I stated. I'm not Russian.

[HoboWithAK]

Hey, can that Kontact ERA 5 stop any of these?

http://members.aol.com/kastnerk/hellfire.jpg

http://venus.ci.uw.edu.pl/~animal/military.pl/uzbrojnie_lot/agm/agm-65_maverick/agm-65_1.jpg

Especially when the have a nasty little tendancy to drop ON TOP of the turret or engine compartment. Ouch.

[NicNZ]

http://www.military.cz/russia/sam/s400/s400_6.jpg

yes yes but then what about these? ;)

<-- new avatar, yay!

[HardThunder]

"OUR TANK IS BETTER THAN YOUR TANK!!!!!1!!111!"

Shutup.



That has got to be the very best picture of the new TSu-45 I have evr seen. The very bestt in Russian invention.

As for you rude little kids. Your lostt, as Russian tanks have for 60 years!

I'm not a kid anymore. :)

This is not a pissing competition. I didn't say anything like "T-72 is better than tank X", now did I?

Hard Thunder, you just made a statement which incorrect to a degree that it is utter rubbish. If you can't stand people correcting your false statements, it is your problem. It is better to not talk about things you do not know anything about if you can't take the critique afterwards.


-jippo

Ps. I have no reason to lie about the facts I stated. I'm not Russian.

I have no idea Why you would feel I was talkin about you, as to your rudeness, and Assumptions those are your issues. I was talking about the flammers, and Childs that never see the problems with the Russian Love Machine.

I find it a very punkish form people that are uniformed, confuse reality with desire, and know nothing about what they speak! Now as you starting to Place yourself in that group That is something you do to yourself.
The topic is the M-1. Look again! And Again! Now unless your magically became a 19E I would have to question your understanding of the M-1, or any tank without you having ever been on one.

DON’T make faults accusations. I never said that you are a flaming 3 year old demented Punk!


Now myself. I think the s-tank was a hot looking number. It also came with more bells, and gadgets then any tank of its time. But the M-1 has much more solid systems. The French tank is said to be far more then it could ever be. The current T-class does not have the systems, or foundation that the M-1 has. The base armor, ability to upgrade, sighting, and fire control systems are outdated even by 1980s standards. The primary weapon has shown itself to be very limited. Talk to anyone that has fired table 8, or 9 or 10. No one has ever been able to match the M-1 in the hands of even an average crew. All of Nato uses the ranges the US has in German, but none match them. TCQC, TCGST is the final mating of crew, and weapons platform. In very real terms it is the Tank version of a live fire Swat course.

[He219]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v101/He219/temp_display_img_1924.jpg

Pfc. Jesus Ramirez, a Tank driver in Company A, 2nd Battalion, 12th Cavalry Regiment, mounts his battle-damaged Abrams tank. The tank, nicknamed Bad Luck suffered roughly half a dozen rocket propelled grenade impacts. The multiple hits were taken during a series of battles while the unit was temporarily supporting Marines in Najaf in August. (U.S. Army photo by Pfc. Al Barrus 122nd Mobile Public Affairs Detachment)

[Koz]

Talk to anyone that has fired table 8, or 9 or 10. No one has ever been able to match the M-1 in the hands of even an average crew. All of Nato uses the ranges the US has in German, but none match them. TCQC, TCGST is the final mating of crew, and weapons platform. In very real terms it is the Tank version of a live fire Swat course.

I'm pretty sure German, British, and French crews in their respective tanks can hit targets just as well as American ones in the M1. The fire control system is actually harder to use then that on the Leo, the gun is the same, and the ammo isn't much better

[marktigger]

Still its not as protected as Challanger 2 as op iraqi freedom has proved.

[Sayeret]

Wait...people...didn't the M1 made to face the Russian tanks?

Yeah, it was made to fight other Russian tanks, not guerillas in cities, just like the AH-64 Apache. Since they made the M1 to fight the Soviets it's protected from Nuclear Biological and Chemical warfare. As a result of the Yom Kippur war in Israel, the US Army became very worried about ATGMs and made sure that the M1 tank would have Chobham armor to defeat such weapons.

One worry of NATO regarding a war with the USSR is that the Soviets would greatly outnumber them with tanks. So for a while NATO had planned on using tactical nuclear weapons against invading Soviet tanks and troops to take away this advantage. This is what NATO planned for:


Model NATO attack on a Soviet Army:

100 kt: 4.6km pers; 3.2km pers cover; 2.7km trucks; 2km tanks; 900m city.
_An attack on a Soviet Army would take about 100 nuclear weapons allocated as follows:

_(1). 30 nuclear warheads would be used to destroy identified and suspected enemy means of delivering nuclear weapons, including missile, artillery and air force elements. It is very difficult to locate these forces because they are mobile.

_(2). 30 nuclear warheads would be used against headquarters units, of which there are about 30 for each of the battalions in corps. Most of these will be located using electronic means and these are consequently very difficult to distinguish from dummy radio traffic.

_(3). 20 nuclear warheads against 24 supply depots and infrastructure bottlenecks, such as bridges.

_(4). 20 nuclear warheads against those ground units that are identified (there are about 30 battalions). Half of these units will be in-depth and out of contact.

_Anticipated losses:

30,200 casualties (55% of total): 20,250 in open, and 9,950 under cover.
1,050 non-armored vehicles (10% of total).
600 armored vehicles (18% of total).
141,800 civilian casualties.
567,100 homeless civilians.
200,000 homes damaged and destroyed.

[Sayeret]

Hey, can that Kontact ERA 5 stop any of these?

http://members.aol.com/kastnerk/hellfire.jpg

http://venus.ci.uw.edu.pl/~animal/military.pl/uzbrojnie_lot/agm/agm-65_maverick/agm-65_1.jpg

Especially when the have a nasty little tendancy to drop ON TOP of the turret or engine compartment. Ouch.


In war games using attack helicopters both AH-1s and AH-64s generally the helicopters could destroy something like twenty tanks before they were shot down so in a real war with the Soviets, American commanders believed that once a helicopter destroyed twenty tanks, it had accomplished what it was made to do and couldn't expected to do more.

[Sayeret]

http://www.military.cz/russia/sam/s400/s400_6.jpg

yes yes but then what about these? ;)

<-- new avatar, yay!

The Soviets might have had a problem with that weapon since it was made in 1998 and the Soviet Union fell in 1989. Even if the Soviets had that weapon during a third World War, it would've been more of a threat to NATO fixed wing aircraft and cruise missiles not helicopters. The AH-64s and AH-1s would've been flying to low for that weapon to hit them but not ZSU-23-4s, small arms fire, and MANPADs.

[HardThunder]

Pfc. Jesus Ramirez, a Tank driver in Company A, 2nd Battalion, 12th Cavalry Regiment, mounts his battle-damaged Abrams tank. The tank, nicknamed Bad Luck suffered roughly half a dozen rocket propelled grenade impacts. The multiple hits were taken during a series of battles while the unit was temporarily supporting Marines in Najaf in August. (U.S. Army photo by Pfc. Al Barrus 122nd Mobile Public Affairs Detachment)

In garrison you would have to repaint that before you got off duty.

Few things make a tanker more upset then having to fix some thing, fix the track, and scratching the paint.

[sergey31]

Hey, can that Kontact ERA 5 stop any of these?

http://members.aol.com/kastnerk/hellfire.jpg

http://venus.ci.uw.edu.pl/~animal/military.pl/uzbrojnie_lot/agm/agm-65_maverick/agm-65_1.jpg

Especially when the have a nasty little tendancy to drop ON TOP of the turret or engine compartment. Ouch.

Yes it can stop all these... Unless there were multiple of them on the way.

[Koz]

Are you kidding? Kontakt-5 ERA is not going to stop a hellfire at all. It's warhead is simply to big and powerful.

[sergey31]

No questin about it at all that hellfire missile would destroy any tank if it hit's it.

The whole point of the those defense countermeasures is to prevent the hit in the first place.

[platform389]

One worry of NATO regarding a war with the USSR is that the Soviets would greatly outnumber them with tanks. So for a while NATO had planned on using tactical nuclear weapons against invading Soviet tanks and troops to take away this advantage.


Correct. And plans were put into place to address this. Read "The Third World War" by John Hackett. Excellent read on exactly this subject. The Soviet plan was to simply overwhelm NATO with sheer numbers. However, getting all that armor to the FEBA was another matter entirely. Tom Clancy's "Red Storm Rising" addressed this with the Stealth attack on the bridges over the Elbe River in East Germany(...chapter 17). Hackett did the same with strikes against rail bridges in Poland.

Disruption of supply lines would have reduced the numerical advantage, perhaps even to manageable levels without needing nuclear weapon use.

Add in the nationalities question (...it is highly doubtful Poland would have went along willingly with any of this.) and it would not have been the cake walk the Pact was expecting.

My personal opinion is if Jimmy Carter had been reelected president, the Soviet Union would have made the attempt. Reagan's election, and his resultant defense buildup closed the window of opportunity they perceived existed with Carter.

[Jippo]

I have no idea Why you would feel I was talkin about you, as to your rudeness, and Assumptions those are your issues. I was talking about the flammers, and Childs that never see the problems with the Russian Love Machine.

Well there were exactly two posts of the opposite opinion than yours, and you told to us "you rude little kids" to shut up. :)

I think the address for that is then quite clear. :)




I find it a very punkish form people that are uniformed, confuse reality with desire, and know nothing about what they speak! Now as you starting to Place yourself in that group That is something you do to yourself.
The topic is the M-1. Look again! And Again! Now unless your magically became a 19E I would have to question your understanding of the M-1, or any tank without you having ever been on one.

Indeed, I was happily reading a thread of M1, until you started making such stupid comments about T-72. :)

I know something about it, and I don't want to have wrong assumptions floating about. About M1 I can mostly only learn. :)


-jippo

[HardThunder]

Still its not as protected as Challanger 2 as op iraqi freedom has proved.

According to what?

You do know that the British Army wished to buy M-1s after they had the Challenger 1s, and was very upset that we did not share the new formula for the armor on the old M-1s.

About that “Fight the USSR thing” The M-1 is a MBT, the US invented the MBT concept. At the time the USSR was a worst case, so the tank was made with them in mind, but it was made to be world wide deployable. Army transportation services received all the equipment to “Make it so”.




The Soviets might have had a problem with that weapon since it was made in 1998 and the Soviet Union fell in 1989. Even if the Soviets had that weapon during a third World War, it would've been more of a threat to NATO fixed wing aircraft and cruise missiles not helicopters. The AH-64s and AH-1s would've been flying to low for that weapon to hit them but not ZSU-23-4s, small arms fire, and MANPADs.

I think the AH-64, and AH-1G have already shown they work very well in those situations.
I am not going to go into details, but working it hostile environments was worked out long ago.

About "John Hackett" He had nothing to do with any changes made in Nato, and his book was not that good. But it was better then that book by whats his name from around the same time "Red whatever" ( the guy knows nothing about land systems, and never did, but he has made a few nice books. Armor Cav is one of them. Tom Clancy)

[HardThunder]

I know something about it, and I don't want to have wrong assumptions floating about. About M1 I can mostly only learn. :)


-jippo

Well then, your now history in may book. End of story!

Back to the M-1, and subject dealing with that!

[Sayeret]

The Soviets might have had a problem with that weapon since it was made in 1998 and the Soviet Union fell in 1989. Even if the Soviets had that weapon during a third World War, it would've been more of a threat to NATO fixed wing aircraft and cruise missiles not helicopters. The AH-64s and AH-1s would've been flying to low for that weapon to hit them but not ZSU-23-4s, small arms fire, and MANPADs.

I think the AH-64, and AH-1G have already shown they work very well in those situations.
I am not going to go into details, but working it hostile environments was worked out long ago.

About "John Hackett" He had nothing to do with any changes made in Nato, and his book was not that good. But it was better then that book by whats his name from around the same time "Red whatever" ( the guy knows nothing about land systems, and never did, but he has made a few nice books. Armor Cav is one of them. Tom Clancy)

The Soviet doctrine regarding air defense was mass, mix, integration, and mobility

Mass The Soviets wanted to get as much air defense systems together to all be used against one aircraft.

Mix Since every weapon system has advantages and disadvantages, the Soviets wanted to mix all their AD weapons together.

Mobility The Soviets wanted all their weapons to be mobile and be able to travel with their forces and mobile so it would be harder to pinpoint and destroy.

Integration In order to make the weapons more effective they wanted them all integrated so they would fire when they needed them too.

The SA-20 was designed to attack high flying targets and cruise missiles not helicopters. If AH-64 Apaches were used against the Soviets, more helicopters would've been lost then have been in Iraq and elsewhere but that was expected considering the threat.

[Jippo]

I know something about it, and I don't want to have wrong assumptions floating about. About M1 I can mostly only learn. :)


-jippo

Well then, your now history in may book. End of story!

Back to the M-1, and subject dealing with that!


Then off to M1 in june book.


-jippo

Ps. I used to be a T-72 M-1 tank commander. Have you been inside a tank? :)

[Koz]

Still its not as protected as Challanger 2 as op iraqi freedom has proved.

According to what?

You do know that the British Army wished to buy M-1s after they had the Challenger 1s, and was very upset that we did not share the new formula for the armor on the old M-1s.

You realize that the Chobham armor used on the Challenger was invented by the British and given to the Americans to use on their M1s. Do you have a source for this?

[platform389]

About "John Hackett" He had nothing to do with any changes made in Nato, and his book was not that good. But it was better then that book by whats his name from around the same time "Red whatever" ( the guy knows nothing about land systems, and never did, but he has made a few nice books. Armor Cav is one of them. Tom Clancy)

Never did claim Hackett had anything to do with "any changes" made by NATO. His books (...there are two actually), were more textbook than novel about WW3. He involved a Soviet defector is the writing of the second one("The Third World War, The Untold Story") and I found the vignettes about the battle from the Soviet side to very well done.

Here is an excerpt:


A "Concentration Centre for Reinforcements" had been set up at Dresden. It was planned for a very high capacity and rapid through-put, but the movement of tank armies over the Polish rail network had virtually taken up the system's whole capacity and there was a significant fall in the flow of replacements of material and of personnel reinforcements from the USSR.

Bringing 197 Motor Rifle Division back to full strength took four days instead of the stipulated two. The 94 and 207 Motor Rifle Division were in the area at the same time. All the T-72 tanks were taken from the motor rifle regiments of 197 Division and used to replace losses in the division's tank regiment. To the motor rifle regiments old T-55 tanks were issued instead taken out of mothballs. The heavy motor rifle regiment was brought fully up to strength with new BMP straight from two factories in the Urals, but there were no BTR replacments available for the two light regiments of the division, which should have been equipped with BTR 70's. The remaining undamaged BTR were collected into a single battalion, with the rest of the battalions having to make do with requisitioned civilian lorries. As for men, numbers were made up with reservists and soldiers from division that had sustained too many losses to be reformed.

At the Centre a collection of captured NATO tanks, armored transports and artillery had been assembled and a training programme for officers and men was organized. The NATO equipment had usually fallen into Soviet hands as a result or mechanical failure, from damage to tracks by mines or gunfire, for example, though several prize specimens had been aquired when crews were taken by surprise in early non-persistent chemical attacks to which they had at once succumbed leaving their equipment intact as easy prey to swiftly following Soviet motor rifle infantry. To their great delight both Nekrassov and Makarov, the latter now in 207 Motor Rifle Division, found themselves together in the programme.

There was also a small camp of Western prisoners of war at the Centre. They were available for questioning. A special sub-unit of the GRU Soviet military intelligence ensured that prisoners answered questions willingly and correctly.

The two Senior Lieutenants crawled over and under and through every piece of equipment they could find at the Centre, testing the feel of it all. They inspected the West German Leopard II tank and the Marder infantry combat vehicle. Good machines, but very complicated. How could such equipment be maintained in the field if crucial repair facilities and supply bases in West Germany were lost? The US Abrams M1 tank wasn't bad either, a low-lying predatory machine, but it had a disproportionately gas guzzling engine. They were both impressed by the Chieftain and even more by the Challenger, fighting machines to be reckoned with-almost impenetrable armor, super powerful armament and a dependable engine. The Leopard II was good and so of course was the Abrams. The Challenger was better. A few more thousand of these in Europe and the attack would soon get bogged down.

The GRU officers were happy to give the necessary explanations. The British Army had the best tanks though too few of them, and the best trained soldiers, but it was short on automatic anti-aircraft guns. The British were practically defenceless against Soviet helicopters. The German Bundeswehr were both determined and disciplined with first rate professional training. The East Germans mostly fought against the Americans.

Nekrassov asked how the Belgian and Dutch units had been performing in the battle. He already knew about the British.

"Not bad at all" he was told. "Their supply system is first class. Their equipment is not bad either. There are few of them, of course, but they are very good in defence. One great weakness is that soldiers query their orders. There is no death sentence for disobeying an order."

Nekrassov shook his head in disbelief and the two moved on.

They then came to the captive officers, caged like wild animals. The GRU interpreter playfull twiled a thick rubber truncheon in his hand-an instrument which served as a dictionary might, to facilitate the interpreter's job.

"Ask him", Nekrassov indicated an American major sitting in the cage, "ask him why some of their vehicles have a big red cross painted on a white background instead of the actual camoflage markings. It's stupid-just makes it easier for us to pick them and destroy them. Why do they do it?"

Evidently other Soviet officers had asked the same question. Without referring to the prisoner the interpreter explained to Nekrasov.

"Vehicles with a red cross are ambulances," he said. "They think we should not fire on them. They say there's an international agreement to that effect."

"If there were such an agreement we'd surely have been informed."

"Of course." The interpreter shrugged his shoulders. "It would have be in some manual. But I've never myself come across a reeference to such an agreement anywhere. None of our books or newspapers mentions it."

"There's certainly nothing about it in the Field Service Regulations." Nekrassov shrugged his shoulders in turn.

"Then ask if it's true," said Makarov to the interpreter, "that women serve on equal terms with men in their army?"

The interpreter, again without bothering to translate the question, answered for what was obviously the hundredth time: "They do."

Nekrassov was preplexed. "That's ridiculous! Women are not men. For one thing they need proper food and rest. They won't get that in the army."

"What sort of rations do the prisoners get?" asked Makarov. He addressed the question directly to interpreter, who simply affected not to hear.

Nekrassov had never in his life talked to a foreigner from the capitalist West. He wanted to ask something the interpreter would not know already, just to hear an answer from this gaunt looking American major in a tattered uniform.

"Ask him if it's true that in America anyone can write what he likes in a newspaper, even something against the President."

"That's irrelevant," said the interpreter abruptly.

Nekrassov knew he'd gone a bit too far and allowed his friend Dimitri to hurry him off so that they could lose themselves in the crowd of Soviet officers glued in fascination to a Canadian armoured personnel carrier. One question too many and you'd end up in a cage yourself.

I found both books informative, but out of date in light of how events actually turned out in the world. Still they were enlightening in their description of the expected methods the Soviet Union would have used in a WW3 scenario.

Harold Coyle used these books as the basic outline for "Team Yankee", yet another pretty good WW3 novel.

[M4ko]

Whoever was talking about M1's suspension: you dont see M1s doing that.


http://img84.exs.cx/img84/7104/t9023yg.jpg


I might not be able to compare offensive and defensive capabilites of both tanks since tehres tons of arguments from both sides taht can be created around it. But i can tell you that t-90's mobility and agility far surpasses that of M1. So lets see M1 even hit t-90 first before we can argue about t-90's defense. And stop comparing t-72s with M1s.

Three of the best battle proven russian tank killers

http://img229.exs.cx/img229/1418/m1a1pic579zp.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

http://img229.exs.cx/img229/5070/1027932un.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

http://img238.exs.cx/img238/5752/1031221om.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

http://img100.exs.cx/img100/7466/challenger220british20battle20.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)


In any of these pics M1 even in the air? besides the shot where it its 2 inches above ground after driving over a heap of dirt.

Only one i see is Merkava doing high fly. "Proven Russian tank killers" - I wonder when it was proven.

owned.

[obd]

I love how people, especially certian Russians, claim to want "lighter and more mauneverable" tanks like the T-72-T90 range........when the entire "T" series of tanks are virtual rolling coffins when it comes to RPG's.

Shall I even bother posting pictures of the dozens upon dozens of Russian T-72, BMP, etc burning in and around Grozny in Chechnya (victim even to "normal" older model RPG warheads).

The simple fact is this: You could fire the average madel RPG7 warhead as many times as you like at an M1 Abrams and most likely you will not kill it. The best you could hope for would be a lucky mobility kill...........

Fire just one at a T-72 and it goes up like a ball of flames......and kills the crew in the process.

Which brings me to another point: The M1 has the best combat crew survival rate (excluding accidents like bridge collapsing and drowning etc) of any tank in the world! PERIOD.

The US has the most tank vs. tank combat experience of any nation in the world PERIOD (and yes this includes Israel)

The US spends the most money on training. Remmember kids, an inferior tank design with a superior crew earns my money every time over a slightly superior tanks design with an inferior crew!!!!

