Tactics beat Technology

[Baff1 0]

I don't think you have quite grasped yet that the T72's attacked in Iraq are not the same T72's as the Russian's use.

No U.S. Sabot round has ever penetrated a Russian T72.

The U.S. Sabot round is not very effrective against ERA systems. The Russian Reflex missile, which can be fired from all Russian tanks form the T64 onwards has twice the range of any U.S. Sabot round and 50% greater RHA penetration than their latest DU one.

It also uses a tandem warhead making it effective against other soviet styled tanks using ERA too.

The daddy of course is the Ukrainian version that has a top down attack like a Javelin.

Neither the U.S. nor the Russian army are particularly reknowned for their high standards of training where I come from.

I haven't investigated the training programs of both forces with regards to tanks, but there are other areas in which the Russian armed forces have a superior training regime to the American's (and still others where they don't).

That the American's train we all know. How it compares to Russian training is not something you are equiped to judge without first finding out what the Russian training program is.

Just imagining theirs to be far worse, isn't the best way to play a poker hand. In fact it's a good way to lose your shirt.

Edited August 27, 2009 by Baff1

[Inkompetent 0]

The U.S. Sabot round is not very effrective egainst ERA systems. The Russian Reflex missile, which can be fired from all Russian tanks form the T64 onwards has twice the range of any U.S. Sabot round and 50% greater penetration than their latest DU one.

Downside is that the missiles can't effectively be used on the move, so they require the firing tank to remain stationary until the missile reaches its target, which takes quite a lot longer than for a SABOT to reach that distance, and SABOTs can be fired on the move. Different strengths :)

[MehMan 0]

I wonder how effective is the Reflex missile. Is it along the line of the BMP missiles, 1-2%(I think that's on the move though)?

Edited August 27, 2009 by MehMan

[NoRailgunner 0]

With Refleks missile system the T-90 can penetrate targets (ground and low+slow flying helicopters) 700mm of RHAe at ~5000m range. T-90 gunner can use both - the main canon and missiles eg. on the move canon, stopped missiles.

Lets see if BIS improves in next patch "AI fire at high threats with missiles from (safe) distance". :)

@Walker did you try your experiment with SuperAI too?

[Ferrando 10]

I don't think you have quite grasped yet that the T72's attacked in Iraq are not the same T72's as the Russian's use.

No U.S. Sabot round has ever penetrated a Russian T72.

The U.S. Sabot round is not very effrective against ERA systems. The Russian Reflex missile, which can be fired from all Russian tanks form the T64 onwards has twice the range of any U.S. Sabot round and 50% greater RHA penetration than their latest DU one.

It also uses a tandem warhead making it effective against other soviet styled tanks using ERA too.

The daddy of course is the Ukrainian version that has a top down attack like a Javelin.

Neither the U.S. nor the Russian army are particularly reknowned for their high standards of training where I come from.

I haven't investigated the training programs of both forces with regards to tanks, but there are other areas in which the Russian armed forces have a superior training regime to the American's (and still others where they don't).

That the American's train we all know. How it compares to Russian training is not something you are equiped to judge without first finding out what the Russian training program is.

Just imagining theirs to be far worse, isn't the best way to play a poker hand. In fact it's a good way to lose your shirt.

You should substantiate your claims my friend. The only training the Russians seemed to have conducted was growing potatoes on the grounds of their military bases when the funds dried out in late 1990s. There were even widespread reports of famine among the troops, not the mention the prevalence of alcohol abuse. Although the situation has improved somewhat with the rise of the price of oil, Russia is too a Third World country in many respects.

You can't seriously claim that US military is not adequatly trained. No country would field a BATTALION of troops organized along the Russian/Warsaw Pact principles solely for the purposes of training. Putting political considerations aside, assault on Iraq in 2003 was conducted flawlessly against the odds, including meddling by Rumsfeld and co. Check out www.irvin.army.mil, that's probably all the research you need as regards the US training. Add regular NATO exercises to the mix, and simply put, the only forces that train today are US/NATO.

Russians? Well, they almost overran Georgia, but how difficult is that? And they still managed to lose a number of Backfire bombers? I mean, c'mon...

When it comes to ERA, it just proves my point. T-72 was developed from T-64, with steel armor. M1 was fielded in early 80s using British-invented Chobham armor that has a number of layers, including ceramics. One of the reason Russians use ERA extensively today is probably because they are unable to develop/reproduce Chobham-type armor. I mean, if ERA was such a big deal, the US would have fitted that already. And I've never come across even a hint that a US SABOT round would have problems with ERA.

