monkey models...?
Moderators: dnichols, GHQ, Mk 1
-
bound for glory
- Posts: 66
- Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 12:02 pm
- Location: nesquehoning, pa.
monkey models...?
my cousin mike, who is in military inteligance, insistes the tanks in iraq in the first and second wars were sub standard junk. claims the russians never sell their top line stuff to anyone. mi calls these monkey models. he also sez if the iraq army had top of the line t90's, there would be less m1's around today(puting aside the fact that the iraq tankers had no balls to fight). any thoughts?
-
Thunder
- E5
- Posts: 315
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:25 pm
- Location: Chandler
-
Azure
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 3:28 am
- Location: NE Ohio
Now, according to reviews of the T-90 that ive read in Jane's Defence Weekly as well as other armour related publications, the T-90 is certainly quite capable of defending itself against antitank weapons, and (according to the reviews anyways) has some antiaircraft capability against low flying helicopters.
The Shtora self defense suite is a passive system designed to detect and confuse IR and laser guided missiles, through a combination of detectors, IR and laser-wavelength "noise" generation, and smoke generation, which they claim will hide the tank in a veil of smoke too thick for most IR/laser designation systems to penetrate, as well as (supposedly) requiring an average of 3 seconds to generate a field thick enough to confuse such weapons.This is a rather simple system in the world of advanced countermeasures, but they claim it is "highly" effective. Shtora, in a nutshell, confuses the missile, and makes it fly off target or fall harmlessly to the ground.
The Arena active countermeasures system is actually the one i would believe to be more effective, though with the current economic state in Russia, i do not know how many vehicles are actually fitted with it. Arena uses a millimeter wavelength radar to detect incoiming hostile objects (i believe it works only on missiles, i have to think an incoming tank round would be moving far too fast) Also, Arena is NOT fitted to all T-90s (yet) as it is a new system and also, quite expensive. The Russians are beginning to equip some of their T-90s with it, but i expect it would be some time before it will be fitted to all T-80s and T-90s.
If Arena detects such an object, it turns its small turret and fires a small explosive mine into the path of the object, detonating it and destroying the missile. This system is supposedly quite effective, and has a response time, from detection to detonation of its self defense projectile, of less than one second. They claim this to be 70-80% effective.
The T-90 also uses second generation reactive armour, as well as a unusual layered composite armour, which is supposed to help protect from frontal and frontal turret hits from high quality AP and HESH style ammunition.
Lastly, is the ability of all modern Russian MBTs to fire AT-11 "sniper" missiles from its main gun, which they say has an effective range of 5-6 km and a hit percentage (against ground targets) of 80%+.The T-80 and T-90 fire a newer version of this missile than the T-72 fires, the 9M119 missile, which is supposed to be much better than the older one. I couldnt find any concrete data on how effective this missile is against aircraft, i doubt they have had a chance to test it in that role much, but it is a really interesting concept. This percentage is lower than most western MBTs can claim with a first round from a conventional cannon, but the missiles range is great. They did NOT say what a T-90 could claim for first round hit % with its main weapon firing standard ammunition, but i must believe this area would be quite dependant on the skill of the crew more than the capabilities of the tank.
In a nutshell, yes the T-90 would have been a far more capable weapon than the T72/62 and T 54/55 series that coalition forces faced in the gulf, but how much difference would it have made? With poor Iraqi tactics and the overwhelming presence of aircraft and guided weapons, I doubt it would have made a huge difference. With qualified crews and good tactics, I believe T-90s would be a far more serious threat to,say, an M-1 than a T-62 or T-72, with all other factors being equal. Can a T-90 (or T-72 for that matter) challenge a M1A1 or Challenger II on even terms? Depends on who is IN it, i would say.
Azure
The Shtora self defense suite is a passive system designed to detect and confuse IR and laser guided missiles, through a combination of detectors, IR and laser-wavelength "noise" generation, and smoke generation, which they claim will hide the tank in a veil of smoke too thick for most IR/laser designation systems to penetrate, as well as (supposedly) requiring an average of 3 seconds to generate a field thick enough to confuse such weapons.This is a rather simple system in the world of advanced countermeasures, but they claim it is "highly" effective. Shtora, in a nutshell, confuses the missile, and makes it fly off target or fall harmlessly to the ground.