The combination of US training, US combat experience, and a very good (if not the best) tank design in the world combines to create the ultimate tank "system" that no other nation even comes close to matching......even those nations who may have produced a low production tank of more advanced design as in Germany with thier lates leopard.

One must not also forget that the US is forging ahead with the next generation of super weapons in all categories........which will make tanks like the Leopard 2 look like nothing more than scrap metal.................so while there are temporary gains in certain areas of technoogy on the part of come nations.........that wont last long. Not to mention it hardly matters when those same nations dont have the economic capacity to even build a large enough force of those same tanks to prosecute a maor theatre war..................

[nagant_m44]

One must not also forget that the US is forging ahead with the next generation of super weapons in all categories........which will make tanks like the Leopard 2 look like nothing more than scrap metal.................so while there are temporary gains in certain areas of technoogy on the part of come nations.........that wont last long. Not to mention it hardly matters when those same nations dont have the economic capacity to even build a large enough force of those same tanks to prosecute a maor theatre war..................

Any proof of this? or is this more typical biased crap? Also you said that there are alot of T-72's and BMPs burning in Grozny. This may be true, but the RPG is designed as an anti armor weapon. The "normal" warhead is a HEAT warhead. Can a Bradley or Stryker stop an RPG? I think not. Also, "normal" rpg warheads have penetrated MI tanks. Just look at these pics.
http://www.webmutants.com/strategypage/solved1.jpg
http://www.webmutants.com/strategypage/solved2.jpg
http://www.webmutants.com/strategypage/solved3.jpg
http://www.webmutants.com/strategypage/solved4.jpg
http://www.webmutants.com/strategypage/solved5.jpg
http://www.webmutants.com/strategypage/solved6.jpg
http://www.webmutants.com/strategypage/solved7.jpg
http://www.webmutants.com/strategypage/solved8.jpg
http://www.webmutants.com/strategypage/solved9.jpg
http://www.webmutants.com/strategypage/solved10.jpg
http://www.webmutants.com/strategypage/solved11.jpg
http://www.webmutants.com/strategypage/solved12.jpg

[nagant_m44]

can anyone see the pics i posted? If you can't, then right click and put the address in the address bar.

[sergey31]

obd On a serious not you must be really stupid...... Did you know that Russian tanks in 1994, Grozny were ambushed by at least 6 to 8 rebels per tank and sometimes a tank would receive a dose of as much as 6 to 8 AP RPG warheads ?
Of Course you didn't know.... Because you are bias blindfolded patriot who can't see past certain point just like some of the others members on this board... Can you tell me if Abram tank survive that many AP RPG hits between it's wheels and engine compartment and keeps on maneuvering between small streets? Here.. I'll answer for you... NO, and I can provide photos for you if some photos here don't satisfy you.
There were MORE Russian tankers who were killed by small arms fire while trying to flee disabled tank then by just burning/dying inside the tank ,while it's immobile and keeps receiving more hits. Most of them were executed while getting out of the tank.....
Let me ask you another question. Once Abram tank is disabled and there is no convoy or escort/back up and crew is trying to get out while Iraqi's are waiting outside, Don't you think they would receive the same faith?
You know as much about modern Tank warfare as my mom, so don't go around spreading you BS on forums.
Since late 80's Russians have improved/designed/upgraded and invented more different military hardware then U.S by six time fold.....
Here's how it works in case you did not know.

U.S.A = Army/Navy or Air Force requests a certain machine. Several (usually two) companies built their own prototype and those two machines compete against each other and which-ever wins goes for additional trials for X # of years. And in some cases at the end the Congress decides that the Army no longer needs it and the project would go down the drain.

Russia= Many companies keep designing prototypes non-stop in case Army/Air Force decides to pun an order for it and if not then for export market. Those designs are being upgraded each year and each year they become better and more advanced, or totally newer design will be invented. This way Russia will always stay on top of military innovations and designs (especially in missiles)
M1 Abram is over 20 years old and there is no new tank even on the drawing tables (maybe some computer generated fantasy image and that is about it). How much U.S spent on Iraq war (and keeps spending), well they would have to go a long way before they can start getting anything really new. Who knows maybe that is one of the reasons for "Comanche" hello being scrapped.

[platform389]

obd On a serious not you must be really stupid...... Did you know that Russian tanks in 1994, Grozny were ambushed by at least 6 to 8 rebels per tank and sometimes a tank would receive a dose of as much as 6 to 8 AP RPG warheads ?
Of Course you didn't know.... Because you are bias blindfolded patriot who can't see past certain point just like some of the others members on this board... Can you tell me if Abram tank survive that many AP RPG hits between it's wheels and engine compartment and keeps on maneuvering between small streets? Here.. I'll answer for you... NO, and I can provide photos for you if some photos here don't satisfy you.
There were MORE Russian tankers who were killed by small arms fire while trying to flee disabled tank then by just burning/dying inside the tank ,while it's immobile and keeps receiving more hits. Most of them were executed while getting out of the tank.....
Let me ask you another question. Once Abram tank is disabled and there is no convoy or escort/back up and crew is trying to get out while Iraqi's are waiting outside, Don't you think they would receive the same faith?
You know as much about modern Tank warfare as my mom, so don't go around spreading you BS on forums.
Since late 80's Russians have improved/designed/upgraded and invented more different military hardware then U.S by six time fold.....
Here's how it works in case you did not know.

U.S.A = Army/Navy or Air Force requests a certain machine. Several (usually two) companies built their own prototype and those two machines compete against each other and which-ever wins goes for additional trials for X # of years. And in some cases at the end the Congress decides that the Army no longer needs it and the project would go down the drain.

Russia= Many companies keep designing prototypes non-stop in case Army/Air Force decides to pun an order for it and if not then for export market. Those designs are being upgraded each year and each year they become better and more advanced, or totally newer design will be invented. This way Russia will always stay on top of military innovations and designs (especially in missiles)
M1 Abram is over 20 years old and there is no new tank even on the drawing tables (maybe some computer generated fantasy image and that is about it). How much U.S spent on Iraq war (and keeps spending), well they would have to go a long way before they can start getting anything really new. Who knows maybe that is one of the reasons for "Comanche" hello being scrapped.

Some more reading on this subject.

http://www.armytimes.com/channel.php?GQID=ARMYPAPER


Army Times
March 14, 2005

Making the best tank better
Abrams fares well in Iraq, but safety upgrades sought

by Sean D. Naylor

Fighting in conditions far removed from the north European plains for
which it was designed, the Abrams tank has proven its value in the war
in Iraq, according to the Army’s chief of armor.
Not a single tanker has been killed by a conventional antitank weapon,
Maj. Gen. Terry Tucker said in a Feb. 18 interview. The few fatalities
suffered aboard tanks have been caused by roadside bombs or small arms,
he said.

Nonetheless, the Army is considering upgrades so the Abrams will
prevail on battlefields for the next quarter century. Among changes under
consideration for the near term are better protections for the tank’s
commander and loader while they fire their machine guns, and a new
anti-personnel round for the Abrams’ 120mm main gun. The long-term upgrades on
Tucker’s mind include improved armor and a new main gun.

About 4,500 troops have served on tanks in Iraq. Of those, three
soldiers have been killed inside their tanks by roadside bombs. An additional
10 to 15 crew members have been killed while riding with their heads
out of the hatch, standing on the tanks, or, in one case, by an insurgent
who climbed onto the tank and shot down into the crew compartment,
Tucker said.

“I am unaware of any case where any tanker in Iraq has been killed
inside of a tank by a penetration of a tank round or RPG or any other
munition,” Tucker said. “It’s a pretty safe place to be.”

About 1,135 Abrams tanks have seen action in Iraq, Tucker said, some
more than once. Of those, he said, “probably 70 percent have been hit or
damaged in some way. In fact, it’s hard to find an Abrams tank out
there that has fought in Iraq that has not been damaged.”

Eighty tanks have sustained damage that required them to be sent back
to the United States for repairs, said Tucker, noting that the damage
was “fairly minor” in some cases.

“If a seam or a weld was broken, that’s pretty delicate work, and we
couldn’t do that in theater, so we’ve brought tanks back to the U.S. for
welding repairs,” he said.

“About 63 of those 80 tanks will go back to the fleet,” Tucker said.
The remaining 17 “will probably never go back to the fleet.”

Those figures mean that 1 to 1.5 percent of the tanks involved in the
fight in Iraq might not return to action. “I’ll take those numbers any
day,” Tucker said.

A different fight

Tucker acknowledged that the loss of even a few Abrams tanks has come
as something of a reality check to the armor community. In the 1991
Persian Gulf War, during which Tucker commanded a cavalry squadron, tank
combat involved Abrams tanks engaging and destroying their Iraqi
counterparts with overwhelming fire in the open desert.

“This fight’s different,” he said. “The enemy’s learned from that. And
the technique that they’re using is massed fire against one tank: 14,
18, 20 RPGs — I’ve heard reports of tanks taking 50 RPG hits. It’s a new
technique that they’re using, and in fact we’re having some significant
damage on tanks that has to be repaired before we put them back in the
fight.”

Tucker cited an Abrams with the 3rd Infantry Division (Mechanized) that
took part in the first “thunder run” into Baghdad as an example. The
tank was struck by 14 to 18 rocket-propelled grenades, one of which
knocked out the hydraulics system so the crew had to operate the turret in
manual mode. Nevertheless, the tank completed the first thunder run and
then went on the second, its crew still fighting with the tank in
manual mode.

“That crew refused to get off of it, because that tank couldn’t be
killed,” he said.

Early problems

Not every Abrams was quite as resilient. Tucker estimated that the
number of tanks that had to be temporarily abandoned or pulled out of the
fight immediately due to combat damage was “at least 17 and probably in
the 20s.”

However, no tanks have been permanently abandoned in Iraq, he said.
Even if U.S. forces had to scuttle a damaged tank — in some cases by
having another tank fire on it; in others, by having Air Force jets destroy
the damaged tank with Maverick missiles — to prevent sensitive
equipment from falling into enemy hands, U.S. troops retrieved the carcasses
and brought them all back to the United States.

The survival rate of the tank and the soldiers who fight in it was a
testament to the Abrams’ design, according to the chief of armor. “The
Abrams tank was designed and built to be able to take the kind of
punishment it’s been taking in Iraq, and be repaired and put back into the
fight,” Tucker said.

“That tank is designed with the ammunition separated from the crew
compartment, and if the ammunition is ignited in the storage compartment,
the tank is designed for the back of the turret to blow out, so the fire
and the explosion goes outward, as opposed to inward, so you don’t
injure or kill the crew,” Tucker said.

The general estimated that Iraqi insurgents have used a dozen different
types of RPGs against the Abrams in Iraq. “My concern is that in the
future we’ll see more of the newer types, which are more powerful and
have more capability,” he said.

But contrary to rumor, there is no indication that any “exotic”
antitank rounds — including foreign-made missiles such as the Milan, new
versions of the RPG, or new tank main gun rounds — have been used against
the Abrams in Iraq, the general said.

Other than a couple of enormous custom-made bombs, the Abrams and its
crews have survived everything that Saddam Hussein’s army and insurgents
in Iraq have thrown at it. Meanwhile, the officials the Army pays to
plot the future of the Abrams are not resting on their laurels, according
to Tucker.

“We still think of the Abrams tank as the king of the fight, and I’m
here to tell you that it is, but I’m also here to tell you that the
Abrams tank is 25 years old,” he said.

“We’ve improved it a lot over the years ... but it’s still a 1980 tank,
and we have more work to do to keep the Abrams tank king of the
battlefield for the next 25 years, because 25 years from now, when the
American Army goes to fight, it will go to fight in Abrams tanks.”

In the near term, the Army has studied how the Abrams has fared in Iraq
and come up with a series of improvements that it refers to
collectively as the tank urban survivability kit, or TUSK.

But these capabilities are not funded in the Army budget, said Maj.
Chad Young, assistant product manager for M1, M1A1 and TUSK. The service
has not yet finalized how much it would cost to put TUSK on each tank,
Young said.

A program that is funded and will be fielded to tank units in Iraq
“probably this summer,” according to Tucker, is an anti-personnel canister
round (“a big shotgun round,” Tucker calls it) for the Abrams’ 120mm
main gun.

Meanwhile, looking farther into the future, “the Abrams tank needs to
become more lethal ... [and] more survivable than it is now,” Tucker
said. “It’s fairly easy to make it more lethal and more survivable,” he
continued. “The challenge is going to be to do that while we try to make
it lighter and more mobile.”

Studying new armor

To solve the mobility problem, the Army is examining new types of
composite armor and electrified armor that have the potential to be lighter,
yet provide a greater level of protection than the highly classified
composite armor package with which the Abrams is presently equipped,
according to Tucker.

In 2008, Army will begin to field its next-generation family of combat
vehicles, the Future Combat Systems. That won’t mean the end for the
Abrams, which is scheduled to serve until at least 2040. In fact, the
first FCS-equipped unit of action will probably include one FCS battalion
and one battalion of Abrams tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles, Tucker
said.

The challenge for the Army’s doctrinal community will be to figure out
how the Abrams and the FCS family of vehicles will operate together,
according to Tucker. “That’s not an insignificant effort that we have to
go through,” he said.

The general noted that the issue of what type of gun the FCS mounted
combat system should have has yet to be settled. “There’s lots of
debate,” he said. “Is it 105 [mm]? Is it 120 [mm]? Is it electromagnetic? Is
it a death ray? What’s that gun going to be? We’re not quite sure yet,
but ... we probably ought to put the same gun on the Abrams that we’re
going to have on the FCS. That would make sense.”

Having different main guns on the two systems would entail an
unnecessary logistical burden, he added.

“I can see some day that the gun in the Abrams tank will be more lethal
than it is now, and half the size, half the weight,” Tucker said. Other
dramatic changes are in store for the Abrams, he suggested.

“I can’t tell you what the tank is going to look like in 2017, when it
fights with FCS, but I’ll tell you it’ll be significantly different
from what it is now.”

This is glaring contrast to the performance (..or lack of...) of the Russian designs in the MOUT environment of Grozny. Classifield weapons developments in future armor will not be announced in public. Rail guns, magnetic/electric armor, cloaking technology are all moving forward far out of sight. Progress reports will NOT be provided to folks like us.http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/aahmed/biggrin.gif

[M4ko]

FIRST T-72 and T-54 are NOT in the same class as Leo, Lec, M1, Merk.

There hasnt been a single T90 casualty in Chechnya. Chechen war was mainly fought with whatever was left from USSR (to save on costs) then modified and upgraded, and none of those upgraded t72s, t54s can compare to a t90. All these statics of recent US wars really between US and nation they fought with. The real statistics and comparisons should only be drawn when each side fights with comprable technology. When M1s start to get hit with IGLA then we can draw conclusion about how effective modern RPGs are against an M1.

[HardThunder]

obd On a serious not you must be really stupid......

Rude comment, and unfounded. YOU SHOULD BE BANED! Or at the very lest suspended!

AGAIN! Rude comment, and unfounded. YOU SHOULD BE BANED! Or at the very lest suspended!

On a serious not you must be really stupid...... Did you know that Russian tanks in 1994, Grozny were ambushed by at least 6 to 8 rebels per tank and sometimes a tank would receive a dose of as much as 6 to 8 AP RPG warheads ?


On a serious not you must be really stupid...... Did you know that Russian tanks in 1994, Grozny were ambushed by at least 6 to 8 rebels per tank and sometimes a tank would receive a dose of as much as 6 to 8 AP RPG warheads ?

First off that was not the Norm, and second one of the Pro-USSR love team members was telling how great the T-72 was.

END OF STORY! Overstatements, and twisting of facts. Massive amounts of Russian tanks lost, with Infantry support, and that is a fact of life. BTW from an enemy that had no tanks at all. Russia used everything in the book, and lost once again because of its tanks!





Of Course you didn't know.... Because you are bias blindfolded patriot who can't see past certain point just like some of the others members on this board.
Again, BS, personal attacks, and again you SHOULD BE BANNED!
You seem to totally disregard facts in the face of the real world. Maybe because of your “bias blindfolded patriot who can't see past certain point “.
The US with the M-1 Took the 3rd Largest Army in the World, and Kicked the holly living crap out of them, the first time, and in three days. We did the same thing again, and again fighting Russian tanks, and without the flankers we had before.


I can provide photos for you if some photos here don't satisfy you.

CAN YOU SPELL APU FIRE?


There were MORE Russian tankers who were killed by small arms fire while trying to flee disabled tank then by just burning/dying inside the tank ,while it's immobile and keeps receiving more hits. Most of them were executed while getting out of the tank..... Let me ask you another question.

So your saying it did not work in the first place, just a big mobile box for moving around in, and the other crews would not help them, or even fight, so as the Russia tanks are blowing up they ran for it! Ok. I know I, if I was Russian would abandon my tank with 5000mm of armor, and go into a hail of gun, and RPG fire with my mark one skin. Yup seems like everyone with a Russian tank does that.


Let me ask you another question. Once Abram tank is disabled and there is no convoy or escort/back up and crew is trying to get out while Iraqi's are waiting outside, Don't you think they would receive the same faith?

No because we do not send tanks in one at a time to be killed, as you Soviets seem to enjoy doing, or at lest what some of you say!


You know as much about modern Tank warfare as my mom, so don't go around spreading you BS on forums.
AGAIN A personal attack, and You should be BANNED!

Besides from what I have seen she probably knows a great deal more then you, her conduct could not be any worse!


Since late 80's Russians have improved/designed/upgraded and invented more different military hardware then U.S by six time fold.....
Here's how it works in case you did not know.


This is just nuts! Russia is buying 9 T-90s this year, that’s it! Nothing really new in platforms in over 20 years. Yes many updates, but few ever used, or made.


Comanche" hello being scrapped.

The is like the above. Grow up the USSR is no more, and WILL NEVER BE AGAIN!
TODAY IS 2005. And you can make a USSR LOVE FEST in the BS forums! This is about the M-1! BTW your pics are wrong. Do you even know what they are of?

Just say no!

Back to the M-1 thank you very much. ANY 19Ks , hay I will even take a 19E at this point. Driver, 96C anything!

[sergey31]

There were quite a few of M1 Abrams knocked out by a single RPG warhead....
So not all is very believable when the photos that are being shown tell much different story.
And yes there were cases where T72's had been hit by RPG and survived, Just like any tank.... IT"S WHERE THE WARHEAD HIT"S and Also what type of warhead is used. Most of RPG warheads in Iraq and all over Middle East are old - 1960's/70's and not necessarily Newer Armor Piercing/ HEAT (although there are those as well, but not nearly as many).
There is nothing special about ANY tank being hit by Anti-Personnel or weak outdated anti-amour warhead and survive it, especially that the rocket was made 30+ years ago and it hits the tank in not so vulnerable place.

[HardThunder]

platform389

Very nice post. Thanks

Could someone please block,and ban the USSR love crew from posting. THIS IS ABOUT THE M-1, NOT the USSR LOVE CREW, or the darn loser tanks!

[HardThunder]

sergey31 You ARE AND HAVE BEEN OFF TOPIC. GO I have had it with your BS, and it is all off TOPIC! END OF STORY!

[M4ko]

[quote=BIGSHaW]Pandy, sacrasm aside, I m not an

Oh no, I was just saying the fact that the T-95, most likely will only be in Russian Service, that they are not going to sell them. (Never know in the future of course, but right now, no.) And second, if the United States and Russia were going to fight a war against each other, do you think we're going to have a major tank battle with the M1 and T-95 in the field? Most likely not, due to the overwelming fact that nukes will most likely pounding the earth like hotpockets.

Pandy, T-95 is designed for export only, that might change in the future, but it looks like it wont be stationed with Russian army, and yes so far t-95 is just a cardboard on a t-72 chasis. Not enough money is bieng put into the project. Turret design is most likely copied from Merkava, myself i think thats a good idea to take a note from Merkava's

[Jippo]

This is glaring contrast to the performance (..or lack of...) of the Russian designs in the MOUT environment of Grozny. Classifield weapons developments in future armor will not be announced in public. Rail guns, magnetic/electric armor, cloaking technology are all moving forward far out of sight. Progress reports will NOT be provided to folks like us.

There is not very many really new things there. Like developing canister rounds: they are the main self defense weapon for field artillery for centuries. Seems more like they are fixing some problems which they have had from the start. Just like the HE round for 120mm which is dubbed as new development (which it undoubtedly is for 120mm), although it should have been there to begin with.

Article is bit funny and flag waving too:

Couple of other notes:

1. Tank crew refuses to leave damaged tank, and rather use emergency systems on board. (= not able to repair hydraulic system in field) Gunner rather operates the gun manually. (=really???)

2. No tank permanently abandoned. (=scrap iron hauled back. So? What about it? Don't want to have fired up Chobham pieces laying around, that is all.)

