gatnerd

Military Guns and Ammunition

Hosted by gatnerd

This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.

  • 3337
    MEMBERS
  • 189724
    MESSAGES
  • 13
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Ukraine weapons thread   General Military Discussion

Started 24-Feb by gatnerd; 137842 views.
schnuersi

From: schnuersi

1-Jul

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

We have seen Leopards2 in action in Syria , couple of weeks in against in a minor skirmish against nonstate actors without Javelins left a dozen or so smoldering wrecks and even some captured by ISIS

It wasn't a dozen but exactly eight,
These also where not turned into smoldering wrecks but mission killed by ATGM hits. The Leopards have been destroyed by the Turks themself because they could not recover the tanks. In several cases they conducted an airstrike onto the abandoned vehicles. This is what tore them appart.
Concidering the fact that the Leopard 2 in question was the A4 model, it was badly used by the Turkish army (yes allmost Russian army level bad) and it was fired at by a pretty modern ATGM designed to kill Leopards the tank performed quite impressive. Crew losses have been minimal. Had the Turks gotten their shit togeather they could have recovered the tanks and repair them. The damage was moderate in all cases. Not a single tank was captured.
The survivability of Leopards and especially their crews in combat has been prooven to be orders of magnitude better than any soviet design that is based on the T-64 concept.

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

Its not like any of these have any protection to top attack ATGMs .

Its not only the top attack weapons that make soviet designs brew up. Basically anything that penetrates into the fighting compartment does.
I have seen footage of short range fire with 30 mm AC doing that. If attacked from the side and hit in the suspension area a 30 mm can penetrate a T-72 and all of its versions and successors. The protection of the lower hull side plates has never been improved. Anything that gets trough there in the middle part of the tank immediatly enters the ammo carousel.
This is also why so many RPGs and LAWs are so effective. Hits aimed low at the side will most likely cause a K-kill. There is no known case of this happening to a western 3rd generation MBT.

JPeelen

From: JPeelen

1-Jul

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

What we are seeing from Ukraine is an absolute propaganda win.

No, What we are seeing from Ukraine is a totally unexpected military success in standing up to an attack that in modern European history can only compared to Hitlers and Stalins combined attack on Poland in 1939. (OK, it was not really combined. Stalin waited until the Nazi's military victory over Poland became obvious and then started his attack. Modern Polands eastern border is what Hitler and Stalin agreed upon.)       

Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

1-Jul

Now that is some 1st rate BS by with all the excuses on what is a tank killed 

Mission kill and a smoldering wreck after turks bombed or after ISIS threw in an explosive charge it is still a smoldering wreck and tank lost  . You could make exact same excuses for bunch of Russian armor lost in Ukraine , mission kills, stuck in mud, abandoned without fuel, blown up after the fact, etc not being able to recover that tanks, its still a lost tank.  Had the Turks/Russians got thier shit together........ How do you know what crew losses were in Russian tanks , in most of the vids you still see 2-3crew members jump out after the tank is hit and brewing up is often post all the action ........ similar claim to Turks bombing lost gear could be said for the T-90MS that was supposedly killed with Carl Gustav in the longer less edited video its one of the Russian tanks that blows it up with the shot from the rear at near point blank after they abandon it........   but that are all excuses tank s still lost.

Leo2a4 is what most users still have and its still a decade newer gen tank to T72 , its like you would say ''but you know T72B123 is not the same as T90MS'' or whatever the latest derivative of the T72 is .

How much combat against state actors let alone near peer equipment have western 3rd gen MBTs aside from M1 seen 0 ? Like said Leopards first outing left 8 tanks killed out of how many? that fought non state actor equipped with TOW at Al bab? 12-20? How many were there so we can estimate the loss ratio?

I am not claiming T72 or T90 are better tanks than Leopard 2 , but like said folks pretend like somehow magically 3rd gen western MBTs let alone APCs and IFVs wouldn't end up at least a mission kill if not a toal loss  after every single Javelin or NLAW hit and most other non top attack ATGMs hitting just about anything but maybe frontal arc.

Farmplinker

From: Farmplinker

1-Jul

YouTuber LazerPig has shown the truth with his "LazerPig Loop".

