[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
War, War, War See other War, War, War Articles Title: Is Russia About to Make Tanks (As We Know Them) Obsolete? RI... Modern tanks have too many problems dealing with infantry increasingly armed with effective anti-tank missiles Could the Russian Terminator series—also know as the Boyevaya Mashina Podderzhki Tankov—be the harbinger of future armored vehicle design? Based on its experience in Ukraine, Georgia, Chechnya and Afghanistan, the Russian military certain believes so according to Ruslan Pukhov, director of the Moscow-based Centre for the Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (CAST). As such, Russia is mulling over the possibility of ditching the traditional tank—as it is currently conceptualized—and considering adopting a machine that is much more capable of defending itself against missile-equipped infantry and engaging other vehicles at stand-off ranges with anti-tank missiles. Particularly, Russian experiences in Ukraine—where both sides are using upgraded Soviet-built tanks and anti-tank weapons—have shown that despite the best active, reactive and passive armor available, a tank will eventually be penetrated. “We discovered that no matter how skillful the crew, the tank would get up to ten hits,” Pukhov said during a luncheon at the Center for the National Interest in Washington, D.C.—which is the foreign policy think-tank that publishes The National Interest—on July 26. “Even if you have perfect armor—active, passive. In one case it will save you from one hit, in another case from two hits, but you’ll still get five hits and you’re done. That’s why now you’re supposed to have some kind of Tank 2.0.” The Tank 2.0, as Pukhov describes it, is not the T-14 Armata—which despite its advanced unmanned turret and active protection systems—is still a more or less a conventional tank design. “I know Russians are thinking about this new tank and this tank is not Armata,” Pukhov said. “It’s what we call among us Boyevaya Mashina Podderzhki Tankov [Tank Support Fighting Machine]—but in fact it’s not a Podderzhki Tankov, but which can protect itself. So there is a serious debate about it.” Later, during a one-on-one interview at the Center the same day, I asked Pukhov to elaborate on the Tank 2.0 concept. Pukhov said that traditionally, infantry has protected tanks—particularly in built up urban areas—but given the speed of modern armored vehicles, that is no longer possible in many cases. But while during previous eras tanks were more or less protected against weapons like rocket propelled grenades and anti-tank missiles, the latest generation of those weapons can punch through even the toughest armor. As an example, Pukhov cited a particular battle in Eastern Ukraine where—even when operating under ideal conditions—a tank force fighting under the banner of Kremlin-backed separatist forces was all but annihilated by rocket-propelled grenades. If even a small force of anti-tank missile-equipped infantry could decimate a tank column, the take-away for the Russians was that they needed to rethink the entire concept of the tank. “That’s why we have the concept of the Tank 2.0,” Pukhov said. “We have a prototype of this machine that’s called the fighting vehicle to support tank attack—Terminator.” There have been two versions of the Terminator concept that have been developed thus far. Another version that is based on the Armata chassis is said to be in development. “Russia also plans to develop its tank support fighting vehicle dubbed the Terminator-3 on the basis of the country’s latest Armata tanks,” Oleg Sienko, a senior manager with Uralvagonzavod Corporation told state-owned RIA Novosti earlier this year. “We will [produce them]. We have a concept for developing vehicles on the basis of the Armata platform.” The name Boyevaya Mashina Podderzhki Tankov is a misnomer, Pukhov said. The Terminator will not be supporting other tanks—it will be an entirely new type of tank in its own right. However, Pukhov said that while prototypes of the new vehicle exist, the concept still needs to be refined before it is ready for prime time. Particularly, refinements are needed in its sensor suite to maximize situational awareness without exposing the crew to incoming fire. “Unfortunately, neither the concept nor the technologies are ready,” Pukhov said. “But the era of new tanks is very close.” Michael Kofman, a research scientist specializing in