Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Akim]

Thanks Akim. But still T-90S is just cheaper.

However what is really funny, the biggest increase in cost for NATO MBT's comes from electronics.

For example the original M1 costed below 1mln USD in 1980, while the newest M1A2SEP costs in 2012 approx 8.58mln USD (with inflation adjustment).

So for most nations it is obvious solution to purchase something that is cheaper. Not to mention political and logistical reasons.

Not only. Tanks buy yet "with looking" over on neighbours. Those countries which buy to itself Т- 90 do not have hypothetical enemy with prepotent, in electronics, by tanks. And why then to overpay anymore?

 

[hest]

We will see if T-72B2 will go forward, hopefully yes because it is definetly interesting modernization.

It was named in interview with general, to be deployed. It is about time. Relikt, is a way to bring protection of T-72B to modern level, relatively inexpensive.

There was another different modernisation, Burlak, but new generation (employement of multilayered ERA) would require costly and deep modifications, or new turret, so cheaper and more conservative approach was chosen.

Most countries do not have deep enough pocket to purchase tanks costing above 5mln USD, Russians offer T-90S for 2,5mln USD IRCC, so nothing strange that T-72 and T-90 series are more popular.

Important thing is that while they are less expensive, they are analogous (or superior) in characteristics to Western tanks, Leopard 2, Challenger... They are significantly better in cost-quality ratio.

 

[Damian]

Not only. Tanks buy yet "with looking" over on neighbours. Those countries which buy to itself Т- 90 do not have hypothetical enemy with prepotent, in electronics, by tanks. And why then to overpay anymore?

That's true.

It was named in interview with general, to be deployed. It is about time. Relikt, is a way to bring protection of T-72B to modern level, relatively inexpensive.

There was another different modernisation, Burlak, but new generation (employement of multilayered ERA) would require costly and deep modifications, or new turret, so cheaper and more conservative approach was chosen.

I know that, and I know about Burlak turret.

Important thing is that while they are less expensive, they are analogous (or superior) in characteristics to Western tanks, Leopard 2, Challenger... They are significantly better in cost-quality ratio.

Depends what we are talking here about. In some characteristics T-xx series are inferior, in some equal, in some superior to NATO MBT's.

But personally I would not wan't to fight in any T-xx or western European tank... too high probability to be cook like a duck if something goes wrong. So I would preffer to sit in one of M1 Abrams variants or some IV generation MBT like "Armata" or Object 195.

 

[Akim]

ML Т- 64. In Russian text nothing nothing such substantial, that translation is needed was. About the types of rounds, set cetera. All of it knows you on Т- 72. But will look as ML works. As single unit. He is a bit more difficult, but more reliable. Mainly - he is deprived the same detonation as AL.

 

[Damian]

ML Т- 64. In Russian text nothing nothing such substantial, that translation is needed was. About the types of rounds, set cetera. All of it knows you on Т- 72. But will look as ML works. As single unit. He is a bit more difficult, but more reliable. Mainly - he is deprived the same detonation as AL.

Yeah I know. To be honest I'am not ceratin which design was better, ML or AL, in theory AL should be less exposed thus less vurnable to be hit, while ML have faster loading rate and is less prone to be damaged by mines.

 

[hest]

Interesting thing about Putin's visit in May. He promised:

Form period 2015-2020 production of 2300 new generation MBT (Armata)

This is theoretically possible (Armata test in 2013, prod 2015, plant will be rebuild), howewer I think it is BS.

But future structure of Russian army will look (or should, as planned):
Overall about 9000-10000 MBT in service, of which:
-2300 in so-called brigades of constant combat readiness, new generation Armata
-7000-8000 second line/reserve, T-90A, modernised T-72BA, T-72B2, etc and maybe some T-80 (they all are planned to be retired).

 

[hest]

About remote weapon stations:

In T-90MS. Much better solution than CROWS in M1, simpler.

 

[Damian]

Form period 2015-2020 production of 2300 new generation MBT (Armata)

This is theoretically possible (Armata test in 2013, prod 2015, plant will be rebuild), howewer I think it is BS.

Depends on funding and if UVZ will keep it's promise to prepare prototypes before schedule.

But future structure of Russian army will look (or should, as planned):
Overall about 9000-10000 MBT in service, of which:
-2300 in so-called brigades of constant combat readiness, new generation Armata
-7000-8000 second line/reserve, T-90A, modernised T-72BA, T-72B2, etc and maybe some T-80 (they all are planned to be retired).

It is interesting because quantity of tanks in armed forces is very similiar to USA.

They also have ~8,000-9,000 tanks from which ~3,000 in active service (~2,000+ M1A2SEP, ~1,000 M1A1SA and M1A1FEP), in 2017 M1A3 or M1 series replacement should be presented (nobody yet knows if US Army decide to go in to M1A3 option or new tank option... in fact M1A3 can be new tank that common with M1 series will have only it's designation.

