t-80 quided missles advantage

Anyone have a citation for the Refleks having 8km range rather than the 5km is attributed to in most sources?

I can't, and i don't believe it has 8km range in game either, it has 5 or 6km in game, but i cant test it out right now.

you are saying some really outrageous stuff though, as well as him. Full knowledge of soviet tank doctrine, as well as modern tank doctrine, wonder missiles, smoke launchers capable of shooting hundreds of meters in front of the tank.

http://www.steelbeasts.com/Downloads/p13_sectionid/320

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/t-80-specs.htm

 

note gun elevation.

Yes, I was responding to his frankly ludicrous claim that the T72 was designed to fight defensive battles in the steppes of Russian territory, when it is quite clearly designed with an offensive mindset.

Yes, the T72 has -4 degrees gun depression available. The M1 Abrams has -9 degrees of gun depression available. As to why that's significant:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hull-down

Yes, T72 (and most Soviet armor vehicles) were designed with smoke grenade launchers that lofted their grenades FAR further than western ones. The western tanks were designed to fight from successive battle positions in a mobile defense/ local counterattack situation. The Russian ones were designed for high-tempo offensive operations. Full stop.

Source: http://ofbindia.gov.in/products/data/ammunition/gr/5.htm

Note the part where it says ". When this grenade is fired at 45 degree ± 1 degree elevation, it has an average range of 200 – 350 meters."? There's a reason it lofts them so far (despite producing only a 10-20 meter wide screen): it's so that a formation of tanks can fire them AHEAD of themselves and advance into their own smoke screen, rather than firing the smoke and immediately overrunning it.

Western smoke projectors are more defensive in nature, and are designed as an active response to an incoming ATGM or other fire. Note that the smoke is immediate, covers almost 180 degrees, but projects only a short distance, because it is designed to protect the tank while the tank withdraws from one firing position and moves to another.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TODr5NKNuCg

Now, again, where does this fail to support my assertion that the features of the T72 indicate that it is designed as an offensive tank for use in advances, rather than defense?

btw there are over 450 T-90 i believe in RF right now so its not a couple like you said quoting : " not the rare-as-hens-teeth T90 that you cherry-picked for your argument" .

As compared to 1,200 M1A2 and a further 4,800 M1A1(HA), AIM, and SA models with armor packages comparable to the M1A2. Yes, this makes the T90, relatively speaking, rare as hen's teeth. Or, in comparison to the Russian tank force in totality, they make a whopping 450 out of 15,000, with the vast majority being T72 and T64, and quite a few T54/55 still in "reserve" status. Or if you prefer to only count operational tanks, more like 450 out of 3-4,000 (as it is highly suspect that the reserve tanks have much better than 30-40% operational rate without a factory overhaul.)

Further, the thing about cost: who cares. The US economy could/ can afford to field more Abrams than the Russians can field T90. I'm sure it would be of great consolation to the Russian field commander to be assured that "yes, but our tanks are CHEAPER", while he's being overrun.

I will admit to mistakenly remembering the price equivalencies of the missiles, though. It took a bit of time to dig out where I'd heard it; it was from "T-72 Main Battle Tank 1974-93" by Steven Zaloga, and the actual rate was that the price of a platoon's basic loadout (not each tank) was enough to buy an extra tank.

How many Abrams in Europe? Matters European powers are downsizing their tank fleets to save costs.

How many Abrams in Europe? Matters European powers are downsizing their tank fleets to save costs.

the way i see modern battle its way more different than last century tactics.. the informational battlefield and fact that most battles will be urban(why?:because of informational availability its much easier to analyse where you are better off:if weaker you stay in urban territories, if stronger u will fight your enemy in urban territories)..meaning MBT will become more heavier, more armored and will need less ATGM abilities.. will require silent drive(electric drive) for the kill shot in urban territories, ..and most certainly big armies like US,Russia,China will not need more than 500-1500 such tanks..

overall numbers are dwindling because ability to deploy them without destruction is increasing due to inter-connectivity of all battle systems and leathality of them.. Plus more tanks, means more trucks for logistics(fuel, ammo etc).. it creates a much more dangerous and more expensive way to operate such an army..

I suspect in close future the tank pool of all nations to shrink 30-60 % according to doctrine and other circumstantial reasons..

I'm still surprised nobody is building MUT (Main Urban Tank), Russians have done their "Terminator" support vehicle for tank support and some urban fighting, but i think a dedicated MUT will be needed much more.. basically hell of a armored Tank that you can't kill if you throw a ton of TNT at him, while tank would be armed with flame-thrower, sleep gas, jammer equippment, sound weapons, other energy weapons and would operate more or less 20-300 feet from the enemy while sustaining easily the hits from RPGs, ATGM..

of course such a tank will be a monster in terms of weight and will need special trucks to deliver him to urban environment and out of it, not to mention fuel guzzler that would make him operational for 2-3 hours tops while covering 10-20 miles at most.. but enough to clear any reinforcement in urban environment..

anyway,at least this is my prediction..

the way i see modern battle its way more different than last century tactics.. the informational battlefield and fact that most battles will be urban(why?:because of informational availability its much easier to analyse where you are better off:if weaker you stay in urban territories, if stronger u will fight your enemy in urban territories)..meaning MBT will become more heavier, more armored and will need less ATGM abilities.. will require silent drive(electric drive) for the kill shot in urban territories, ..and most certainly big armies like US,Russia,China will not need more than 500-1500 such tanks..

