Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[hest]

Oh and BTW, for the many last years Soviet Union was always threatening us, Russia attacked us after WWI, Russia attacked us with Hitler, Russia occupied us after WWII, forced socialist goverment on us, murdered thousands of our elites, soldiers and even simple citizens.

During WW2 USSR had no real interest in Poland, it advanced only to what is now Ukraine, Belarus territories which were historical part and appropiated by Poles during revolution.

I do not agree with what was done with imposition of socialist goverment and murders but also historically Poles were always people who treasoned their own people with subyugation to catolicism and fight along West against slaves. I personnally have no special hate.

 

[Damian]

One aspect of DU is that though radioactivity is low, in case of entering in your body it will have significantly worse consequences, there is no barrier and it directly damages internal tissue, also as heavy metal it will remain giving prolonged damage, thus it is more dangerous in smaller quantity than WHA.

For the matter there shouldn't be need to explain anything as you can see by legislation. In USSR DU projectiles were not used on peace time and only on need thought they are easier to work and much cheaper.

This is why during peace time is used traning ammunition not combat ammunition. So there is no reason to not purchase DU ammunition, simple as that.

You are the initiator of the term monkey model which at very least is an exageration.

And I do not care about your opinion, you are not authority to me, neither you are someone significant.

Silly are those who use term "Russian imperialism" and mess with relations of actually important European countries to avoid approachement, opinions of stupid leadership of such small countries, ex socialist, Baltics, etc shouldn't be given any weight, but all to improve buisness and integration with main European countries.

All countries in Europe are important, this is first thing you do not understand. There is Russian imperialism, Russia do not respect sovereignity of other countries, good example is Georgia, South Ossetia was province of Georgia, but was taken by Russia.

Also Russia have no right to interfere in to internal affairs of other countries, if we want ballistic missile defense, we will have it.

Ha there is even better evidence of Russia threatening approach.

Russia threatens nuclear attack on Poland over US missile shield deal - Telegraph

Our goverment as well as USA agreed that Russia will have a right to inspect BMD installations, what Russia done? Threatened peacfull neighbours with nuclear weapons. It only shows that Russians goverment and generals are idiots.

During WW2 USSR had no real interest in Poland, it advanced only to what is now Ukraine, Belarus territories which were historical part and appropiated by Poles.

This is perfect evidence of how brainwashed you are. USSR invaded Polish territory, Russia was threatening us, Russia is a threat to Europe.

I do not agree with what was done with imposition of socialist goverment and murders but also historically Poles were always people who treasoned their own people with subyugation to catolicism and fight against slavic people. I personnally have nothing against them thought.

You are kidding do you?!

This thug Stalin ordered murders of Polish soldiers that were prisoners of war. NKVD murdered them, and nations elites, and there were more, after WWII NKVD was arresting Home Army soldiers and officers as well as associates.

Your beloved Russia done incredible attrocieties to people, it was exactly the same crime against humanity as IIIrd Reich done.

And how many Ukrainians died due to hunger imposed by goverment in Moscow?

You are defending criminals and thugs? Simple murderers? Seems you support such actions do you?

 

[militarysta]

Back to the topic...

@Lidsky M.D

So how is it, Swedes had access to original M1 and export, or how was this difference established ?

M1A2 for Sweeden whas downgradedl for this trade. Values are thaken form offcial FMV pdf about that trade and Leopard-2 history in Sweeden. FMV durging trade made armour balistic tests for all 3 tanks: Leopard-2I, M1A2, Leclerc (prototype). And Leopard-2I had 50% better armour then M1A2 and 100% better then Leclerc prototype.

If I am correct between Leopard 2A4 and first versions there is significant difference in FCS and rest, so it would be correct to say that it was that version which marked difference.

No it's not correct Lidsky here are the changes from 2A4 to 2A0 (reverse chronology in series batch):
-1985/1986 V batch -digital parts of FCS (balistic computer)
-1984 IV batch - shorter SEM radio antena, better gunner ergonomic evirnoment, slighty improvment damper.
-1983 III batch - the same as II batch
-1981 II batch - finally WBG-X instaled, new ammo holders, better ergonomic for crew, PERI is placed 5cm higher then for I batch, external phone for infanty, better ABC protection.
-1979 I batch -lack thermo camera WBG-X (but tanks where prepered to mounted them) most of this batch have passive night vision sight - PZB200 in WBG-X place.
And it's all. Since 1979 Leopard-2 had PERI and full H-K capabilities during day. The was no significant difference about H-K and PERI. Only tow is mound thermal camera WBG-X in 1981 and full digital balistic computer due to ammo reson in 1985. But both changes have nothing common with PERI and H-K.

Also before Leopard 2 there were another tanks just with panoramic vision.

It's not about just "panoramic vision" or bigger periscope. All is about the qualit of optics, about optics stabilisation, about H-K capabilities, etc.

Between socialist countries and USSR there was big difference not only in systems in use but training, therefore tactics sophystication, so you cannot establish direct analogy.

No, there was no "big difference" it's bullshit. UW WarPac armed forces in DDR, Poland and Czechoslovakia was trained as Soviet Forces using the same instruction, tatcis, movmend, placed tank in tank regiment, company, platoon, etc. There was no single difrencess -it was simpe forbiden. The only two changes was lack GLATGM and slighty smaller artilery and air support. And thats all. On company level polish trening was the same like soviets ones, becouse it was standardise -the same for supply, tank battle array, etc.
And soviet forces and WarPac was standardise on level impossible for NATO countries. All weapons system, tactics, supply.

