Announcement by “Heavy Metal” Kakaouskia:
To all the Saker community,
I saw with great pleasure that my article “Heavy Metal – A comparison of Russian and Western armour” generated quite a bit of interesting comments. I wanted to come back with “Heavy Metal – Part II” comparing ammunitions, but as specifications on these are very hard to come by (the real stuff, not what the brochures say) I decided to ask the Saker to post this invitation for a “Heavy Metal Q&A” session with you.
Feel free to ask any questions on tanks – or something else for that matter – and I will do my best to answer them within the constrictions of operational security.
Kakaouskia
——-
Comment from the Saker:
So guys, this is the chance for you to ask questions on Russian and western hardware, especially armored vehicles and modern armored warfare (Kakaouskia’s specialty). Please post your question in the comment section below.
Kind regards,
The Saker
Hello Kakaouskia
I’d like to know the effectiveness of depleted uranium projectiles on today’s modern tanks and also what defenses are available to mitigate the effectiveness of these munitions.
Thanks for offering your expertise!
CG
And how much better DU is compared to Titanium.. are there any real world benefits to using DU in armor and projectiles compared to Titanium? And can newly developed carbon and other fibers based skins challenge these metals in weapons applications?
Titanium is actually a very poor metal for use in projectiles. What you need to defeat armour is energy density. In that you want to put as much energy as possible into as small a spot as possible. The best way to attain this with kinetic energy is by firing a long thin projectile that is as heavy as possible for it’s cross section. The way this is achieved is by making the projectile out of a material that is very dense. Since that increases the weight without increasing the size. And while a very strong metal, titanium is not a very dense one (It’s about half as dense as steel). This makes it actually rather poor for use in projectiles and armour.
Where Titanium is of actual value is in structure. It’s high strength but lightweight mean that weight can be saved by making structural components out of alloys containing this metal.
As for carbon fibers. It too suffers from the same problems as titanium. It is quite strong for it’s weight. But not very dense. This makes it a poor choice for armour. Here too much like with a projectile you want to have a material as dense as possible. Since an armour that is denser and harder than the incoming projectile has the ability to shatter the incoming round.
he might have meant tungsten, which is heavy.
For projectiles, Titanium is too light. Better for armour where less weight is better.
Though I suspect live defences is perhaps the way things are going as munitions are always developed that will penetrate any armour.
Uranium is good for projectiles due to its mass. Packs a big punch in a small parcel.
Interesting to see what Kakaouskia has to say about armour and armour piecing projectiles.
also when the oxide coating is breached the exposed metal is rapidly oxidized making the round incendiary which would enhance amour piercing. That and the fact that it is cheaper than tungsten (similar density)is one of the reasons it was chosen by the US. The fact that it was chosen is evidence that things have gotten out of control/ gone to the dark side. http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du.htm
Uranium is also pyrophoric, which is also a reason it is so effective at penetrating armours.
I am almost certain you mean Tungsten. Tunsten is denser but melts when going through armor. It gets soft and loses energy that way. Depleted Uranium shears as it fails so it is self-sharpening as it penetrates making it an ideal metal for a sabot penetrator. This shearing also is the cause of the DU dust problem.
@mmiriww
Re DU vs Titanium.
This issue is not the hardness or strength of the metal (titanium is relatively light (not dense) yet very strong). The issue is density–> momentum, energy stored in the round, and the amount of energy you can deliver to the smallest possible surface area on target tanks armour (to maximize concentrated damage and penetration).
Regarding the reasoning that went into using DU as a crude solution for defeating armour, since the the velocity of the round reaches a practical limit (due to cost and practical considerations in current tank guns), then the other factor you can play with is mass. The denser the element you use, the greater the amount of energy you can deliver to the target (crudely related to e=mv^2) for a round of the same volume, because you can increase the mass of the round without blowing out its dimensions. It’s an unsophisticated and dirty solution to deliver the most energy to smallest surface area of the target.
Better solutions would focus on using less harmful metals/materials like tungsten using a narrow and longer projectile with a heat resistent tip (or not) to deliver an equivalent energy to smaller concentrated spot on the target (like a spike or penetrating lance in a shell).
