It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Will T-72 perform better under different geographic conditions?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 11:12 PM
link   
I'm wonding if the lighter russian "T" tanks will perform better than the heavy western tanks in certain geographic conditions.

I was reading an article talking about why china one equip its type99 tanks in northern china, and equip the less complicated type96 tanks in southern china.

It saids that type99 weighs 55 tons, the moist/softer soil in southern china cannot support its weight, so instead, PLA had to equip the lighter type96 in southern china, which weighs only 43 tons.

this makes me think about the performance of western tanks against russian tanks in the middle east.

most western designed tanks weigh around 65 tons, which adds a lot of armour pertections, as a results, the T-72s were unable to destroy the M1s form the front.

of course, with all the hard and moisture-lacking soil in the middle east, the more armour you add to your tank, the better.

but at the same time, more armour also adds more weight onto the tank

then what happen when geographic condition cannot support such weight?

then perhaps the lighter russian T tanks will perform better???

since by the time the western heavy weights will be trapped in mud, and its mobility.
tanks with low mobility can become easy targets for artilary fires and missiles.

T-72s weigh only 41 tons, compare to the western heavy weights, the T-72 have much less armour protection (25 tons less metal for protection), but I wonder if that will give those tanks a much better mobility on softer soils.

PS. other russian "T" series such as T-80 and T-90 share similar designs to the T-72s (more like T-72's upgrade versions).

[edit on 11/13/2006 by warset]




posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 01:05 AM
link   
WS,

>>
I'm wonding if the lighter russian "T" tanks will perform better than the heavy western tanks in certain geographic conditions.
>>

Sure. Shorten the LOS to typical European conditions of the central front through southern areas (Fulda through Hopf) and you end up with >
I was reading an article talking about why china one equip its type99 tanks in northern china, and equip the less complicated type96 tanks in southern china.

It saids that type99 weighs 55 tons, the moist/softer soil in southern china cannot support its weight, so instead, PLA had to equip the lighter type96 in southern china, which weighs only 43 tons.
>>

Tanks all tend to have relatively low weight-per-meter footprints relative to wheeled vehicles. These can absorb some pretty big changes in overall weight without losing ability to maintain navigability overall. One exception being really fine sand like you find in parts of the Gobi. Ooops. Guess where that is.

The reason the Chinese have 'good tanks' in the North is because that's where the Koreans, their own Capital and the bloody Russians are.

>>
This makes me think about the performance of western tanks against russian tanks in the middle east.
>>

Manned by arab tankers without clue one as to how to logisticate a maneuver campaign in the great wide nothin' of your typical 'xeriscape'. Thus stuck out in the open and devasted FROM THE AIR because you can't hide a snake's bleep out there.

Of course we all know the Russians send crap to their 'monkey force' client states so it's all good anyway.

>>
Most western designed tanks weigh around 65 tons, which adds a lot of armour pertections, as a results, the T-72s were unable to destroy the M1s form the front.
>>

Shock and Maneuver. You hit a threat on the move with only scratch forces to put up against your own overwhelming breakout numbers and you double the likelihood that you will hit them, not once, but many times. From all quarters. Particularly in close conditions, Fires only counts on the gunnery range, don't let nobody tell you different. Sustainability of operational initiative means /everything/.

>>
Of course, with all the hard and moisture-lacking soil in the middle east, the more armour you add to your tank, the better.
>>

Air and RT rules the desert bucky. Though the numbers needed to penetrate area and terminal defenses may go up, that's never gonna change.

>>
But at the same time, more armour also adds more weight onto the tank.
>>

Don't obsess over Armor. A single stick of dynamite, properly placed, can get a mobility or functional kill on any tank ever freakin' made. That's why EFPs work. That's why RPGs work.

Dump every ounce of armor you have, concentrate on speed, numbers and delayed initial contact/servicing by BOTH direct and indirect fires in an intelligent-optics based system built around a 35-45mm Bushmaster on the back of a Wiesel type minitank or a 200lb charge on a Super Goliath. And you will completely overwhelm any manned armor system on the planet.

No questions. No doubt.

>>
Then what happen when geographic condition cannot support such weight?
>>

Do you /really/ think that a force which spends MONTHS 'gaining permission' is not going to use that prep time to create the most optimum route plans and combined arms solutions to any given tactical problem?