3. Ammunition designed to be separately. (=Great! Well, seriously all western made tanks have had this feature for some 50-60 years. [Russian designs haven't had it because they have made different doctrine decisions])

4. No exotic anti tank rounds have hit. (including Milan? So probably APFSDS is an exotic round in this article...)

5. Other than a couple of enormous custom-made bombs, the Abrams and its crews have survived everything that Saddam Hussein’s army and insurgents in Iraq have thrown at it. (although not counting normal machinegun fire which has knocked out abrams('). Why don't they mention that?)


Etc., etc., etc., ...

It is always good to be a bit critical. Especially towards the generals. :)


-jippo

[HardThunder]

FIRST T-72 and T-54 are NOT in the same class as Leo, Lec, M1, Merk.

There hasnt been a single T90 casualty in Chechnya. Chechen war was mainly fought with whatever was left from USSR (to save on costs) then modified and upgraded, and none of those upgraded t72s, t54s can compare to a t90. All these statics of recent US wars really between US and nation they fought with. The real statistics and comparisons should only be drawn when each side fights with comprable technology. When M1s start to get hit with IGLA then we can draw conclusion about how effective modern RPGs are against an M1.

YOUR OFF TOPIC, AND FULL OF IT!. The US, and UK are the only nations that have been fighting tanks (Russian tanks at that) in the last 20 years. THAT IS THE MARK! The USSR has not hit the mark! End of Story.

BTW 9 T-90s in anyone mind would be no match, but even if it was, --- It would seem the Russian Goverment does not feel the same!


THE SUBJECT IS THE M-1, ask about APU fires! ASK!

[M4ko]

"in anyones mind" - stop speaking for others, its you and only you who says that M1 is unmatched in the world. So in which wars have the UK and US fought where they fought Russian tanks of same class and had a distinguished record over the Russian tanks?

[Jippo]

"in anyones mind" - stop speaking for others, its you and only you who says that M1 is unmatched in the world. So in which wars have the UK and US fought where they fought Russian tanks of same class and had a distinguished record over the Russian tanks?

And since the crew quality is THE most important factor, also please make that war against something else than a 3rd world country.


-jippo

[sergey31]

obd On a serious not you must be really stupid......

Rude comment, and unfounded. YOU SHOULD BE BANED! Or at the very lest suspended!

AGAIN! Rude comment, and unfounded. YOU SHOULD BE BANED! Or at the very lest suspended!

Newbs like yourself should be banned just like what happen to you at Tanknet.... Maybe you should tell that story.

On a serious not you must be really stupid...... Did you know that Russian tanks in 1994, Grozny were ambushed by at least 6 to 8 rebels per tank and sometimes a tank would receive a dose of as much as 6 to 8 AP RPG warheads ?


On a serious not you must be really stupid...... Did you know that Russian tanks in 1994, Grozny were ambushed by at least 6 to 8 rebels per tank and sometimes a tank would receive a dose of as much as 6 to 8 AP RPG warheads ?

First off that was not the Norm, and second one of the Pro-USSR love team members was telling how great the T-72 was.

END OF STORY! Overstatements, and twisting of facts. Massive amounts of Russian tanks lost, with Infantry support, and that is a fact of life. BTW from an enemy that had no tanks at all. Russia used everything in the book, and lost once again because of its tanks!

Russian did make a mistake in sanding tanks without infantry support, so please don't talk sh1t you have no idea of. No, they have not used everything in the book, it was dumb mistake on their part as they did not expect it. Do research before typing crap here





Of Course you didn't know.... Because you are bias blindfolded patriot who can't see past certain point just like some of the others members on this board.
Again, BS, personal attacks, and again you SHOULD BE BANNED!
You seem to totally disregard facts in the face of the real world. Maybe because of your “bias blindfolded patriot who can't see past certain point “.
The US with the M-1 Took the 3rd Largest Army in the World, and Kicked the holly living crap out of them, the first time, and in three days. We did the same thing again, and again fighting Russian tanks, and without the flankers we had before.

3'rd largest army in the world? I could swear they said 4'th..... Twisting some #'s in your favor aren't we? Second, Did U.S go in by themselves? No, it was a coalition of HOW MANY Countries? And the size if Iraq compared against such an overwhelming force..... You, as I see are not very bright (but hey you wouldn't know anyway, since your avatar tells the whole story where your passion and one sided tunnel vision is coming from)


I can provide photos for you if some photos here don't satisfy you.

CAN YOU SPELL APU FIRE?
I can splell this....... RPG FIRE!

There were MORE Russian tankers who were killed by small arms fire while trying to flee disabled tank then by just burning/dying inside the tank ,while it's immobile and keeps receiving more hits. Most of them were executed while getting out of the tank..... Let me ask you another question.

So your saying it did not work in the first place, just a big mobile box for moving around in, and the other crews would not help them, or even fight, so as the Russia tanks are blowing up they ran for it! Ok. I know I, if I was Russian would abandon my tank with 5000mm of armor, and go into a hail of gun, and RPG fire with my mark one skin. Yup seems like everyone with a Russian tank does that.
Once again DO the research before typing BS...... A column of 6 tanks, no infantry support... First tank gets hit with massive RPG fire and is disables there are 5 tanks behind him..... The first tank is blocking the street and the tanks behind him can not maneuver or get out because the street is somewhat narrow..... Are you getting this "Amour boy"? It was dam mistake on the Russian generals planning (they paid dearly for it), It never happen again, 1999 was 99.8% success in use of Tanks.


Let me ask you another question. Once Abram tank is disabled and there is no convoy or escort/back up and crew is trying to get out while Iraqi's are waiting outside, Don't you think they would receive the same faith?

No because we do not send tanks in one at a time to be killed, as you Soviets seem to enjoy doing, or at lest what some of you say!
So you contradict yourself here then..... Didn't you said " Massive amounts of Russian tanks lost, with Infantry support, and that is a fact of life. BTW from an enemy that had no tanks at all. Russia used everything in the book" Once again do your research.


You know as much about modern Tank warfare as my mom, so don't go around spreading you BS on forums.
AGAIN A personal attack, and You should be BANNED!

Besides from what I have seen she probably knows a great deal more then you, her conduct could not be any worse!


Since late 80's Russians have improved/designed/upgraded and invented more different military hardware then U.S by six time fold.....
Here's how it works in case you did not know.


This is just nuts! Russia is buying 9 T-90s this year, that’s it! Nothing really new in platforms in over 20 years. Yes many updates, but few ever used, or made.
Russia = T-80, T-90, Black Eagle(for export) and T-95 which is under development..... That is 4 that we only are aware of, and 3 different types of anti-missile countermeasure innovations.
U.S = M1 Abram...... That is 1 that we only are aware of


Comanche" hello being scrapped.

The is like the above. Grow up the USSR is no more, and WILL NEVER BE AGAIN!
TODAY IS 2005. And you can make a USSR LOVE FEST in the BS forums! This is about the M-1! BTW your pics are wrong. Do you even know what they are of?
I guess I hit a nerve there
rofl
Just say no!
Yes do that.... Just say not to drugs.

Back to the M-1 thank you very much. ANY 19Ks , hay I will even take a 19E at this point. Driver, 96C anything!

[nagant_m44]

FIRST T-72 and T-54 are NOT in the same class as Leo, Lec, M1, Merk.

There hasnt been a single T90 casualty in Chechnya. Chechen war was mainly fought with whatever was left from USSR (to save on costs) then modified and upgraded, and none of those upgraded t72s, t54s can compare to a t90. All these statics of recent US wars really between US and nation they fought with. The real statistics and comparisons should only be drawn when each side fights with comprable technology. When M1s start to get hit with IGLA then we can draw conclusion about how effective modern RPGs are against an M1.

YOUR OFF TOPIC, AND FULL OF IT!. The US, and UK are the only nations that have been fighting tanks (Russian tanks at that) in the last 20 years. THAT IS THE MARK! The USSR has not hit the mark! End of Story.

BTW 9 T-90s in anyone mind would be no match, but even if it was, --- It would seem the Russian Goverment does not feel the same!


THE SUBJECT IS THE M-1, ask about APU fires! ASK!

MAybe you should stop posting on this topic. The more you post, the more you look like an idiot.

[nagant_m44]

BTW i do know what those pictures are of. They are proof that RPG's can penetrate the Abrams.The gunner was lucky to survive.

[Dima-RussianArms]

To those who compare urban combat in Bagdad, Faluja, etc. and in Grozny - :cantbeli: :roll: :) :lol:

#1 Grozny was turned into fortress (literaly): bunkers, trenches, etc.
3 circles of the well prepeared and organized defences.

#2 Chechens were armed with the quality soviet/russian grade weapons
(Iraqis didn't have/had very limited access to the modern AT weapons including special types of RPGs)

#3 Grozny was a modern city filled with multi story buildings (Chechens exploited the least protected area of the tank - top).
Faluja is mostly a 2 story town with buildings made out of some sort of clay, or so it seems.

#4 Russian armor in Grozny had very little and often none of the infantry support (a proven recipie for disaster) US armor didn't move without infantry.

#5 There was no modern armor paticipating in the so called "storming" of Grozny (which means no Shtoras, Drozds or Arenas), even ERA bricks on those tanks that had them were empty.

#6 US went into battle determined to win, Russian forces were sent into modern day Stalingrad in travel formations...

To sum it up - there are no substance besides bias to your comparison of tanks.
As for Abrams, it remains unproven against anything that was put into production after 1985.

[platform389]

To those who compare urban combat in Bagdad, Faluja, etc. and in Grozny - :cantbeli: :roll: :) :lol:

Might I a suggest some more reading on the subject...

http://bookweb.kinokuniya.co.jp/bimgdata/FC0871139111.JPG

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0871139111/qid=1110451443/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-4636090-2397536


#1 Grozny was turned into fortress (literaly): bunkers, trenches, etc.
3 circles of the well prepeared and organized defences.

This sort of thing would addressed by artillery suppression before sending armor in to mop up survivors. Not doing so exposed the tanks to a situation they were not prepared to handle.


#2 Chechens were armed with the quality soviet/russian grade weapons

Would not have mattered if artillery had been deployed ahead of time. Correct me if I am wrong, but that was what was done later.


#4 Russian armor in Grozny had very little and often none of the infantry support (a proven recipie for disaster) US armor didn't move without infantry.

While Bradley AFV's traveled with the M1's during the MOUT "Thunder Runs", the infantry was not dismounted during the earliest ones. Only after it was decided to penetrate to the city center and remain there, was dismounted infantry employed.

Russian armor was/is even more ill suited for these sort of operations. In virtually every case, the Abrams received "mobility kills" in the rear around/in the turbine. By contrast, the design limitations of the Russian MBT's allowed for complete destruction of the vehicle with a loss of all on board.

More reading... Adobe required for the PDF, but many photos and diagrams of what took place.

http://www.rand.org/publications/CF/CF162/CF162.appc.pdf

Russian MBT designs reflect the former Red Army philosophy of using massive numbers of tanks as a blunt force weapon. Individual losses are not considered important since many more replacements will follow on and overwhelm the enemy. In order to produce the massive numbers of machines required for this to work, design compromises were required. Crew survival was one area in which this was done.

As can be seen in the PDF report, Russian command incompetence played as much of a role as any Chechen tactics in that particular conflict. I always found the lack of a Russian chemical response interesting. That particular situation was ideal for their employment.

Pay particular attention to pages 16 and 17 of the report. Of interest also was the employment of the 2S6 Tunguska anti air platform in a suppression role. Bet it was fun being on the receiving end of that!

The newest Russian designs seem to be paying more attention to the importance of vehicle/crew survival. Since it is unlikely the same conditions present during the communist era will again be present, disregarding individual losses is no longer possible. Equipment design and tactical employment changes are taking place to address the fact manufacture of large numbers of these designs likely will not be possible due to national economic conditions.

[Jippo]

Thanks for the PDF link platform, interesting one. :)


-jippo

[Koz]

Both sides are full of **** in this thread. All you guys are doing is screaming at each other about how great your tanks are.

[Dima-RussianArms]

This sort of thing would addressed by artillery suppression before sending armor in to mop up survivors.
It should have been but it wasn't because one half of the Russian command was completely incompetent and second half was corrupt/was more concerned about protecting lives of their Chechen "sponsors" than lives of the Russian soldiers under their command (Dudaev have seen plan for the "assault" on Grozny before Yeltzin did)
Not doing so exposed the tanks to a situation they were not prepared to handle.
That would be common sense but the first Chechen war had nothing to do with the common sense.

[quote]#2 Chechens were armed with the quality soviet/russian grade weapons
Would not have mattered if artillery had been deployed ahead of time.
Read what I have said above.
Correct me if I am wrong, but that was what was done later.
Let me give you an example of the artillery support in Grozny.
Recon on the ground spots a large group of enemy and request artillery support to eliminate them. HQ monitors the radio traffic and tells artillery guys to hold fire. After Chechens leave, HQ orders to open up. And no, it didn't happen because of the poor communication...

Here is an example of a different nature.
Russian unit comes under mortar fire from their own positions. When it is all over, officers from the unit that came under fire went to see (actually they wanted to beat him to death) the commander of the mortar battery.
Mortar guy didn't appologize or say anything when he saw those guys come in, he simply pulled out his targeting map - a freaking tourist guide of Grozny from the 70s....


#4 Russian armor in Grozny had very little and often none of the infantry support (a proven recipie for disaster) US armor didn't move without infantry.

While Bradley AFV's traveled with the M1's during the MOUT "Thunder Runs", the infantry was not dismounted during the earliest ones. Only after it was decided to penetrate to the city center and remain there, was dismounted infantry employed.
The example is irrelevant because "Thunder Runs" and "assault" on Grozny by armor in travel formations is not the same thing, like you have said yourself: "only after it was decided to penetrate to the city center and remain there, was dismounted infantry employed".

Russian armor was/is even more ill suited for these sort of operations.
If during "assault" on Grozny T 5/6/7 were replaced with M1s, the result would be the same.
In virtually every case, the Abrams received "mobility kills" in the rear around/in the turbine.
So it was never attacked from the top? Like I have said: Grozny was no Bagdad/Falluja.


I always found the lack of a Russian chemical response interesting.
#1 There were a lot of civilians left in the city.
#2 That would end the war to soon/Russian military wan't suppouse to win.


Of interest also was the employment of the 2S6 Tunguska anti air platform in a suppression role.
Tunguskas in the city without proper infantry support = easy target. How many of them survived?

[sergey31]

Both sides are full of **** in this thread. All you guys are doing is screaming at each other about how great your tanks are.

No one was saying that "T" Tanks are better/superior.... Preference was the word that was used, But there are people who have some sort of a fetish with Abram tank here and are trying to prove something that they don't even know.... It's common cense that if a well placed proper warhead hit's ANY tank in the right place it will immobilize the machine..... M1 Abrams in Iraq have not experienced even 20% of what Russian tanks had in first Chechen war so we can't compare anything on that level.

Here's an article from Jane's

Abrams tank showed 'vulnerability' in Iraq

Tim Ripley JDW Correspondent

The US Army's M1 Abrams main battle tank (MBT) top side, and rear armour "remains susceptible to penetration" and needs improving, according to the Tank and Automotive Command's (TACOM) Abrams programme manager office (PM Abrams).

In a report into the US Army's principal MBT's performance during Operation 'Iraqi Freedom', however, PM Abrams said the tank's frontal turret and hull armour continues to provide excellent crew protection.

"The tank performed extremely well providing excellent manoeuvre, firepower and overall crew protection", concluded the report, which has been seen by JDW. "Engines typically outlived expectancies and transmissions proved to be durable."

PM Abrams personnel deployed forward with US Army divisions during the war and collected first-hand feedback from tank crews to compile the report. There were "no catastrophic losses due to Iraqi direct or indirect fire weapons," but several tanks were destroyed due to secondary effects attributed to Iraqi weapon systems. US Army sources told JDW that the report was only "preliminary observations" rather than a definitive study and more work was continuing to further refine the exact causes of US tank losses in Iraq. Other US Army sources report that 14 Abrams tanks were damaged and two destroyed during the war.

Most M1 losses were attributed in the report to mechanical breakdown, or vehicles being stripped for parts or vandalised by Iraqis. There were "no reported cases" of an anti-tank guided missile being fired at any US Army vehicle.

Details of the M1 losses were given, including one where 25mm armour-piercing depleted uranium (AP-DU) rounds from an unidentified weapon disabled a US tank near Najaf after penetrating the engine compartment. Another Abrams was disabled near Karbala after a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) penetrated the rear engine compartment and one was lost in Baghdad after its external auxiliary power unit was set on fire by medium-calibre fire.

Left and right side non-ballistic skirts were repeatedly penetrated by anti-armour RPG fire, according to the report, but only cosmetic damage was caused when they were struck by anti-personnel RPG rounds. There were no reported hits on ballistic skirts and no reported instance of US tanks hitting an anti-tank mine. Turret ammunition blast doors worked as designed. In one documented instance where a turret-ready ammunition rack compartment was hit and main gun rounds ignited, the blast doors contained the explosion and crew survived unharmed except for fume inhalation.


And you wonder that it can take many hits and survive..... GD Any tank can survive ANTI-Personnel RPG rounds, They were designed against people not tanks.... They don't work against amour.

[saigonsmuggler]

Note that Kontakt-5 was not tested against M829A2 and M829A3 DU sabot rounds or at least the results are not publicly available. I think the K-5 tests peopler were referring to here were between the K-5 and the original M829 DU rounds.

Much has progressed since then.

[Koz]

Note that Kontakt-5 was not tested against M829A2 and M829A3 DU sabot rounds or at least the results are not publicly available. I think the K-5 tests peopler were referring to here were between the K-5 and the original M829 DU rounds.

Much has progressed since then.

The designers of the M289A2 and A3 were a little freaked out by the tests with the M289 against ERA so they they designed them with special consideration against ERA.

[VaLiancY]

Good lord I can't believe I've read this whole entire thread. I've seen nothing but blows to each others nation's equipment. From what I've been reading in this thread that both tanks have their ups and downs like all things in life and show that they are both the best tanks in service. I just hope they don't meet up on the battlefield.

[Johnny_H02]

M1's ... T90's nothing is as ELITE as the "Lil Canadian Leopard tank"

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v48/JohnnyH/liltank.jpg

[HardThunder]

BTW i do know what those pictures are of. They are proof that RPG's can penetrate the Abrams.The gunner was lucky to survive.


As some of the images deal with an M-1 I will deal with this. No RPG did that. This was from the first Gulf War, a Blue on Blue.

With over 50 types of HEAT based anti-armor weapons rpgs only make up a handful.

[HardThunder]

http://mail.telebyte.com/~hardthundr/M-1A2-Real%20Deal-sm.jpg

TUSK to update Abrams for urban battle
By Eric W. Cramer
The M1A2 Abrams tank is shown with TUSK improvements that will adapt it for the urban battlefield.

WASHINGTON (Army News Service, March 9, 2005) -- The Abrams tank is growing a TUSK – that’s Tank Urban Survival Kit, a series of improvements, including some still in development.

TUSK will allow Soldiers in the field to improve the Abrams’ ability to survive in urban areas off the traditional battlefield for which it was designed.

Lt. Col. Michael Flanagan, product manager for TUSK, said the goal is to help improve the tank’s survivability.

“You have to remember, the tank was a Cold War design, aimed at a threat that was always to its front. It’s still the most survivable weapon in the arsenal from the front,” Flanagan said. “Today it’s a 360-degree fight, and these systems are designed to improve survivability in that urban environment.”

The TUSK includes additional protection at the loader’s gun station on the turret, the commander’s gun station, reactive armor to protect the tank’s side from attack by rocket-propelled grenades and slat armor to protect the tank’s rear from the same weapon, and the tank/infantry telephone to allow infantry and armor Soldiers to work together in combat.

Flanagan said all the proposed upgrades use “off the shelf” technology, and the goal is for the entire TUSK to be applied by units in the field, without requiring a return to a depot for modification.

“The reactive armor, for example, is a product similar to what’s on the Bradley (Armored Fighting Vehicle),” Flanagan said. “It’s explosive armor that protects the vehicle.”

Another example would be the slat armor designed to protect the tank’s rear from RPG attack. It is similar in design and concept to the slat armor used on the Stryker armored vehicles for the same purpose.

The first TUSK component to reach the field has been the Loader’s Armored Gun Shield, which provides protection to the loader when the Soldier is firing the 7.62mm machinegun on the Abrams’ turret. Flanagan said about 130 of the shields have already been purchased and sent to units in Iraq. Also incorporated into the loader’s firing position is a thermal sight, giving the position the ability to locate and fire on targets in the dark.

“This is the same unit that is used on machineguns carried by infantry troops, and we’ve incorporated it into the loader’s position,” Flanagan said. He said a system that attaches a pair of goggles to the sight, allowing the loader to fire the gun from inside the turret, while seeing the thermal sight’s image, is under development.


Also under development are improvements to the commander’s station outside the turret, although different systems are necessary for the M-1A2 Abrams and its older M1-A1 brethren.

“Because of things we added to the turret in the A2, the commander’s station had lost the ability to shoot the .50-caliber machinegun while under armor,” Flanagan said. “We’re developing a Remote Weapons Station, that will probably be similar to the one used on the Stryker, to allow that weapon to be fire from inside the turret.”