And for tactics which you talk about in fact only tank in West which had such FCS was Leopard 2.

Yes, and what? Where is you point?

And most common engagement range is dependent on tactics employed and it does not correspond with medium.

No, it's not depend on tactics - it's nonsense. In 96% case for Poland max fire range is 1500m. For germany it's 1300m. This is max fire rane in visibility two points and "tactics" have nothing to do here, becouse in all places when you can go on tracks there will be no bigger max direct fire range then this 1300m (Germany). And this is typical max fire range. Medium for fulda gap was about 800yards so ~700meters.
Using GLATGMs in so short range was pointles.

For latest version it is under 500 mm of RHA against APFSDS and no more than 700 mm against CE.

So bullsht. I post smth about that erlier. And consider fact that "Estimation" made by "instytiutes" in Soviet Union/Russia for M1 famili where lower then las given in inner tank biuletin for soviet armed forces when "sudently" armour estimatous wher bigger then all data posted on btvt, wladimir page etc.
And for latest version Leo2A4 those value is bullshit.

ammunition is different offer because of DU limitation but it is fully capable, KEW-2, 3 based on German, show show me where is "monkey model".

KEW-1 is based on Dm43. DM43 is round rejected by germnas due to to weak ERA penetration capabilities. And it's performances was so "not enought" then in Sweeden and Grece decide to buy Israeli ammo.
And it's ableto perforate (depande on norm) between 560mm RHA to ~600-620mm RAH on 2000m. This ammo was to weak to new contract so Americans decide to made KEW-II based on M829A2 and it's still under modern rounds.

 

[hest]

Back to the topic...

@Lidsky M.D

M1A2 for Sweeden whas downgradedl for this trade. Values are thaken form offcial FMV pdf about that trade and Leopard-2 history in Sweeden. FMV durging trade made armour balistic tests for all 3 tanks: Leopard-2I, M1A2, Leclerc (prototype). And Leopard-2I had 50% better armour then M1A2 and 100% better then Leclerc prototype.

If Leopard 2 performed better than M1 it does not necessarily mean it had downgraded armour, in fact it is not said. But what is likely is that DU could not be purchased due to regulation and Americans could not offer something better back then, which does not mean armour was downgraded on purpose as you say, in fact now what is offered for export can have better performance (Australia, SA, etc).

No, there was no "big difference" it's bullshit. UW WarPac armed forces in DDR, Poland and Czechoslovakia was trained as Soviet Forces using the same instruction, tatcis, movmend, placed tank in tank regiment, company, platoon, etc. There was no single difrencess -it was simpe forbiden. The only two changes was lack GLATGM and slighty smaller artilery and air support. And thats all. On company level polish trening was the same like soviets ones, becouse it was standardise -the same for supply, tank battle array, etc.
And soviet forces and WarPac was standardise on level impossible for NATO countries. All weapons system, tactics, supply.

Equipement was significantly different and so was it's implementation in combat, even if superficially it was intended to use the same way, tanks had not even FCS, aircraft had poor sensors, etc and communications and radio operating modes were different thus it did matter for tactics. In fact experience with Socialist T-72M and Soviet T-64, T-80U cannot be compared much less in general as a whole.

Yes, and what? Where is you point?

If you look at vehicles within their context, for tactics, they were very suitable and Soviet tanks were fully capable for their rolen. As of panoramic vision, it was good feature but it was not such a strong implication.

No, it's not depend on tactics - it's nonsense. In 96% case for Poland max fire range is 1500m. For germany it's 1300m. This is max fire rane in visibility two points and "tactics" have nothing to do here, becouse in all places when you can go on tracks there will be no bigger max direct fire range then this 1300m (Germany). And this is typical max fire range. Medium for fulda gap was about 800yards so ~700meters.
Using GLATGMs in so short range was pointles.

You always have to account tactics and long range, as medium will not necesarrily correspond in conflict. With same argument you can say that there was no need for such rangefinder, accuracy at that range and good quality optics of Leopard 2 allowing longer sight was useless as well as early thermal sights, when active night vision devices were as effective.

So bullsht. I post smth about that erlier. And consider fact that "Estimation" made by "instytiutes" in Soviet Union/Russia for M1 famili where lower then las given in inner tank biuletin for soviet armed forces when "sudently" armour estimatous wher bigger then all data posted on btvt, wladimir page etc.
And for latest version Leo2A4 those value is bullshit.

I do not fully understand what you try to say.

There is no much difference between estimations as some are more reliable, as rest for Western APFSDS are close to general estimations, there is also fact that Leopard 2A4 is no secret for them,

And protection figure is nothing incredible given armour dimensions and that time.

KEW-1 is based on Dm43. DM43 is round rejected by germnas due to to weak ERA penetration capabilities. And it's performances was so "not enought" then in Sweeden and Grece decide to buy Israeli ammo.
And it's ableto perforate (depande on norm) between 560mm RHA to ~600-620mm RAH on 2000m. This ammo was to weak to new contract so Americans decide to made KEW-II based on M829A2 and it's still under modern rounds.

But this has nothing to do with tank being monkey model, it is still decent and there are another options.