Also, how did Iraqi T-72 substantially differ from the USSR T-72 at that time? Remember, in the 90s Iraqis were awash with money whereas USSR was not. They had enough leverage to ask for and receive top notch variants. And Saddam was quietly supported by both the US and USSR against Iran until he had a brainfart and invaded Kuwait.

Bottom line is this...whereas T-72/80/90 family are in many ways excellent platforms, unlike Abrams they are not proven in combat. In both 1991 and 2003 M1 (in all variants) was deployed outside its ideal surroundings (Europe not desert) and performed admirably, even in MOUT. And contrary to doomsayers, the losses were minimal.

[whisper 0]

What do you mean by a more penetrative weapons system? More penetrative than US SABOT round?

You are wrong in stating that neither can penetrate each other in the frontal shot. Frontal kills were documented in Desert Storrm, and apparently, SABOT rounds cut through T-72 like a knife through hot butter.

Of course, T-72 has been subsequently upgraded, but I did not start the comparison. You said T-72 vs. M1A2 is 50/50. I would so like you in my poker game :)

As to Iraqi v. Russian crew performance, I don't think the amount of training in the Russian Army is sufficient enough to bring ANY ADVANTAGE that T-72/90 may have over M1. I mean, just read the news reports from 00s about the degradation of standards in their military and bullying of young conscripts. When you factor in the general decline and the lack of funds in the 1990s., it is more likely that RF tank crews would not be very well trained.

And remember guys, US armor troops rotate every now and then to a place called NTCCC in Californian desert, where a simulated OPFOR battalion awaits. All get killed and humbled there - simulated, of course. Every US tanker will tell you that the training is actually more difficult than combat.

Apologies to the original poster, this is straying from the subject but I think it's relevant as Arma2 after all, is advertised as a military simulator. And kudos for the experiment.

The difference between Iraqi's T72 and Russian's T72 is NOT THE CREW

The tanks are different, Iraqi were using export version that don't have that much in common with russian latest T72.

Desert Storm is all but a good base for comparison of both tanks.

As outlined in a link above, US reasearch found that actual russian T72 were much much more resilient than Iraqi version. and they didn't put personnel in the test tanks to test their training difference ;)

EDIT : erf, it looks like my quoting has gone wrong :(

Edited August 27, 2009 by whisper

[Baff1 0]

Downside is that the missiles can't effectively be used on the move, so they require the firing tank to remain stationary until the missile reaches its target, which takes quite a lot longer than for a SABOT to reach that distance, and SABOTs can be fired on the move. Different strengths :)

Really? I know they need a laser beam locked on until impact, but I had been thinking with Russian FCS being what it is that's not such an issue.

The other downside to that missile is the rate of fire. Because they are still guiding the missile in they can't refire until it splashes.

Open terrain favours that missile. Desert or places like that.

Edited August 27, 2009 by Baff1

[MehMan 0]

You should substantiate your claims my friend. The only training the Russians seemed to have conducted was growing potatoes on the grounds of their military bases when the funds dried out in late 1990s. There were even widespread reports of famine among the troops, not the mention the prevalence of alcohol abuse. Although the situation has improved somewhat with the rise of the price of oil, Russia is too a Third World country in many respects.

Egh? Where are you living? It's 2009, not 1995. Russia has been on a streak upwards.

If Baff needs to backup his statements you need to do the same.

And again, even you admit it was in 1990s, now it's 2009. Things have changed.

Russians? Well, they almost overran Georgia, but how difficult is that? And they still managed to lose a number of Backfire bombers? I mean, c'mon...

Oh a NATO led force pummeled serbia and Kosovo, how hard is that? And they still managed to lose F16s and F117s! I mean c'mon...

When it comes to ERA, it just proves my point. T-72 was developed from T-64, with steel armor. M1 was fielded in early 80s using British-invented Chobham armor that has a number of layers, including ceramics. One of the reason Russians use ERA extensively today is probably because they are unable to develop/reproduce Chobham-type armor. I mean, if ERA was such a big deal, the US would have fitted that already. And I've never come across even a hint that a US SABOT round would have problems with ERA.

The US is fitting ERA on tanks and APCs. And you keep ignoring the damn link I posted:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=74232

Also, how did Iraqi T-72 substantially differ from the USSR T-72 at that time? Remember, in the 90s Iraqis were awash with money whereas USSR was not. They had enough leverage to ask for and receive top notch variants. And Saddam was quietly supported by both the US and USSR against Iran until he had a brainfart and invaded Kuwait.

Lower quality FCS, lower quality materials, no ERA, lower quality build, badly trained crews. And no, Iraq wasn't exactly awash with money, the Iraq-Iran war had just ended. It had drained both men and money.

