T-90 tank documentary (2014 in Russian)

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

its probably worth looking at how many are deployed forward in Germany and in the WMD.

 

Perhaps.  But speaking in terms of ability to get tanks to the fight, if someone's going to make a few Armor brigades magic into theater, it's going to be the US.

 

Further his statement was to the economy of the T-90 and how that allowed for greater numbers of T-90s.  There's no greater number of T-90s, and I do not consider Russia being next door to the Ukraine to be really a design feature of the T-90 which sort of nudges it out of the realm of strictly tank vs tank. 

 

 

 

With modern anti tank weapons available to the infantry, attack helicopters and guided munitions, there are far too many variables to apply any lessons from WW2 tank v tank losses anyway 

 

It's interesting to look at loss breakdowns across conflicts.  Tanks are, and likely remain the most potent anti-tank weapons oddly enough.  Most of the other systems are more to prevent tanks being an "I Win" card vs realistically tackle armor in a tank-hunter sort of role.

[Sulman]

The T-90 surely inherited shortcomings from its predecessors, but Russians have shown themselves to be remarkably effective at rapid and innovative engineering, and they know how to fight. They're also not scared of losses; at least historically.

[Stagler]

Its not just a case of magicking armoured brigades into theatre the Russians have an extensive rail network built and maintained by railway troops to ensure such mass movement of forces from east to west is efficient. The Russians would have numbers on their side initially as they are remarkably efficient at masking intentions and moving troops into staging areas to attack without warning. The concept of Maskirovka is well practiced and adhered to to maintain strategic suprise and capture the tactical initiative. You would expect to face down the best part of 400 T-90 roughly in the first week or few days of fighting.

As for the long term however, as NATO forces moved into Ukraine to support, and came from further afield like flew into Germany if the conflict dragged on, the US could eventually concentrate more armour in europe and drive it east. 

 

This should be reflected in QB rarity as well I think, the first few months, rarity of US tanks should be high, getting to loose rarity in the third month of the conflict as US forces arrive in theatre.

 

Just to reiterate my opinion on this matter, Abrams > T-90 definately - althought ingame I think the price of each should be adjusted accordingly, as it stands you cant get as many T-90A to take on an equal "points worth" of M1A2

Edited March 17, 2015 by Stagler

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

This should be reflected in QB rarity as well I think, the first few months, rarity of US tanks should be high, getting to loose rarity in the third month of the conflict as US forces arrive in theatre.

 

I think they left the amount of armor units in theater ambiguous intentionally.   Looking through the scenario there's simply mention of a mechanized unit on training rotation.  This could be anything from the current CAB sized training vehicle pool with flown in forces, to an entire Armored Brigade.  Then the follow on stuff is pretty much left at "stuff is arriving in theater at increasing rates.  The fact is if you've got a US armored unit colliding with a Russian armored unit in Ukraine, locally at the Company-Battalion level, M1A2s won't be especially rare.

[Sublime]

On reflection i apologize for derailing the thread and.to police officer here. My life is.my.life. but.i was rude and i apologize

[Krasnoarmeyets]

As for the long term however, as NATO forces moved into Ukraine to support, and came from further afield like flew into Germany if the conflict dragged on, the US could eventually concentrate more armour in europe and drive it east.

Actually, that has been of long interest to me - what are US mobilization plans and capabilities beyond the current standing force? As far as I understand, there are 11 Army and 2 National Guard ABCTs for a total force of about 1200 MBTs. Of course, there are additional vehicles in the training centers and forward deployment prepositioning around the world (not to mention several thousands more in storage), but my main curiosity relates to the availability of personnel: can US field additional ABCT-equivalent units within a short to medium timeframe (up to 6-8 months)? Are there provisions to track personnel with relevant training that get transferred to less capable formations (SBCT, IBCT), Army reserve, or retire; and to recall them on short notice (and can retired soldiers be reactivated without reinstituting the draft)?