Hope that helps.
@mmiriww
Re DU vs Titanium.
This issue is not the hardness or strength of the metal (titanium is relatively light (not dense) yet very strong). The issue is density–> momentum, energy stored in the round, and the amount of energy you can deliver to the smallest possible surface area on target tanks armour (to maximize concentrated damage and penetration).
Regarding the reasoning that went into using DU as a crude solution for defeating armour, since the the velocity of the round reaches a practical limit (due to cost and practical considerations in current tank guns), then the other factor you can play with is mass. The denser the element you use, the greater the amount of energy you can deliver to the target (crudely related to e=mv^2) for a round of the same volume, because you can increase the mass of the round without blowing out its dimensions. It’s an unsophisticated and dirty solution to deliver the most energy to smallest surface area of the target.
Better solutions would focus on using less harmful metals/materials like tungsten using a narrow and longer projectile with a heat resistent tip (or not) to deliver an equivalent energy to smaller concentrated spot on the target (like a spike or penetrating lance in a shell).
Hope that helps.
I’m not Kakaouskia, but I can answer the part about defense against armour-piercing kinetic rounds:
The protection at least on Russian tanks consists of EXPLOSIVE CHARGES arranged between steel plates, and the whole setup is placed on the outside surface. These are those conspicuous “bricks” you see in many russian tank photos. The exact arrangement would be closely-guarded secret, of course, but the theory is that the projectile on impact will detonate the explosive charges within which are designed to move the steel plates in a scissor-like motion. This movement of plates is supposed to “tumble” the projectile as it passes through them, therefore preventing it from impacting the hull of the tank head-on (with the pointy tip). Even the small angle deflection of the projectile will significantly reduce its’ armour-piercing capability.
There is also an effect where solid steel tank armour will break off like shrapnel on the opposite side of the impact (ie. inside of the tank) even if it’s not penetrated, and this would also be sufficient to kill the crew or detonate the ammunition etc. This effect is called “galling” and is defeated or at least greatly reduced by coating the inside of the armour by fiberglass plastic or similar material to contain or slow down the armour fragments.
“spalling”
I have two questions:
1). How does the Abrams tank compare to the Russian T-70 and other tanks now being used in combat in Syria ? Specifically, Abrams tanks used by the Iraqi army were reportedly extremely vulnerable to Russian-made Kornet antitank missiles used by ISIS/Daesh in the battle for Ramadi last summer. Why were the Abrams tanks vulnerable ? President Abadi subsequently met with President Putin and was provided with Russian tanks — T-70 and T-72 tanks, I believe. What features of these tanks would protect against strikes by Kornet missiles ?
2). Does the new Russian Armata tank mark a technological breakthrough ? How will the Armata compare with American tanks ?
Kornet missile is a two-stage shaped-charge weapon.
Normally, shaped-charge warheads are “tuned” by their design to detonate at a specific distance from the target to achieve maximum efectiveness. If you look at a cutout drawing of a good old RPG round, you would see that a warhead is in the rear 1/3 of the round and the detonator is in the tip. This is done because the warhead needs some distance to form a “jet” which is actually what does the damage. The detonation creates a pressure wave which also contains a plasma jet made from melted and ignited copper, which burns a small hole through the armour and then expands on the other side.
By the way, this is the reason why all modern tanks use “sandwich” armour, made from layers of steel, ceramic and who knows what else. Different materials dissipate some energy from the detonation and disrupt the jet.
Now, to defeat this kind of weapon it is sufficient to “force” it to detonate at the “wrong distance”, so to speak. A simple sheet metal mounted in front of the armour has been used since WW2 with complete effectiveness. Mesh can be used too, as long as there is a gap between it and the armour.
Modern version of this is those “bricks” on the surface of the tanks I mentioned above. They will detonate on the impact of shaped-charge warhead too and the shockwave from it will disrupt the incoming shockwave and jet from the warhead.
Kornet actually has 2 warheads one in front of the other. First one is supposed to activate any protection, while the second, main warhead, does the destruction.