Bottom line is this...whereas T-72/80/90 family are in many ways excellent platforms, unlike Abrams they are not proven in combat.

T72s have seen TONS of combat. The T-90 on the other hand, no. We've yet to see it in combat. But I doubt it'd preform poorly. It's got a new turret, composite(as does t-72) with ERA, Shtora and refleks missiles.

Edited August 27, 2009 by MehMan

[Baff1 0]

You should substantiate your claims my friend. The only training the Russians seemed to have conducted was growing potatoes on the grounds of their military bases when the funds dried out in late 1990s. There were even widespread reports of famine among the troops, not the mention the prevalence of alcohol abuse. Although the situation has improved somewhat with the rise of the price of oil, Russia is too a Third World country in many respects.

You can't seriously claim that US military is not adequatly trained. No country would field a BATTALION of troops organized along the Russian/Warsaw Pact principles solely for the purposes of training. Putting political considerations aside, assault on Iraq in 2003 was conducted flawlessly against the odds, including meddling by Rumsfeld and co. Check out www.irvin.army.mil, that's probably all the research you need as regards the US training. Add regular NATO exercises to the mix, and simply put, the only forces that train today are US/NATO.

Russians? Well, they almost overran Georgia, but how difficult is that? And they still managed to lose a number of Backfire bombers? I mean, c'mon...

When it comes to ERA, it just proves my point. T-72 was developed from T-64, with steel armor. M1 was fielded in early 80s using British-invented Chobham armor that has a number of layers, including ceramics. One of the reason Russians use ERA extensively today is probably because they are unable to develop/reproduce Chobham-type armor. I mean, if ERA was such a big deal, the US would have fitted that already. And I've never come across even a hint that a US SABOT round would have problems with ERA.

Also, how did Iraqi T-72 substantially differ from the USSR T-72 at that time? Remember, in the 90s Iraqis were awash with money whereas USSR was not. They had enough leverage to ask for and receive top notch variants. And Saddam was quietly supported by both the US and USSR against Iran until he had a brainfart and invaded Kuwait.

Bottom line is this...whereas T-72/80/90 family are in many ways excellent platforms, unlike Abrams they are not proven in combat. In both 1991 and 2003 M1 (in all variants) was deployed outside its ideal surroundings (Europe not desert) and performed admirably, even in MOUT. And contrary to doomsayers, the losses were minimal.

Not proven in Combat?

They have been in more wars than the M1 has.

Also the T80 is not in the same family as the T72 and the T90.

It is a completely seperate and simulataneous development built by a different tank manufacturer.

As for substantiating my claims, I haven't made any.

You claimed the Russians weren't trained to U.S. standards, not me.

All I asked you to do was find out what training Russians actually undertake before forming any opinion.

You seem to be just taking it on faith alone that U.S. is the best in all departments and have not bothered to find out about the T72 or Russian training regimes prior to making your bold claims.

If you really really must have substantiations, I sugggest you try Google. It's quicker to learn by yourself than it is to be taught.

Chobam armour is based on T64 armour mate. The Russians were the first people to use composite armour. They had it decades before we did, and they have since built many many new generations of it.

Because they sell/produce more tanks than us, they get to advance their designs faster. We've been playing catch up all along.

The U.S. is fitting ERA on it's tanks because they need it. In particular the M1 is vulnerable to RPG7 on the sides which is why the TUSK variant is fitted with ERA there.

Upgrading tanks is expensive. No one upgrades until they need to. Sometimes not even then.

Sabot is not much use against ERA. Composite armours are also specifically designed to counter it. If you hadn't heard a hint of it being an issue, you have now.

The U.S. M1's weapon systems serious range disadvantage was being addressed by developing their own rocket assisted Sabot ammunition. Unfortunately as part of the FCS, I think Obama has canned the program.

Iraq is a third world country. Even if money was no issue, the Russians don't export their best military tech any more than the U.S. does.

What the Iraqi's bought is a nerfed variant of the very first production run of T72.

(And then ran them for 15 years and 1 war with no spares and then fought against one of the worlds largest tank armies outnumbered in every engagement by about 8:1 with eyes on air and artillery support after months of aerial bombardment to soften them up).

Their T72 didn't have the missiles, the FCS, the ERA, the latest composite armours the latest gen auto-loaders, probably no IR, very limited night vision. Not so many of the crew survival features like armoured ammo storage, countermeasures, laser detectors and jammers. No battlefield networking. No Latest gen ammunitions and engines. Poorer welds on the turrets etc.