Flanagan said the design could also allow the use of the crewed weapon station used on Humvees, but a final determination hasn’t been made.

Ultimately, most of these add-ons will be incorporated into a kit – installed in the field and removed in the field as a pre-positioned component for the next Abrams unit to take duty in that location. Flanagan said some kits will begin to reach the field later this year.

At least some of the kits’ components may also be included in new Abrams’ production.

“The loader’s shield and the remote weapons station, and the tank/infantry telephone all may be included as regular production items in the tank,” Flanagan said. “It’s important to remember that the Abrams will continue to be the dominant weapons system for the Army until at least 2030.”

(please note in above, a date, a name, pub , and all data for a real ref! the link will come later)


http://mail.telebyte.com/~hardthundr/ammo-M829a2-sm.jpg

Talk about a Long ROD. Ya just can not do that with two part ammo. And we have a great deal more then 9 of them, just in case the gunner Sneezes as he shoots, and misses. TCQC demands you get over 95% hits in time, on the move. Only 3 shots fired from the halt. 2 Main gun, one of them by the TC, and of course a 50cal target. All the rest are on the move. The big problem is the control. In a M-1 you can overshoot your engagement zone, and they have to bring you back. I still liked the M-60A1 RISE Passive more. A mans tank. Real tanker stuff! The M-1 is just to easy.

http://mail.telebyte.com/~hardthundr/ammo-m830-2-sm.jpg

American Invented Tank Launched Bazooka Round aka RPG for those that think every HEAT round is an RPG.

BTW no M-1 in Grozny, and the US has to play nice , no Totaling of cities with civilians like Russia did, no SS-21s, not GAS.

http://mail.telebyte.com/~hardthundr/classic8jj-.jpg

If you post a topic for it instead of putting that Stuff hear I will post a great many REAL links, and papers.

BTW the lame posting from
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread22092/pg1

Has been passed around way to much, and some of the pics have nothing to do with it.

[nagant_m44]

I never said that all HEAT weapons must be RPGs. Those pics were from this Iraq war. The penetrator a PG-7VR anti tank round that can penetrate composite armor.

http://www.webmutants.com/strategypage/rpg7.jpg

[Jippo]

BTW i do know what those pictures are of. They are proof that RPG's can penetrate the Abrams.The gunner was lucky to survive.


As some of the images deal with an M-1 I will deal with this. No RPG did that. This was from the first Gulf War, a Blue on Blue.

With over 50 types of HEAT based anti-armor weapons rpgs only make up a handful.

What are your qualifications? Are you or have you been tank crew?

How do you recognise the weapon used on those pictures? Why do you assume it was blue on blue?


-jippo

[Whistler]

http://www.robcurtis.com/galleries/OIF%202003%20Web%20Gallery/OIF%202003%20gallery-Images/209.jpg

I could post a pic of a destroyed Leopard 2 if not for the fact that the Germans have been too scared put it into a real war yet.... :D :D :D :D

[Koz]

That's Cojene Eh. It was hit by a recoilless rifle in the engine deck. It apparently penetrated the right fuel cell. The fuel cell leaked JP8 onto the hot engine which started a fire. The crew dismounted and attempted to put the fire out with extinguishers and water for awhile until they had to abandon. They put a thermite grenade in the tank and 2 sabots to destroy to prevent the Iraqis from getting at it. The tank was later hit by 2 Mavericks. Read thunder run to get the whole story.

I have a picture of the crew on the back of the tank trying to put the fire out. How do you post pictures?

[Jippo]

American Invented Tank Launched Bazooka Round aka RPG for those that think every HEAT round is an RPG.

Need to do more history: HEAT was developed by Swiss Von Hörster, and first used in war by Germans in Eben Emael.

Ps. RPG HEAT can be far more effective than cannon launched one because it is not limited by the caliber of the cannon.


-jippo

[HardThunder]

American Invented Tank Launched Bazooka Round aka RPG for those that think every HEAT round is an RPG.

Need to do more history: HEAT was developed by Swiss Von Hörster, and first used in war by Germans in Eben Emael.

Ps. RPG HEAT can be far more effective than cannon launched one because it is not limited by the caliber of the cannon.


-jippo


Now are you just saying that because you know no better, or are you really trying to palm that off, and you’re just a flamer? Now if you post the truth. I will jump out of the subject of the M-1 to complete “The Rest of the story”. In short I will help you out. But he did no such thing, and that’s a fact!

As to this "Ps. RPG HEAT can be far more effective than cannon launched one because it is not limited by the caliber of the cannon. "

Now are you just saying that because you know no better, or are you really trying to palm that off, and you’re just a flamer? Now if you post the truth. I will jump out of the subject of the M-1 to complete “The Rest of the story”. In short I will help you out. But he did no such thing, and that’s a fact!

Work out the logic. The size of the warhead, amount of the explosive, are limited in any system, and only account for a small percentage of the overall effect. The M-72 LAW had better penetration then the standard heat warhead of the RPG-7, RPG-7 85mm warhead copied from the Germans in WW-2, and the M-72 66mm Warhead designed in the late 60s. THAT is why RPGs are ineffective against the Current generation of tanks, also why they have many other systems, and many other warhead designs. NO RPG of any kind has a 120mm warhead, and what happen if you did make such a thing? The drag factor would go up enormously, the amount of propellant to free the projectile from the launcher would go up, the amount of propellant for the projectile would go up because the booster would no be sufficient to give it any range, as would the standoff distance for the directed blast to form a plasma stream. That is why TOW-2 has that big old standoff on it ( the TOW-2 without the top attack warhead. The direct attack one).

NOW why heat at all? And what does the LONG ROD do that makes it Just so darn good? I hope you worked out why the two part ammo can not have a long rod!

[HardThunder]

What are your qualifications? Are you or have you been tank crew?

How do you recognise the weapon used on those pictures? Why do you assume it was blue on blue?


-jippo

Yes I was, that is why the mos comments, if you do not know what an mos is then you have no need to know. It is a pro thing.


Why blue, on blue. Because the first time I saw it, I was told that no opposing units had been around at the time, and that the tank was in the center of a group out in the open. I was asked if I had seen anything like it before, and did I have any ideas. I said yes, told them what they suspected, and that was the end of it.

How do you recognize the weapon used on those pictures? We call it FootPrint, it is the footprint of the weapon. This is kind of hard to answer so that the most people will understand. A RPG has an ineffective warhead; much of the energy is expended into the contact area before it can effectively for a stream. Because of this you have a large area where it dents metal, or strips paint (much more so with the older warhead as used by the terrorist, and a great deal of what Iraq had). You can see this effect on the New Polish equipment pictures on this site. Only a few weapons, and warheads do this, as with other footprints only a few leave similar marks. The hole is also a limiting factor, as even fewer warheads make similar sizes of holes from the plasma stream. As should be apparent it is always easiest to see what it is not, then from what it is, or was.

[Jippo]

Hard Thunder, I think most of what you write is bs. You may have been in a tank sometime, but you sure know much less than you imply. For example the HEAT hit. It shows marks of the metal jet just like a cannon or RPG HEAT would, there is no real difference. You are full of it. Chipping paint my a**e.

I suggest you stop being something you are not, and drop that arrogant smokescreen.


-jippo

[Koz]

Are you guys discussing the hole from a HEAT jet? its actually smaller then a sabot hole.

[HardThunder]

Hard Thunder, I think most of what you write is bs. You may have been in a tank sometime, but you sure know much less than you imply. For example the HEAT hit. It shows marks of the metal jet just like a cannon or RPG HEAT would, there is no real difference. You are full of it. Chipping paint my a**e.

I suggest you stop being something you are not, and drop that arrogant smokescreen.


-jippo

You need to grow up, and do a major R E A L T Y check, look into the mirror before you bark!

I your man was a grunt, then a tanker, then other things by order of the Sec Army, and Sec DOD. I young man Made the AFV ID kit for the 1st ID, 3RD ID, and 1 ST Armored Div.s . I young man was in the 9th ID in the Only Armor unit it had- In short the only Divisional Armor unit that worked with Infantry in the 70s, and it never happen again after that. I was cadre in the forming of that unit, and one of the Last units to be made in the 1ST ID, where I was cadre in also.

I could go on for days, but I do not like talking about my self! MOS MOS MOS. Officers, EM, Navy Types, and Air force Professionals know what an MOS is. That is why WE talk about MOS! Only rejects that cant stay in long enough, or CCCP WAIT TA BEES would not know that!

Just because the Moderator does not do his job, does not mean I have to put up with your BS!


You are marked History as of now, in my book!

Go back , and play on the USSR forum!

[nagant_m44]

Go back , and play on the USSR forum!

So you are saying that people who say that Russian equipment might be able to damage American equimpent are communists?

[HardThunder]

Are you guys discussing the hole from a HEAT jet? its actually smaller then a sabot hole.

Well! The old Sabots had a very large diameter, and Sabots today are very much alike in diameter, but they are not the same. A 1 to 21 is Ideal. 1 diameter to 21 diameters. The old ones used by the west had a 1 to 19 because of all the factors it worked best.

HEAT is another issue. Because of the shape, and makeup of the Forcing cone they do not make a plasma stream at the optimal point of impact. And basically this is old technology anyway. But that is the Issue so – anyway some of the older HEAT warheads made no plasma stream at all. WW-2 weapons did not employ it with great effect, and many ended up using the direction blast properties as a result of the _ _ _ _ _ _ that the Swed did come up with ( I am letting that other poster find out before I say anything about that). In short the answer is NO. The TOW 2 has a true diameter of 8 inch if I recall (8 or ten I do not feel like looking it up) but because of a design change it has a cone effect of 12 inches. Without the exact standoff, and standoff at contact the plasma stream would not fully form before it made contact with the target. Many older heat rounds in fact did not outside of the lab, because of a verity of issues. Standoff, Activation, cone, etc.

No two weapons have the same useage as a projectile, also no two HEAT projectiles have the same cone. They can not make the same size hole!

[Jippo]

You need to grow up, and do a major R E A L T Y check, look into the mirror before you bark!

I your man was a grunt, then a tanker, then other things by order of the Sec Army, and Sec DOD. I young man Made the AFV ID kit for the 1st ID, 3RD ID, and 1 ST Armored Div.s . I young man was in the 9th ID in the Only Armor unit it had- In short the only Divisional Armor unit that worked with Infantry in the 70s, and it never happen again after that. I was cadre in the forming of that unit, and one of the Last units to be made in the 1ST ID, where I was cadre in also.

And you can't even write in proper english?



I could go on for days, but I do not like talking about my self! MOS MOS MOS. Officers, EM, Navy Types, and Air force Professionals know what an MOS is. That is why WE talk about MOS! Only rejects that cant stay in long enough, or CCCP WAIT TA BEES would not know that!

MOS? EVVK fellow! I never served in U.S. army, navy or air force, why would I know their slang? Do you know mine?




Just because the Moderator does not do his job, does not mean I have to put up with your BS!

Did I hit your nerve?



Go back , and play on the USSR forum!

Why? Because I already caught you lying, huh?

If you are such a armor hotshot and can recognise various HEAT rounds from penetration marks, can you then maybe teach us poor bastards here and tell the thickness of 120mm HEAT plasma stream? And what is the thickness of RPG-7 plasma stream? Ask this so we can verify what you have said of the photos of damaged Abrams, and all see it was an American tank round that penetrated?


-jippo

[Jippo]

Todays Rpg-7 ammunition is either 93mm or 105mm in diameter, not 85mm. There is no practical reason why they couldn't make a 130mm round if they liked as the tube diameter doesn't limit the warhead size. For example Germans had plans to manufacture a 265mm Panzerfaust in 1945, but for obvious reasons that plan never got of the drawing board. Tank main gun ammunition of 265mm diameter would be more or less impossible to manage inside a tank.


Also M1A2 Abrams' side armor shouldn't pose a serious problems for penetration which is in the class of 700-750mm RHA the turret front being estimated 1300mm RHA and sides significantly less protected. Why do you have a problem with the fact that with right tools Abrams could be penetrated and destroyed?

At least American generals think it can since they have pushed TUSK through.


-jippo

[Frens]

BIG Abrams' pic (http://www.fototime.com/4308246835C9FD5/orig.jpg)

[HardThunder]

BIG Abrams' pic (http://www.fototime.com/4308246835C9FD5/orig.jpg)

Actually I cut it down to fit a normal screen. Without the forums boarders, and such.

[Hugh Jardon]

I really wonder how many people here have actually been to Russia and seen the terrain there. When you read about how much trouble the Germans had with Russian mud they are not piling on. That stuff is capable of gluing a gammagoat in place. I sat in a friends apartment one day and watched a large Hitachi backhoe (a BEEEEG one) try to dig itself out after it had sunk up to its deck in a rainstorm overnight. It took almost all day.

A heavy tank, especially an M-1 or another heavy tank is going to wallow like a dying pig on the Russian terrain. And with that gas turbine engine trying to get it out it will suck fuel like a hungry duck sucks water in a pond.

The M-1 can hit a target at 4000 yds. Well and good. What if you can't see 500 yds? rofl rofl There are a lot of dense forests and hilly muddy country in Russia.

If anyone wants to go after Russia leave the heavies in the warehouse. I truly believe that Russians consider their terrain and weather an integral and cheap natural defence. And they are right.

T-90's are designed to manuever on the terrain and have a distinct advantage, they can go where heavies can't are smaller and more manueverable in forests. Half the battle is where you choose to fight and knowing where the enemy is mired in the mud.





I

[Hugh Jardon]

Yeah nice big Abrams pic.

On a paved road!!!! rofl rofl rofl

[HardThunder]

Anyway! This is what a REAL RPG-7 hit looks like. You can also look at the New Polish weapons pics, and see the same effects on a BRDM-2.

( BTW I ask that you respect the use of my image, and all the normal things that go with it)

http://mail.telebyte.com/~hardthundr/M-1%20RPG%20hit-2%20copy.jpg


This is another view of the same tank that SOMEONE tried to palm off as devastated by a RPG-7 with an anti personnel warhead (I lost count of how many lies, and just truly insane BS that guy has posted).

This is in support of the poster that posted the real facts about it. This is in support of the poster that posted the real facts about it.

http://mail.telebyte.com/~hardthundr/M-1%20Destroyed-2.jpg

Needless to say that the MI-24 poster is well on his way to being Ignored also! As this is my only acknowledgment of his BS.

[sergey31]

If anyone if full of BS is yourself and so far you have proven that... The more sh1t you type here the more of an idiot you have demonstrated yourself to be.... Just zippit "amour boy" and go masturbate to your M1 plastic toys. Everyone is just tired of you BS and wanabe egoistic character.
And you should be banned for being an newb ass... Just like you were at Tanknet.

[Jippo]

If anyone if full of BS is yourself and so far you have proven that... The more sh1t you type here the more of an idiot you have demonstrated yourself to be.... Just zippit "amour boy" and go masturbate to your M1 plastic toys. Everyone is just tired of you BS and wanabe egoistic character.
And you should be banned for being an newb ass... Just like you were at Tanknet.

I would hope he could take little different attitude so he wouldn't need to be banned, but other than that I agree.


-jippo

[Koz]

I really wonder how many people here have actually been to Russia and seen the terrain there. When you read about how much trouble the Germans had with Russian mud they are not piling on. That stuff is capable of gluing a gammagoat in place. I sat in a friends apartment one day and watched a large Hitachi backhoe (a BEEEEG one) try to dig itself out after it had sunk up to its deck in a rainstorm overnight. It took almost all day.

A heavy tank, especially an M-1 or another heavy tank is going to wallow like a dying pig on the Russian terrain. And with that gas turbine engine trying to get it out it will suck fuel like a hungry duck sucks water in a pond.

The M-1 can hit a target at 4000 yds. Well and good. What if you can't see 500 yds? rofl rofl There are a lot of dense forests and hilly muddy country in Russia.

If anyone wants to go after Russia leave the heavies in the warehouse. I truly believe that Russians consider their terrain and weather an integral and cheap natural defence. And they are right.

T-90's are designed to manuever on the terrain and have a distinct advantage, they can go where heavies can't are smaller and more manueverable in forests. Half the battle is where you choose to fight and knowing where the enemy is mired in the mud.





I

I don't think NATO had any intention of invading Russia during the Cold War.

[Hugh Jardon]

Without the use of nukes we never would have come close.

The purpose of the Warsaw Pact was a buffer between greater Russia and western europe and it did its job well.

The whole point I am trying to make here is that tanks such as the Abrams are heavy tanks, heavy tanks lack agility which makes them vulnerable to other medium and lite tanks under many circumstances. Not to mention infantry.

[Shiftyfive]

Russian-Manufactured Armored Vehicle Vulnerability in Urban Combat: The Chechnya Experience
By Mr. Lester W. Grau
May 13, 2004, 23:21



In December 1994, the Russian Army entered the breakaway Republic of Chechnya and attempted to seize the Chechen capital of Grozny from the march. After this attempt failed, the Russian Army spent two months in deliberate house-to-house fighting before finally capturing the city.(1) The dispirited Russian conscript force was badly mauled by the more mature, dedicated Chechen force, and the war drags on to this day. During the first month of the conflict, Russian forces wrote off 225 armored vehicles as nonrepairable battle losses. This represents 10.23% of the armored vehicles initially committed to the campaign. The Russians evacuated some of these 225 hulls to the Kubinka test range for analysis. General-Lieutenant A. Galkin, the head of the Armor Directorate, held a conference on their findings on 20 February 1995. The Minister of Defense attended the conference.(2) The results of the conference convinced the Russian Minister of Defense to stop procuring tanks with gas-turbine engines.(3) Further, the analysis disclosed Chechen anti-armor tactics and the vulnerabilities of Russian armored vehicles in urban combat. Chechen Anti-armor Techniques


The Chechen forces are armed with Soviet and Russian-produced weapons, and most Chechen fighters served in the Soviet Armed Forces. The Chechen lower-level combat group consists of 15 to 20 personnel subdivided into three or four-man fighting cells. These cells consist of an antitank gunner (normally armed with the RPG-7 or RPG-18 shoulder-fired antitank rocket launcher), a machine gunner and a sniper.(4) Additional personnel serve as ammunition bearers and assistant gunners. Chechen combat groups would deploy these cells as anti-armor hunter-killer teams. The sniper and machine gunner would pin down the supporting infantry while the antitank gunner would engage the armored target. Teams deploy at ground level, in second and third stories, and in basements. Normally five or six hunter-killer teams simultaneously attack a single armored vehicle. Kill shots are generally made against the top, rear and sides of vehicles. Chechens also drop bottles filled with gasoline or jellied fuel on top of vehicles.(5) The Chechen hunter-killer teams try to trap vehicle columns in city streets where destruction of the first and last vehicles will trap the column and allow its total destruction.


The elevation and depression of the Russian main tank guns are incapable of dealing with hunter-killer teams fighting from basements and second or third-story positions and the simultaneous attack from five or six teams negate the effectiveness of the tank's machine guns. The Russians attached ZSU 23-4 and 2S6 track-mounted antiaircraft guns to armored columns to respond to these difficult-to-engage hunter-killer teams.(6)


Initial Russian vehicle losses were due to a combination of inappropriate tactics, underestimation of the opposing force, and a lack of combat readiness. The Russians moved into Grozny without encircling it and sealing it off from reinforcements. They planned to take the city from the march without dismounting. Due to shortages in personnel, the Russian columns consisted of composite units and most personnel carriers traveled with few or no dismounts. These initial columns were decimated.


As the Russians regrouped, they brought in more infantry and began a systematic advance through the city, house by house and block by block. Russian armored vehicle losses dropped off with their change in tactics. Russian infantry moved in front with armored combat vehicles in support or in reserve. Some Russian vehicles were outfitted with a cage of wire mesh mounted some 25-30 centimeters away from the hull armor to defeat the shaped charges of an antitank grenade launcher as well as to protect the vehicle from a Molotov cocktail or bundle of explosives. The Russians began establishing ambushes on approach routes into a selected area and then running vehicles into the area as bait to destroy Chechen hunter-killer teams.(7)

Vulnerabilities of Russian armored vehicles


Shoulder-fired antitank weapons and antitank grenades knocked out the bulk of armored vehicles and each destroyed vehicle took an average of three to six lethal hits.(8) Fuel cells and engines are favorite aiming points for Chechen antitank gunners. The following illustrations have a grey area imposed which shows the area where 90% of the lethal hits occurred.(9)




The BMD-1 is a personnel carrier assigned to airborne forces. As such, it is lightly armored.

It was vulnerable to front, rear, flanking and top-down fire. The front portion of the turret is reinforced and, consequently, not vulnerable, but the rear of the turret is.




There is more armor on the BMP-2 infantry fighting vehicle. However, its top armor is weak, its fuel tanks are within the rear doors and the driver's compartment is vulnerable.

The BTR-70 wheeled armored personnel carrier showed many of the same vulnerabilities as the BMD and BMP.