The Arena active countermeasures system is actually the one i would believe to be more effective, though with the current economic state in Russia, i do not know how many vehicles are actually fitted with it. Arena uses a millimeter wavelength radar to detect incoiming hostile objects (i believe it works only on missiles, i have to think an incoming tank round would be moving far too fast) Also, Arena is NOT fitted to all T-90s (yet) as it is a new system and also, quite expensive. The Russians are beginning to equip some of their T-90s with it, but i expect it would be some time before it will be fitted to all T-80s and T-90s.
If Arena detects such an object, it turns its small turret and fires a small explosive mine into the path of the object, detonating it and destroying the missile. This system is supposedly quite effective, and has a response time, from detection to detonation of its self defense projectile, of less than one second. They claim this to be 70-80% effective.
The T-90 also uses second generation reactive armour, as well as a unusual layered composite armour, which is supposed to help protect from frontal and frontal turret hits from high quality AP and HESH style ammunition.
Lastly, is the ability of all modern Russian MBTs to fire AT-11 "sniper" missiles from its main gun, which they say has an effective range of 5-6 km and a hit percentage (against ground targets) of 80%+.The T-80 and T-90 fire a newer version of this missile than the T-72 fires, the 9M119 missile, which is supposed to be much better than the older one. I couldnt find any concrete data on how effective this missile is against aircraft, i doubt they have had a chance to test it in that role much, but it is a really interesting concept. This percentage is lower than most western MBTs can claim with a first round from a conventional cannon, but the missiles range is great. They did NOT say what a T-90 could claim for first round hit % with its main weapon firing standard ammunition, but i must believe this area would be quite dependant on the skill of the crew more than the capabilities of the tank.
In a nutshell, yes the T-90 would have been a far more capable weapon than the T72/62 and T 54/55 series that coalition forces faced in the gulf, but how much difference would it have made? With poor Iraqi tactics and the overwhelming presence of aircraft and guided weapons, I doubt it would have made a huge difference. With qualified crews and good tactics, I believe T-90s would be a far more serious threat to,say, an M-1 than a T-62 or T-72, with all other factors being equal. Can a T-90 (or T-72 for that matter) challenge a M1A1 or Challenger II on even terms? Depends on who is IN it, i would say.
Azure
From model tanks to model railroading back to TINY model tanks...they just keep getting smaller
-
8ball
- E5
- Posts: 464
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 6:52 am
- Contact:
I agree with Azure. History has shown us time and again, that well trained and led crews can defeat superior equipment with less capable crews and leadership.
Also, until a weapon system has been used in actual combat, it's impossible to know how really effective it is. Russian tanks especially have had trouble living up to expectations. The T-72 is supposed to be able to destroy targets out to 3000 yds, yet in combat, they have not been able to hit a target let alone destroy one at ranges much beyond 1500 yds. The T-62 was supposed to be the hot tank of the 70s. Yet in practice, it has been barely more effective than the T-55.
While I am sure the Russians market equipment that is less capable than their own front line stuff, I am less sure they intentionally market junk. This would only result in th eloss of future business and ridicule. Rather, I think the Russian arms industry have had some serious problems with quality control over the years. I imagine this would likely affect their best arms systems as much as their exports. So my bet would be that we'd see a lot of the same problems with the T-90 as we have with previous Russian tanks.
But in the end, as Azure says, I think it's the crew's ability to use whatever system they have to the max. Then it's their leaders' ability to put them in the most advantageous position. That's how Israeli upgunned Shermans regularly defeated Egyptian and Syrian T-55s during the Six Day War.
Also, until a weapon system has been used in actual combat, it's impossible to know how really effective it is. Russian tanks especially have had trouble living up to expectations. The T-72 is supposed to be able to destroy targets out to 3000 yds, yet in combat, they have not been able to hit a target let alone destroy one at ranges much beyond 1500 yds. The T-62 was supposed to be the hot tank of the 70s. Yet in practice, it has been barely more effective than the T-55.