As for losing Backfire "bombers" (Spyplanes), the U.S. lost stealth bombers last time it operated in an ex Soviet nation.

It seems to me fighting in third world countries has been making someone complacent.

Edited August 27, 2009 by Baff1

[Inkompetent 0]

Because they sell more tanks than us, they get to advance their designs faster.

Not entirely true. It is argued that the Russian military industry is stagnating because it doesn't spend enough energy in development, and instead spends its funds and energy into production, making them fall behind in the technology race ^^

[xclusiv8 10]

Not proven in Combat?

You seem to be just taking it on faith alone that U.S. is the best in all deprtments.

Nothing new there,U.S is the best and ONLY free country in the entire world. The rest are third world countrys.

For those that dont undestand, its sarcasm.

[Ferrando 10]

Egh? Where are you living? It's 2009, not 1995. Russia has been on a streak upwards.

If Baff needs to backup his statements you need to do the same.

And again, even you admit it was in 1990s, now it's 2009. Things have changed.

Oh a NATO led force pummeled serbia and Kosovo, how hard is that? And they still managed to lose F16s and F117s! I mean c'mon...

The US is fitting ERA on tanks and APCs. And you keep ignoring the damn link I posted:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=74232

Lower quality FCS, lower quality materials, no ERA, lower quality build, badly trained crews. And no, Iraq wasn't exactly awash with money, the Iraq-Iran war had just ended. It had drained both men and money.

T72s have seen TONS of combat. The T-90 on the other hand, no. We've yet to see it in combat. But I doubt it'd preform poorly. It's got a new turret, composite(as does t-72) with ERA, Shtora and refleks missiles.

OK you win:cry2::cry2:

But on the operational level, if I was in charge of planning I'd take an US Armor-Heavy Task Force over anything Russia could field, anytime anywhere...but that's just me.

[Baff1 0]

Not entirely true. It is argued that the Russian military industry is stagnating because it doesn't spend enough energy in development, and instead spends its funds and energy into production, making them fall behind in the technology race ^^

As a general law of engineering things improve with every production run. Processes get refined. Bugs squashed. Details added. Requested improvements included.

It's human nature.

[bogdanm 0]

I just want to add something to the subject. For those who have doubts that there are differences between Russian and export versions, or between Russian and foreign crews, just take a look at the South Ossetia War. It’s the best example, Russian versions vs export versions and by looking at the outcome there are clearly some differences.

The Russian forces had no tank losses(afaik) while the Georgian forces had at least 10 disabled tanks and at least 10 more damaged. Also at the time the Georgian forces began withdrawing and leaving dozens of tanks behing they still outnumbered the Russian armored forces, this being a clear indicator that there are some kind of differences between Russian and foreign tank crews that operate the same equipment.

[Baff1 0]

They lost at least one.

It rushed ahead to relieve peacekeeping forces trapped under fire in the centre of Tskhinvali.

There is a picture of it burned out in front of their building. I'll see if I can dig it up after dinner.

This might be it, it's not the photo I ws looking for.... but it will have to do.

Edited August 27, 2009 by Baff1

[Shadow NX 1]

I could be wrong but i think most of these losses are also thanks for Su-25 and other air support judging by some of the wrecks shown on pics from the conflict.

In the end Russia offcourse never sells it latest stuff to other especially ebcause you never know who will be your enemy in the future.

However most that was rushed into Georgia at that time wasnt the cream of the russian army and still they did a good job.

[bogdanm 0]

They lost at least one.

It rushed ahead to relieve peacekeeping forces trapped under fire in the centre of Tskhinvali.

There is a picture of it burned out in front of their building. I'll see if I can dig it up.

You are right. There was one Russian destroyed tank in front of the peacekeeper buiding.

I could be wrong but i think most of these losses are also thanks for Su-25 and other air support judging by some of the wrecks shown on pics from the conflict.

It might be, but the blown-off turret can be achieved also if the ammo stored in the turret explodes.

Edited August 27, 2009 by BogdanM

[USSRsniper 0]

3. M1A2 has a crewmember-loader, who if properly trained (and they are) is at least 15 seconds faster in reloading the gun than T72/T90 automatic loader.

3. T-90 auto laoder loads a round in 4-5 seconds. :p Tank round is about 18kg. Lets see you load this in 4 seconds, or you are saying that all gun loaders on M1's are big muscular guys like Arnold?

The T-90 is not complete shit, first it can fire Refleks ATGM, also it fires modern Russian amunition, for example tungsten-carbide APFSDS. Russians did experiment with DU round but they are too dangerous for the crew and too expensive so they stick to tungsten-carbide. Did Iraqis have that for their T-72? No. Also T-90 has 125mm vs. 120 mm M1A2. T-90 FCS is computerized as well. Don't know about the armor because this information is classified...