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

1-Jul

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

Now that is some 1st rate BS by with all the excuses on what is a tank killed

You don't seem to have gotten my point.
It was not to argue the eight lost Leos away. But to put them into perspective. And yes I do see a difference between a tank being hit by an LAW and its turret reaching the stratosphere, entire crew lost and a mission kill after taking a Kornet into the turret side, entire crew survived.
Also no I do not count tanks abandoned in the Ukraine due to lack of fuel as kills. They are lost yes. Killed no. There is a difference.

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

Leo2a4 is what most users still have

Actually no. Most Leo2 in use today are A5 and later versions. There are only a few A4s left.

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

but you know T72B123 is not the same as T90MS'' or whatever the latest derivative of the T72 is .

Oh I would say that because its basically true. T-90 is just a modernised T-72. Not a new tank. The capabilities of the T-72B3 are virtually identical to the T-90M.

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

but like said folks pretend like somehow magically 3rd gen western MBTs let alone APCs and IFVs wouldn't end up at least a mission kill if not a toal loss after every single Javelin or NLAW hit and most other non top attack ATGMs hitting just about anything but maybe frontal arc.

This is not the point. The point is the chances of the crew to get out alive are orders of magnitude greater. Same with the chance for the tank to be recovered and repaired.
Nobody thinks a Western MBT is invulnurable. The have taken conciderable abuse and punishment in the past and brough their crew home though. Can the same be said for the Soviet designs?
Perspective and context matter. NLAW and Javelin are conciderable more modern than the upgraded 3rd gen MBTs. It can be expected that such weapons are effective. As mentioned the Kornet to the turret side M-killed the Leopard immediately. But the crew survived and the tank as such was still there and could have been recovered. What happens to a T-72, T-80 or T-90 when it takes a Kornet missile to the turret side. If the main armor module is not struck just like it happened to the Leopard. An A4 a '90 vintage version. So how would a '90 vintage version of the T-72 or T-80 compare. Do you think the crew would get out alive and the tank remain in recoverable condition?

It is a simple fact that the Soviet design philosophy did not focus on survivablility by protection of the individual vehicle or crew. This is why everything that came after the T-64 and shared the same concept behaves that way. Western designs are different in this regard. This is why they behave different.

Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

1-Jul

On this part we can somewhat agree  . Designs used a different philosophy in the 60-70's when T64 and then T72 were designed, not that they did not care for protection, rather they considered ammo stowed in the hull floor carousel as safely tucked under armor 

Like you mentioned before its not the carousel but the reloads in the crew space that pose the most danger. Those 'reloads' are the ones they moved out of the hull inthe T90MS , But likely more that just that is the fact that they chose to design ammo around semi-combustible cases doesn't help either.

Mustrakrakis

From: Mustrakrakis

1-Jul

Yes.  The only gear that seems to be working as advertised (when not operated by improperly trained morons) is what arrived there from the west.  The other stuff is mostly shit, and has been mostly shit for a long time.  When it's not designed to be shit, it's built to shit standards.

It annoys me that we have to keep relearning this lesson every decade or so.  And by "we," I mean basically everyone not highly placed in the western military industrial complex.  I'm fairly sure that they've known it all along.

Mustrakrakis

From: Mustrakrakis

2-Jul

Their logistics have historically always been terrible.  I was going to say at least as far back as WWII, but now that I think about it, it goes back even further than that.  That's just not something that they do well.  As for tactics and operations...well, I'm no mind reader (none of us are), but I suspect that the Russian Federation's upper management was quite surprised and Kiev didn't wave the flag and welcome them in after being encircled.  I don't think that was Russia's only plan, but I do think that it was their Plan A.  It's not like they didn't have a Plan B or a Plan C.  They're not morons.

It does make sense to discuss weapon system strengths and weaknesses when pictures of inverted tank turrets in upstairs bedrooms are appearing on Turret Tossing Olympics threads on various forums.  The tankies here had assured me several years ago that this wasn't a thing anymore, for a variety of reasons that apparently weren't factual.  I mean, I understand the tradeoffs involved with some autoloader designs, but the reactive armor was supposed to make sure that this didn't happen in the first place.  I had also been told here by the very same tankies that western ATGM's sucked, and were ineffective against proper reactive armor.