Kakaouskia,
Thank you for this opportunity. Rather than a modern armour question, however, I have a historical question regarding the decision taken in 1943 to halt development of the model T-43 and in favour of what was eventually designated the T-34-85.
The Wikipedia entry states this was driven by the inability of the standard 7.62cm tank gun to defeat the frontal armour of German Tiger and Panther tanks. An examination of penetration values, however, indicates that the 8.5cm gun firing standard AP ammunition was only effective against the Panther frontal armour at 100m or closer. The solid AP ammunition of the US 7.62cm gun placed on later models of the M4 tank shows similar performance.
In adopting the T-34-85, did Soviet tankmen expect to close to such sort ranges to defeat the Panther tank, or did they expect that supplies of APCR ammunition, however limited, allowed them to engage frontally from a somewhat greater range, or did they expect they would be able to manoeuvre onto the flank of the Panther, avoiding a frontal engagement as best as possible?
Forget wikipedia, it’s not a factually based site.
I think I can help you on the historical question.
T 43 was not a totally new tank but there were many differences compared to the T34-76. At the time production stream was paramount and despite the time spent on developing the T 43 there was a parallel design effort to upgrade the T 34-76 with basically a new turret large enough to carry the larger main gun and all the ancillary equipment and machines needed. The modifications needed to accommodate the new turret were relatively simple and the original design width and strength of the upper hull of the T 34 was sufficient to enlarge the turret ring and with little additional bracing support the extra weight of the new turret. In addition the new model went from a four man crew to a five man crew, this change offering a significant increase in the fighting abilities of the T 34-85 as it freed up the tank commander from acting as both commander and gunner in the T 34-76 and allowed him to exercise his primary job as commander.
In general one does not want to go head to head with any tank, the front end is generally the most heavily armored part of the hull and turret. The sides, rear, hull floor and hull/turret roof are more vulnerable. One also will want to at the very least disable the motive systems, in other words shoot for the tracks, road wheels and drive systems if one does not have a weapon that can penetrate the armor.
Tank warfare from early in the second war through today is a combined arms operation using every asset you have to do unkind things to your enemy. A tank without infantry support is very vulnerable, when buttoned up he is in essence almost blind. While the most modern tanks coming on line now have significantly improved crew vision in general to get a good look around someone has to open a hatch and use the Mark 1 Optical Device they are born with.
As for the German tanks of the second war, the Tiger B has no known incident of penetration from the front by an opposing tank in combat. Tiger E, yes, there are some incidents but not as often as one would think. Panther D, A and G models, yes, while it was not common until late in the war for the front armor to be penetrated such an event could be done at something beyond knife fighting range depending on what ordinance delivery system the opposing forces had on sight.
All of this is just skimming the surface concerning the T 34 and other tanks, this is just a very basic reply to your questions. There is no omnipotent Queen of the Battlefield today nor was there one in the past. Any machine can be destroyed by opposing forces or accidents of operations.
Auslander
Author, Never The Last One http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00ZGCY8KK
Auslander,
Thank you for that reply (vt as well, I would tend to agree). I hold a similar view of armoured warfare, but although David Glantz had done much to expose the evolution of Soviet operational doctrine to us in the West, the evolution of Soviet tactical experience is still mostly opaque to non-Russian speakers such as myself. I’ve read quite a few of the oral interviews of veteran Soviet tank men available in English, but at least the ones I’ve read are less interested in the nuts and bolts of tank combats than I would like.
So I am quite interested to learn details of how Soviet armour fought such machines as the Panther and Tiger. The view that the Soviets simply threw masses of tanks at the Germans until they could no longer cope is alive and well, I’m afraid. In fact there seems to be a renewed trend recently among armour enthusiasts to denigrate the T-34, specifically.
To expand my question, having read the blurb on the T-43 I noticed that its mobility suffered as the designers had hung as much armour plate on it as the underlying T-34 chassis could handle. I wonder if perhaps this loss of mobility was a more serious defect than the retention of the 7.62cm gun, as it would necessarily reduce the ability of the tank to get around to the flank of a German machine.