Same as we call Leopard 2A6 monkey model because not everybody uses DM-53 due to barrel wear and opted for different ammunition.

 

[Damian]

If Leopard 2 performed better than M1 it does not necessarily mean it had downgraded armour, in fact it is not said. But what is likely is that DU could not be purchased due to regulation and Americans could not offer something better back then, which does not mean armour was downgraded on purpose as you say, in fact now what is offered for export can have better performance (Australia, SA, etc).

There are different generations of Heavy Armor Package, the 1988-1990 variant was 1st generation, 1990-1999 is 2nd generation, 2000-? is 3rd generation, for a ECP1 upgrade, US Army demanded next armor upgrade. It is possible that the same progress was for Export Armor Package, nobody says no, but for Americans, this is still armor package downgraded for export. Also Americans never offered tank with Heavy Armor Package, export of this armor package is prohibited by Congress, same as DU APFSDS ammunition.

But this has nothing to do with tank being monkey model, it is still decent and there are another options.

Same as we call Leopard 2A6 monkey model because not everybody uses DM-53 due to barrel wear and opted for different ammunition.

You seems to not understand, for Americans, from their point of view, their M1 export variants, are downgraded export "monkey models", while for Russia it can be state of the art high tech, as for any other lesser country.

Germans didn't had that comfort like Americans, that they have huge armed forces, with budget bigger than rest of the world combined. So when GDLS had plenty of orders from US Armed Forces, other companies like KMW, Rhinemetall or UVZ to survive needed to offer better, not downgraded products.

This is a matter of a point of view and situational context. You pretend to be a smartass here and still you do not understand such simple matters.

 

[militarysta]

If Leopard 2 performed better than M1 it does not necessarily mean it had downgraded armour,.

In most (~90%) sources tere are two fact about export M1 version abrams:
a) diffrent armour - weaker (what is confirmed in FMV pdf..)
b) whorse ammo (KEW-1 and KEW-2)
And when smb.check FCS then in most export version FAC have lower quality optics then in US Abrams.
So if some tank in expert version have significant weaker armour, worse ammo, and not as good FCS then is rather prooper to say it's monkey modell...

Equipement was significantly different and so was it's implementation in combat, even if superficially it was intended to use the same way, tanks had not even FCS, (...) In fact experience with Socialist T-72M and Soviet T-64, T-80U cannot be compared much less in general as a whole.

But we are talking about "blind" soviet and WarPac crews in their tanks T-xx series. My biggest proof is weak placment and to small numbers periscopes for crew, and lack of PERI analogs, and H-K mode. And in that part there is no difrenses between ex: T-64B or T-72B and polish export downgraded WarPac T-72M1. FCS in soviet tanks whas better then for WarPac models, but we are talking about possibility to see soething in those sight and periscopes. And in that case there was no diffrences.
And as I said -basic doctrine was the same for Soviet and Polish/DDR/Czechoslovak tank crews/platoon/companies. Even place each tank in many variant of attack formation was the same -it was typical "urwaniolka" and any deragation was forbiden...
And when we compare simple factor - time to destroy target in "dozór obserwacji" (operational supervision - sector assigned to the tank in platoon formation) then for Leopard-2A4 it's less then 14-16s. for T-72 - it's ~30s the best crews can have time even 20-25s. So there is big difrence...

If you look at vehicles within their context, for tactics, they were very suitable and Soviet tanks were fully capable for their rolen. As of panoramic vision, it was good feature but it was not such a strong implication.

But there is exatly conversely - without terrain and tactic context in theory soviet tanks sight and periscpe placement is not so bad -in theory for frontal secotr there are enought field of view. But in reality it's really not enought - crew is blind due to small numbers and to weak quality of periscopes, and main sight for gunner and tank commander not allow to fast destory targest. And time to destroy target is almoust 2x biger in T-72 (and PT-91) then in Leopard-2. BTW: PT-91(polis version -not PT-91M) have FCS better then T-72B and T-64 and problem is sitl the same.

You always have to account tactics and long range, as medium will not necesarrily correspond in conflict.

Bit in west and Poland case the max fire range is 1500m in 96% cases. So no matter what tactic you will use and what type of weapons max fire range will be lower then that numbers: 1500m in Poland, 1300m in Germany. And this is resowhy on western tank during cold war there was no GLATGM. In so short range using them was pointles. And when you compare accuracy for T-64B, T-72B and Leopard-2 you will notice that GLATGM was way to achive better accuracy during moving -becouse both M1 and Leo-2A4 was far far more accurate then soviet analogs -espacialy during moving... So Yes -using GLATGM for soviet have some advantages, but for NATO tnaks it was pointless.

With same argument you can say that there was no need for such rangefinder, accuracy at that range and good quality optics of Leopard 2 allowing longer sight was useless as well as early thermal sights, when active night vision devices were as effective.

And it's not fortuity that in 80s. soviet's night vision FCS elents have that range:


But here is litlle "---- up" during typical otum and winter weather in Europe - rain, fog, raining snow ussaly reduce those values for about 30-40% so in bad weather conditions WBG-X and night PERI view have...suprise - ~1400m -so Leopard-2 night sights have max range in bad weather conditions the same as max fire range in 96% cases and what we have for Soviet tanks in bad weather conditions?
T-72A/M1 - ~750m in active mode and...500m in pasive
T-72B ~700m in active and...650m in passive.
T-80U ~1000m in active and 800m in passive
For noewest Buran-M it was 1000m in active and whow! 1200m in passive mode.
Erly T-90 - basicly like for T-72B after mods like for T-80U. Of course after added Agava whas better.
And I don't need to add that using active night vision was suicide.

