ZRaver: I don't disagree with you, but there's two factors adding to the value of soldiers in Western societies absent in Communist countries. With a lot of opportunities for advancement, being a soldier is not exactly a prestigious or well-paying job, making it difficult to recruit and replace battle casualties, and we're more sensitive about battle casualties, as their parents, wives, and childrens happen to be voters. So would you agree that a Western soldier's life has a higher value in the West than in the FSR?
New Type98/99 MBT thread
- Thread starter Dongfeng
- Start date
Inst,
I don't know where you picked up on the view that being a soilder is not very prestigious. I know I never thought I was going into a lesser career, I was proud and was treated with respect. Also some western countries still use the draft so again I cannot give an informed comment.
My comments were based soley on the military value of the crew in combat.
the best examples of how important a good crew is would be the Arab Israeli wars or Operation Barbarossa.
Arab vs Israel tank on tank the IDF ussally trounced the Arabs hands down evne when the Arabs had better tanks. This was due solely to the differanc ein training. The only real expcetion being the Royal Jordanian tankers who gave as good as they got vs the IDF in several clashes. The RJA was trained along western lines and held itslef to the same proffesional standards of performance.
In Barbarossa pathetically undergunned, under armored, mechanically complex pieces of junk with elite crews and leaders vs T-34's and KV-1's with poor crews and leaders.
Challenge,
I do not doubt the gun can hit at 3000M. after all it does have a computerized FCS and uses less draggy spool type sabot.
What I doubt is its ability to penetrate the frontal armor of a western style MBT at that range or even 1/3 that range.
I don't know where you picked up on the view that being a soilder is not very prestigious. I know I never thought I was going into a lesser career, I was proud and was treated with respect. Also some western countries still use the draft so again I cannot give an informed comment.
My comments were based soley on the military value of the crew in combat.
the best examples of how important a good crew is would be the Arab Israeli wars or Operation Barbarossa.
Arab vs Israel tank on tank the IDF ussally trounced the Arabs hands down evne when the Arabs had better tanks. This was due solely to the differanc ein training. The only real expcetion being the Royal Jordanian tankers who gave as good as they got vs the IDF in several clashes. The RJA was trained along western lines and held itslef to the same proffesional standards of performance.
In Barbarossa pathetically undergunned, under armored, mechanically complex pieces of junk with elite crews and leaders vs T-34's and KV-1's with poor crews and leaders.
Challenge,
I do not doubt the gun can hit at 3000M. after all it does have a computerized FCS and uses less draggy spool type sabot.
What I doubt is its ability to penetrate the frontal armor of a western style MBT at that range or even 1/3 that range.
one reason why ryssian sabot round has high velocity drop was her large fin,newer sabot round from both Russia and China has smaller fin.
Challenge, thats what I just said
I do not doubt the gun can hit at 3000M. after all it does have a computerized FCS and uses less draggy spool type sabot.
Older Russian desings used the bore-riding ring style sabot. To keep the round aligned in the barrel it required large fins that phycically touched the barrel. Thes ecreated signifigant drag and would cause a loss of energy IIC of upto 20% per 1km.
Western style or spool sabots used a sabot shaped like a thimble that gave two spaced points of contact inside the barrel allowing the penetrator itself to use much smaller fins and thus preserving energy.
The big handicaps now are the shorter penetrator leangth and lighter round weight.
I do not doubt the gun can hit at 3000M. after all it does have a computerized FCS and uses less draggy spool type sabot.
Older Russian desings used the bore-riding ring style sabot. To keep the round aligned in the barrel it required large fins that phycically touched the barrel. Thes ecreated signifigant drag and would cause a loss of energy IIC of upto 20% per 1km.
Western style or spool sabots used a sabot shaped like a thimble that gave two spaced points of contact inside the barrel allowing the penetrator itself to use much smaller fins and thus preserving energy.
The big handicaps now are the shorter penetrator leangth and lighter round weight.
I think it's overly simplistic to explain the Israeli and German victories in the examples you've provided just with superior crews.
In the 1973 war, the Israelis only started to turn the tide, when the Egyptian Army (against it's own better judgement) ordered it's armoured units to advance beyond the cover of it's SAM shield (12 km beyond the Suez Canal) in order to relieve the pressure on the Syrians.