While I am sure the Russians market equipment that is less capable than their own front line stuff, I am less sure they intentionally market junk. This would only result in th eloss of future business and ridicule. Rather, I think the Russian arms industry have had some serious problems with quality control over the years. I imagine this would likely affect their best arms systems as much as their exports. So my bet would be that we'd see a lot of the same problems with the T-90 as we have with previous Russian tanks.
But in the end, as Azure says, I think it's the crew's ability to use whatever system they have to the max. Then it's their leaders' ability to put them in the most advantageous position. That's how Israeli upgunned Shermans regularly defeated Egyptian and Syrian T-55s during the Six Day War.
-
Mk 1
- E5
- Posts: 2383
- Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2004 3:21 am
- Location: Silicon Valley, CA
The Iraqis operated export version T-72s.
The T-72 was developed as a less expensive "mobilization" tank for the Soviets in the early 1970s. The T-64 was the Soviet first-line tank. It equipped most of the units in the GSFG. It was notably more expensive, and reputedly has a superior armor matrix.
T-72s equipped Soviet forces held in the interior, and was the tank that would be mass produced in the event of a national mobilization. Reputedly almost as good, for a lower cost.
Export versions lacked the best of the fire-control systems, and also had very basic "inserts" for the turret-front armor cavity. These inserts make a big difference in the protection level that the turret armor provides.
However, all of that said, the T-72 and T-64 were contemporaries of the M60 tank. They were a very interesting match against that tank, with notable superiority in several aspects. The M1 Abrams is a full generation ahead.
What we fought in Iraq was 1970s generation weapon systems, manned by troops who's motivation and training levels are certainly in doubt. However, none of that detracts from the fact that the U.S. forces were extrememly effective, well lead, and mounted in some of the best equipment the world has seen.
It is notable that the M1 series was hard to destroy even by own forces. Cases of attempts to destroy derelicts show just how tough that platform is.
All comments about the combat capabilities of the T-90 (really just the newest modifications to the T-72) or the T-80 (the successor to the T-64) are conjecture. Maybe they work almost as well as an M1A2SEP. Maybe they don't. We know which one is proven in action.
-Mark 1
The T-72 was developed as a less expensive "mobilization" tank for the Soviets in the early 1970s. The T-64 was the Soviet first-line tank. It equipped most of the units in the GSFG. It was notably more expensive, and reputedly has a superior armor matrix.
T-72s equipped Soviet forces held in the interior, and was the tank that would be mass produced in the event of a national mobilization. Reputedly almost as good, for a lower cost.
Export versions lacked the best of the fire-control systems, and also had very basic "inserts" for the turret-front armor cavity. These inserts make a big difference in the protection level that the turret armor provides.
However, all of that said, the T-72 and T-64 were contemporaries of the M60 tank. They were a very interesting match against that tank, with notable superiority in several aspects. The M1 Abrams is a full generation ahead.
What we fought in Iraq was 1970s generation weapon systems, manned by troops who's motivation and training levels are certainly in doubt. However, none of that detracts from the fact that the U.S. forces were extrememly effective, well lead, and mounted in some of the best equipment the world has seen.
It is notable that the M1 series was hard to destroy even by own forces. Cases of attempts to destroy derelicts show just how tough that platform is.
All comments about the combat capabilities of the T-90 (really just the newest modifications to the T-72) or the T-80 (the successor to the T-64) are conjecture. Maybe they work almost as well as an M1A2SEP. Maybe they don't. We know which one is proven in action.
-Mark 1
-Mark 1
Difficile est, saturam non scribere.
"It is hard NOT to write satire." - Decimus Iunius Juvenalis, 1st Century AD
Difficile est, saturam non scribere.
"It is hard NOT to write satire." - Decimus Iunius Juvenalis, 1st Century AD
-
1ComOpsCtr
- E5
- Posts: 389
- Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:03 am
- Location: Midwest
- Contact:
Mark I,
What ever happened with that "long rod" penetrator round incident shortly after the end of the push north? Was the source finally identified? New RPG? Just curious. I lost track of that incident and I'm not up to date on the latest Anti-Armor intel. We have primarily been focused on CQB with 4th Brig., 10th Mountain or Warrior Brigade OPFOR exercises.