I do not fully understand what you try to say.

There is no much difference between estimations as some are more reliable, as rest for Western APFSDS are close to general estimations, there is also fact that Leopard 2A4 is no secret for them,

And protection figure is nothing incredible given armour dimensions and that time.

Most "rusian special estimatous made by special instytute ble bla ble" are bullshit.
Inner sovts tank biuletyn estimatous for example M1 where mucht mucht better then those funny falues. So it's first problem - there are so manny "estimatous made by soviet/russian instytute" but only one-two of them are quite possible - what is funny - Tarasenko post them on his blog in last month.
Second proble is that most of this estimatous is not rconsider whit known fact about Burlinghton special armour and it's features.
This "under 500mm RHA" and "no more then 700mm" is bullshit -and even sources provide by tarasenko consider that

But this has nothing to do with tank being monkey model, it is still decent and there are another options.

In M1 there is no other options You can use monkey clon od rejected Dm43 or newer dovgranded model based on..M829A2. Both af them are weak and not good enought in case modern ERA armour. So...yes those ammo is rather monkey model.

Same as we call Leopard 2A6 monkey model because not everybody uses DM-53 due to barrel wear and opted for different ammunition.

Germans havn't "monkey models" in fact Leopard-2A6HEL, E, ES, Strv,122 was in many aspects better then 2A6 for Germans army.

 

[Damian]

Vehicle export variant considered as monkey model depends on context and point of view.

As I said, some countries can have downgraded export variants of their weapon systems, or even specially designed for export weapon systems, so can't because this means problems for manufacturers.

For example USA or PRC can have downgraded export weapon systems, because both have huge militaries with huge orders and huge budgets, some other players like Russia, Germany, UK or France, and even smaller countries do not have such luxury.

Besides this there is also point of view, for example Americans consider what they export as downgraded export "monkey models", because this is their policy to keep some design solutions and technologies for their own use only. But for example the same export "monkey model" for a smaller country with inferior technology and design solutions, can be state of the art technology.

And there are of course also additional points to arms export policy in different countries. For example GDLS never really needed to bother with exports, neither USA have to. US Army alone had such needs in the past and made so big orders that GDLS could focus on providing services mainly to this exclusive customer, while for example due to extreme reduction in Europe, for example in Germany, forced KMW and Rhinemetall to search customers outside Germany, and adjust it's offer to these customers.

 

[hest]

In most (~90%) sources tere are two fact about export M1 version abrams:
a) diffrent armour - weaker (what is confirmed in FMV pdf..)
b) whorse ammo (KEW-1 and KEW-2)
And when smb.check FCS then in most export version FAC have lower quality optics then in US Abrams.
So if some tank in expert version have significant weaker armour, worse ammo, and not as good FCS then is rather prooper to say it's monkey modell...

And there are many reasons back at that time, but as I said it is not on purpose, just unavailability. You know about modern offer, M1A2 Saudi, Australian ?

About ammo you still did not understood analogy. If user cannot employ German rounds because of barrel tear and finds different option, does it mean it is monkey model ? There may not be alternative for Abrams, but there is not any monkey model policy. Tanks has full systems and there may be other options.

But we are talking about "blind" soviet and WarPac crews in their tanks T-xx series. My biggest proof is weak placment and to small numbers periscopes for crew, and lack of PERI analogs, and H-K mode. And in that part there is no difrenses between ex: T-64B or T-72B and polish export downgraded WarPac T-72M1. FCS in soviet tanks whas better then for WarPac models, but we are talking about possibility to see soething in those sight and periscopes. And in that case there was no diffrences.
And as I said -basic doctrine was the same for Soviet and Polish/DDR/Czechoslovak tank crews/platoon/companies. Even place each tank in many variant of attack formation was the same -it was typical "urwaniolka" and any deragation was forbiden...
And when we compare simple factor - time to destroy target in "dozór obserwacji" (operational supervision - sector assigned to the tank in platoon formation) then for Leopard-2A4 it's less then 14-16s. for T-72 - it's ~30s the best crews can have time even 20-25s. So there is big difrence...

You are talking about how bad is sight, but you want to prove your point with example which does not correspond to it. You talk about experience with Socialist tanks which had not even automated FCS and how much time does it take for them to eliminate target, which is not valid to talk exclusively about sight. For Soviet tanks it is very different, and tactics are similar only superficially.

An easier example, air to air engagement tactics were also similar for Socialist forces and USSR, but do you think that an aircraft with innefective radar with poor range and half of operating modes lacking, and many differences of downgraded equipement, could employ really same tactics ? Of course not.

But there is exatly conversely - without terrain and tactic context in theory soviet tanks sight and periscpe placement is not so bad -in theory for frontal secotr there are enought field of view. But in reality it's really not enought - crew is blind due to small numbers and to weak quality of periscopes, and main sight for gunner and tank commander not allow to fast destory targest. And time to destroy target is almoust 2x biger in T-72 (and PT-91) then in Leopard-2. BTW: PT-91(polis version -not PT-91M) have FCS better then T-72B and T-64 and problem is sitl the same.