On modern battlefield the tank which fires first and hits the enemy tank, wins. So walker is correct superior tactics always win. Crew can be trained, but you can't train all to be good, just like in sports some are best, and most are average.... That's why there is only few tank aces that survived the WW2...

Edited August 27, 2009 by USSRsniper

[Inkompetent 0]

3. T-90 auto laoder loads a round in 4-5 seconds. :p Tank round is about 18kg. Lets see you load this in 4 seconds, or you are saying that all gun loaders on M1's are big muscular guys like Arnold?

A decently well trained loader reloads the Abrams after the first shot (when prepared) in less than two seconds. This does however demand having an extra round already in the hands to shove in when the breech opens.

So the two first shots can be very rapid. In the long run the mechanical auto loader will of course beat the endurance and lactal acid of the loader in the M1. How fast that goes I think is estimated to around one minute, depending on the condition the loader is in.

I do wonder how many tank engagements nowadays consist of active, rapid firing for over a minute though.

And indeed, first shot is always one shot ahead of the other tank, and will probably win. Having a man loading is meant to save seconds, but can in bad scenarios of course cause the opposite.

[TRexian 0]

I think much of this discussion of RL tactics is a bit circular. Technology dictates tactics. Development of modern battle systems (and even historic ones) require certain choices be made - some practical, some based on policy.

In the art of war, you use the brushes and paints (weapons systems) available to make the best result you can on the battlefield-canvas. If you have all-weather, night-time, ridiculous stand-off distance, fast tanks, you use those capabilities to your advantage. If you have easily produced, solid like a rock, big-round-shooting tanks, you use those capabilities to your advantage.

The successful tactician chooses the battlefield to maximize his advantages and minimize his weaknesses. I love the testing by the original poster - kudos to him. But I also ask myself how many generals would choose an airbase for a tank battle? ;) (Yeah yeah, I know - it helps to narrow the variables for good testing. Still made me giggle a bit.) :D

[USSRsniper 0]

The successful tactician chooses the battlefield to maximize his advantages and minimize his weaknesses. I love the testing by the original poster - kudos to him. But I also ask myself how many generals would choose an airbase for a tank battle? ;) (Yeah yeah, I know - it helps to narrow the variables for good testing. Still made me giggle a bit.) :D

I tested tanks on the infinite terrain beyond the main Chernaruss and the outcome is about 50/50. But it might be not accurate because AI acts different on the flat terrain, compared to area with big hills.

And this is actually pointless, because on modern battlefield Battle of Kursk will never happen :P On modern battlefield tank are covered by helicopter, and CAS airplanes and even AA vehicles.

Edited August 27, 2009 by USSRsniper

[TRexian 0]

Agreed. :) Also in the mix are the infantry countermeasures like ManPADs for the CAS, and anti-tank stuff.

War sucks. :)

[Baff1 0]

@Inkompetant.

That would pretty much require the tank to be stationary too.

You really are discussing range conditions in my opinion.

Perhaps in defence?

@USSRsniper, The British have made Tungsten SABOTs that out penetrate the U.S. DU ones also (L28). They user a longer barrelled gun however, so they can fire them at higher velocities.

DU is proper.

On modern battlefields, usually only one side is covered by helicopters and aeroplanes. Usually, but not always, the attacking side.

Edited August 27, 2009 by Baff1

[Inkompetent 0]

@Inkompetant.

That would pretty much require the tank to be stationary too.

You really are discussing range conditions in my opinion.

Perhaps in defence?

Can be done on the move too, but I'd definitely doubt it can be done in any rougher terrain where the tank isn't moving evenly.

And also it is greatly depending on distance. There's no point in a fast reload unless you can get a second shot off really fast, so at long ranges it wouldn't be much advantage. Still it is at worst at the same speed as the auto loader while moving, unless the terrain is so mean you can't aim and shoot either ^^

[TRexian 0]

On modern battlefields, usually only one side is covered by helicopters and aeroplanes. Usually, but not always, the attacking side.

Yeah, armored attack on an entrenched set of positions when the enemy has air superiority.... Well... actually, if the enemy has air superiority, I'm not sure the tanks could make it close enough to actually attack. :)

I guess I'm thinking of a North Korea type game plan, where the goal would be to push through LOTS of armor in a relatively short amount of time at a specific area. Even then, though, they'd rely on huge numbers of basically "throw-away" aircraft to achieve a sort of local air superiority, or at least distract SK/US air forces from attacking the armor.

Combined arms FTW. :D