Sixty-two tanks were destroyed in the first month's fighting in Chechnya. Over 98% (apparently 61 tanks) were knocked out by rounds which impacted in areas not protected by reactive armor. The Russians employed the T-72 and T-80 tank in Chechnya. They were both invulnerable to frontal shots, since the front is heavily armored and covered with reactive armor. Kill shots were made at those points where there is no reactive armor--the sides and rear and, on top shots, on the drivers hatch and the rear of the turret and rear deck. Early in the conflict, most Russian tanks went into combat without their reactive armor. They were particularly vulnerable to damaging or lethal frontal hits without it.(10)

Conclusions


The Chechen forces developed effective techniques to defeat Russian armored vehicles on the streets of a large city. Many of their techniques can be adapted by other armed forces which might fight Russian-manufactured armored vehicles (or other types of armored vehicles) in urban combat. These techniques are:

Organize anti-tank hunter-killer teams which include a machine gunner and a sniper to protect the anti-tank gunner by suppressing infantry which is accompanying the armored vehicles.
Select anti-armor ambush areas in sections of the city where buildings restrict and canalize the movement of armored vehicles.
Lay out the ambush in order to seal off vehicles inside the kill zone.
Use multiple hunter-killer teams to engage armored vehicles from basements, ground level and from second- or third-floor positions. A problem with the RPG-7 and RPG-18 antitank weapons are the backblast, signature and time lapse between shots. The Chechens solved the time lapse problem by engaging each target simultaneously with five or six anti-tank weapons (obvious requirements for a future anti-armor weapon for urban combat is a low-signature, multi-shot, recoil-attenuated, light-weight weapon which can be fired from inside enclosures. The AT-4 and Javelin do not appear to meet these requirements).
Engage armored targets from the top, rear and sides. Shots against frontal armor protected by reactive armor only serve to expose the gunner.
Engage accompanying air-defense guns first.

ENDNOTES:

1. For a discussion of changing Russian urban tactics, see Lester W. Grau, "Russian Urban Tactics: Lessons from the Battle for Grozny," Strategic Forum, Number 38, July 1995.

2. N. N. Novichkov, V. Ya. Snegovskiy, A. G. Sokolov and V. Yu. Shvarev, Rossiyskie vooruzhennye sily v chechenskom konflikte: Analiz, Itogi, Vyvody (Russian armed force in the chechen conflict: Analysis, outcomes and conclusions), Moscow: Kholveg-Infoglob-Trivola, 1995, 138-139. For the same period of time, forward-support Russian maintenance personnel repaired 217 armored vehicles, while depot maintenance repaired another 404 armored vehicles according to Sergey Maev and Sergey Roshchin, "STO v Grozny" (Technical Maintenance Stations in Grozny), Armeyskiy sbornik (Army digest), December 1995, 58. These were not all combat-induced losses, but it seems to indicate that 846 of 2221 armored vehicles (38%) were out of action for some period of time during the two-month battle for Grozny.

3. Mikhail Zakharchuk, "Uroki Chechenskogo krizisa" (Lessons of the Chechen crisis), Armeyskiy sbornik, April 1995, 46.

4. "Pamyatka lichnomu sostavu chastey i podrazdeleniy po vedeniyu boevykh deistviy v Chechenskoy Respublike" (Instructions for unit and subunit personnel involved in combat in the Chechen Republic), Ameryskiy sbornik, January 1996, 37.

5. Novichkov, 145.

6. Ibid, 123.

7. Sergey Leonenko, "Ovladenie gorodom" (Capturing a city), Armeyskiy sbornik, 31-35.

8. Novichkov, 137.

9. All illustrations are taken from Novichkov, 140-144.

10. Novichkov, 145.

[Shiftyfive]

T-72...T-64...T-80?? Why Three Tanks?
By CW2 (Ret.) Stephen “Cookie” Sewell
May 21, 2004, 07:49



Since the first of the Soviet Third Generation tanks appeared racing across the steppes in fuzzy, windblown photographs in 1967, a great deal of effort has gone into trying to determine why the Soviets eventually produced three different tanks to what appeared to be the same requirements.1Many military analysts searched long and hard to find reasons, especially when they looked at the forces opposing NATO in Europe during the late 1970s and early 1980s. In Germany, NORTHAG faced T-64-equipped units in the north of Germany (the 2nd Guards Tank, 20th Guards, and 3rd Shock Armies) and T-80 units in the south (1st Guards Tank and 8th Guards Armies). In Czechoslovakia, the units had T-72s, and in Hungary, T-64s. Fleets of each kind of tank awaited in the “second echelon front” armies in the western Soviet Union, and even more lurked behind the Urals. By 1991, they formed the backbone of a fleet which may have reached as many as 77,000 tanks.2 But why three different tanks?

The Soviets did face a wide variety of tank threats from Europe and on their other borders. The U.S. fielded first M60s and then M1 Abrams tanks; the British, the Centurion and then the Chieftain; the Germans, the M48, Leopard 1 and 2; France, AMX-30; and the rest, a variety of U.S., British, and German tank designs. In the east, the Soviets only faced Chinese copies and variants of their own late second-generation tank designs (T-54, T-55, and T-62). But these tanks could be countered with a single superior main battle tank type, not three.

The answer, in a single word, was the power of the “Oboronka.” This term was the Russian slang for the Military Industrial Complex, which dominated nearly 50 percent of the Soviet economy for many, many years. With the incestuous relationship among Party leaders, factory heads, designers, and military commanders, this society within a society ran the country. It also made and broke people at will, especially when political influence was turned all the way up. Few men in the USSR survived being broken by the members of the Oboronka, and few ever made their way back into its exalted ranks once expunged.

But in the end, the Oboronka was men, and it was men who made the machinery which kept the Oboronka in power, and the Oboronka kept the Party in power. This was not just the comic opera “KGB knock-at-the-door” threat of power, but wealth, position, and an enormous military force in being, which gave the trappings of power to those who fed it and worked with it. The reason that there were three main battle tanks in simultaneous production was because some men played the Oboronka game better than most, and were rewarded for their loyalties and achievements. But in order to see how this worked, our story begins in the 1930s.

The Rise of the Design Bureaus

The Soviet tank industry itself dates back to 1920, when the Soviets made their first direct copies of the Renault FT light tank. Throughout the 1920s, theorists like Marshal Tukhachevskiy saw the need to create armored forces to provide the backbone to the Workers’ and Peasants’ Red Army (RKKA). But it was not until 1930, when the Soviets purchased the British Vickers Six Ton Tank, and the U.S. M1931 Christie wheel-and-track tank chassis in 1931, that their industry and their tank corps begin to grow.

During that period, the Soviets built tanks in one of two places. They either built them at the Kharkov Steam “Komintern” Locomotive Factory in Kharkov, Ukraine, or they built them at one of three factories in Leningrad. Each factory had a design bureau in charge of the tank design process, headed by a chief designer. The factory leadership was composed of the factory chief, the chief designers of various bureaus in these factories, the chief engineers, the head of the Party political committee at the factory, and the lead workers in charge of mechanical assembly. But of Mikhail Koshkin organized the project that became the famous T-34 of WWII as chief designer at the Kharkov tank plant.

all of these, the most powerful people were the factory chief and the chief of the design bureau.

The factory chief and design bureau chief were trusted men, and both had to be Party members. The factory chief was usually an engineer with some design experience, but his main function was to ensure that production took place and goals were met on time. The chief of the design bureau was the head of the product design team, and his function was to get the product ready for production, keep it current, and ensure that problems were solved as quickly as possible. While others figured prominently in the day to day affairs of the plants, nothing could take place without the approval of these two men.
By 1938, the Soviet Union had essentially two production centers. Both had experienced a major turnover in staff the previous year. The “Komintern” Kharkov Locomotive Works, or less dramatically, Factory No. 183, received a new director and a new chief of the design bureau to replace two individuals who had been purged and shot. The new factory director was Yu.Ye Maksarev, who was a busy man and key to making the tanks roll; but the real driver of Kharkov’s production was Mikhail I. Koshkin, the chief designer.

In Leningrad, the three factories were truncated and reorganized during the -1930s, and by 1937 had boiled down to one controlling design bureau which oversaw the activities of the three factories. Of the three factories — K.Ye, Voroshilov Factory No. 174; Bol’shevik Factory No. 100, or the Prototype Design for Special Machinery; and the Leningrad Kirov Factory No. 185 — the Kirov factory was the true power, and its new chief was Izaak M. Zal’tsman. The chief designer of all three plants was Zhosif Ya. Kotin.

Koshkin: Clear Vision and Concepts

Mikhail Koshkin (1898-1940) was one of a rising group of star engineers. A Party member since 1919, he had performed well and impressed influential Party members on his way up. He studied at the Sverdlov Communist University and graduated from the Leningrad Polytechnic Institute in 1934. While there, he met and worked with Sergei M. Kirov, one of the major driving forces in the Leningrad Communist Party. At the Institute, he was also befriended by and came under the wing of a patron, Sergo Ordzhonikidze, one of the major early figures in the Communist Party. This ensured his getting a prime position at the best of the Leningrad factories. Thus, upon graduation he went to Factory No. 185 to work as a designer. In January 1937, he was assigned as acting chief designer of the tank bureau at the KhPZ, replacing A.O. Firsov, who had been denounced. But his joy at receiving the new position was diminished when Sergo died in February 1937, essentially leaving him without support in the higher levels of the Party.

At the KhPZ, Koshkin immediately impressed his contemporaries, and showed a firm grasp of engineering details and what was expected of him. However, the KhPZ was considered only a secondary tank plant, and the jewels in the Oboronka crown were all in Leningrad. Koshkin was told that his main mission was simply to make a better BT tank, as the series of fast tanks were the only major military product of the KhPZ. But there was one other ace in the deck; the KhPZ was also home to the diesel engine design bureau, and after six years of work and testing, it was ready to produce the BD-2 high speed diesel engine.
Koshkin saw the value of this at once, and even though the arrest of the engine’s designer in December 1937 set things back, the project went forward for test in April 1938. Combined with other projects going on in the factory, such as
the BT-IS tank with improved running gear and the BT-SV series tanks with sloped armor protection, Koshkin began to see the need for a better tank design. There was only one minor glitch: a graduate engineering student named Dik managed to solve the problems with the drive train in the BT-IS tank, which would have placed it in production in 1938. This was a warmed-over BT with the same complex and troublesome wheel-and-track driveline which discredited the tanks used in Spain, but that was popular with old line cavalry commanders of the day. After discrediting and overworking Dik, Koshkin began easing his way around the tight restrictions placed on him by the Party and the Oboronka leadership to move towards a new concept.
Koshkin had a simple, but unauthorized, plan in mind. Dump the troublesome wheel-and-track drive for a pure tracked drive, build a hull from sloped armor plates, stuff the BD-2 diesel engine in the new tank, and get the largest tank cannon possible to ensure sufficient firepower. Since he couldn’t advance his design directly, Koshkin sidled up to it with several interim models: the A-20, which appeared to be an improved BTSV-2, and the pure tracked A-32, both of which were passed on to the Oboronka overseers as simply “improved” BT tanks.

Kotin: Contacts, Contacts, Contacts

Zhosif Kotin (1908-79), on the other hand, was not the gifted designer and latent genius of Mikhail Koshkin. Kotin had simply attended the right schools with the right people at the right times. Kotin attended the Dzerzhinskiy Military This continued to bubble for two years, and at the height of the Cuban problem (22 October 1962) Khrushchev got to see another example of work by the three bureaus. Here Morozov showed Object 430, which he was told to convert into a missile-firing tank. Kartsev showed Object 167, which carried three 9M14 Malyutka (AT-3 SAGGER) missiles on a rack at the back of its turret; and Kotin showed Object 282, which was a T-10 with a pop-up missile launcher. Khrushchev roundly criticized all three, but only Kartsev stood up to him and argued back that the army still needed tanks. Morozov went back and worked on two antitank missile-armed versions of Object 430, Kartsev did some more on Object 150, but Kotin was told in no uncertain terms that the production of any more heavy tanks would not be tolerated. That the T-10 remained in production until 1966 is a mark of Kotin’s ability to circumvent even the Premier as well as his lack of acumen when it came to future vision.

All was essentially reversed when Khrushchev fell from power in 1964, but the grounds had been laid for developing tanks which could also fire missiles through their main guns.

The T-72

In 1967, the U.S. Army was actively engaged in Vietnam, the Middle East was smarting from the results of the SixDay War, India and Pakistan were only two years past their last major clash of arms, and the Soviet Red Army had only a handful of new tanks to face what they deemed Third Generation NATO tanks — the Leopard 1, AMX-30, M60A1, and Chieftain. As a result, GABTU sent a team with a T-64A prototype to Nizhniy Tagil and presented Kartsev with the task of finding a way to build a cheaper, simpler, and more reliable T-64.

Kartsev accepted the task, but did not like any of the major innovations of the T-64 design. While Morozov had been developing the T-64, Nizhniy Tagil had been working on a successor tank to the T-62. This tank, called Object 167, used the Object 140 running gear on a T-62 chassis and in its developed version, a V26 engine, which was a 700 HP version of the reliable V-2 design. Later, it added a launcher for three 9M14 missiles to increase its direct engagement range from 1,700 meters to over 3,000. A final variant used two 350 SHP helicopter turbines linked together to test the feasibility of turbine power in a tank. None of the designs were accepted for production.

Another design saw an upgrade to the T-62. This tank used the 125mm D-81 gun with a totally new model of autoloader. Whereas the Kharkov design used a fork which selected the correct munition by index, placed both projectile and charge in a line, and then loaded them, the Vagonka design was more elegant, simple, and safer. Kartsev’s team used a cassette and a chain hoist and rammer, in which the charge was located in the top slot of the two-section cassette and the projectile in the bottom. The hoist pulled up the selected cassette, loaded the projectile, dropped, loaded the charge, and then dropped the cassette back into the floor carousel. The only drawback was that, unlike the T-64’s recovery of the “puck” from the expended round, the UVZ design had a port and ejected the “puck” out of the back of the turret. This compromised its NBC protection, but was simple and reliable.

Kartsev decided to simply borrow the best ideas from the T-64A and the best ideas which had not gone into production from Object 167 and the T-62/D-81 project. The result, which was still called a modified T-64A, had the Object 140/Object 167 suspension on a hull which used the sharply angled glacis and driver’s position from the T-64A and little else. The complete T-62/D-81 turret and autoloader were used. The new tank also used a V-45 engine, another V-2 offshoot, producing 780 HP. This tank was readied on 10 January 1968, and received the interim index number Object 172.

When GABTU found out what Kartsev had done, they were furious and severely reprimanded him five days later for not following instructions. Still, this design showed promise, as it used proven technology and did seem that it would be cheaper and easier to produce and operate than the T-64. Kartsev was given permission to proceed with his design. However, in the meantime, I.V. Okunyev, the factory director of the Vagonka, retired and was replaced by one of Kotin’s cronies, I.F. Krutyakov. Krutyakov immediately tried to quash the design, calling it a “strategic mistake,” as he wanted to make the UVZ subservient to Leningrad and Kotin. Kartsev, who by now had a lot of political clout and was well respected by the Party hierarchy, blistered his ears with a stinging rebuke and forced Krutyakov into insignificance.

However, Kartsev’s daughter was getting worse, and he retired in August 1969. V.I. Venediktov, his assistant and lead designer of Object 172, took over as chief designer. After a total of five years of tests, nearly all of which Object 172 passed with flying colors, it was accepted for service as the T-72.


The T-80

By 1974, GABTU was stuck with a problem. They had the T-64A in production, but it was still a handful and somewhat unreliable. The T-72 was going strong, and export models, dubbed T72M, were being readied for sale and production abroad. But new Fourth Generation U.S. and German tank designs, the XM-1 and Leopard 2, were now undergoing preliminary testing, and the Soviet Union did not have a corresponding tank design. The T-64 was seen as too idiosyncratic, and the T-72 too conventional and old-fashioned. Thus, they turned to the Leningrad Kirov Factory and asked them to produce an advanced version of the T-72.

The design bureau in Leningrad had also seen Kotin retire from the design bureau and the reins handed over to Nikolai S. Popov in 1968. Kotin still held a great deal of influence, and could pull strings when he needed to “adjust” things. Popov had some experience with turbine engines, and he felt that a turbine, as was being tested in the Chrysler version of the XM-1, was the way of the future.

Turbines had been tested nearly twelve years earlier by the LKZ. The Vagonka had built a turbine-powered version of Object 167, called Object 167T, and reported the results of their test to Khrushchev in April 1964. The assessment had been that, even using relatively economical helicopter turbine engines, the problems with cold weather starting and fuel expenditure were not worth the reduced weight and increased power the turbine offered.
Still, Popov and his team felt they could do better than both Kharkov and Nizhniy Tagil, and like Kartsev and Object 172, after testing a turbine in a T-72 chassis under the index number Object 219, they designed another tank chassis, using the best elements of the T-72 (hull layout and suspension system) and replacing all the rest. The new tank, called Object 219RD, used a modified turret design based on the T-64A and its autoloader. This tank was used to develop Object 219-2, which was accepted for service in 1976 as the T-80.

But the T-80 had problems, and a T80B model appeared two years later. Early models had an extremely unreliable and thirsty GTD-1000 turbine engine, which to the dismay of troop commanders, showed itself incapable of moving the tank more than 285 kilometers on highways, even with auxiliary fuel tanks. Any other Soviet tank of the day, like its two competitors, could go from 500 to 700 kilometers on a single fueling. As a result, the very early T-80B tanks came with mounts for three 200 liter auxiliary fuel tanks (two over the rear track flaps and one on the top center of the engine deck).

The Brezhnev Doctrine and Further Developments

After 1979, things began to go downhill for the USSR. Leonid Brezhnev, in a classic example of what the Soviets constantly derided as “adventurism,” began direct, overt intervention into Afghanistan, heightening tensions with the West. NATO deployed more tanks to Europe, and new ones to boot — the M1, followed by the M1 IP and M1A1; the Leopard 1A4 and Leopard 2 series; and the late model Chieftain with Stillbrew package and Challenger.

The Soviets became trapped by their own politics. The three factories, all with powerful friends in the Politburo and thousands of workers that had to be kept busy and continued unchecked. New models, aimed not so much at improving the tank park as “one-upsmanship” over the other two rivals, appeared at regular intervals. The T-64B, now with the 9M112 Kobra (AT-8 SONGSTER) through-the-bore launched ATGM, appeared in 1979; due to shared parts and components, the T80B picked this feature up shortly afterward. In 1983, the T-64B, T-72A, and T-80B all began to receive reactive armor suites. This came about after the fortuitous 1982 Syrian capture of an Israeli M48 with “Blazer” proved its viability. In 1985, the T-72B and T-80U appeared. Both of them now mounted the 9M119 (AT-11 SNIPER) ATGM system, which used a laser beam riding system rather than the radio command guidance of the 9M112. The T-64, which had run its course, ceased production.

The T-64 series was essentially terminated in 1985, other than rebuilding of older models as T-64Rs (the R stood for “remontirniy” or rebuilt). The Morozov bureau (now under Sholin) started work on an as yet undisclosed tank prototype called “Molot” (the Hammer). They also put the definitive T-64 family engine, a six cylinder (twelve piston) engine called the 6TDF and producing 1,000 HP, in a modified T-80U chassis and produced the T-80UD in 1987. Leningrad and Nizhniy Tagil continued their upgrade battle. In 1988, the Vagonka announced the T-72BM, using a new generation of reactive armor called “Kontakt-5” and with the first elements of a self-protection system called “Shtora.” This tank was offered for sale abroad. However, due to the poor performance of the export T-72M and T-72M1 tanks in Iraqi hands during 1991, they found no market for their tanks abroad.

They found no market for them at home either. In 1989, when the Berlin Wall came down and the Soviet Union began to break apart, all orders for tank production came to a sudden end. Undaunted, both Leningrad (now producing its tanks in Omsk, as the Leningrad Kirov Factory was now just the “home office” and not a production center) and Nizhniy Tagil continued to produce tanks under the philosophy, “if we built it, they will buy it for the Army.” No longer. The Omsk-produced T-80UM and T-80UK, both which were announced in 1992, have yet to find a buyer. The reborn T-72BM, now called the T-90 or T-90S as an export tank, appeared in 1990 and has likewise found no market yet.

Conclusions

The Russians have always placed great stock in the “cult of personality.” It was essentially due to that feature of their national personality, plus the sheer power of the Oboronka, that three tanks with nearly identical combat capabilities were in production at the same time. However, when compared with Soviet thinking and their artificially generated Military Science, only the T-72 really stands out as the tank which met all their requirements and needs

But tradition continues. In 1997, at an arms display in Omsk, the Omsk tank factory displayed a number of their products, including a new version of the T-80 called the “Black Eagle.” This appeared to use a new turret with a bustle mounted autoloader, which corrects the one fatal flaw of the T-80: when the fighting compartment is penetrated by a projectile, the ammunition detonates and blows the tank apart. This appeared to have some sort of blow-off plate arrangement like that found on the M1A1. And, in Russian tradition, it was done without the knowledge or approval of the Popov bureau in Saint Petersburg.