Jim S
Any armored fighting vehicle is a compromise between weapon, armor and speed. T 34 was an excellent balance of all three in it’s original design and construction. The tank used the American Christie suspension which was quite good and left the interior relatively uncluttered in regards to suspension.
One must take the listed speeds of tanks in various write ups with a grain of good sense. For instance the listed ‘on road’ speed was obtained on a flat and relatively smooth road surface under ideal weather conditions. Needless to say a dirt road that is wet from rain or melting snow can not be traversed at the same speed as a clean and dry metaled surface.
Few tanks fight on roads, it is a given that the vehicle will have to maneuver in combat. Recon is very important for off road service, the driver and commander have to know the terrain they will be operating on, hills, gullies, washes, streams and ponds, buildings, everything, plus they need an idea of who is out there, where and with what weapons.
Depending on the tank, one can assume a maximum off road speed under ideal conditions of maybe 20 KPH, generally less, and that is in good weather. Speeds drop precipitously under adverse weather conditions and depending on what enemy is where and armed with what and his irritation level as he becomes aware of your approach.
With the T 43, more armor spelled more weight moved by the same reliable and powerful motive system as the T 34, ergo the T 43 under ideal road conditions would be slower than a T 34. Off road the speed would be the same for both tanks and actually for almost any tank in service from about 1942 onward to today.
Again, this is just skimming the surface of a few main variables. I don’t think here is the appropriate place to delve in to suspension types, quality of the various suspensions, crew ergonomics of the AFV interior, motive control systems and such, all of which also affect transport and combat speeds.
Auslander
Author, Never The Last One http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00ZGCY8KK
The T-34 was the first tank to have slanted front armour, so it could not have been developed to counter the Panther, which came later, and it was actually the other way around: it was the Panther that was developed based on german assessment of the T-34 design.
Russian t34 crews didn’t expect anything cause they where a bunch of poorly trained conscripts lead by political apontiees capable of little more then berg spam tactics cause Stalin famously decimated the professional military leadership along with the rest of the Trotsky era soviet intelligentsia.
I don’t have a question (right now), but I look forward to reading this Q&A.
On the subject, I thought this article and video of interest for two reasons:
Kuwaiti crew drifts, rolls-over T-72 at Russia’s Tank Biathlon (VIDEO)
https://www.rt.com/news/311501-t72-drift-rollover-biathlon/
“While preparing for a breathtaking spectacle at the international competition in Russia, the Kuwaiti soldiers hit the acceleration on their 41-ton armored giant a little too hard before a sharp turn. Trying to drift the machine sideways, to the surprise of onlookers, they sent the tank flying in the air, rolling the machine onto its side before resting motionless.
The crew of the tank survived alive and well, only suffering some bruising according to defense, armed forces and military hardware blogger Alexey Khlopotov. The tank itself, despite forming the basis of a picture-perfect accident, reportedly suffered almost no damage.”
1st observation: That the crew escaped with minor injuries and the tank was essentially undamaged is a tribute to this tank design.
2nd: Kuwait is one of the signers on of that pathetic zionazi quisling saudi anti Iran circle jerk club. Observing how the Kuwaitis best performed at the tank competition, what sort of threat could their regulars be? ;D
vt, that video ‘no longer exists’ … funny, I guess the Kuwaitis were embarrassed…
Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5idQtkyQJ14
And here is a longer version also showing 2 other tanks before it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnSoxqLHbD8
2 minutes and only 2 obstacles and you can clearly see how important are the skills of the driver and how they affect the performance of the tank.
I’m sorry, but my memory was incorrect in the question I just posted. Russia is now using T-90.tanks in Syria that are resistant to TOW missiles. Iraq has received a variation of the T-72 tanks. My question is how do these tanks compare to the Abrams, specifically in vulnerability to anti-tank missiles.
http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/05/iraq-turns-down-us-abrams-tanks-in.html?m=1
How does new reactive armour on Armata T14 works?
He won’t answer this. Even i he knew about T-14 armour it would be treated as treason talking about this at open forum. It is matter of Russia’s national security .