As explained, comparison with old tanks or those which lacked proper FCS is weak as argument, you cannot attribute everything to sight.

Bit in west and Poland case the max fire range is 1500m in 96% cases. So no matter what tactic you will use and what type of weapons max fire range will be lower then that numbers: 1500m in Poland, 1300m in Germany. And this is resowhy on western tank during cold war there was no GLATGM. In so short range using them was pointles. And when you compare accuracy for T-64B, T-72B and Leopard-2 you will notice that GLATGM was way to achive better accuracy during moving -becouse both M1 and Leo-2A4 was far far more accurate then soviet analogs -espacialy during moving... So Yes -using GLATGM for soviet have some advantages, but for NATO tnaks it was pointless.

There may be for example tactically relevant placements, etc and mere presence of this possibility is a feature.

About accuracy issues, it is very big nosense enunciated by someone which lacks even superficial knowledge and ignores all requirements which led to developement and adoption, T-72 guided missile was not even intended to be fired on move...

Also NATO did not succeed with any of such armament.

And it's not fortuity that in 80s. soviet's night vision FCS elents have that range:

But here is litlle "---- up" during typical otum and winter weather in Europe - rain, fog, raining snow ussaly reduce those values for about 30-40% so in bad weather conditions WBG-X and night PERI view have...suprise - ~1400m -so Leopard-2 night sights have max range in bad weather conditions the same as max fire range in 96% cases and what we have for Soviet tanks in bad weather conditions?
T-72A/M1 - ~750m in active mode and...500m in pasive
T-72B ~700m in active and...650m in passive.
T-80U ~1000m in active and 800m in passive
For noewest Buran-M it was 1000m in active and whow! 1200m in passive mode.
Erly T-90 - basicly like for T-72B after mods like for T-80U. Of course after added Agava whas better.
And I don't need to add that using active night vision was suicide.

So you agree that Leopard 2, developement of good, longer range vision and requirement was in most part useless given normal combat ranges.

Well, third generation passive, illuminating means were comparable with early thermal camera in combat effectivness as you show, there was no big advantage at that range for comparable tank, T-80U, but your calculation on bad weather effectiveness is weak in the sense that it is only to make your idea correct rather than objective.

How is it that you simply apply same reduction for thermal camera than for passive and active illumination considering that they are different spectrums and there are different environmental factors ? Weather may affect thermal more...there is a weak base...

What is certainly shown is that in night effectiveness, early thermal and Soviet night vision for those combat ranges was similar.

Most "rusian special estimatous made by special instytute ble bla ble" are bullshit.
Inner sovts tank biuletyn estimatous for example M1 where mucht mucht better then those funny falues. So it's first problem - there are so manny "estimatous made by soviet/russian instytute" but only one-two of them are quite possible - what is funny - Tarasenko post them on his blog in last month.
Second proble is that most of this estimatous is not rconsider whit known fact about Burlinghton special armour and it's features.
This "under 500mm RHA" and "no more then 700mm" is bullshit -and even sources provide by tarasenko consider that

Articles show not big difference, but you should know that authors may work independetly using their sources and own estimations, and may be off the general point as they can use selected information to prove their article, written to achieve merits, this happened for example in article about T-72B turret, and you could see some creativity. Another thing are estimations used by serious institutions as KBP, research institute semi-officially.

You proved earlier with your figures of Burlington, and was deduced that they do not serve even as approximation, it is not even logical to threat such disparity of time and evolution.

And given armour dimensions and effectiveness of armour at that time, relation between APFSDS and cumulative protection, there is nothing amusing, also they had access to the vehicle.

 

[Damian]

And there are many reasons back at that time, but as I said it is not on purpose, just unavailability. You know about modern offer, M1A2 Saudi, Australian ?

About ammo you still did not understood analogy. If user cannot employ German rounds because of barrel tear and finds different option, does it mean it is monkey model ? There may not be alternative for Abrams, but there is not any monkey model policy. Tanks has full systems and there may be other options.

You still do not understand that US Congress prohibited export of Heavy Armor Package and DU ammunition? Not because others do not want these materials but because US congress do not want to compromise these design solutions. Swedish Army actually wanted at least for trails both Heavy Armor Package and DU ammo, Americans said no.

 

[militarysta]

And there are many reasons back at that time, but as I said it is not on purpose, just unavailability. You know about modern offer, M1A2 Saudi, Australian ?

In that case again - for SA there is mucht weaker ammo, and armour. Australian version is most advanced from all "export" Abrams. But tanks for all rest (Egipt, Kuwait, Sauds, etc) are very dwngraded. In fact USA don't sell tank even on simmilar as americans tanks level.
It's typical maonkey model politcy.

There may not be alternative for Abrams, but there is not any monkey model policy. Tanks has full systems and there may be other options

Show me country which buy Abrams and don't use KEW-1 or KEW-2. About ammo - tehere is no other options in case buy export M1 then using downgrad ammo. And as I said -Germans haven't "monkey models" politycy.

You are talking about how bad is sight, but you want to prove your point with example which does not correspond to it. You talk about experience with Socialist tanks which had not even automated FCS and how much time does it take for them to eliminate target, which is not valid to talk exclusively about sight. For Soviet tanks it is very different, and tactics are similar only superficially.