Edited March 17, 2015 by Krasnoarmeyets

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

There's systems to plus up units as required.  Some of these were exercised in the War on Terror nonsense were they took active duty instructors out of training centers, and replaced them with "contractors" (who were generally retired senior NCOs too old or too broken to send back to war, great subject matter experts, 30 years of experience sort of folks....just worn out and showing all the results of being a tanker/scout/infantryman for those 30 years*)

 

So school house units can be scraped for trained replacements.  Also there's a system of "Active" reserve units which are whole generally support units called to action to support military operations that might not be so important in peacetime** but there is also the "Individual Ready Reserve" which basically is a soldier on a recall list, if we're short on 19K 30 series MOS dudes, we've got a lengthy list of folks to call back and put through refresher training.

 

In terms of building new ABCTs, I don't think anyone can sustain a war these days long enough to field a from the ground up new unit.  This is not 1943, the mechanical complexity, and expense of ammunition alone is sufficient to make a long war pretty ruinous, and the industrial capacity to ramp up just is not there any more.  Any war will be settled by folks more or less available within months of the start of the conflict, and it's worth noting we're not at the point of wars of national survival (or a successful hypothetical NATO offensive in the Ukraine to push the Russians out ends at the border, just as much as a successful Russian offensive is not going to pause before turning on Warsaw), the sort of national will and perceived realistic threat just is not there.

 

Re: ABCTs

 

It's also worth noting that while overall BCTs are getting reduced, most of the combat Battalions are simply being reassigned to other Brigades (so going from the template being a Cav Squadron+2 CABs, to 3 CABs +larger artillery battalion and engineering elements)

 

*This was especially true at Armor Officer's course circa 2008 when I went through, we had real army folks for the tactics instruction and evaluations, but all the technical stuff was done by a cadre of retired tankers and scouts.  Quality did not suffer, and we got wicked sweet stories about Sheridans and other bygone army things.

 

**Think like laundry units, or specialty engineering teams, unless we're at war and overseas we don't really need someone to do the laundry or build a bridge.  The reserve lets us keep those training personnel, but it does not cost as much to have a unit that does not really need to be at "go to war tomorrow" readiness.

[Stagler]

How many M1A2 do we have in Europe at this time?

[Nidan1]

How many M1A2 do we have in Europe at this time?

http://www.stripes.com/news/army-looking-to-store-tanks-equipment-in-eastern-europe-1.325693#

 

I'm sure this isnt an exact number, but considering the amount of armor the Russians could deploy on short notice it doesnt seem like a lot.

Edited March 17, 2015 by Nidan1

[akd]

Currently somewhere between a battalion's and a brigade's worth.

[mikeCK]

edit: duplicate

Edited March 18, 2015 by mikeCK

[mikeCK]

Meh, no sweat. If I wanted to be liked I would have been a firefighter

[Krasnoarmeyets]

In terms of building new ABCTs, I don't think anyone can sustain a war these days long enough to field a from the ground up new unit. This is not 1943, the mechanical complexity, and expense of ammunition alone is sufficient to make a long war pretty ruinous, and the industrial capacity to ramp up just is not there any more. Any war will be settled by folks more or less available within months of the start of the conflict, and it's worth noting we're not at the point of wars of national survival (or a successful hypothetical NATO offensive in the Ukraine to push the Russians out ends at the border, just as much as a successful Russian offensive is not going to pause before turning on Warsaw), the sort of national will and perceived realistic threat just is not there.