Soviet thinking on tanks was that, while they had to fully flesh out the three qualities of a tank — protection, mobility, and firepower — they also had to be simple, reliable, and capable of moving long distances under their own power. The T-64, which was a true quantum leap forward in tank design in 1962, proved to be too troublesome and difficult to maintain. While the tank never saw combat, its legacy — the awkward autoloader device — was cited by authorities such as Colonel General Sergei Mayev and Colonel General Aleskandr Galkin as being indirectly responsible for the massive destruction among T-80 tanks sent into Chechya.

The autoloaders in both tanks were quite similar, and extrapolation would show that the T-64 would have been as vulnerable to penetration of the fighting compartment as the T-80 was.

The T-72 was a hybrid; for it combined the best of the past with the best of the new. Its autoloader was not as vulnerable or dangerous, and the tank was far more mechanically reliable and faithful. However, the T-72 garnered its own share of problems in the Gulf War, as the less capable T-72M and T-72M1 tanks were easily destroyed by first-line US and UK tanks.4 This is one of the main reasons that the last model, the T-72BM, was hastily redesignated the T-90 to try and shake off the stigma from Iraq.

The T-80, initially thought to be a world-beating tank, has proven itself to be a dog in service. Still plagued with low mileage — even the most current advertisements for T-80UM do not claim more than about 485 kilometers road range, including the auxiliary tanks — the T-80 was shown in combat to suffer from the problems that Kartsev warned them about in 1964. The tanks burn nearly as much fuel at idle as they do at road speeds, and as a result most of the tanks which made the attack on Grozny on New Year’s Eve 1994 ran out of fuel while awaiting assignments. The Chechens then simply picked them off. While current models have an onboard 18 kW generator set, the ones used in Chechnya were the same T-80BV tanks which once worried commanders in Germany when they sat across the border in the Thuringerwald.

There have been some signs that the Russians are trying to fix the problem which the Oboronka left them, and are planning to settle on only one tank for the future. But the squabbling still persists as to whose tank it will be, and whose philosophy will be dominant. The fight today is between “parketniye generali” — the armchair generals in Moscow, so named because of the elegant parquet flooring in their offices — who still dream of sweeping across Germany to the English Channel on fleets of tanks, and the reformers, who want firstrate weapons for the scores of local conflicts and regional wars which they see as more likely in the future.

The author would like to thank Steve Zaloga for his help and assistance during this project.

Bibliography

(all Russian titles translated)

Books

Bachurin, N., Zenkin, V. and Roshchin, S.; T-80 Main Battle Tank (Gonchar’ Press, Moscow) 1993 (58 pp)
Baryatinskiy, M., Kolomiets, M. and Koshchavtsev, A.: Armor Collection 3-96: Postwar Soviet
Heavy Tanks (Modelist-Konstruktor), 1996 (32 pp.)
Armor-Collection 1-96: The BT-2 and BT-5 Light Tanks (Modelist-Konstruktor) 1996 (32 pp.)
Armor-Collection 5-96: The BT-7 Light Tank (Modelist-Konstruktor) 1996 (32 pp.)
Ibragimov, D.S.; The Opposition (DOSAAF Publishing, Moscow) 1989 (496 pp.)
Kartsev, Leontiy N.; My Fate – Nizhniy Tagil (Kosmos Publishing, Moscow) 1991 (192 pp.)
Popov, N.S. (Chief Editor); Combat Vehicle De
signer (Leningrad Publishing) 1988 (382 pp.)
Without Secrets or Secrecy (St. Petersburg Publishing) 1995 (351 pp.)
Reznik, Yakob; Building Armor (Military Publishing, Moscow) 1987 (304 pp.)
Savfonov, B.S., and Murankhovskiy, V.I.; Main Battle Tanks (Raduga Publishing House, Ukraine) 1993 (190 pp.)
Shmelev, Igor P.; T-34; Solon Press (Moscow) 1996 (60 pp.)
The BT Tanks (Khobbikniga, Moscow) 1993 (24 pp.)

Articles

Aleshin, A., and Sergeyev, V.: “The Best of the Heavy Class,” Modelist-Konstruktor 2/90 pp. 69.
Gryankin, Sergei; “The T-54,” TekhnikaMolodezhi 2/90 pp. 12-13.
“The IS-3 and IS-4,” Tekhnika-Molodezhi 3/90 pp. 20-21.
“The T-10,” Tekhnika-Molodezhi 4/90 pp. 18-19. “The T-62,” Tekhnika-Molodezhi 1/91 pp. 18-19. “The T-64,” Tekhnika-Molodezhi 2/91 pp. 18-19.
“The IS-3, IS-3M, and IS-7,” TekhnikaMolodezhi 3/91 pp. 18-19.
“Missiles and Experimentals,” TekhnikaMolodezhi 7/91 pp. 16-17.
Karpenko. A.V.; “The Kobra Guided Weapons Complex,” Nevskiy Bastion 1-96 pp. 27-29.
Koshchavtsev, A.; “Object 432,” M-Khobbi 4-97 pp. 34-41.
Levkhovich, Vladimir; “The T-55A Tank,” MKhobbi 5-96 pp. 31-33.
Moroz, Vitaliy (Colonel); “The T-64: First of the Second Generation,” Krasnaya Zvezda, 2 Oct 92, p. 2.
Pitchkin, S.; “Russian Work,” Krasnaya Zvezda, 22 Sep 90, page 2-3.
“Holes in the Armor,” Sovetskiy Voin 9/91 pp. 60-63.
“Does Russia Need Any Tanks, or...Will the Leopard Volunteer for Combat?,” Sovetskiy Voin 4/93 pp. 5, 7-8.
Notes
1The Soviets saw tank generations in this manner: 1920-1945, first generation; 1946-1960, second generation; 1961-1980, third generation; and 1981-present, fourth generation. Since the last really new tank design, the T-80, came out in 1976, they feel that they have not produced a true Fourth Generation Tank Design. In comparison, they count the M1, Challenger, and Leopard 2 as Fourth Generation and the LeClerc as Fifth Generation.
2This number reported by Colonel General Dmitriy Volkogonov soon after the breakup of the Union.
3All Soviet-era military equipment went through five developmental stages: conceptual design work, prototype construction work, factory testing, service testing, and series production. The KV was accepted after Step 2.
4A recent study pointed out that the T-72 export models, of which eight different ones were produced, were to be made using alternative materials, and not the first-rate materials in the Soviet domestic models. Reports in Russian press articles seem to indicate that the tanks used in Chechnya, T-72A models, were far more survivable than once thought.

Stephen L. “Cookie” Sewell entered the Army in 1968 as an Army Security Agency linguist, retiring as a chief warrant officer in 1990. Over the course of a 21-1/2 year active duty career, he learned both the Vietnamese and Russian languages, and also earned a BA in English Literature from the Regents College, University of the State of New York, in 1977. His active duty time was evenly split between strategic intelligence assignments and duty assignments in four heavy divisions — 1st Infantry, 1st Cavalry, 2nd Armored, and 3rd Armored. While serving with the 3rd Armored Division (1986-88), he was editor of the “OPSINT,” the Division G-2 open source intelligence publication for the division, and produced three unclassified models of the Soviet T-80B, T-80BV, and 2S6 Tunguska AA vehicle for USAREUR training posters. He is currently an analyst for the National Ground Intelligence Agency.

[Shiftyfive]

The Final Score: Russian Armor Losses in Chechnya Reflect Lethality of an Urban Fight
By First Lieutenant Adam Geibel
May 21, 2004, 06:51








On 3 September 1996, Colonel-General Alexander Galkin, head of the chief armored vehicle and tank directorate of the Russian defense ministry, told journalists that federal forces in Chechnya had lost 260 armored fighting vehicles, including T-72 and T-80 tanks as well as APCs.1Galkin, describing lost AFVs as equipment absolutely unrepairable, noted that this figure did not include assets lost during a later offensive, called the Second Battle of Grozny.

The general reiterated that the high figure was due to the nature of city fighting, and not any inherent defects in Russian AFVs, adding “if we had not brought tanks into Grozny, then more infantrymen would have been killed, because the tanks did protect the infantry.”

The later offensive, which appeared to have ended the war, added heavily to the total: MOUT fighting during the Second Battle of Grozny, from 6 to 28 August, was as intense as the New Year’s Eve
“If we had not brought tanks into Grozny, then more infantrymen would have been killed, because the tanks did protect the infantry.”

Day Battle (31 December 1994). On 12 August, the Russians admitted to losing three T-72 tanks, one light tank,2 22 BMPs, and 18 other APCs. Two days later, the rebels claimed that they had destroyed 120 tanks and 65 APCs.

Throughout the war, both sides have exaggerated casualty counts — the rebel figures probably include totals from the simultaneous fighting around Gudermes and Argun, as well as several unconfirmed but highly successful ambushes. Their count might also include lightlydamaged vehicles as well.

The Interior Ministry, which made up the bulk of the Grozny garrison, claimed to have lost 26 AFVs by the 16th. However, on the 28th, the Russian command said that the rebels had captured 31 armored vehicles (tanks, APCs, and IFVs) in good working order, which they were now using, plus an unknown number of lightly-damaged Russian AFVs which the Chechens have hidden for quick repairs.
Notes

1An all-inclusive term: BTR-70s and 80s, MTLBs and BMP-1, 2, and 3s, unless otherwise differentiated.
2Implies that at least one PT-76 was fielded.

1LT Adam Geibel is the Tactical Intelligence Officer, 5/117th Cavalry, 42ID (NJARNG). In civilian life, he is the Associate Editor of the Journal of Military Ordnance and a freelance writer.

[HardThunder]

A little tame Shiftyfive. Of Course Russia is the only place on earth that has those conditions, and It was nice of Iraq to make all those super freeways leading into Iraq from the western wastelands. BTW anyone know when they paved Graff, and Hornsfeld ( US Tanker slang for places)

Nice of all them there places to just give up to US kus we be so nice, and all. We never had to learn all that there military stuff. And it never rained in VN, nice roads, and all all over the place.

Ya right. Yua think he was new to earth!

[Shiftyfive]

I do love it how the Russians favorite defense for their equipment getting its ass handed to it by western equipment over and over and over is "well its export models" As much as the Russians want to gain hard currency by selling their equipment to other contries, you would think they wouldnt advertise that their exports are garbage. But hey capitalism is new to them, so maybe they will catch on. They say that communism is the most painful path between capitalism and capitalism.

[Shiftyfive]

The Russians hate this guy




April 18, 2003

The Russian Army in Chechnya
By Pavel Felgenhauer

The armed conflict in Chechnya that began in September 1999 is well into its fourth year. Despite repeated pledges by the authorities in Moscow that they would do their best to improve the human rights situation and stop the constant abuse of civilians by members of the federal military and security forces, the atrocities continue, apparently unabated.

As far as is known, no high-ranking Russian officer has been meaningfully punished for allowing or participating in the abuse of civilians or the mistreatment of separatist combatants who have been taken prisoner. In December 2002 the most publicized case of a Russian officer to face charges over conduct in Chechnya - the prosecution of the tank regiment commander Colonel Yuri Budanov, accused of strangling an 18-year old Chechen girl in 2000 - ended with the defendant acquitted on the grounds of temporary insanity. Following an international outcry, the Russian Supreme Court overturned the verdict in February 2003 and has ordered a retrial.

Budanov’s initial acquittal by a military court seemed like a signal to Russian commanding officers and security service officials that killing Chechen civilians was acceptable and that no one would be seriously punished, no matter what they did. At the same time, it is clear that continued massive mistreatment of the Chechen population is undermining the Kremlin’s policy of trying to pacify the rebellious republic. Virtually all outside observers, including many influential members of the military and political elite in Moscow, agree that the continuing abuse of civilians by the military and security forces is the main source of support for the rebel movement – helping it to recruit more young men and women to fight for the cause to revenge dead relatives.

A Promise Unfulfilled

In October 1999, when Russian troops invaded Chechnya to crush the separatist rebellion, then-Prime Minister Vladimir Putin (who has been president since 2000) told the nation that this time it would be done properly: the enemy would be defeated, casualties would be low, the war would be short, and it would be the Chechens themselves, not the Russians, who would be fighting the rebels - chasing them out of villages. It actually seemed at times that Richard Nixon was back, talking of the "Vietnamization of the war" (the notion that the Vietnamese would fight Vietnamese, while the U.S. soldiers would go home).

Instead of attacking with infantry and tanks, the Russian army, in an attempt to reduce its own casualties, used heavy equipment and firepower to lay waste to the Chechen capital Grozny and many other towns and villages. The loss of life, mostly civilian, and the damage to property was terrific ----– today most towns are still in ruin. In many instances Russian troops committed appalling war crimes, deliberately attacking the civilian population in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions. There is credible evidence of use of the so-called Heavy Flamethrowing System (TOS-1) - a fuel bomb land-based multiple launch delivery system, also known as "Buratino" among the Russian rank and file - against Chechen towns and villages during the winter campaign of 2000. The third protocol of the 1980 Geneva Convention strictly forbids the use of such "air-delivered incendiary weapons" in populated areas, even against military targets.

After the fiasco of the first Chechen war, the Russian Defense Ministry created "permanent readiness" army brigades and divisions that were intended to be almost fully manned and ready for deployment to deal with local conflicts. But the basic quality of the Russian troops did not change dramatically. It turned out that "permanent readiness" units could not be moved to the front as full-strength brigades and divisions. In combat in Chechnya in 1999-2003 Russian military staffs were forced to use combined "operational groupings" instead of a traditional system of divisions, regiments, brigades and battalions. Combined tactical groups were formed, often built around battalions with strong reinforcements, especially of artillery.

A Strategy of Bombardment

As the campaign has progressed, it has become obvious that the Russian forces in Chechnya do not have any good infantry units capable of swiftly engaging Chechen fighters at their weakest moment without massive air and heavy artillery support. Instead of seizing the initiative to exploit sudden opportunities, Russian field unit commanders tend to plough ahead with the execution of battle plans approved in advance by their superiors.

To compensate for the low quality of their fighting units in Chechnya, Russian military chiefs have adopted a strategy that tries to copy NATO's policy in the Balkans in 1999: bomb till victory and win without heavy casualties.

This strategy of victory by bombardment has inevitably lead to massive war crimes. In attacks on Chechen towns and villages Russian forces have not only extensively used TOS-1 (Buratino), napalm and fuel air bombs, but also "Tochka" and "Tochka-U" ballistic missiles that can fly up to 120 km and cover up to 7 hectares with cluster shrapnel on impact. The use of such mass-destruction weapons as aerosol (fuel) munitions and ballistic missiles against civilian targets was undoubtedly authorized by Moscow and may implicate the President Putin personally, as well as his top military chiefs, in war crimes.

However, the indiscriminate attacks did not make the second Chechen war a "low casualty" engagement even for Russian forces. Unofficial estimates put Russian military losses in both Chechen conflicts (1994-1996 and 1999-2003) as high as 12,000 dead and some 100,000 wounded. Chechen losses (mostly civilian) are estimated at 100,000 or more.

Contract Soldiers and Their Pay

High casualties and the need to replace conscripts who had completed compulsory military service forced the Russian Defense Ministry to begin in the spring of 2000 a massive campaign to recruit volunteers - the so-called “kontraktniki”. soldiers in Chechnya involved in combat missions were promised high pay by Russian standards (800 rubles or approximately $28 per day). Many kontraktniki enlisted, but the process of screening volunteers for Chechnya was superficial and they were sent into combat without any further selection or training. Many of these volunteers have been drunks, bums and other fallouts of Russian society.

In 1999 Putin announced that soldiers fighting "terrorists" in the Caucasus would be paid as well as Russian peacekeepers in ex-Yugoslavia - up to $1000 a month. Most likely the Kremlin actually believed that the war would be short and victorious and that the bill for extra pay would be limited. But as the campaign dragged on, the extra pay bill increased to 2-3 billion rubles a month and the Russian Finance Ministry became nervous, as such expenditures were not envisaged in the budget.



From June 1, 2000, the Finance Ministry began to strictly limit the disbursement of funds to cover “combat pay” in Chechnya. In October 2000, a limit of approximately 800 million rubles a month was imposed for all extra combat pay for all of Russia's multiple armies involved in the Chechen campaign. This has led to growing arrears and protests.

The problem of the extra combat pay was also aggravated by rampant corruption in the ranks of the Russian military. Instructions were issued that not all soldiers were eligible to get combat pay, but only those who were involved in combat and only for the time they were actually fighting. Commanders were given authority to issue or withhold extra pay on whim - a situation that created unique opportunities to steal soldiers pay and has led to constant money scandals within fighting units.

In 2000 Russian volunteer kontraktniki started protesting in the streets of Rostov-on-Don near the headquarters of the Northern Caucasus Military District (NCMD), which is in charge of operations in Chechnya, demanding to be paid. Protests have also spread to the war zone: Russian soldiers told government TV channel RTR reporters in October 2000: "All we think about is getting food and smokes. We're supposed to be on full allowances and pay here, but we get nothing at all. We're not even issued uniforms."

The Russian kontraktniki serving in Chechnya are in many instances not military professionals, but badly trained mercenaries – contract killers, not contract servicemen. Typically, they enlist for 6 months to grab pay and leave. But there are many reports coming from the North Caucasus that indicate that these kontraktniki are not getting the money they believe they are owed, and this is further diminishing morale.

There were independent reports that in November and December 2002, several Russian kontraktniki units in Chechnya went "on strike" over pay - refusing to obey orders and staging noisy street demonstrations in Grozny. During sweep operations (searching Chechen towns and villages for alleged rebels) the kontraktniki have pillaged and raped the population - believing they are just taking what they are due, what the Russian government promised them but did not pay in time.

Poor Discipline and Corruption

In July 2000 a series of spectacular Chechen suicide truck bomb attacks left more than 100 Russian servicemen dead or wounded. Days after the attacks Putin publicly scolded military commanders including the Russian Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev and the Interior Minister Vladimir Rushaylo for negligence. "Many of the losses could have been avoided in Chechnya with better discipline, professionalism and responsibility," said Putin.

Putin's assessment seems to be accurate: Russian soldiers and their commanders in Chechnya are undisciplined, unprofessional and irresponsible. Putin should have also added: rampantly corrupt. As their chiefs steal big, Russian soldiers and officers also do their best to make some money on the side. A regular racket of kidnapping Chechens as "terrorist suspects" for ransom has been established by Russian military personnel, who also collect bribes from anyone passing a checkpoint, take part in illegal extraction and export of oil in Chechnya and so on.

In July 2000 Russian government TV showed footage of the arrest of a Chechen pusher who was selling heroin to Russian soldiers in exchange for weapons and ammunition in the premises of the main Russian military base and high command headquarters in Chechnya, in Hankala, east of Grozny. While Russian officers were apprehending him, the Chechen pusher began to yell: "I'll pay you $1000! I swear!"

There have been reports of Russian servicemen in Chechnya as high-ranking as colonel being involved in sales of arms and ammunition to the rebels. In May 2002 an explosion of a Russian-made antipersonnel mine in the Dagestani town of Kaspiysk killed and wounded some 200 soldiers and civilian bystanders during a military parade. Several Russian officers from the garrison of the nearby Dagestani town of Buynaksk were accused of selling the radio-controlled MON-90 mine that was used in the attack in Kaspiysk and were put on trial in January 2003. There have been also numerous reports that Russia security forces arrest scores of Chechens as "suspected terrorists" only to release them later for a bribe – sometimes as small as $300 and sometimes as big as $2000.

Unequipped for the Fight

It is obvious that Russia entered Chechnya in 1999 without a capable, professional army – and also without the kind of modern military equipment that is most needed to fight low-intensity anti-guerrilla wars. For ten years the Russian Defense Ministry has been talking of creating a corps of professional sergeants that would form the backbone of a professional army and also talking of the need to buy modern conventional weapons – but it has been just talk.

The Russian forces in Chechnya have no radar-equipped attack planes or helicopters, capable of providing close air support in fog or at night. In the first week of March 2000, a company of paratroopers (84 men) from the 76th Russian Airborne Division based in Pskov was wiped out by Chechen rebels in the mountains of southern Chechnya. The Russian high command announced that this military disaster happened "because fog did not allow the deployment of attack aircraft."

In fact in the 1990’s the Russian arms industry had developed prototypes of night/fog-capable attack aircraft. But the Russian Defense Ministry deliberately channeled funds to buy ballistic missiles. Now that the war in Chechnya has fully exposed Russian military deficiencies, attempts are being made to reverse the situation. First Deputy Chief of the Russian General Staff Valery Manilov told me in February 2000 that modified Mi-24N (Hind) attack helicopters with radar had been ordered by the Russian Defense Ministry. He also told me that the Russian military hoped that several Mi-24Ns would be fully operational in several months. Nevertheless as of February 2003 there are still no night-capable attack helicopters deployed in Chechnya and no one knows when any will be ready for combat.