>>
Then perhaps the lighter russian T tanks will perform better???
>>

The problem with Russian tanks is that they are crewed by patriotic cowards. Patriots in peace see their asses handed to them in war and quickly decide they don't want to be tankers anymore. You cannot and SHOULD NOT attempt to overcome an extant training and total-systems ('infowar' + spectrum dominance + air) superiority. When you can say "Screw you pal! I ain't gonna pay you a salary so your wife can get knocked up and you can still be a continuing currency bleed on my national budget!" Because as soon as you pull 'the hero' from the battlefield, ANY man can replace him as a trained tactical coordinator by virtue of not having to worry about his performance under fire. Indeed, your tactical options may INCREASE because you can slaughter your own and still 'make more' on a cost:cost exchange ratio basis.

Sooner or later an armed force run by intelligent men will do exactly this and they will so humiliate their 'tradtions and honor' opponent that everyone will be forced to view their vaunted muzzle mutts as exactly the kind of federal dole handout to instinctive killers that they are. No longer morally or physically superior to you or me because their 'best of the best' is no longer 'good enough' when compared to a median perfomance machine.

>>
Since by the time the western heavy weights will be trapped in mud, and its mobility.
>>

Armies train for mud all the time. It is no joke that you start in the loaders chair, move to the drivers seat and then go gunner/commander. ALL of our basic armor courses in Kentucky and Texas deal with terrain conditions. Because those are what a smart commander 'reads' in dealing with the disposition of his unit. And unlike the 'licensed operator' elitist officer-union of the Air Farce, a TC may very well have been a driver once himself.

>>
Tanks with low mobility can become easy targets for artilary fires and missiles.
>>

This is the first thing you have said which makes sense but the reality remains that, compared to shells and missiles, ALL tanks are 'low mobility'. Why wait for a rainstorm?

>>
T-72s weigh only 41 tons, compare to the western heavy weights, the T-72 have much less armour protection (25 tons less metal for protection), but I wonder if that will give those tanks a much better mobility on softer soils.

PS. other russian "T" series such as T-80 and T-90 share similar designs to the T-72s (more like T-72's upgrade versions).
>>

Blah blah blah. Heroes in peacetime, cowards in war. Humans have long since, either directly or by envy of a better life, lost the ability to go 'over the top' simply so that they may soak a bullet intended for the man behind them. Fail to acknowledge this and you fail to make the TRUE cost:benefit fractional exchange by which an initial force investment lets you defeat a conventional warfighter.

Of course this then leads to the next obvious question: Armies are intended to pay for themselves by taking what their opponent loses. If the cost of supporting your own quality of living is increasingly 'socialized wellfare' intensive AND the morals you listen to, internally or externally to your national needs prevent you from _owning_ what you take in combat. Then what is the point of having an armed force which never rewards you and cannot /protect you/ from the dangers of globe trotting terrorists with more access to 'naughty chemistry' on the cleaning supply aisle of a grocery store than he can -beg or buy- in his own slimeball part of the world?

That's where the Chinese are beating the tar out of us. Because we live in the paranoia of a world-cop scenario like a bull moose that missed the final climactic encounter of the Cold War rutting season with the Russians.

And again, everyone with an ounce of brains able to see beyond PC images of broadcast media KNOWS IT.

Because we should _own_ Iraq as a literal illustration of what happens when you screw with U.S., even a little. And thanks to our 'mercy' to a defeated enemy civillian populace, we never will.

Empires cannot live on kindness or mercy. So they'd better not try to support militaries which have no use in taking what they can't hold.


KPl.



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 04:46 AM
link   
Few points about T-72 series tanks:
Pros
1)The main is or can made compatible with all modern 125mm rounds, so penetrating western armour is not a problem. Scoring a hit is.
2)Built-up and forrested areas found in nothern and eastern europe have a normal line of sight less than 500m and max LOS in around 800m as Kpi said
3)T-72 has very low silhuette, making it an ideal ambush tank

Cons
1)They are bit*hes to maintain, some of the drivetrain and electrical components are health hazards if changed improperly, they contain loads of asbestos etc.


Additional point, It's pure adrenaline rush to ride on top of a T-72 doing 70Km/h across an bouncy target range. And there is next to tothing where you can get a good grip at the turret, NSVT hammering to your chest isn't nice



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 04:53 AM
link   
CAS will make up for any shortcomings that terrain might force upon a tank. Especially in the future when you can buzz the air with hundreds of autonomous one way UCAVs which will lock and drive themselves right to the turret, forest cover and everything.



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 09:30 AM
link   
I was thinking about the japanese T90 too, rather than simply copy the giant german leopard2, they minimized the tank to a much lighter weight (the actual design still looks almost identical to Leo2a4, eventhough the japanese T90s are much smaller).
I wonder if that have some thing to do with the geographic condition too.

and perhaps in vietnam too, the huge western tank can easily get trapped in the muddy woods where as the lighter russian tanks can still move around, and like someone said, their small size also make them ideal for ambush.