I think it is still relevant even for CMBS-type conflict overall force ratios. Even without any mobilization Russian Ground Force fields more than 2000 MBTs (248 * 1 TkDiv + 82 * 1 MRDiv + 124 * 3 TkBde + 41 * 34 MRBde). With rapid (1-2 months, i.e. can probably be done within the escalation period prior to conflict) limited mobilization of pre-deployed reserve units this can be increased by an additional ~700 MBTs (124 * 1 TkBde + 41 * 14 MRBde). Then additional units can be mobilized as necessary from long-term storage at central vehicle reserve bases to replace the frontline losses and reinforce areas of the border where regular units have been withdrawn (the total number of MBTs in storage is about 11000; even if only half of that is operational, that is still enough to equip over 130 MRBde-sized units (though they will be progressively worse equipped - after ~40-50 brigades supporting equipment will start running out in this order: first sophisticated ADS (i.e. better than MANPADS, though since Air Force would still have hundreds more long range SAM systems to provide overall coverage that is not such an issue), then self-propelled artillery (the towed systems would last quite a while), then MLRS, then SP ATGM systems, then APCs, then lastly IFVs (I guess the infantry will have to remember their grandfathers' tank riding experience - by this point the ERA-equipped tanks will probably run out too )). Okay, that last point is probably more relevant for a global type of conflict, but it serves to illustrate that there is a significant reinforcement capability, and some limited mobilization would probably take place even in a regional CMBS-type conflict (especially with such an opponent - who warrants its use more than NATO?).

Overall, given these factors and that Ukrainian theater is much closer to Russia than to North America both operationally and logistically (an interesting question in its own right, but generally it seems much easier to bring reinforcements by rail even from Siberia than to ship them over Atlantic), I would expect Russian forces to be easily able to maintain at least a 3-4 to 1 numerical superiority ratios over US forces, and depending on the number of prepositioned US units at the beginning of the conflict, maybe up to 10+ to 1. Which would translate into a tactical ability to engage any US unit with a larger level unit, or maybe even two of them (meaning 1-2 battalions per company, 1-2 brigades per battalion, etc.). Of course, US would probably be able to utilize its greater situational awareness to achieve temporary tactical numerical parity or even some superiority in particular sections of the battlefield, but operationally I would expect these ratios to hold throughout the campaign.

One factor that remains to be considered is what use the more rapidly deployable SBCTs and IBCTs would be (in this type of conflict with mostly linear combined arms engagements) compared to ABCTs and Russian units. They can probably be used defensively if equipped with enough Javelins, and can conduct some screening and reconnaissance, but they are obviously not a powerful offensive tool that a mechanized unit is. If a successful "Javelin-countering" factor is introduced (like IR camouflage or all-aspect APS) I would be tempted to discount them almost completely for not significantly contributing to the overall operational picture. Similarly for the USMC MEUs/MEFs that seem very light on heavy armor (no pun intended ). For the same reasons, I am not counting Russian airborne, air assault and naval infantry units (airborne and marines are mechanized, but not as heavily as one would wish for). Or am I missing something here?

It's also worth noting that while overall BCTs are getting reduced, most of the combat Battalions are simply being reassigned to other Brigades (so going from the template being a Cav Squadron+2 CABs, to 3 CABs +larger artillery battalion and engineering elements)

Yes, this is how I counted: 3 CABns * (1 CO MBT + 2 tcoys * 14 MBTs) = 87 * 13 ABCTs = 1131 MBTs (and rounded it up just in case).

...and we got wicked sweet stories about Sheridans and other bygone army things.

Feel inclined to share them with the rest of the forum sometime?

Edited March 18, 2015 by Krasnoarmeyets

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

I think you need to look into the conflict in question.  With mobilization and units in storage, they're relevant if we are really sitting on the verge of 1989 warmed over.  In terms of a CMBS scenerio, which is a war neither party really expected, wanted, or has the national will to fight through to anything but a reasonable ceasefire, or even just enough space to go to antebellum status.