 

overall numbers are dwindling because ability to deploy them without destruction is increasing due to inter-connectivity of all battle systems and leathality of them.. Plus more tanks, means more trucks for logistics(fuel, ammo etc).. it creates a much more dangerous and more expensive way to operate such an army..

 

I suspect in close future the tank pool of all nations to shrink 30-60 % according to doctrine and other circumstantial reasons..

 

I'm still surprised nobody is building MUT (Main Urban Tank), Russians have done their "Terminator" support vehicle for tank support and some urban fighting, but i think a dedicated MUT will be needed much more.. basically hell of a armored Tank that you can't kill if you throw a ton of TNT at him, while tank would be armed with flame-thrower, sleep gas, jammer equippment, sound weapons, other energy weapons and would operate more or less 20-300 feet from the enemy while sustaining easily the hits from RPGs, ATGM..

 

of course such a tank will be a monster in terms of weight and will need special trucks to deliver him to urban environment and out of it, not to mention fuel guzzler that would make him operational for 2-3 hours tops while covering 10-20 miles at most.. but enough to clear any reinforcement in urban environment..

 

anyway,at least this is my prediction..

No one else has built a "Terminator" because no one else has lost dozens of tanks at a time in urban terrain. The US has had no issues using Abrams in urban terrain so far, and the gun elevation on the Abrams (and particularly on the Bradley) has been sufficient to engage upper-story window targets.

The Terminator was built solely because the Russians found that in fighting in Chechnya, the T72-series tanks had neither enough elevation on the gun to engage upper-story targets, nor sufficient depression on the main gun to engage basement-level targets in nearby buildings. Frankly, re-militarizing ZSU 23/4, or using 2S6 in an urban role would be more effective anyway. Well... maybe not the 2S6; it's guns have been shown to be less than reliable, and prone to failure or runaway. But if they worked right, they'd be perfect for the situation.

Remember what I said about "soft" stat advantages of the Abrams series (IE, gun elevation?/ depression)?

Also, why on earth would you need (even more) specialized trucks and trailers to move a tank like Terminator? It's built on a T72 chassis, and doesn't actually weigh any more. Besides, you would want an urban tank to be, if anything, lighter than a traditional main battle tank. At least, unless you like being stymied every time you come across an under-rated bridge, overpass, culvert, or other span.

BMPT manufacturer has stated that the 30mm round is old and theyd like to replace it with a better system.

as well as multiple versions of BMPTs

http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2014/06/blog-post_6493.html

anyway how is the tunguskas gun unreliable, its even being used in the Pantsir-S1.

Or does one video of a gun getting jammed prove its unreliable?

Well anyway, theres no point of having such high fire rate for Urban operations.

BMPT manufacturer has stated that the 30mm round is old and theyd like to replace it with a better system.

as well as multiple versions of BMPTs

http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2014/06/blog-post_6493.html

 

 

anyway how is the tunguskas gun unreliable, its even being used in the Pantsir-S1.

 

Or does one video of a gun getting jammed prove its unreliable?

 

Well anyway, theres no point of having such high fire rate for Urban operations.

2S6 was prohibited from using the gun system (using only the missiles) for quite a while. I don't recall off the top of my head what the cause of the problem was, but the symptoms were unacceptably high rates of stoppages and runaway guns. I'm *quite* sure the Russian army didn't forbid use of the gun because of "one video", which, incidentally, seems to have been caused by a flaw in tracking and engagement software, NOT the gun itself anyway (assuming we're talking the same video). Pantsir may have slight modifications to the gun (or may even be continuing to use the same gun unmodified; it wouldn't be the first time a system with known major design flaws continued in production by a major power)

As to high rate of fire, I would disagree, particularly with regards to area targets. Also, the 30mm caliber is only marginally effective against concrete structures (like average urban high-rise facades), so you'd need a high volume of fire to either weaken/ chip away the structure, or to ensure a round or two snuck in through windows or other gaps into interior areas where they'd be effective. Short, short bursts, but ROF is always good.

As to high rate of fire, I would disagree, particularly with regards to area targets. Also, the 30mm caliber is only marginally effective against concrete structures (like average urban high-rise facades), so you'd need a high volume of fire to either weaken/ chip away the structure, or to ensure a round or two snuck in through windows or other gaps into interior areas where they'd be effective. Short, short bursts, but ROF is always good.

Not true, an urban area can have a lot of civillians and spewing more bullets can endager their lives, also you shorten the amount of time the vehicle can stay on station, you shorten barrel life, increase in logistic support, there by increasing running costs, for something that is not needed.

If we look at other IFVs from other countries, none of them have high fire rate weapons main weapons, even new ones arent including high fire rate weapons, instead the focus is shifting more towards smart munitions, than making swiss cheese out of everything.