In T-90MS. Much better solution than CROWS in M1, simpler.

You know that without proper tests such statement is rather advertisment of a product You support, and might not be close to reality?

No to mention it have it's weaknesses, I would design this in a very different way, although idea would be similiar.

 

[Akim]

About remote weapon stations:
In T-90MS. Much better solution than CROWS in M1, simpler.

ÐœS is an export
МА - for the Russian army

 

[hest]

Remote weapon system in T-80 and T-90

Fully stabilised, as it is operated through commander's sight, simpler, better protected than more expensive, heavier CROWS with vulnerable and redundant systems (because M1 commander's sight can't be employed). Later I will show of Leopard 2 if I find.

Depends on funding and if UVZ will keep it's promise to prepare prototypes before schedule.

Funding is not the problem (it's provided), problem is to stay on schedule under such pressure but it is possible.

It is interesting because quantity of tanks in armed forces is very similiar to USA.

They also have ~8,000-9,000 tanks from whick ~3,000 in active service (~2,000+ M1A2SEP, ~1,000 M1A1SA and M1A1FEP), in 2017 M1A3 or M1 series replacement should be presented (nobody yet knows if US Army decide to go in to M1A3 option or new tank option... in fact M1A3 can be new tank that common with M1 series will have only it's designation.

But most of so called in service are old variants sitting in storage. Thing is, how many upgraded variants and new production will be, as old will be retired. Russian structure is about 9000-10000 of new/upgraded (not old).

 

[hest]

ÐœS is an export
МА - for the Russian army

These designations are not yet official. And it is unlikely that it will be purchased by Russia, but who knows...

 

[Damian]

Fully stabilised, as it is operated through commander's sight, simpler, better protected than more expensive, heavier CROWS with vulnerable and redundant systems (because M1 commander's sight can't be employed).

Why do You think that CROWS is heavier and more vurnable? Depending on variant it weight 74kg's, 135kg's or 172kg's, it is rather hard to belive that a cupola with it's weapon, full ammunition, own armor, sights, electric motor and gearbox will be lighter.

Funding is not the problem (it's provided), problem is to stay on schedule under such pressure but it is possible.

Funding is allways problem.

But most of so called in service are old variants sitting in storage. Thing is, how many upgraded variants and new production will be, as old will be retired. Russian structure is about 9000-10000 of new/upgraded (not old).

As I said, ~3,000 in service in USA are upgraded variants, ~2,000+ of them are M1A2SEP v2 for US Army + ~116 of the for one ARNG unit, ~1,000 is M1A1SA and M1A1FEP for ARNG and USMC, rest ~5,000-6,000 being in storage are M1, M1A1, M1A1HA and M1A1HC, from these majority are M1A1HA's, Americans upgraded most of their M1A1's to this standard in prior years by simple replacement of armor. All or allmost all M1IP (894 build) were rebuilded to M1A2 or M1A2SEP in prior years.

As for new production, it is uncertain if M1 Block III (M1A3) will be made from older tanks or new production will start, everything depends on the number of changes in vehicle design. As I said earlier Block III might be even a completely new design, that will just share M1 designation code.

And it is a very probable scenario, because all earlier M1A3 (Block III) prototypes and technology demonstrators were very different to Block I and Block II.

As for Russian Army, I highly doubt that they will have ~10,000 of new and upgraded tanks fleet, it is just immposible because of economic reasons, not to mention that some of these tanks are not only T-72 and T-90 series but also T-54/55, T-62, T-64 and T-80 variants, and these tanks will also mostly be retired from service and scraped when time comes.

 

[Damian]

Transnitrian T-64BV's in training.

I must say that I like the sound of 5TD/6TD engines.

 

[hest]

Russian tank army some years ago consisted of 20000 + units, in current structure there are 10000. This figure is composed by T-90, T-80 and T-72 variants only, all T-55, T-62, T-64 and rest have been retired from service.

In US army you named tanks in storage, but I was talking about structure. Russia must have such number in service, US I do not think will preserve so many tanks as it may not be required (what is Army requirement ?)

 

[Damian]

US I do not think will preserve so many tanks as it may not be required (what is Army requirement ?)

When I was talking with one well informed men from US, he said that overall quantity of tanks that should be in inenvtory and is aproved by congress is ~8,000 tanks. However quantity of tanks in active service, this means currently active units, required by US Army at this time is ~2,000+ tanks.

This is because Americans have such system that they can put each Army brigade for example in active or inactive status. Thus when needed they can quickly activate needed number of brigades because equipment for this unit is allready waiting in some depots (for example Sierra Army Depot).