First -what is so diffrent? Placment periscopes and sights? No -it's the same. Values for +/- degree what eacht periscope/sight can see -again no, it's the same. So maybe night vision quality? Yes -in Soviet tank's it was better then for WarPac, but still sucks in compare to the western tanks.
Again: Im talking about beeing blind in T-72/80/64 in compare to the Leopard-2 caused by:
-lack and far from the optimum periscopes placment
- lack of PERI and H-K mode analoge
- simpel fact that soviet tnaks where blind during nigh.

As explained, comparison with old tanks or those which lacked proper FCS is weak as argument, you cannot attribute everything to sight.

Sight and periscope placmet in Soviet tanks was almoust the same like for WarPac export, night vision quality was slighty better but still not even possible to compare with western tanks. and what have " proper FCS" what heven't FCS in T-72M1? And finnaly - PT-91 had far far better FCS then T-64B, T-80B and T-72B and far better thermal camera then in BURAN AGAVA-I/II and still - crew in PT-91 is blind in compare to the Leopad-2A4 becouse it has to small number of periscopes, and haven't PERI analoge and H-K mode.

There may be for example tactically relevant placements, etc and mere presence of this possibility is a feature.

What? Can you explain?
And again - if max fire range is 1300m in Germany then using slow GLATGM is not good idea.

About accuracy issues, it is very big nosense enunciated by someone which lacks even superficial knowledge and ignores all requirements which led to developement and adoption, T-72 guided missile was not even intended to be fired on move...

I was talking about fire to moving targets.
And you have argument here becouse stabilisation error (not barrel accuracy, not suspencon effective, or ammo accuracy) for
2E42-2 (T-72B) was x=0,6mrad y=0,4mrad
2E28M (T-72M1) was x=2,827mrad(LOL) y=0,94mrad
WNA-H22leopard-2) x=0,3mrad y=0,15-0,20mrad
Cadillac-Gage(M1) x=0,3 y=0,15
In fact even one factor - stabilisation error was twice better in western tanks then in Soviet ones. For WarPac T-72M1 it was few times better...

Also NATO did not succeed with any of such armament.

Becouse using GLATGM on 1300m max fire distnace was pointles.

So you agree that Leopard 2, developement of good, longer range vision and requirement was in most part useless given normal combat ranges.

No, you don't understand (or I don't write clearly enught):
In M1 (TIS) and Leopard-2A2-A4 (WBG-X) max night sight range was cased by having some "reserve" to bad weather conditions -typical in Europe (snow, fog, rain, etc). So in M1 (TIS) max detection range in good condition was 3000m but in bad weather condition it was ony 1200m
Panzers Ml Abrams über ein kombiniertes, periskopisches Tag und Nacht-(Wärmebild) Zielfernrohr mit 3 und l0-facher Vergrößerung und einer Aufklärungsentfernung, bei einem Ziel vom Typ Panzer, von bis 3000 m. Bei ungünstigen Witterungsbedingungen sichert es die Sichtbarkeit zum gleichen Ziel auf Entfernungen bis 1200 m.
In Leopard-2 when slighty better WBG-X was placment those range was 3000m in goode weather conditions and 1400-1500m in bad weather conditions.
So in fact both tanks (M1 and leo-2) have night sight enought to detect anemy tank on max avaible fire range in Germany (96% 1300m)

Well, third generation passive, illuminating means were comparable with early thermal camera in combat effectivness as you show, there was no big advantage at that range for comparable tank, T-80U, (...)hat is certainly shown is that in night effectiveness, early thermal and Soviet night vision for those combat ranges was similar.

Again - using active night sights was was suicide. Each one tank using night active IR is possible to see from 3 times bigger distance then it can see smth. And active night sight are very sensitive to weather conditions -analogy is the same like for thermal cameras (more then 40-50% less) in fact during bad weather -or even stupid rain, soviet active night vision have max range ~600m and can be detected from 3xtimes bigger disstance -even without direct line of sights (the presens of glare from backligtn area by active "Luna").

but your calculation on bad weather effectiveness is weak in the sense that it is only to make your idea correct rather than objective.
How is it that you simply apply same reduction for thermal camera than for passive and active illumination considering that they are different spectrums and there are different environmental factors ? Weather may affect thermal more...there is a weak base...
What is certainly shown is that in night effectiveness, early thermal and Soviet night vision for those combat ranges was similar.

Yes, they are old and weak better data for soviet night sight:
TPN-1:

Es handelt sich um ein elektronenoptisches monokulares periskopisches Zielfernrohr mit einer 5,5fachen Vergrößerung und einem Sichtfeld von 6 Grad. Die effektive Sichtweite liegt bei etwa 600 - 800 Metern.

TPN-3:

Dies machte es möglich, das neue TPN-3 auch in der passiven Betriebsart einzusetzen. Dennoch war die Leistung des TPN in der passiven Betriebsart mit maximal 850 m

Depend on weather conditions: 500-850 m

TKN-3:

Im Zentrum der Kuppel befindet sich das kombinierte Tag/Nacht- Kommandantenbeobachtungsgerät TKN-3. Die Vergrößerung für den binokularen Tag-Kanal beträgt das 7fache und für den Nachtkanal das 5fache. Dabei ist der Nachtkanal nur pseudo-binokular, da er zwar einen binokularen Einblick aber nur ein einziges Objektiv besitzt. Die Sichtweite beträgt unter guten Bedingungen cirka 400 -500 m.

Hmm good observation abilities up to 400-500m.