I’m sure he will answer about the basic concept – which is to cause a “counter-detonation” which defeats the shaped-charge warhead, and/or side-shifting metal plates to shear (if you’re very very lucky) or at least tumble the subcaliber penetrator round (which will still save your ass) :)
What he definitely won’t say is the internal design of the “cells” and, what interests me the most – the composition of the explosives used. It must be a high explosive because of the high reaction speed needed, yet – high explosives don’t detonate readily at all so there must be some primary explosives used. But these are extremely sensitive to everything, so how is it that the whole damn thing doesn’t all go off at once in the desert heat?? Obviously, they have solved it and it all works, cause Shtora is at the moment in it’s 5th generation…
By the way, if I was a soldier I’d NEVER ride on top of a tank equipped with this ;)
Greetings. Perhaps this is the correct forum/thread to ask this question, or to bring up this subject. It involves WWII, Soviet weapon design, Stalin’s intentions, and related details including (and especially) armor design. As such, it is directed at both Kakaouskia and Saker.
Would you please comment on the book The Chief Culprit, by Viktor Suvorov?
http://www.amazon.com/THE-CHIEF-CULPRIT-Stalins-Design/dp/1591148065
If either of you have read the book you know that my question now is very broad and open ended. Anyone who has not read the book should consider doing so, as it might change your views about WWII – at least it did mine. (I’ll leave it at that.)
Tanks for your consideration !!
What are the prospects for a 150 mm cannon being mounted on the Armata tank? What tradeoffs would that entail?
There has already been talk of mounting a 152mm cannon on the tank. As can be seen here. https://www.rt.com/news/258473-armata-t14-powerful-shell/
The advantages of a bigger gun speak for themselves, but the main drawback is a reduction in the total number of shots carried. Which negatively effects the length of engagements a tank can partake in before needing to be resupplied.
I have heard that the French and German tank manufacturing industrial companies have signed a memorandum, that they would develop a future tank together at some point. The reason being obvious. The T-14 is the next generation of main battle tank.
I was wondering if you have heard anything regarding other nations and whether or not they will develop any new tanks. So far I have heard nothing from the US or Italy. South Korea and Japan just developed their new tanks and are purchasing those. While the UK is poised with the question of how to actually upgrade their Challenger 2.
Does quantity still have a quality of its own?
Yes.
Should Syria scrap it’s obsolete tanks like the T62 and the T55. ? Isn’t it time they upgraded their entire army?
I asked this before but it didn’t appear in the comments. Who knows why….
Why have Soviet tanks been slaughtered in WWII, Korea, Arab-Israeli wars and op. Desert Storm?
http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.gr/2013/04/recurring-problems-of-soviet-tank-design.html
Chris, I tried to find the earlier post you refer to, but I couldn’t find anything with your name, or mailadress, or anything else that showed any sign of coming from you. It might have ended up in spam, and unfortunately not retrieved. The moderators always look through all the spam to see if a comment has mistakenly been sent there by the anti-spam program, but sometimes there are so much spam, and the moderator could have missed it. Sorry about that (KL)
Not too sure about the rest, but as I understand it Desert Storm tank kills had more to do with air power than tank vs. tank battles.
@Purple Library Guy
No you’re wrong about that, Iraqi tanks were also decimated in tank to tank confrontations with US Abrams tanks. That’s because the Iraqis had primitive Soviet level T-54s, T-55s, and even crappier Chinese clones of these tanks designated type-59 & type-69 tanks. They also had T-72 tanks, but that’s a moot point: all Iraqi Tanks were inferior to the Abrams in most areas but most importantly in range, targeting and night vision. American tanks could destroy Iraq tank regiments before the Iraqis could get close enough to be able to hit the Abrams. It really was a Turkey-shoot.
Of course the lie making machine of the MSM would have us believe that the Iraqis possessed Tank forces made up entirely of the latest Soviet/Russian T-72s, but that was a complete lie. Just as the lie they flogged that Sadaam’s republican guard Were equivalent to US combat infantrymen (pure bull to make their one sided victory look good).
T-72s have been dubbed the name: the coffin because of their nasty habit of blowing up catastrophically even from a minor hit near the munitions compartment due to ammunition storage area detonating from the heat and impact.