Good example here is 2003 Invasion in Iraq, where besides active USMC tank battalions (1st, 2nd and 4th) there were also participating reserve tank battalions (for example 7th tank battalion) that are normally inactive and disbanded units. Same applies to US Army and ARNG.

So as far as I'am informed US Army plans to keep in active units ~2,000+ tanks + ~1,000 tanks for ARNG and USMC + ~5,000-6,000 tanks in storage for reserves and for possible sales to allied nations.

USA manufactured approx ~10,000 M1 Abrams tanks for their own need (however exact numbers are unknown, mainly because sources do not say how many <for example> M1A1HC's were manufactured between 1990 and 1993) and approx ~2,000 for export (1,130 new builds for Egypt, ~218 new builds for Kuwait and ~373 new builds for Saudi Arabia) and sold from their stocks much less (~59 sold from stocks for Australia, ~140 sold from stocks to Iraq + possible sales to sold ~200 from stocks to Morocco and another possible sale of ~200 for Taiwan).

 

[militarysta]

Russian tank army some years ago consisted of 20000 + units, in current structure there are 10000. This figure is composed by T-90, T-80 and T-72 variants only, all T-55, T-62, T-64 and rest have been retired from service.

In US army you named tanks in storage, but I was talking about structure. Russia must have such number in service, US I do not think will preserve so many tanks as it may not be required (what is Army requirement ?)

LOL

Like in Polish army when "on paper" we have 942 tanks:
126 Leopard-2A4
232 PT-91
584 T-72M1 (A)
But in realty it's only:
126 Leopard-2A4 + 196 PT-91 after renovation (322 tanks) becouse noone take serious 341 T-72M1(A) in "service" - it's combat value is equal around zero, ad noone take additional 243 T-72M1(A) in stock.
Sorry but this 10 000 is not accurate. In reality Russian army have (in quite modern or "on duty" tanks) only:
130x T-90 (Ob.188) - erly with cast turret
210x T-90A (Ob.188A1/A2)
220x T-72BA but only about 60-80 with Sosna-U
350-400x T-80U - moved to east near PRC
~1500-2000 whole not modern and old Ob.184 (T-72B), as I remember only around 500 T-72B was in really good condition and in "A" status -rest need conservation rebulid in factories.
So we have how many tanks? "Only" 1460-1500 tanks, but on western level only 210 T-90A (Ob.188A1/A2) and maybe 130x T-90 and 350 T-80U (~690 tanks).

In fact when we take tree any NATO countries with significant tank components it's bigger value then Russian tank fleet:

Germany: ~ 260 Leo2A5/A5 (with reserve 350 Leopard-2)
France: 240 Leclerców (in reserve 140, total 380 Leclerc)
Spain: 216 Leo2A6E + 108 leo2A4 (327 Leo2)
Greece: ~170 Leo2A5HEL + 183 Leo2A4 (353 Leo2) + soon M1
Poland: 126 Leo2A4 + 196 PT-91
Finland 124 Leopard-2A4
Turkey: 298 Leo2A4

example: Poland, Germany, France:
in service: 260+240+126 = 626 tanks, total: 350+380+126 = 856 tanks
And I would like to remind that only 210 T-90A (Ob.188A1/A2) is able to compare with Leclerc and Leopard-2A6...

Next interesting think is compare China tank fleet with Russian:
2,000-2,500 ZTZ-96 <---> ~500 T-72B (Ob.184) , + 220 T-72BA (Ob.184A/A1) , 130 T-90 (Ob.188) etc
~800 ZTZ-99 <---> 400-450 T-80U (Ob.219A?)
~ ZTZ-99A2 <---> 210 T-90A (Ob.190A/A1 A2)

 

[Damian]

@Militarysta.

T-80U = Object 219AS.

As for ZTZ-99A2, it is estimated that PRC have currently approx ~100+ of them.

 

[militarysta]

@Militarysta.

T-80U = Object 219AS.

As for ZTZ-99A2, it is estimated that PRC have currently approx ~100+ of them.

Thanks,so still is not so bad situation fot russian friends.

 

[Damian]

No, mainly because of some reasons ZTZ-99 series are considered by Chinese as very expensive, and not affordable for them in huge numbers.

This is why their most numerous MBT's are ZTZ-96's, and this is also why they are modernizing ZTZ-59/69 and other T-54/55 clones they have.

 

[p2prada]

You can expect to see a radical change in how the Chinese operate in the next decade. So, the current inventory may not reflect what the future holds for them. PLA's force structure is still undergoing modernization after all. PLA will be a bit more predictable sometime after 2020, when the force may have modernized to western standards and their currently in development projects mature for induction. It is possible they already have programs for 4th gen tanks like the Russian Armata or Indian FMBT.

Russia is no longer the Soviet Union. They can only manage a deterrent force unless something changes, like oil prices going North.

Any other countries planning for 4th gen MBT projects?