----------------------------------

look at this monster, i'm sure it is unstopable in iraq where there is barely any vegetation and covers, but all soild grounds. But what about in other places such as vietnam or siberia? I doubt it would perform as good as in places like Iraq or Afghanistan.


[edit on 11/14/2006 by warset]



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 09:50 AM
link   
BTW
I've heard "rumors" that LEO2 and T-72 can pretty much go to the same places, only difference in mobility is the higher speed of T-72 and even that is questionable in rough terrain since LEOs engine is more powerful...



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by northwolf
BTW
I've heard "rumors" that LEO2 and T-72 can pretty much go to the same places, only difference in mobility is the higher speed of T-72 and even that is questionable in rough terrain since LEOs engine is more powerful...


but the newer version of russian T tanks also have powerful engines, but still with much less weight.

the experience PLA had with their ZTZ99s is that they can't run in places where the soft soil can't support its weight. both ZTZ99 and Leo2 uses 1500hp engine, but leo2 is nearly 10 tons heavier than ZTZ99. this makes Leo2 better protected, but less mobile in certain conditions.

now, back to russian T series, the newer T tanks also have powerful engine (1000hp), but remain light weight(45 tons). I wonder if the russian tanks will actually perform better in places with a lot of rains and vegetations? it's not about whether the engine can make the tank go, it's rather whether the ground can support the weight of the tank.

[edit on 11/14/2006 by warset]



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Warset,

What Northwolf was hinting at in his suggested need for new kidneys and teeth is simply that _speed of maneuver means squat all_ if it doesn't match to the ability to direct the tank team and target the tube.

Tanks move in short lunges between start-end point objective goals if not covered fighting positions when at all possible. Tanks are best when NOT used as main force exponents, especially at close LOS, because units just get intermixed and conflicted while losing cohesion and direction of advance.

Defensively and when outnumbered especially, you use tanks to /shape/ the battlefield, forcing the threat into a channelized breakout that they THINK they own the nature of.

And then you butcher them with DPICM or TGSM or the CAS equivalent.

Desert fighting is an exception to the rule given that you can typically stop on one horizon line and (if your optics can handle it after a 4hr drive without boresight collimation) shoot at targets on the other. Even here, you often find yourself running through a little fold in the terrain and ending up doing a 73 Easting type playout.

Which is why armor units have sacrificial cavalry teams playing 'lead scout' toe stubber.

That said, the most lethal threat you can face is one who will play the small-unit _maneuver_ fight with you because it typically means his people have a point to prove in their own sense of pro-capability and as a part of this, they may also know the terrain well enough to make a meeting engagement literally 'turn' to their favor based on individual tank fire and team maneuver on the move with their own fixed ambush shooters (IMO, heavy ATGW is more dangerous up close than far away, just on SACLOS flight times, laser systems are a little better but in this case should be designed to outright replace main tubes, not augment them) on shoot'n'scoot jeeps or light AFV.

In the close-in conditioned fight, you DO NOT want to have a half assed solution to the direct fires game like ATGW with range and mode limits or an autoloader that is picky about barrel index on reload rates. Better to have enough armor to be confident in your shooting and put a lot of emphasis on avoiding the short halt mentality of hitting target 'as they come to bear' rather than via a fixed sector arc. So that you can push to and through an unphased objective/hasty attack or defensive response with little or no direct coordination.

It's still bloody but it tends to favor the side with the better tanks overall.

The problem is that ALL of the above still depends on the notion of men surviving a battle rather than robots surviving X# of kills. If you have a given need to see your family again, you don't tend to play into a fight faster or closer than you can get out of it. And the limitations of each vehicle is seldom more than the human synergy employing it to a 'better man wins' outcome.

If you only want to duck-and-weave so that you can get /somebody/ close enough to put light cannon rounds into an engine compartment. Or a bomb underneath track, a robot, in numbers, will defeat all manned systems just on the shortest-route basis of linear engaging from a deliberately closer start range than it can survive and indeed -after- the threat is fully or partially past the point of being able to turn and commit on individual point targets engaging it's flanks.

'Small Tanks' then are going to weigh 5-10 tons tops, stand no more than 6-7 feet tall, maneuver at 70-90mph on wheels as much as treads, and have little more than HMG and LAW capable defensive protection and that probably only across the frontal arc.

And they will slaughter every manned AFV on the battlefield.


KPl.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join