I’m afraid that the Iraqi army of Saddam Hussein did take a severe beating and very embarrassing from the US, there’s no point trying to minimize this. It seems that then Iraq’s coddle Sunni elite were accustomed to easy slaughter of helpless Shia and Kurds as well as a primitively armed Iran. So no surprise they ran as fast as they could when hammered by American forces.
any news re the major company that makes armoured vehicles might be going bankrupt because of unpaid gas debt bills?
Cheers.
I heard Russia changed its military modernisation to 400 T-14s by 2025 instead of 2000 T14 by 2020.
Thank yu, badly need a guderian for that matter.
What would be the ideal range today of a tank hitting ability, the fartherst, say 15 km?
Kakaouskia,
The Americans claim to have never lost an M1 to enemy tank fire. Yet there are rumours that they lost up to five in 1991 to export T-72M1s in the Gulf War, is that true? I heard that a sixth was knocked out near Basra by 100mm fire in 1991, which would indicate by a T-55? There is also a rumour of at least one being knocked out by another T-72M1 on the weekend of April 7th-9th 2003 at the Battle of Baghdad airport, heard anything about that?
Similarly the British claim to have never lost a Challenger 2 to enemy tank fire and that the one loss was through fratricide, where a ‘magic bullet’ conveniently hit an open hatch, spiralling its way into the turret. The Ba’athists claimed that they destroyed it.
What do you think?
fwiw I can confirm that several M1A1s were destroyed in at least 2 battles against Iraqi T-72 in 1991. I cannot give any details, but I have that from a very reliable (Russian) source who specializes in this kind of stuff.
The lie making machine (CNN) also claimed that they, the US, hardly lost any planes (2 were admitted, an a-10 an A-6, from a “lucky shot” from ground fire). The truth is that they lost roughly upto 25 combat aircraft (10x as many) – according to Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_combat_losses_of_United_States_military_aircraft_since_the_Vietnam_War
So naturally you can expect the English MSM to lie when it comes to tanks.
However, you can’t ignore that absolute severe beating the Iraqis suffered at the hands of the US. For example, over 3500 Iraqi tanks destroyed, compared to
approximately 20-30 US and British tanks. Range matters, targeting matters and having advantage at night mattered. And the Iraqis were poorly led with commanders having restricted autonomy in fear of execution if they strayed from their upline’s directives. Saddam gave new meaning to the term wipeout.
1. ISIS has no air force, but NATO does. Would it be fair to say that in an era of TOW type troop fired missiles and anti-tank aircraft with guided munitions, a tank is just a big steel coffin for the crew? Look at all the destroyed tanks in Donetsk and Luhansk, and the air force was not even involved there.
2. According to a recent South Front article Russia only expects to have around 400 new Armata tanks available by 2020, which is not a very significant force on the European battlefield. WW II tank battles like Kursk involved thousands of tanks, although the numbers have been reduces as the unit costs have skyrocketed. A concentrated force could easily be taken out by a tactical nuclear weapon, or even a large barrage of MLRS artillery as in eastern Ukraine last year. Do you see the tank as being a major player in future non-nuclear combat? It certainly stops most small arms fire and provides some protection for it’s crew, but it is also a much more conspicuous target than a man crouching in a foxhole with an anti-tank missile. I would mainly see it as an offensive weapon providing some limited protection during a WW II type mass assault as opposed to exposed troops running across open ground.
@Terry
Excellent question exactly what I wanted to ask, but you did a better job.
Are tanks obsolete? Other than man portable anti-tank missiles, mlrs, what about low flying helicopter fleets destroying tanks too?
I’ve noticed other major armies not so focussed on tanks either. What is future of tanks; ie evolution to what type of system?
Hi Kakaouskia
I’ve recently saw this WW2 footage of 2 dead tank crews being removed from a destroyed tank ( the first was cleaved nearly into halves, the second without a head…) in this YT video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXB_tBgq6Rc
Question: Is this still the “normal” way to die in a modern tank? Or has military design and technology reduced the chances of such horrific deaths even suffering a direct hit by anti-tank munitions?