TKN-3M:

Das TKN-3M erreicht im aktiven Infrarotbetrieb eine Reichweite von 600 m und gestattet die Beobachtung im passiven Infrarotbetrieb auf Entfernungen bis zu 400 m.

TPN-1-49 and TPN-3-49:

Nachtzieleinrichtung
Das passive Nachtzielfernrohr vom Typ TPN-1-49 ist ein einkaskadiger Infrarot-Bildverstärker mit 5,5-facher Vergrößerung. Es besitzt ein einfaches statisches Visier da die Sichtentfernung bei diesem Typ Nachts sehr beschränkt ist. Zur Zielausleuchtung dient der am Turm angebrachte Infrarotscheinwerfer L2AG. Die tatsächliche effektive Reichweite liegt bei maximal 800-1000 m. Zum Anrichten dient eine feste Strichplatte, der Richtschütze muß Entfernungsmarke und Haltepunkt manuell ermitteln. Beim Schießen mit Unterkalibergranaten, deren Anfangsgeschwindigkeit bei 1800 m/s liegt, gibt es hier bei der im Vergleich zu Wärmebildgeräten geringen Reichweite des TPN-1 keine Probleme. In modernisierten T-72 wurde auch das wahlweise aktive bzw. passive Nachtzielfernrohr TPN-3-49 eingebaut. Hier liegt die Reichweite bei 1300 m im aktiven Verfahren und 850 m im passiven Verfahren. Bei diesem Zielfernrohr kann der Richtschütze die Entfernung in der Strichplatte einstellen.

Pasive: "effective range" 850m.

So for all soviet passive night vision we have 400-850m range. But in not goodweather conditions those range will be smaller -accoding to this: FM3-21.94 Appendix A Limited Visibility Operations for passive system it can be 25-30% weaker.

In reality in bad weather condition WBGX and TIS have 1400 and 1200m and Soviet passive night vision had bellow 500m. And as "bad weather conditions" can be named even starlight when natural jammer is closed

You proved earlier with your figures of Burlington, and was deduced that they do not serve even as approximation, it is not even logical to threat such disparity of time and evolution.

Yes, becouse taking tiem and "evolution" those figurs will be bigger. I gave lowest possibe values.

 

[Damian]

Nice design.

In that case again - for SA there is mucht weaker ammo, and armour. Australian version is most advanced from all "export" Abrams. But tanks for all rest (Egipt, Kuwait, Sauds, etc) are very dwngraded. In fact USA don't sell tank even on simmilar as americans tanks level.
It's typical maonkey model politcy.

Not exactly. Most advanced export variant currently is Saudi Arabian M1A2S, it is more or less similiar to M1A2SEP v2, altough have different weaker armor protection, weaker APFSDS ammunition and a bit different internal components. Second most advanced variants are Australian M1A1SA, they are more or less hybrids of US Army/ARNG M1A1SA and USMC M1A1FEP, however these also do not have Heavy Armor Package, neither M829 series APFSDS ammunition. Then there are Kuwaiti M1A2's, Iraqi M1A1M's and Egyptian M1A1's. Morocco will purchase more modern variant, also codenamed M1A1SA, similiar to Australian tanks.

 

[hest]

In that case again - for SA there is mucht weaker ammo, and armour. Australian version is most advanced from all "export" Abrams. But tanks for all rest (Egipt, Kuwait, Sauds, etc) are very dwngraded. In fact USA don't sell tank even on simmilar as americans tanks level.
It's typical maonkey model politcy.


Show me country which buy Abrams and don't use KEW-1 or KEW-2. About ammo - tehere is no other options in case buy export M1 then using downgrad ammo. And as I said -Germans haven't "monkey models" politycy.

Only thing are rounds, because Americans have nothing better, but it is not downgrade on purpose, and in rest tanks is fully capable, FCS, etc, you cannot even tell anything about armour, you can say there is same monkey model policy as with Leopard or T-90S...

First -what is so diffrent? Placment periscopes and sights? No -it's the same. Values for +/- degree what eacht periscope/sight can see -again no, it's the same. So maybe night vision quality? Yes -in Soviet tank's it was better then for WarPac, but still sucks in compare to the western tanks.
Again: Im talking about beeing blind in T-72/80/64 in compare to the Leopard-2 caused by:
-lack and far from the optimum periscopes placment
- lack of PERI and H-K mode analoge
- simpel fact that soviet tnaks where blind during nigh.


Sight and periscope placmet in Soviet tanks was almoust the same like for WarPac export, night vision quality was slighty better but still not even possible to compare with western tanks. and what have " proper FCS" what heven't FCS in T-72M1? And finnaly - PT-91 had far far better FCS then T-64B, T-80B and T-72B and far better thermal camera then in BURAN AGAVA-I/II and still - crew in PT-91 is blind in compare to the Leopad-2A4 becouse it has to small number of periscopes, and haven't PERI analoge and H-K mode.

You only throw words and call tanks blind, but you cannot support such exageration. You explain your idea by telling about experience with Socialist vehicles, of course for tank with worse optics, stabilisation, lack of FCS, (not telling rest of factors...) will take twice the time to neutralise target, but this does not apply to Soviet, if you account their tactics and vehicles, panoramic sight still offered advantage, but not critical, that is why they appeared at a latter time.