What of the Moskva?  She was a beast.  Her job was to steam over to an American battlegroup, spam a "wall of skill" antishipping missile barrage at it, and then haul ass in the other direction while having a reasonable chance of surviving the deluge of missiles, bombs, and aircraft that would be sent in retaliation.  Her antimissile and antiaircraft capabilities had redundancies for redundancies.  And what was the result?  Even with the oppressive amount of western intel being funneled to Ukraine, that shouldn't have been possible.  I've heard it suggested that their sailors are as bad as their tanks, but I don't believe that.  I don't believe that the people are bad.  When you're in the military and at war, if you're bad at your job, you die.  You're directly motivated to do a good job, and to continually learn how to do your job better.  That's how you survive.  Your equipment, unfortunately, is out of your control, and I suspect that Moskva ended up where she did because her AA systems, in whole or in part, were not performing to spec...because if they had been, Ukraine didn't have enough missiles to sink her.

I think it's mostly garbage.  Russia publicly pushed the effectiveness of its equipment because publicly pushing the ineffectiveness of your equipment is not a sound strategy.  The west (primarily driven by the arms industry and the politicians, which are joined at the hip) also pushed the effectiveness of Russia's equipment, because you don't get defense funding if you don't have a credible enemy.  It was all an elaborate act of theater.

Mustrakrakis

From: Mustrakrakis

2-Jul

Not great.  That's a big part of my argument, and what I'm seeking to remind people of with my monkey model comments.  They were all monkey models.

I feel like I'm coming across as shitting on Russia.  I'm not.  Russia is a huge country with extensive natural resources that's plagued by a small population and a correspondingly small economy.  They're a global power by virtue of sitting on a nuclear arsenal, they have an extensive stockpile of what's essentially Vietnam War era equipment, they have aspirations of global influence, and most of the world didn't like them for whatever reasons (including a lot of the countries buying gas from them), even before Ukraine.  They just don't have the wealth to put it together.  Getting them into NATO in the 90's was a missed opportunity.  We'd all be happier now if that had happened.

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

2-Jul

Mustrakrakis said:

I was going to say at least as far back as WWII

Actually WW2 and the immediate post war era was the highpoint of Soviet/Russian logistics. Mostly because the US stuffed the full of truck, locomotives, fuel etc. They also did not have the deal with sea transport. The Americans handled it for them.
During the Cold War they compensated by having the majority of their troops stationed less than a half day combat march away from their operational objectives.

Mustrakrakis said:

It does make sense to discuss weapon system strengths and weaknesses when pictures of inverted tank turrets in upstairs bedrooms are appearing on Turret Tossing Olympics threads on various forums.

Yes it does. Because the question is why this is happening.
As usual the answer is complex and there are several key factors. Also keep in mind that what can be seen on the internet is out of context and only a very narrow view.

Mustrakrakis said:

Her antimissile and antiaircraft capabilities had redundancies for redundancies.

No they did not. That is one of the reasons why it sunk.

Mustrakrakis said:

that shouldn't have been possible

I think you are missining the point. You yourself a few lines above wrote a summary of the mission profile a Slava Class cruiser was designed for. Has it been used in that way? Its a ship design from the '70 designed and build for a specific and very special purpose. It was used completly the wrong way. Sending it to basically perform litoral combat in threatened waters was a dumb idea. The main weapon suits of the Moskva have been unsuitable for the mission. Basically its a glass cannon or a one use system. Its there to move in attack position on a major ocean and saturate a target with heavy AShMs. What happens to the ship once it fired its load is an afterthought.
Its basically the same problem as with most Soviet era equipment. The design parameters assumed a very specific mode of opperation. This resulted in quite specialised but comparable optimised designs. For example the lower weight and size of the Soviet MBTs. Lauded since forever. But it came at the expense of flexibility. If the mode of opperation was not as intended the effectivness of the systems is massively reduced.
 

Mustrakrakis said:

It was all an elaborate act of theater.

No it was playing it safe.
You also should keep in mind that with the latest gear in several cases Russia is not the main user. This is true for the T-90 for example. How these perform is largely unknown to the wider public. We know they are not the stars of the turret tossing shows. Actually so far only one video of a T-90 being scuttled appeard and it was made quite a big deal. We also know that modern ATGMs or not the Russian army is putting immense pressure on UA and are gaining territorry. Once the fighting stops we will get reliable and detailed information over time. Currently its extremly difficult to make good acessments.

TOP