Three screenshots of the, M1A2 Abrams, T-80U and the T-72BU (T-90). All three tanks modeled in Wargame: Red Dragon, have the same range, with their main gun. Base accuracy is shown, higher the number, more chances for hit. Stabilizer percent is for, shooting while moving. The heat missile on the Russian tanks, will do one point of damage for every AP, so on the T-80U the missle has 22 AP power, 22 points of damage. If an enemy tank has a frontal armor of 22, its dead. MBT tanks guns are KE and will do more damage as range decrease. In this game I would never bring tanks in urban battles. Makes sense, since armor on the sides and top of tanks are low.

Wargame Series can't be taken as an Enciclopedia.

Actually it's a very nice strategic game but...

As an example the Apache helicopter, with his Hellfire PGM have way less than 8Km in range.

I dont recall the value but it is close to the half of the real one, obviously for Gameplay reasons.

The heat missile on the Russian tanks, will do one point of damage for every AP, so on the T-80U the missle has 22 AP power, 22 points of damage. If an enemy tank has a frontal armor of 22, its dead.

No, my friend, thats not how damage works in WRD. It's much, much more complex than that. Otherwise there wouldn't need to be people making tables revolving around hit damages, AP values, and other stuff. This game isn't really a good source for anything.

Wargame Series can't be taken as an Enciclopedia.

 

Actually it's a very nice strategic game but...

 

As an example the Apache helicopter, with his Hellfire PGM have way less than 8Km in range.

I dont recall the value but it is close to the half of the real one, obviously for Gameplay reasons.

Just showing some possibilities, for OP. Why Russian tanks are outranging the M!A2, with missiles. :)

Just showing some possibilities, for OP. Why Russian tanks are outranging the M!A2, with missiles. :)

Just because it is so. The M1A2 can hit something at 4km, the russian ATGM's can hit something at 5km. If it really hits is part of the operator but thats life :music_whistling:

Play a hardcore tank sim like Steel Beasts ProPE. You will learn that life is unfair in some situations :)

Oh and greetings to all. I'm new here and seems to be a very friendly community here....

Just because it is so. The M1A2 can hit something at 4km, the russian ATGM's can hit something at 5km. If it really hits is part of the operator but thats life :music_whistling:

 

Play a hardcore tank sim like Steel Beasts ProPE. You will learn that life is unfair in some situations :)

... and in Steel Beasts you will also learn that AT10/11 is practically useless, and laugh at the enemy when they use them, because all they're doing is giving you a nice stationary target for your much faster, much more lethal sabot that will kill them before the missile is halfway to you.

...and if you miss your sabot shot, still plenty of time to pop smoke and reverse behind cover

I'm pretty close with the Eugen dudes who made Wargame (community rep/Marshall over there on the forums), and I can assure you that realism takes a backseat to alot of other things in Wargame. Please dont use that title as an example for realistic vehicle behavior! :P

Steel Beasts Pro is a much better example.

I'm pretty close with the Eugen dudes who made Wargame (community rep/Marshall over there on the forums), and I can assure you that realism takes a backseat to alot of other things in Wargame. Please dont use that title as an example for realistic vehicle behavior! :P

 

Steel Beasts Pro is a much better example.

Hey not a problem!

As Kaktus29 states, the T-80's advantage with those ATGMs is more a function of the terrain than it is the munitions.

The advantage of the 9M119M is drastically amplified in DCSW by the fact that it's targets are usually in wide open terrain with no cover (due to the relatively low-poly terrain mesh of the black sea map). In reality, their targets wouldn't expose themselves for the incredibly long time of flight of 9M119M, especially given that the target knows it's being designated (by way of laser warning receivers).

In realty, the 9M119M (and other semi-active homing missiles) are actually disadvantaged against conventional, unguided, fire and forget tanks shells because the semi-active homing rounds have a long time of flight, and require the firer to remain exposed for the duration. However, this doesn't pan out properly in DCS given the absence of realistic cover. They're only really at an advantage in a situation where both parties have no choice but to remain exposed to each other for the whole engagement. In a scenario where the M1 gets to roll up exposing its turret for a moment, fire is main armament, then reverse behind cover and jockey to another position before popping up and firing again, the 9M119M's advantage disappears. In fact, the munition becomes useless at that point, and the T-80 will be forced to revert to conventional unguided shells.

You can be sure that when Nevada comes out, you're going to see a drastic diminishing of the T-80 /w 9M119M's advantage over M1s. And this will be due to the high-poly terrain mesh offering cover for proper tank engagement drills. The 9M119M is a clear advantage when used on a wide open, 3km^2 empty parking lot, but that's about the only place where it has the advantage.

The 9M119M have no comparición in accuracy with the Sabot munition. It is a question of tactic. Not all the T-XX will shoot a guided missile in every stage of the battle. Normally the ATGM will be shoot at a distance where the Sabot ammunition have not any chance to hit, while a group of T-XX tanks move forward.

In any case. The terrain is really important to get advantage.

The Steal Beast simulator is made for the NATO armor operators... So is not really fair for a realistic world wide simulator like DCS