Neither they were blind at night, with late passive intensification and active illumination, especially compared with early thermal camera.

What? Can you explain?
And again - if max fire range is 1300m in Germany then using slow GLATGM is not good idea.

Because terrain is not homogenous and there are tactically relevant positions which can offer greater possibilities and force enemy. Medium will not always correspond with common in combat.

USSR planners studied all this and initiated developement of missiles and their implementation.

I was talking about fire to moving targets.
And you have argument here becouse stabilisation error (not barrel accuracy, not suspencon effective, or ammo accuracy) for
2E42-2 (T-72B) was x=0,6mrad y=0,4mrad
2E28M (T-72M1) was x=2,827mrad(LOL) y=0,94mrad
WNA-H22leopard-2) x=0,3mrad y=0,15-0,20mrad
Cadillac-Gage(M1) x=0,3 y=0,15
In fact even one factor - stabilisation error was twice better in western tanks then in Soviet ones. For WarPac T-72M1 it was few times better...

Difference was mainly due to gun, longer 2A46 series and it is not the only factor, and Soviet tanks, T-80U were fully capable in use of anti-tank rounds, APFSDS on their effective range (no more than 2000 m or better in your scenario, <1500), your idea about missile is just joke, with respect.

Becouse using GLATGM on 1300m max fire distnace was pointles.

And Soviets did not intend to use them in that range either.

Again - using active night sights was was suicide. Each one tank using night active IR is possible to see from 3 times bigger distance then it can see smth. And active night sight are very sensitive to weather conditions -analogy is the same like for thermal cameras (more then 40-50% less) in fact during bad weather -or even stupid rain, soviet active night vision have max range ~600m and can be detected from 3xtimes bigger disstance -even without direct line of sights (the presens of glare from backligtn area by active "Luna").

Active illumination effectiveness was not reduced as drastically as passive intensification, or as early thermal camera (which is about 30% and 50% or more respectively) first thermals were limited even with figures given for ideal conditions, and there was no "3 times bigger distance" when active was intended to be used on bad conditions to reach range close to maximum line of sight.

For contemporary Buran of T-80U range was 1800m and 1500m for active, (bad weather, notably > 1000 m) so in typical line of sight it was effective.

TPN-1-49 and TPN-3-49:

This is for another sight, Cristal of T-72B with different matrix.

Yes, becouse taking tiem and "evolution" those figurs will be bigger. I gave lowest possibe values.

Not better, but relatively worse.

 

[Damian]

Only thing are rounds, because Americans have nothing better, but it is not downgrade on purpose, and in rest tanks is fully capable, FCS, etc, you cannot even tell anything about armour,

Americans have better ammunition, the M829 series, but these are not exported because congress do no want anyone to have such capable ammunition. And we can say about armor that it does not conatin DU, as turret serial numbers says, whole armor design and composition also can be different.

 

[bhramos]

[video=youtube_share;B4MI1SzCc_Y]http://youtu.be/B4MI1SzCc_Y[/video]

 

[JBH22]

Some serious sh!t going one between these 2 guys hell don't even understand what they are arguing about.

Any update on the upgrade of Indian T-72 there was 1 proposal from Raytheonics to upgrade them..

 

[Akim]

@bhramos. Military programs on Ren TV is not true, especially when compare the Russian technique with its analogues. They mirror similar to the American program of "Future Weapons" - is the same lie.

 

[SajeevJino]

Some serious sh!t going one between these 2 guys hell don't even understand what they are arguing about.

I am Too happy to reading these Professionals Discussion...Keep riding the Main Battle Thread..

and waiting for your Discussions Over MERKAVA MBT...

 

[JBH22]

I am Too happy to reading these Professionals Discussion...Keep riding the Main Battle Thread..

and waiting for your Discussions Over MERKAVA MBT...

I said i don't understand the technical discussion but doesnt mean i disapprove it.

In addition can't understand why you touch the Merkava MBT with me pls clarify your point.

 

[SajeevJino]

I said i don't understand the technical discussion but doesnt mean i disapprove it.

In addition can't understand why you touch the Merkava MBT with me pls clarify your point.

Not with You....Damian and Akim

 

[Damian]

Merkava tank concept is interesting, however it does not mean that it is concept with future.

We should remember that powerpack at hull front means reduction of frontal armor, as well as despite argument that powerpack itself provides protection, there are serious questions that need to be asked.

1) Do powerpack provides the same level of protection as proper armor? IMHO no.
2) What will happen when powerpack will be hit and how this will impact vehicle performance in battle? IMHO it will be at best mobility kill, making vehicle exposed to more enemy fire.

Besides this I do not see Merkava ammunition storage as very safe, it is still the archaic concept of preventing ammunition cook off by placing it in hull in armored containers, in the end reality prooved that this concept is archaic, and some people paid this test with their lifes. The only efficent way to safely store ammunition is to place it in isolated magazine with blow off panels, so even if ammunition will start to cook off, crew will be safe thanks to isolating armored bulkhead and ammunition port/doors, and dangerous fire, gases and pressure will be vented outside vehicle.

Although Merkava design have advantage of being naturally universal combat platform, with powerpack at front it is much easier to adapt hull for different purposes, be it tank, infantry fighting vehicle, armored personell carrier, self propelled howitzer, command vehicle etc. etc. etc.

Also Merkava Mk4 turret is IMHO one of the best design in terms of weak zones size reduction.