Will
ComOpsCtr
What ever happened with that "long rod" penetrator round incident shortly after the end of the push north? Was the source finally identified? New RPG? Just curious. I lost track of that incident and I'm not up to date on the latest Anti-Armor intel. We have primarily been focused on CQB with 4th Brig., 10th Mountain or Warrior Brigade OPFOR exercises.
Will
ComOpsCtr
"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster." - Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, 1844-1900
-
Azure
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 3:28 am
- Location: NE Ohio
As near as i can gather, the Iraquis operated chinese Type 69s, T55s (supposedly modernized) and T-72s. Seems like a rather odd mix to me, with each tank using a different type of ammunition, but anyways...
The point i was trying to make is that yes, the M1A1 is a phenomenal machine...best in the world? Who knows? All the engagements the M1 has been in have been against poorly trained tank crews with outdated equipment. I am NOT speaking ill of the M!, but IMO our excellent crews with their excellent training and support deserve more praise than the machine does. I once heard of a Sturmtiger blowing up 7 Shermans with one shot. Is that because the Sturmtiger was a superior machine, or the Sherman an inferior machine? No. Admittedly, the sherman had limitations, as did the sturmtiger (the sturmtiger had a lot more, IMO....) But the point is, that crews that know the capabilities of their machine, and more importantly its drawbacks, andknow how to either take advantage of its strengths or compensate for its weaknesses, are what makes a tank great, as much so as the design of the vehicle itsself. Germany ran amok in tiny Pz Is and IIs for the first 3 years of the war, and lost horribly with King Tigers and panthers in the end. Was it because the Pz I was a better machine than the panther?
In the beginning, germany had control of the air, and was able to plan its attacks and advances at its own pace. In the end, they were forced into a reactive role, often without the ability to communicate with commanders or other units, and had to hide their vehicles in trees or tunnels to protect them from allied aircraft. Also, by 1944, with almost 5 years of fighting behind them, the german army had lost most of its veteran tank
crews, and was forced to train new ones at a hurry-up pace, and they had to mantain their vehicles in horrible conditions. More King Tigers were lost to mechanical failure or running out of fuel than to enemy action.
Any tank is only part of a greater whole. In a straightfoward 1 vs 1 engagement, i believe the M1A1 is probably the best tank in the world. But the one sidedness of Desert Storm wasnt due only to the capabilities of one vehicle. It was due to the fact that coalition soldiers, whatever their role, were simply better than the enemy they faced.
The point i was trying to make is that yes, the M1A1 is a phenomenal machine...best in the world? Who knows? All the engagements the M1 has been in have been against poorly trained tank crews with outdated equipment. I am NOT speaking ill of the M!, but IMO our excellent crews with their excellent training and support deserve more praise than the machine does. I once heard of a Sturmtiger blowing up 7 Shermans with one shot. Is that because the Sturmtiger was a superior machine, or the Sherman an inferior machine? No. Admittedly, the sherman had limitations, as did the sturmtiger (the sturmtiger had a lot more, IMO....) But the point is, that crews that know the capabilities of their machine, and more importantly its drawbacks, andknow how to either take advantage of its strengths or compensate for its weaknesses, are what makes a tank great, as much so as the design of the vehicle itsself. Germany ran amok in tiny Pz Is and IIs for the first 3 years of the war, and lost horribly with King Tigers and panthers in the end. Was it because the Pz I was a better machine than the panther?
In the beginning, germany had control of the air, and was able to plan its attacks and advances at its own pace. In the end, they were forced into a reactive role, often without the ability to communicate with commanders or other units, and had to hide their vehicles in trees or tunnels to protect them from allied aircraft. Also, by 1944, with almost 5 years of fighting behind them, the german army had lost most of its veteran tank
crews, and was forced to train new ones at a hurry-up pace, and they had to mantain their vehicles in horrible conditions. More King Tigers were lost to mechanical failure or running out of fuel than to enemy action.
Any tank is only part of a greater whole. In a straightfoward 1 vs 1 engagement, i believe the M1A1 is probably the best tank in the world. But the one sidedness of Desert Storm wasnt due only to the capabilities of one vehicle. It was due to the fact that coalition soldiers, whatever their role, were simply better than the enemy they faced.
From model tanks to model railroading back to TINY model tanks...they just keep getting smaller