First, please make a very strong warning when posting videos of this type, Not Suitable for Women or Children.
Death has not changed since day one of tank warfare.
Auslander
Apologies for not stating a clear warning. The death of “Armour”, a volunteer from Russia affected me personally (interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBPU02yNhns) and made me less gungho about war and to have a realistic look into war. A realistic look into war probably needs to include the picture of death. And hence my concern for the men and women in armored tanks.
How long is the buildtime of a tank, and how difficult is it to build tanks in wartime conditions, when you have not all natural resources available?
How dangerous is it as for infantry to fight in close proximity of tanks with active defense systems like the one on the new armata line of armored vehicles?
Great idea!
1) What are your thoughts on the relative strengths and weaknesses of Western armor like the Abrams versus Russian?
2) How does the history of Russian tank development inform current Russian designs?
What will be the focus of the new tanks. Given that a war between Nato and Russia would go nuclear a conventional tank fight between them seems unlikely. So a design would rather be to fight insurgents and older tanks. So I think the development should focus on a foe with infantry anti tank weapons (like Tow) ,IED ( and other mines) and maybe against artillery fire ( the burned tanks in ukraine ). Maybe a fighting scenario like Isral against Hezbollah is likely for the new tanks.
Generally speaking were do you see the greatest danger for tanks ? I thinks its rockets from ground and air. A system that could defat Hellfire rockets and Tow rockets.
Hi Kakaouskia,
I am wondering how effective the active defense systems are on modern tanks?
Thanks
Mark
Is there any practical way in which the movement or I/R propellent heat of a TOW missile could be detected and the missile or its wire deflected or destroyed in flight? Detection of laser guidance origin? Blinding the operator with a defensive laser? Time is obviously of the essence here.
If only detection is possible is a smokescreen plus movement a plausible defence?
Regardless of reactive armour etc. surely the tank tracks and their cogs/wheels are always a weak point on any tank?
Hi Kakaouskia,
is Russian Kaktus ERA identical or similar to Ukrainian Nozh ERA or are they much different? As I could find in open sources, Nozh module consists of a series of rod-shaped shaped charges laid in paralel that upon activation basically cut through shaped charge jet or long rod penetrator. Is this similar to Kaktus?
In early 1990s there were reports of what surprise the Kontakt 5 ERA has been to the West once they laid their hands on former East German T72 tanks that they were practically imune to latest US DU penetrators. Could you comment on that and make an estimate to the current situation?
What are the main lessons of conflicts in Ukraine and Syria tank wise? Is TOW effectiveness in Syria having a similar impact as Stingers in Afghanistan in 1980s or is there much hype about it?
Much appreciate your effort.
The American invasion in gulf war is often cited to compare the results of NATO vs Soviet armor. It is a bad comparison because one country had intact infrastructure (US) and one did not (Iraq). By the time American armor attacked Iraqi, half of the Iraqi army was fatigued or had abandoned their stations. The rest were paralyzed due to destroyed communications.
During the second gulf war, US armor was proven to be little more than overpriced coffins. As little as small arms fire and incendiary devices were able to disable Abrams and Bradley tanks in some cases (internal parts were attacked through venting). But the most innovative weapons used were improvised explosives that the US and Britain were never able to keep up with despite billions spent to deter IEDS. The same is true with vehicle bombs. The cost to produce such weapons was minimal, while multi million dollar armor pieces were shredded. Soviet armor is vulnerable to the same weapons.
Even to this day no one has been able to make effective countermeasures to such weapons. And ISIS has used such weapons and taken them more dangerous than ever (armored mining truck VBIEDS). It doesn’t seem like there are any known reliable countermeasures. There are many videos that showed the limitations of armor in a modern urban environment. During OIF, there were quite a few videos of Iraqi insurgents making videos of themselves casually walking up to stationary American armor with little more than a charge placed in a shopping bag.
The Russians can reduce the disastrous results suffered by the Americans if they avoid aimless presence patrols, and are restricted to “attack/defend/bait” capacities.
The technology is already here (and in the general public domain) for the modern tank to be a fully automated robot.