The Germans at the start of the war against Russia, had vast numerical superiority at the chosen points of action. The T-34 was not present in the border regions and was only begining to enter service with selected units. The first encounter the Germans had with a T-34 was on the way to Moscow and was a total shock to them. A single T-34 ran amok for about 40 km behind German lines, before being knocked out by a large caliber artillery piece.
........
Regarding the supposed invulnerability of western style armour, how do you explain the dozens of knocked out Merkava's in the recent Lebanon conflict?
Even several Merkava-4s were knocked out and they are reputedly the best protected tank in the world......in some cases by 20+ year old RPG-29s
just a question is there a 2A46MS tank gun ? , or maybe a typo in the articles i'll read
The 2A46M-5 in 51-52- or 55 calibers arms the newest versions of the T-80 and t-90 class of tanks. They are made with better machining, mateials, and have an improved autoloader and loading hoists that has allowed penetrators upto 560mm in leangth
Hussar,
Look at the great encirclement battles around kiev and Smolensk. These victories were do entirely to the superior crews of the panzers. Also the Germans encountered the KV-1 from the first day. IIRC the first one encoutnered was a KV outside of Brest-Livtosk. There is a great deal of confusion in this area becuase so many records were lost during and at the end of the war and post war Soviet desire to reduce the sheer scope of thier failures by giving the Germans an inflated capability by reducing the amount equipmen they faced. A quick googling shows july 31 as the first use of a T-34. This is barely more than a month into Barbarossa and well before Moscow.
Again IIRC correclty you are referrign to a encounter between a T-34 and a German infantry formation. Since the heaviest anti-tank guns were the 37mm and 28mm the infantry had little chance on stopping. The tank I beleive over ran the divsional CP and a Luftwaffe flak unit had to be brought up to engage it over open sights.
Hussar,
Look at the great encirclement battles around kiev and Smolensk. These victories were do entirely to the superior crews of the panzers. Also the Germans encountered the KV-1 from the first day. IIRC the first one encoutnered was a KV outside of Brest-Livtosk. There is a great deal of confusion in this area becuase so many records were lost during and at the end of the war and post war Soviet desire to reduce the sheer scope of thier failures by giving the Germans an inflated capability by reducing the amount equipmen they faced. A quick googling shows july 31 as the first use of a T-34. This is barely more than a month into Barbarossa and well before Moscow.
Again IIRC correclty you are referrign to a encounter between a T-34 and a German infantry formation. Since the heaviest anti-tank guns were the 37mm and 28mm the infantry had little chance on stopping. The tank I beleive over ran the divsional CP and a Luftwaffe flak unit had to be brought up to engage it over open sights.
other factor was quality of the gun tube,according to steven zaloga,most Soviet tank gun has a low life span,design primary to take out 1000 meter target,beyond 1500~2000 meter the accuracy drop significantly. by contrast most NATO tank gun better machine,hence accurate even at 2000 meter,but in soviet combat experience that's no problem,most tank to tank battle were engage below 1500 meter,some time even lower. even in open ground like steppes or in the open desert, few week after the 1973 arab israel war, israeli tankers told amercian military attache "trying to find 1000 meter range tank target is just like trying to find a fly in the wall"
but it was not until the arrival IR imaging camera allow the tanker to see or engage 2km target. (provided that the other side to open up there engine)
but it was not until the arrival IR imaging camera allow the tanker to see or engage 2km target. (provided that the other side to open up there engine)
actually most israeli tanks were lost primary to ATGM,while arab lost was opposite,to tank fire.
The Soviets suffered crushing defeats at the start of the war and it's a testimony to their resilience that the Germans failed to knock them out of the war right at the start. The extent of the losses can mainly be attributed to Stalin's insistence on holding ground at all costs, allowing whole armies to be encircled.
The same can be said about the German campaign of 1940 in the west. The French and British had superior heavy tanks, yet all of western Europe fell within a matter of weeks.
The Wehrmacht was arguably, the best Army of modern times and it was defeated on the Eastern Front, by an Army that entered the war practically headless (pre-war purges; with survivors largely perishing during Barbarossa)