It was also announced that in 2000 the Russian Defense ministry acquired its first three modernized Su-25 attack jets equipped with radar for close air support in fog or at night. But up to now there has been no indication of the deployment of such planes in the North Caucasus region. Until battle-ready night/fog-capable close air support units are deployed in the Caucasus, Russian forces in "liberated" Chechnya will either have to stay put at night and in bad weather, or risk being ambushed by rebels.

A Shortage of Munitions

Indeed the first and second wars in Chechnya have been wars without any serious procurement of heavy military equipment or munitions. The Russian Defense Ministry has been dipping deeper and deeper into Soviet Cold War stocks that have become increasingly depleted. In October 1999, at the beginning of the invasion of Chechnya, Russia was able to deploy in the war zone only 68 transport and attack helicopters – a quarter of the number amassed for the war in Afghanistan, though the number of Russian servicemen sent to Afghanistan and the second Chechen war were roughly the same.

Between August 1999 and January 2003, Russian forces lost up to 50 helicopters in Chechnya. The attrition rate has been appalling and especially painful for the Russian military, because there was no additional procurement during this period. Spare parts to repair aging planes that are often riddled by enemy small arms fire are a serious problem. Its reported that helicopter fans for Mi-24 are especially in short supply. Replacements for lost helicopters in Chechnya are being sent to the NCMD from other Russian military districts, while injured planes are dismantled for spares. The Russian troops in Chechnya have lost the capability to perform large-scale tactical air-mobile operations. Even company-size helicopter airborne landings in Chechnya seem to be out of reach as the Russian army's airlift capability diminishes further and further.

The Russian troops in Chechnya have made extensive use of heavy artillery fire to suppress the rebels and this has severely depleted munitions stockpiles, as there has been no serial production of heavy shells in Russia for a decade. In the 1994-1996 Chechen war officers complained that they were using shells produced in the 1980s. In the present conflict shells produced in the 1970s and 1960s were supplied to the front. In December 1999 the Russian government reportedly released 8 billion rubles ($285 million) to buy new heavy shells. But the Russian defense industry has not managed to resume serial production of such munitions.

Reports from Chechnya say that Russian troops are running out of ammunition for their most used heavy gun - the 122mm D-30 howitzer. One of the remedies being considered in the General Staff in Moscow is to bring out of strategic storage the pre-Second World War M-30 122mm howitzer for which there are millions of rounds, kept since the 1940s.

A Vicious Cycle of Degradation

It’s often said that wars speed up military-technological progress. In the North Caucasus the opposite is happening - the Russian army is degrading both morally and technically. Bad training, badly organized logistical support, and constant marauding by the troops have brought low discipline. soldiers, constantly high on drugs or vodka, fail to maintain their equipment and misuse it. Outdated military equipment constantly breaks down, even when properly managed. Outdated munitions misfire, killing and maiming troops, which reduces morale still further.

Today the Russian troops in Chechnya are trapped in a vicious cycle of degradation. The process has become so obvious that the Kremlin, despite its constant barrage of "victory over terrorists" propaganda, was forced to acknowledge the problem and announce a serious review of its operations in Chechnya.

Moscow has pledged to withdraw troops from Chechnya, while the local pro-Moscow militia will be expanded. In the end, the Kremlin insists that only permanent garrison units of the 42nd Defense Ministry Motor-Rifle Division and the 46th Interior Ministry Motor-Rifle Brigade will stay in Chechnya (approximately 22,000 men), supplemented by local pro-Moscow Chechen Interior Ministry forces. But the withdrawal has been constantly postponed and is at present on hold.

The problem is further complicated by the poor quality of Russian troops, especially the newly formed 42nd Motor-Rifle Division. This unit was planed by the Kremlin to be a first-rate reinforced 4 regimental division of 16,000 men, manned mostly by professional contract soldiers and armed with the most modern conventional military equipment.

In reality this division is one of the worst in the present Russian army. To form the 42nd Motor-Rifle officers were gathered from all over Russia and, predictably, many commanders used the occasion to get rid of outcasts that they wanted out anyway. In 1995-1996 the Russian Defense Ministry also formed a "permanent deployment" brigade in Chechnya - the 205th Motor-Rifle based in Hankala. Throughout the NCMD the 205th brigade was known as "always drunk" 205th. In the battle for Grozny in August 1996 the 205th brigade was defeated and decimated by the Chechen rebels. Its remnants were withdrawn later to Budenovsk in the Stavropol region where the unruly kontraktniki of the 205th created havoc, assaulting the local Russian population.

The worst cases of contract soldiers not being paid during the present Chechen campaign are reported from the 42nd division. It was also reported that in the mountains of Chechnya the soldiers of the hapless 42nd division actually eat bark, to stop diarrhea caused by drinking contaminated water, because they do not have any other medicine. The water purification equipment has broken down and their is no replacement, overall sanitation is appalling, medical supplies have been commandeered by the top brass, and it is felt that officers do not care about the men.

Such a "permanent garrison" will hardly be able to control Chechnya on its own anytime soon. Other Russian units will have to stay to reinforce them, so the announced "partial" withdrawal of troops will be very partial indeed. It would be equally unreasonable to expect that there will be any significant improvement in the overall situation of the military in Chechnya at any time in the foreseeable future.

Pavel Felgenhauer is an independent Moscow-based defense analyst, and a columnist for The Moscow Times.

[Hadamar]

A little tame Shiftyfive. Of Course Russia is the only place on earth that has those conditions, and It was nice of Iraq to make all those super freeways leading into Iraq from the western wastelands. BTW anyone know when they paved Graff, and Hornsfeld ( US Tanker slang for places)

Nice of all them there places to just give up to US kus we be so nice, and all. We never had to learn all that there military stuff. And it never rained in VN, nice roads, and all all over the place.

Ya right. Yua think he was new to earth!
Even worse conditions were found in Bosnia, Macedonia and Kosovo. Mountain roads were too narrow for Bradleys let alone T-series tanks. Light wheeled vehicles were often preferred because they didn't tear up these primitive roads. When the hilly ground became a muddy stew the M973A1 SUSVs (Hagglund BV-206s) were the most effective vehicles because of their low ground pressure.

[Jippo]

The whole point I am trying to make here is that tanks such as the Abrams are heavy tanks, heavy tanks lack agility which makes them vulnerable to other medium and lite tanks under many circumstances. Not to mention infantry.

Actually e.g Leopard 2 is more agile, and has lower ground pressure than a T-72.


-jippo

[platform389]

Without the use of nukes we never would have come close.

The purpose of the Warsaw Pact was a buffer between greater Russia and western europe and it did its job well.


Hmmm... Not necessarily. With Poland coming unraveled from the WP during the 80's, it is highly unlikely the follow on forces from the east would have been able to move through unmolested. I wonder if the Polish military could have been counted on even fight at all in NATO/WP conflict. Also, I am not sure the East Germans would have totally went along with this as well. In 1981, the Russians intended to use East German troops to put down the Polish Solidarity movement. So many East Germans objectedthat a Conscientious Objector brigade had to be formed. These unfortunates were used as labor to construct a massive new ferry terminal at Neu Muckran so Poland could be bypassed for military equipment shipments.

By the late 80's the Germans, both East and West, became aware that the Russians and Americans were intending to use Germany as an "arena" for any conflict with involvment of their respective homelands. Since NATO had moved IRBM's into Europe to counterbalance similar Soviet weapons and NATO binary chemical rounds were made available to counter any Pact chemical strikes, Germany would have come to the worse in any conflict. The West Germans walked out of a NATO "CPX" that resorted to a massive nuclear strike to contain a Pact breakthrough in 1987 or thereabouts. The East Germans were making overtures to their Western counterparts as well mindful of the same thing. The resultant reunification was the end product of this.

As we have seen history prove out, I don't think the Red Army and the Warsaw Pact was quite everything it was made out to be. A "WW3" type conflict would have indeed been a bloody mess, but not the cakewalk some expected.

[HardThunder]

Even worse conditions were found in Bosnia, Macedonia and Kosovo. Mountain roads were too narrow for Bradleys let alone T-series tanks. Light wheeled vehicles were often preferred because they didn't tear up these primitive roads. When the hilly ground became a muddy stew the M973A1 SUSVs (Hagglund BV-206s) were the most effective vehicles because of their low ground pressure.

I thank you. Of course your intuited skills, and analyses is very good, as well as your references. I had four of my tank mired in a field for 4 hours. We sunk at various points crossing the field.

[HardThunder]

Without the use of nukes we never would have come close.

The purpose of the Warsaw Pact was a buffer between greater Russia and western europe and it did its job well.


Hmmm... Not necessarily. With Poland coming unraveled from the WP during the 80's, it is highly unlikely the follow on forces from the east would have been able to move through unmolested. I wonder if the Polish military could have been counted on even fight at all in NATO/WP conflict. Also, I am not sure the East Germans would have totally went along with this as well. In 1981, the Russians intended to use East German troops to put down the Polish Solidarity movement. So many East Germans objectedthat a Conscientious Objector brigade had to be formed. These unfortunates were used as labor to construct a massive new ferry terminal at Neu Muckran so Poland could be bypassed for military equipment shipments.

By the late 80's the Germans, both East and West, became aware that the Russians and Americans were intending to use Germany as an "arena" for any conflict with involvment of their respective homelands. Since NATO had moved IRBM's into Europe to counterbalance similar Soviet weapons and NATO binary chemical rounds were made available to counter any Pact chemical strikes, Germany would have come to the worse in any conflict. The West Germans walked out of a NATO "CPX" that resorted to a massive nuclear strike to contain a Pact breakthrough in 1987 or thereabouts. The East Germans were making overtures to their Western counterparts as well mindful of the same thing. The resultant reunification was the end product of this.

As we have seen history prove out, I don't think the Red Army and the Warsaw Pact was quite everything it was made out to be. A "WW3" type conflict would have indeed been a bloody mess, but not the cakewalk some expected.


I challenge you to show any reference to any of this. The US has been in Germany, and had been for many years. NATO in the 50s was heavy reliant on US nukes weapons for defense. By the 80s the US was pushing NATO to be more proactive, in that after it was clear a war would NATO was to take the battle into the USSR lines. We called it “Active Defence”.

[platform389]

I challenge you to show any reference to any of this. The US has been in Germany, and had been for many years. NATO in the 50s was heavy reliant on US nukes weapons for defense. By the 80s the US was pushing NATO to be more proactive, in that after it was clear a war would NATO was to take the battle into the USSR lines. We called it “Active Defence”.

Actually, another term was "Forward Defence". As for reference, read this...

http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/0006386733.02.MZZZZZZZ.jpg

The latter chapters go into great detail about very last days of the Warsaw Pact in East Germany. Most of what I detailed in the last post came from that particular book.

You are correct that NATO depended on the US "nuclear unbrella" to keep the Soviets from overrunning Europe, but that became much less of an option in the 1970's and 80's as the Russians achieved parity in the nuclear arena. Again, you are correct about the US pushing the Europeans to take a more active role in their defense. But that doesn't change the situation I described at all with relation to the problems on the Warsaw Pact side.

Now for some reference links...

Link:

http://www.tradoc.army.mil/historian/pubs/tradoc25/chap11.htm


The complex of causes leading to the unravelling of Soviet power that began in the mid-1980s furnishes a challenge to future historians and can only be noted here. The appeal of national independence, the free market, and democratic institutions; the cumulative effects of the information revolution; and Western policies of containment and deterrence were the long range fac-tors that led to the abrupt collapse of communist party rule in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union after 1989. There were many more immediate causes. Foreshadowing the political upheaval to come was the advent in 1980 of the free Solidarity union movement in Poland, which demonstrated mass popular appeal and which the communist government succeeded in driving underground only temporarily. Of unquestioned importance was the U.S. defense buildup that began in earnest with the new administration of President Ronald Reagan in 1981. Backed by higher defense budgets, U.S. commitment to a modernized Army and Air Force and an expanding Navy, together with the launching in March 1983 of an advanced space-based strategic concept, the Strategic Defense Initiative, presented a formidable challenge to the defense resources of the Soviet Union, with direct consequences for its foreign policy.

Link:

http://www.nato.int/acad/fellow/94-96/mccalla/3b1b.htm

See note 56


Due to substantial pressure from the German government, this phrase was dropped from the Rome Declaration of November 1991. According to many of those interviewed, the concern of the German government revolved around whether such a statement would weaken deterrence and subject Germany to the risk of prolonged conventional warfare. For a discussion of the political and military basis of NATO's forward defense posture during the Cold War, see Kugler, NATO's Future Conventional Defense Strategy in Central Europe, pp. 9-25.

Link:

http://www.nato.int/acad/fellow/94-96/mccalla/3a1b.htm


These cautious public statements, however, did not match NATO's internal threat assessments which had started, as early as 1988, to question the ability of the Soviet Union to move its troops quickly through Eastern Europe and make effective use of still numerous Warsaw Pact troops. By the time the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, assessments by both political and military analysts had concluded that the effective military threat from the Warsaw Pact had declined to a point where NATO could substantially reduce its military readiness.

Link:

http://www.sitepluto.com/libraryofcongress.htm


Continuing Soviet concern over the combat reliability of its East European allies influenced, to a great extent, the deployment of NSWP forces under the Soviet military strategy. Soviet leaders believed that the Warsaw Pact allies would be most likely to remain loyal if the Soviet armed forces engaged in a short, successful offensive operation against NATO while deploying NSWP forces defensively. Soviet concern over the reliability of its Warsaw Pact allies was reflected in the alliance's military-technical policy, which was under Soviet control. The Soviet Union gave the East European allies less modern, though still effective, weapons and equipment to keep their armies less capable than the Soviet armed forces. Thus the Soviet Union could keep the East European armies somewhat modernized while not substantially increasing their capability to resist Soviet intervention.

The Weakening of the Alliance's Cohesion, 1970-85
Beginning in the early 1970s, the East European allies formed intra-alliance coalitions in Warsaw Pact meetings to oppose the Soviet Union, defuse its pressure on any one NSWP member state, and delay or obstruct Soviet policies. The Soviet Union could no longer use the alliance to transmit its positions to, and receive automatic endorsements from, the subordinate NSWP countries. While still far from genuine consultation, Warsaw Pact policy coordination between the Soviet Union and the East European countries in the 1970s was a step away from the blatant Soviet control of the alliance that had characterized the 1950s. East European opposition forced the Soviet Union to treat the Warsaw Pact as a forum for managing relations with its allies and bidding for their support on issues like détente, the Third World, the Solidarity movement in Poland, alliance burden- sharing, and relations with NATO.


Beginning in the late 1970s, mounting economic problems sharply curtailed the contribution of the East European allies to the Soviet Union's Third World activities. In the early 1980s, when turmoil in Poland reminded the Soviet Union that Eastern Europe remained its most valuable asset, the Third World became a somewhat less important object of Soviet attention.

The rise of the independent trade union movement Solidarity shook the foundation of communist party rule in Poland and, consequently, Soviet control of a country the Soviet Union considered critical to its security and alliance system. Given Poland's central geographic position, this unrest threatened to isolate East Germany, sever vital lines of communication to Soviet forces deployed against NATO, and disrupt Soviet control in the rest of Eastern Europe.

As it did in Czechoslovakia in 1968, the Soviet Union used the Warsaw Pact to carry out a campaign of military coercion against the Polish leadership. In 1980 and 1981, the Soviet Union conducted joint Warsaw Pact exercises with a higher frequency than at any time since 1968 to exert pressure on the Polish regime to solve the Solidarity problem. Under the cover that the exercises afforded, the Soviet Union mobilized and deployed its reserve and regular troops in the Belorussian Military District as a potential invasion force (see fig. 30). Faced with the threat of Soviet military intervention, the Polish government instituted martial law and suppressed Solidarity. From the Soviet perspective, the imposition of martial law by Polish internal security forces was the best possible outcome. Martial law made the suppression of Solidarity a strictly domestic affair and spared the Soviet Union the international criticism that an invasion would have generated.

Although the Polish People's Army had previously played an important role in Soviet strategy for a coalition war against NATO, the Soviet Union had to revise its plans and estimates of Poland's reliability after 1981, and it turned to East Germany as its most reliable ally. In the early 1980s, because of its eager promotion of Soviet interests in the Third World and its importance in Soviet military strategy, East Germany completed its transformation from defeated enemy and dependent ally into the principal junior partner of the Soviet Union.


In 1987 the Warsaw Pact, under Soviet tutelage, adopted a defense-oriented military doctrine. And, following Gorbachev's announced unilateral reduction in the Soviet armed forces, the NSWP countries also announced unilateral military reduction during 1988 and 1989. In the late 1980s, however, mounting economic difficulties and the advanced age of trusted, long-time communist party leaders, like Gustáv Husák in Czechoslovakia, Todor Zhivkov in Bulgaria, and János Kádár in Hungary, intensified the danger of domestic turmoil and internal power struggles in the NSWP countries and threatened the alliance's cohesion.

http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/aahmed/biggrin.gif

[HardThunder]

platform389
I fail to see how any of this in any way supports your statements. The US wishing to cast Nuke all around West Germany, or any of the rest. I see no relevance at all from what you posted this last time, to what you posted before.

[Hugh Jardon]

The Europeans (especially the Germans) became very angry in the late 80's about the presence of Russia and the US having nukes and soldiers on their soil and having to take the grief if war should break out.

Russia (with new leadership) realized that it could not be so isolationist and not fall behind in a rapidly changing world and since being there was simply a drain, decided to go home.

Nato was not a threat because the Europeans were simply going to go on their own and if America were to press Europeans to invade they may well find themselves alone.

[HardThunder]

The Europeans (especially the Germans) became very angry in the late 80's about the presence of Russia and the US having nukes and soldiers on their soil and having to take the grief if war should break out.

Russia (with new leadership) realized that it could not be so isolationist and not fall behind in a rapidly changing world and since being there was simply a drain, decided to go home.

Nato was not a threat because the Europeans were simply going to go on their own and if America were to press Europeans to invade they may well find themselves alone.

ROTFLMAO

Darn and there it is, dashed all of our hope fur them Big Breasted Russian Babes until they came to the US in the 90s

[platform389]

I fail to see how any of this in any way supports your statements. The US wishing to cast Nuke all around West Germany, or any of the rest. I see no relevance at all from what you posted this last time, to what you posted before.

OK, let's go back to the original statements...


Without the use of nukes we never would have come close.

The purpose of the Warsaw Pact was a buffer between greater Russia and western europe and it did its job well.

In both posts I challenged these conclusions with conclusions of my own. You requested that I provide references to back them up. From NATO itself and the Library Of Congress, sufficient linked material was provided to do that.

I am not convinced the Warsaw Pact would have performed as the Russians expected, especially in the 1980's as it was unraveling. The Reagan defense buildup, "Forward Defense", and the nationalities issue (particularly with Poland) were providing negative pressure on the Pact.

The linked material provides ample information in support of my conclusions.

[HardThunder]

platform389

What on earth are you talking about. NO the USSR was full power in the 80s. Do you even know what years they fell, or the fact they they had troops on German soil for over 3 years after they gave up Germany. I was there, I was there in 1989. And we did have a shooting matck , and the German Board Patrol had shootings. NATO ?

You said one thing, and posted another. Now your saying some other stuff.

The USSR was at its highest point in the late 80s. What you think they made, and put all those SS-21s, T-64s, 72s, in Euro for fun? They attack Afgan in 1979 Dec 24th, FYI that means they still had that going on in the 80s.

Your shifting back, and forth, and you have nothing to support what you said in the first place.

Should I post what you said! You said the US was going to fire nukes all over hell. SHOW ME!

You Implied that the USSR was just a bunch of good old boys doing nothing. YOU DO KNOW that they attacked other pack members all the time, and never stopped controlling them. Poland is just one case. The COLD War was very, very real! The shooting of people trying to get out of Pack nations was very , very real. The German Government was very upset about those Germans behind the wall, as was the German People.

As for those stupid protest. They never amount to much in Germany, ever. In the UK number never got that big, but they did things to attract more attention. The Government was not buying into it. You do know that Russia paid for agitators to start things in the protest. All the NATO countries have shown proof that it was going on, over, and over again. We in the US arrested Russian nationals, and Canadians here in protest on Government lands.

DO you just not know, or are you trying to invent a new history?

[M4ko]

Can you bring examples of how Russians shot other pact members? And especially Poles?

[Shiftyfive]

:roll:



World: Europe

Poland remembers Katyn dead

Russia's Katyn forest houses the graves of 4,400 Polish officers

By Mary Sobirski in Warsaw
President Aleksander Kwasniewski has paid tribute to those he described as the martyrs of Polish history - thousands of Polish officers massacred by the Soviets some time in 1940.

The speech was the focal point of ceremonies commemorating the 60th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland.

President Kwasniewski's visit to the Russian forest of Katyn near Smolensk where 4,400 officers are buried, took place despite tensions with Moscow.

Remaining silent throughout the solemn ceremony, President Kwasniewski laid a wreath of flowers in Poland's national colours of red and white in tribute to the officers.

Russia rebuked

Only one official representative of Russian President Boris Yeltsin attended the ceremony in Katyn.



Kwasniewski: "No doubt about the nature of the Soviet invasion"
No high-ranking Russian officials have ever joined Polish leaders at Katyn commemorations since 1990 when Moscow admitted responsibility for the massacre.