The new tanks that are now being produced are unmanned and can easily shoot down TOW missiles etc. Such tanks can be sent into the battle field and automatically detect and destroy the enemy.
The big advantages that is being put into the latest tanks is the ability to detect missiles and the enemy and then instantly apply hardkill measures to defend itself. The Russian and Israeli tanks already have these systems as standard.
Russia is not going to give this technology to the Syrians though. They always sell downgraded versions for export.
The question is whether Russian armor can reduce the blast wave of explosives that are detonated nearby. Obviously no armor will survive a direct hit from IED of sufficient strength.
The American/British arms race to reduce Iraqi IED damage is interesting.
Iraqis first started out using electronic activation for IEDS. The American/British forces responded with heavier armor and electronic disruption devices. Billions of dollar spent on upgrades. Then the Iraqis used heavier explosives and mechanical/electric detonators to a degree which invalidated American improvements. Iraqi improvement costs were neglible.
Then the Ameircans made even heavier armor and devices that would prematurely deonate any explosives nearby. Again, billions spent. The Iraqis then responded by making a simple chemically and pressure activated detonator which evaded all American improvements.
But no matter what happened, despite thicker and thicker armor, the shockwave of the explosive was never stopped from doing damage. That is why there were far more Americans injured than killed.
Russian armor is no doubt overall better than American (cheaper, more reliable). But it will still be vulnerable to devices that cost insurgents dozens of dollars to produce. It’s a matter if its survivable enough to indirect hits.
If Russia can negate blast wave effects on personnel then that would be very good progress. Automated/remote control tanks may help towards that, as long as they can’t be hacked/spoofed.
The underside of all tanks is relatively thin, so tanks are very susceptible to mines and road side bombs.
I dont think it is realistic or even possible to make the underside of a tank thick enough to withstand a well made IED.
The added disadvantage with the Russian t72 & t90s is that the main ammunition carousel is on the bottom of the tank so once the thin base amour is breached its a cookoff.
The only real option is to somehow clear the mines ahead of the tank.
What are your thoughts on new technology making tanks less effective? For example, swarming small drones with explosives that congregate on one location? Fly like a small bird and reach one agreed-upon target. Or perhaps artillery getting so smart that tanks become too expensive to lose.
On the other side, are there breakthroughs that might occur in the next ten years that would make tanks even more effective?
Dear Kakaouskia,
My turn for a question I guess: my knowledge of MBT dates from the late 1990s so I am totally out of date with the newest stuff. What I do know is that the Russian air force has worked very hard on secure datalinks which allow one aircraft to lock on a target and another aircraft to shoot the missile. This even works with the air defenses. So in effect, this is the Russian version of a network-centric warfare: every system out there can securely share targeting data with any other.
My question: is armored warfare also going down this road? Could, in theory, future tanks exchange targeting data between each other and, with other systems? If yes, which country has come the closest to implementing this and do you believe that this will significantly impact armored warfare and combined arms operations, or will this be rather disappointing (as it seems to have been for the US Army, at least so far)?
2nd question: Russia is working on several type of tank protection systems, including armored vehicles specifically designated to protect tanks. Do you believe that the future is tanks protecting themselves by passive/active systems, or tanks being protected by dedicated tank protection systems?
Thanks and kind regards,
The Saker
Why does the Armata not have a coaxial machine gun? The 12.7 mm on top is operated by the commander who in the heat of battle has other tasks than to suppress enemy infantry. A gun alone can’t deal with swarming at-teams n other infantry. Note that battle proven Merkavas have up to 4 machine guns.
Kakaouskia,
Thank you for this opportunity. I have a question that has nothing to do with tanks so I hope I’m not getting too far afield.
I have a distant cousin, about 13 generations back, I think, who was the personal physician of Czar Alexi from 1660 to 1669. In his will he mentions “my skrewed Russin gun”.
Can you explain what that means? I think I’ve figured it out but I’m not sure and would appreciate any clarification you might be able give on the matter.
Hello, What is the future of armed vehicle warfare and how it will be the russian doctrine in this matter post 2020?