Russian military affairs at CNA Corporation in Arlington, Virginia, said that he was skeptical about the Terminator’s prospects. “Neither of the two heavy tank support vehicles Russia has designed have been procured by either its own Ministry of Defense or anyone else—which should tell you something,” Kofman said. “How many Terminator 2s has UralVagonZavod sold? Zero.” If and when the Terminator is ultimately fielded, the vehicle would be able to engage large groups of massed infantry in built-up areas with a combination of missiles and automatic cannon fire. “We need it badly,” Pukhov said. “Believe it or not, we’re not going to project force, we need to protect our territory.” Originally appeared at The National Interest Poster Comment: John Conner If the problem is engaging infantry and not being hit by RPG's and TOW's the best way is to make IFV as compact and low profile as possible ,kind of ASU-57 chassis without 57 mm gun, armed with 30 mm grenade launcher, MG (and a lot of ammo) plus ATGM to engage enemy tanks and IFV's. Such vehicle would be light weight but still having enough armor against small arms fire, being hard to hit by autocannons/TOWs at long distance (average distance of IFV-to-IFV engagement is about 2 km) and being hard to hit by RPGs (it's exponentially harder to hit small vehicle than a tank from 200-300 distance) while having the same anti-infantry firepower as 30 mm autocannon(and ability of indirect fire at combat distances). https://s-media-cache-ak0.pini... A different kind of infantry. IDF could not handle that. John Connor /Kjell Hasthi • True but half of them are worn out after all those wars and second half is in storage having early 1980's electronics. But the point is that in terms of mechanized warfare, 10 million a piece heavy tank/Bradley IFV has the same effectiveness as 100k USD light weight tank hunter armed with 30 mm grenade launcher and ATGM's PS: Russians probably know their T-72B3 would get slaughtered by M1 Abrams tanks because Russian 125 mm gun can not defeat Abrams armor at long distance while every T-72B3 hit by 120 mm gun will result into spectacular instakill. Russians developed Armata with much stronger armor , but with the same useless 125 mm gun, so if Armata tanks try to engage Abrams tanks, it would be nothing but waiting for getting killed(most of the time). Life expentance of Russian tanks in tank-vs-tank engagement is like 1 minute at best.Russians should implement kind of "suicidal tactic" ,T-72B3's engaging IFV's (before getting killed by Abramses) to accomplish at least something, but that doesn't solve systemic problems with an idea of medium weight MBT's. PPS: gun launched ATGM's are cool but kind of pointless because nobody needs 5-10 million a piece tank to fire ATGM.Russian army needs to develop Spike ATGM analog (fire and forget IR guided top attack ATGM), place them on the side/back of turret while being launched primarily by commander, so during engagement gunner will engage enemy with a sabot rounds/laser guided ATGM's while commander will launch one "fire and forget" ATGM after another every 3 seconds. But after all ,simple and easy to make tracked light weight tank hunters will be still much more cost effective. Rif Kjell Hasthi • Russia only has around 1000 modern MBTs, the others that are not modernized are not worth anything on a modern battle field. Bob Valdez Rif • Not true. Older tanks have a use. During one particular battle in Russia, a notable German tank commander was captured, along with his fully functional Tiger 2 tank. When asked why he surrendered, he simply replied: "I ran out of ammunition before the Russians ran out of tanks." You don't understand Russian battlefield tactics. The Russian commanders would saturate the battlefield with older tanks to burn up the ammunition supplies of the enemy, then send in the "good" tanks to mop up once the enemy had no reply. Besides, 3 - 5 T72/T80's against 1 M1 wouldn't be a disaster. IF, and only IF, the Abrams survived the encounter, it would be so badly damaged as to be useless in further combat. Russian helicopters with AT missiles would decimate a fleet of Abrams in minutes..... Russian AT missiles are exceptionally good. american helicopters wouldn't be effective, as Russian KA58 attack helicopters and MANPADS would take them down easily (assuming nato attacked Rusian territory). KA58 easily out-manourvers the Cobra. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||