Polish-Russian relations were strained earlier this week when the Russian Foreign Ministry denied that the Soviet Army invaded Poland in 1939.

Instead, it insisted that Soviet forces merely seized territory as a buffer to forestall an attack by Nazi Germany.

The Polish Foreign Ministry rebuked the Russian claim and President Kwasniewski stressed that, 60 years ago, the Soviet invasion of Poland cost untold suffering to millions of Polish civilians. Following their invasion of Poland, the Soviets sent more than 1.5 million Poles to labour camps in Russia and executed at least 15,000 Polish officers.

[Shiftyfive]

:roll:





The Warsaw Uprising


The Polish Home Army had been active since 1939, having set up the most effective partisan and espionage system of any of the Allies. By 1944, the Home Army had more than 400,000 soldiers and agents, operating from the English Channel to eastern Siberia.

On August 1, 1944 the Home Army in Warsaw rose up against the Germans, believing they would be relieved by the Soviets, who were fewer than 20 kilometers away. They captured the whole city but had ammunition sufficient for only a week.

These soldiers were loyal to the legal government of Poland located in London, England. Stalin ordered his armies to stop and wait until the Germans put down the uprising, knowing that this would kill off the Polish leadership and make it easier for his "Lublin Committee" puppet government to be installed. Not only did the Soviets cease their advance, but they also refused to allow Allied planes to land on Russian airfields after they dropped supplies to the Polish freedom fighters. But the Warsaw garrison fought on for two months, with little more than their bare hands and raw courage.

More than 20,000 Polish soldiers were killed, as were hundreds of thousands of civilians, murdered by the Germans during the uprising or shipped off to Auschwitz-Birkenau after the garrison surrendered. The Germans destroyed most of the city during the fighting, and later burned whatever buildings were still standing. More than 90 per cent of Warsaw, including almost 100 percent of the Old Town, was destroyed.

The Warsaw Uprising was not the only example of Soviet atrocities committed against Poles. The mass graves at Katyn were discovered in 1943. The remains of more than 5,000 Polish officers were discovered, with hands still bound, and with a single bullet wound to the back of their head. Stalin had ordered the execution of the Polish officer corps, in hopes of dampening resistance. Many more mass graves of Polish officers, soldiers and civilians are in the old Soviet Union, yet their location is known only to the perpetrators, most of whom are long dead, many by the same methods they used on Poles. The Allies, fearing the reaction of the Soviet Union, decided to remain quiet on the issue of such murders.


After the War

Unlike after World War I, where the Allies stood by Poland in the post-war negotiations, retaining her borders and sovereignty, after the end of World War Two, Poland was abandoned, and "given" to the Soviet Union. At Teheran, and other meetings of the Big Three, the British and Americans agreed to let the Russians keep Polish lands awarded them after the invasion of Poland in 1939. This miscarriage of justice was kept quiet by the Allies, and is widely unknown. Then, at Yalta, the Allies placed Poland into the Soviet sphere of influence. This last step effectively gave the Soviets the green light for the full-scale occupation of Poland.

The final injustice--having the fourth largest combatant force fighting the Germans, Poland should have had a prominent place in the Victory parade. The Poles, however, and all of their crucial efforts, hardships, and victories, were forsaken once again. The Polish soldiers were forced to watch from the side, as others marched triumphantly, even though they had taken a leading role in the defeat of Germany.

Over a half million fighting men and women, and six million civilians, more than 18% of the population, lost their lives. Approximately 90% of Polish war losses were victims of prisons, death camps, raids, executions, starvation, excessive work and ill treatment.

Poland lost 38% of it's national assets, as compared to Britain which lost 0.8% and France which lost 1.5%. Worse yet, a part of Poland, was also lost. The eastern provinces were annexed by the Soviets, including the two great Polish cities of Lwow and Wilno.

Polish soldiers in the west could not return home, for they were branded traitors by the new communist regime. Soldiers still in Poland fared worse, for many were arrested, imprisoned, tortured, and even executed by the Soviets, simply because they belonged to the Polish Home Army.

Of all the warring nations, Poland was among the most devastated. The loss of life and resources, while terrible under any circumstance, was made harsher by the loss of territory and sovereignty to the Soviets. For all of her contributions, Poland was treated almost as an enemy by the Allies. Though Poland was forgotten, the role that she and her citizens played in the defeat of Germany is too important to be forgotten as well.

[Shiftyfive]

:roll:




Katyn Forest is a wooded area near Gneizdovo village, a short distance from Smolensk in Russia where, in 1940 on Stalin's orders, the NKVD shot and buried over 4000 Polish service personnel that had been taken prisoner when the Soviet Union invaded Poland in September 1939 in WW2 in support of the Nazis.
[NKVD- Narodny Kommisariat Vnutrennikh Del. If you are Polish NKVD means "Nie wiadomo kiedy wroce do domu. Impossible to tell when I will return home."]

In 1943 the Nazis exhumed the Polish dead and blamed the Soviets. In 1944, having retaken the Katyn area from the Nazis, the Soviets exhumed the Polish dead again and blamed the Nazis. The rest of the world took its usual sides in such arguments.

In 1989, with the collapse of Soviet Power, Gorbachev finally admitted that the Soviet NKVD had executed the Poles, and confirmed two other burial sites similar to the site at Katyn. Stalin's order of March 1940 to execute by shooting some 25,700 Poles, including those found at the three sites, was also disclosed with the collapse of Soviet Power. This particular second world war slaughter of Poles is often referred to as the "Katyn Massacre" or the "Katyn Forest Massacre".

[Shiftyfive]

Soviet Memory Hole
Are any of the Polish dead from the Soviet genocide known as the Katyn Forest Massacre still buried at Katyn?

I have asked this question of the relevant authorities. I have written and asked people whom I know for sure know the answer to the question. All omit or refuse to reply.

Those I have been able to discuss the issue with are not able to irrefutably confirm that the bodies are gone, but the consensus that I have now convinces me that the majority of the Polish bodies are no longer at Katyn, and that a "don't rock the boat" conspiracy of silence is in place, supposedly to protect the limited insecure access the current rulers of Russia permit Polish families to the three known sites of the Katyn Massacre and hopefully to allow memorials to be eventually built.

Katyn is but one of many issues caught up in the fact that the Russians think they lost a battle, and the Americans think they won a war. Both of them are still floundering around in their own paradigms, which they both fondly project into all their dealings with each other. The Americans fondly think the Russians are born again Orthodox reformists headed for a market driven capitalist economy, and the Russians still think of themselves as a mighty superpower that can deter any American enquiry as to their acts and omissions by threatening nuclear devastation on all and sundry. Money will still solve all problems for the Americans, and violence will still solve all problems for the Russians: what has changed?

I think the very system that was responsible for the genocide at Katyn is still holding the reins of power in Russia, so a very good case can be made for seeing Katyn as a litmus test for relationships with the Russians and for assessing the genuineness, or otherwise, of all the claims about change and reform in the former Soviet Union.

The Russians have never understood that a carbuncle, infecting all in its path as it weeps for your lost illusions or your nations grandeur, is better lanced than suppurating all over your national pride from generation to generation, suppressing any chance of a fresh start.

Apart from Katyn there are any number of suppurating sores in the history of the Soviet Union [like the Raoul Wallenberg affair], it is just that we are not able to make them reveal, let alone confront their past, hidden by the Yeltsins of the system who in turn have too many skeletons in their personal cupboards. They are scared that if they open one of these cupboards the whole Potemkin facade of "change in Russia" will collapse, so the Soviet communist practices of disinformation, lies, denial and avoidance measures still dominates the Russian psyche.

The fundamental problem to confront when dealing with Russia in its many guises is that the leadership of the place and their minions have for generations been not immoral, but amoral by any objective measure of humanity.

What is it that the Soviets/Russians are still covering up in relation to the Katyn Massacre that is so horrendous that they are unable to face it even after all this time? Is this simply the pathetic, insecure blustering of the Russians continuing, or do they really have some other things to admit from the past, or present, that they are afraid will stop the flow of Western money if they are disclosed?

Are we truly to be thought of as being so stupid that we will not expect any documents from the period between the Nazi discovery of Katyn and the Burdenko media circus to have survived?

There must have been piles of paper expended setting up the Burdenko Commission and putting out the lies it created and endlessly endorsed. Where are these files?

Emboldened by the West's acts and omissions in respect to Katyn, the Soviets tried to blame the Nazis at Nuremberg for Katyn. Where are the papers relating to that fiasco?

Some 25,700 Poles are covered by the order signed by Stalin on 5 March 1940. Over 21,000 were apparently shot. Three "Katyn" sites have been admitted, where are the rest buried?

There are many possible scenarios for events at Katyn after the Burdenko show, but only the Soviets know what really happened, and they are not telling.

There have been various partially reported excavations in the Katyn Forest. For example, one in November 1991 [allegedly done by the Soviet Army in the course of their investigation of the Katyn Massacre], which supposedly found only a few bone fragments, two skulls, and pieces of Polish uniforms in the course of about twenty trial excavations. Later, in September 1994, supposedly "some" headless corpses were found on the site of the 1943 Polish Red Cross cemetery. This would be consistent with the way the Polish bodies were dismembered and body parts mixed up by Burdenko and his team of clowns.

Judging by the photos and the film of the events, the bodies as discovered by the Nazis and re-exhumed by Stalin's Burdenko circus would have burned very easily and very thoroughly.

I think that most, if not all, of the bodies of the Poles buried at Katyn in 1940 have been destroyed, and that this happened immediately after the Burdenko circus.

Also I do not think that there is the slightest truth to the dramatic rumours, about a "Polish woman who saw rail wagons loaded with Polish uniformed body parts mixed with soil being transported by the Soviets," being related to Katyn. Why cart the bodies around, to where and for what reason?

The Soviet communists were pretty damn stupid at times, but genocide, ethnic cleansing and the full spectrum of human slaughter methods were their pride and joy. The Soviets may have had some grand destruction plan for the Polish remains, but I think it far more likely that with experience born of many similar tasks they simply burnt the bodies, or [less likely in my opinion] ground them up and threw the remains in the Dnieper; either event occurring in the controlled safety and security of the Katyn Forest.

Stalin had been caught out and embarrassed by his own behaviours in the case of Katyn. He was unlikely to risk any further exposure if he could avoid it. Far better to make sure the bodies were destroyed completely.

There was always the risk, until after Nuremberg anyway, that the fledgling UN or the Allies might suddenly developed a spine and want to send in the Red Cross after all, or even a UN team. This was also the period when Stalin deluded himself that money to rebuild his shattered country would be forthcoming after the Great Patriotic War from America, so with that much money at stake consent to the previously unacceptable/unthinkable might be required.

How simple to be able to avoid any question of confrontation over an issue like Katyn by saying with a straight face that, to paraphrase Merkulov's previous disclosure to the Poles prior to Katyn's discovery; "a mistake has been made with those. The person responsible has of course been punished, but unfortunately the Poles are no longer in Katyn. The Soviet Union's position is of course in accord with the findings of the Burdenko Commission."

I think those in the West who know the Poles are gone from Katyn are caught in their own paradigm of fear and illusion about the Soviets and quite unable to face the reality that there has been and will be no change in the Russian position on Katyn.

A very small window of opportunity, opened by domestic considerations [including the power struggle between Gorbachev and Yeltsin], allowed a very limited admission and a small amount of information to leak out about Katyn. But all parties and personalities in the Soviet Union come from the same mould, were trained and inculcated by the same system, and will respond in the same way to any question which can be made to appear to touch on Russian pride.

Perhaps one day Gorbachev closed his well thumbed copy of "What is to be done?", turned to Raisa and said, "The Polish dead of Katyn is a subject that has been troubling me for some time, but let no one forget that the Soviet people suffered greatly as well, but more so. They are on my conscience as a good Soviet leader, but let no one forget that the Soviet people suffered greatly under the Soviet leaders as well, but more so. I have decided to release documents about this matter to the Polish government and admit the NKVD did the shootings, but let no one forget that the Soviet people suffered greatly under the NKVD as well, but more so. It was unfortunately another case of that Stalin's cult of the personality inflicting suffering on innocent people, but let no one forget that the Soviet people suffered greatly under the great leader and teacher as well, but more so."

I think it is more likely that with his political demise in the offing Gorbachev was simply stirring; it would be too little too late for the Poles and too much too soon for the Soviet nomenclature and apparatchiks, not to mention the KGB and its antecedents luxuriating in retirement.

Hoisted with their own petard, the Russians now face the problem of how to deal with the aftermath of their admissions over Katyn, small as they were.

One of the great services the Soviet system did for the nutters, fellow-travellers and anti-Semites of the world is that they closed off Eastern Europe, used the Nazi concentration camps as their own, and called many of the NKVD burial sites, "Nazi war graves".

All of this led to it being some fifty years before any valid on site investigations could be carried out. Little wonder that the more than mildly paranoid on the Internet and in the revisionist history camp have such weird theories about such matters as Katyn and Babi Yar.

Russia is simply a country with a long history of childish behaviours when ever they are confronted with any request for a "please explain" in an increasingly adult world. When they were caught it was always someone elses fault, when they want something it is others duty to provide it, when they change their minds or up their demands it is the place of others to accept this behaviour unquestioningly, when offered a choice, either or, they expect both. Most of us grow out of this phase by our teens, others encouraged by the weakness and indecisiveness of parents persist in the childish behaviours until life forces them to grow up. This has yet to happen in Russia. Lying, cheating, stealing, murder, oppression and blackmail have all worked very well for the various rulers of Russia, why should they change now?

Gromyko went to his grave denying the secret protocol to divide Poland between Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, the current Russian foreign ministry is claiming the entry of Soviet troops into Poland in 1939 was not an invasion, rather it was "dictated not so much by the wish to gain new territories but the need to protect our own country". So who is going to ask why it was that they so brutally and enthusiastically joined in with Hitler's Nazis in a programme of genocidal slaughter and repression, while they supplied him with everything he needed to wage war on the Western allies? After all, despite the noises President Clinton has made over Chechenya, apparently 5 million metric tons of food aid requested by the Russians from the US for 2000 will all be supplied: a million tons of milling wheat, 3 million tons of feed grains, and a million tons of soybeans. Now that should help free up Russian resources for their military campaigning and the subsequent occupation of Chechenya.

I think the nearest analogy we in the West can best use in relation to the problems of dealing with Russia is to see the relationship as being akin to our dealing with lawyers. They are steeped in the beguiling ways of saying much but meaning nothing, they never seem to be able to clearly and directly answer the questions you ask, it is crucial to them for many meanings to be able to be logically drawn from what is said, but be sure the meaning you draw will not be the one they later claim to have clearly represented to you at the time, and one can never pin them down to any responsibility for their acts and omissions. The analogy is also true after the relationship is ended, in that their account is often stamped "paid by deduction" from funds entrusted to their tender mercies.

The Soviet/Russian parliament has never acknowledged the Katyn Massacre as being anything but the event as described in the Burdenko Commission report, let alone a Soviet/Russian responsibility. Indeed there has been quite a concerted move to deny the whole business altogether. The Soviet Army started an investigation with great promise and it fizzled out as most things Soviet seem to, gone without even a whimper, let alone a bang.

Like children the world over, the Russians are not sorry they shot the Poles, they are sorry they got caught out having done it.

Chasing after the boxes of Polish personal items recovered from the bodies during the Nazi exhumations at Katyn, the ruthless pursuit across Europe by the NKVD would leave little doubt in any reasonable mind that the matter was of significant importance to the Soviet system of the day. That they should also destroy the Polish bodies in Katyn at the first opportunity is very likely in my opinion as part of the need to cover up the whole affair as best they could. To some extent it is like fastening the stable door after the horse has bolted, but with all physical evidence destroyed, including the bodies, it would be so much harder for any non-Soviet enterprise to prove anything relating to Katyn at all. After all, it was the 1990s before the copies, hidden by the Polish underground, of documents recovered from the bodies finally surfaced, stored in oilcloth in an attic behind a chimney.

Stalin's fascination with Katyn [as portrayed by his daughter in her book], the Poles being drowned "up North" according to the rumours post-1940, the wild tales of NKVD men so "distraught at being involved in such an atrocity that they threw themselves into the graves and were in turn destroyed by their comrades", the book by the "survivor" of Katyn: one thing Katyn has not lacked is attendant publicity seekers and genuine nutters. It has lacked any application by the Western governments to hold anyone accountable for the affair as part of the price for accepting the Russians back into the human race.

As was said many years ago, shortly after Katyn was announced by the Nazis, it would be fair to say that the good name of England is still being "used like the conifers planted by the NKVD" to cover up the crime.

One of the more bizarre statements that has been made to me about Katyn, based I understand on Soviet propaganda including articles in a Soviet military history magazine in early 1995 which took this line, is that what happened to the Poles at Katyn was quite justified because the "Poles did it to our POWs in the 1920's." What better example of the infantile, neurotic approach to this matter by the Russians could one ask for? This response is also in complete conformity with the Russian practice of not answering any question requiring any element of an admission of mea culpa, but using a question by way of reply in the hope it will deflect any further enquiry into the embarrassing point raised.

The denial syndrome is not a characteristic of the Russians alone. The Japanese government and people have vigorously refused to face a very similar problem, for the same period as the Katyn Massacre. They cannot face the reality of the senseless destruction and barbaric slaughter their xenophobic culture brought to the rest of Asia in the 1930s and 40s. This is a cultural trait that needs to be accepted and understood by other nations when dealing with this type of nation, otherwise you will be dead in the water.

The Russians have long had a very deeply ingrained inferiority complex, especially when dealing with the West, they also have a pathologically xenophobic attitude to any consideration of their acts and omissions as a nation, especially any comparison with the West. One way for the Russians have dealt with this is by seeing themselves as God's chosen people. As Petr Chaadaev postulated in the "Philosophical Letters" of the 1830s, God and history have a special mission in store for the Russian people because Russia was a nation of slaves whose achievements on the plane of world civilisation amounted to nil. Perhaps this was an adequate sop then for placating the pliant, superstitious, ignorant masses, but I think it had worn a bit thin for the ordinary Russian as the excuse for the shortages and inadequacies they faced under Soviet power, and it is a less than realistic approach in these days of TV, computers and the Internet.

As with any slave/serf culture emerging into new paradigms is hard. A crisis of identity is only to be expected. A good analogy is with battered families where one is dealing with a violent home with violence worshipped and practised by those who rule. It is the historic reality that this tragic pattern continues until those perpetrating the violence can be brought to understand that their behaviour is merely aping the failures of their previous generations. Until this fact is understood and accepted there is no hope of facing and solving the problem, all that will happen is that the cycle will repeat itself, viz the Russians in Chechenya. Bullies lash out violently, bewildered and confused when their pattern of aggressive behaviours fails them, because they have no other paradigm to work from, and it is the basic nature of the Russian culture to viciously bully anyone they have the power to impose their rule over.

Ask the inhabitants of the former Soviet ruled states in the Baltics and elsewhere, brutality and terror were the order of the day, the norm for Soviet power; and 1956, 1968 etc ad nauseam are not that long ago. The result of generations of conditioning, this is not a matter for blame, that will not reduce Russian paranoia and progress the nation and its people. Just do not expect a people that has been brutalised itself for generations to suddenly assume more than the veneer of civilisation long enough to take the money and run, until held accountable and encouraged by understanding and firmness to try another way.

The hard part for the West to understand, let alone accept, is that whatever new way the Russians develop will be specifically suited to Russian culture and heritage. It will in my opinion not be capitalism or democracy as we know it, unless it is in one of the distorted forms we blandly accept and praise, in places such a Singapore, Malaysia and in South American and other countries, in the name of continued material profits from such recognition.

How could the Russians make amends? There are a few simple things they could do to start with.

There is the matter of the Soviet memorial at Katyn to the nonexistent dead POWs created in the Burdenko Commission report as part of the Soviet cover-up of the NKVD massacre. Knock it down and throw it in the Dnieper, with an explanation about the Burdenko Commission lies that created it included with coverage of the event shown on prime time State TV.

Then there is the whole matter of the Burdenko Commission itself, which led to the Soviet Katyn memorial to the non-existent POWs in the first place. The Russians could grow up, own up, publish, apologise and so start to put it behind them.

An open admission of the Soviet ethnic cleansing and genocidal slaughter of Poles in the areas of Poland they invaded in 1939 in support of the Nazis, and again when retreating from the Nazis in 1941, and an acknowledgement of Soviet duplicity [again with genocidal intentions], at the time of the Warsaw uprising would also go a long way to heal wounds directly attributable to Soviet power.

Will the Russians ever grow up and climb out of the hole the Soviets left them in at Katyn?

I doubt it. Unfortunately it is much easier for them to beg the West for more food aid and money, wallow in self pity and periodically bash the Chechens to try to feel self important again.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Paterson Mirams

[SHAM]

Another thread hijacked by the poles/russians/eastern europeans and there wank-match. Cant you just make one thread and keep it there coz its spread to almost every thread. Is there no end?