 

Here's a few things to keep in mind though:

 

1. While Korea is a vastly different problemset from the Ukraine, the interaction between US and host nation would likely be the same.  The primary US contribution would be aviation, and similar higher level assets (intelligence gathering systems, EW and battle management equipment, missile/rocket artillery), while the ground force would serve a sort of fire brigade role.  Rather than offering the target for the Russians to mass on (much as the DPRK prioritized US forces), US Forces would remain concentrated, and be committed to mass on Russian penetrations were numerical parity and Russian vulnerability would be maximized.  This also would allow deploying US units to be preserved for future operations rather than being deployed piecemeal and attritted accordingly.

 

2. It's also noteworthy that we are actually talking about the US military plus NATO in this scenerio.  While the German army is not as big as it once was, if you start calling in the rest of NATO, plus the Ukrainian, plus the US you start dealing with a much closer parity in forces, with in the case of NATO, a pretty sizable advantage in hardware (while a T-80U coming out of storage isn't a bad tank, it is grossly outmatched by Leclerc, Leo 2A6s and the like), and especially when you start including the various air wings, things get pretty lopsided.

 

3. US preposition stocks are proving to be...slippery.  Not all of the US tanks in storage are in storage in the US, and there's some pretty serious rumblings about:

   a. Restoration of western European preposition stocks

   b. Upgrading the vehicle fleets attached to the preposition ship stocks

   

Both of these are interesting.  The preposition ship stuff is already prepacked and ready for war, and not only that, a lot of it is already within pretty short sailing distance of Europe.  The whole point of a preop ship is minimum turnaround, so something steaming from the middle eastern area to say, Italy straight to a rail movement wouldn't be much harder than some of the Russian mobilization efforts (as it would simply be flying in the Brigades to meet their hardware in port, mount up on trains and to the front if you will).  

 

The European prepo stocks....well, there's already US tanks arriving in the Baltics for exercises from overseas, Norway's USMC prepo stocks just received tanks, and given recent events it's reasonable to expect there might be a return to something similar to the 90's at least.

 

So moving from that, it isn't simply just a numbers game of Russian tanks vs US tanks.  If CMBS came to pass, even assuming a NATO win branch, there's Russian Soldiers who'd never see a NATO soldier or ground system, and even then they might not see Americans, but instead Germans, French, Brits, or even some weirdo Dutch-Belgium-Danish task force supported by the requisite Norwegian hospital.  The US has the global reach for fighting a whole host of wars, but in a conventional European war, it is simply the biggest member of a larger team. 

 

Re: Sheridans

 

Just some notes in brief:

 

1. The missile system by the 90's was actually quite effective.  By all accounts I've heard  from that timeframe it was accurate, and reliable (and this includes someone who was part of the last "spendex" in which they simply shot as many Shillelaghs as they had in the depot as they were getting rid of the tank, and the missile at that point).  

 

2. Folks who served on it in Europe and in "conventional" training environments liked it lots.  Fast, agile, with a fair amount of available firepower.  Folks who rode it in Vietnam were a bit more mixed, it was straight up murderous with the canister round, but did not handle mines or RPGs well at all, and the heat and humidity was bad news for the casings on the round.  It also was too light to plow through dense brush, unlike the M48 which was well liked for it's ability to just grind through anything short of anti-tank mines, and deep water.

 

3. Amphibious capabilities are largely.....eh.  Most places that support river crossings by amphibious tanks also tend to have bridges or fords.  What makes a good exit bank for a floating crossing usually also makes a good place for a bridge, or is so remote as to be irrelevant to the operation (yay you crossed the river 20 miles upstream!  Now you've got to break brush for 20 miles to get back to where the fight is).

 

4. M48 operators are surprisingly attached to their tanks.  Doesn't matter if they're USMC or Army.  

[Do Right]

It occurred to me reading all these posts that in the not so far off future, from what I have heard in my circles, these tanks will be drones, and no one will be in them. They will be driven by highly trained people with the best of dexterity. Makes me want to do my finger exercises. The new tanks will be remote controlled using satellite technology and programmers. No more young men being blown up! I have witnessed young people being trained to operate computer software to learn how to program moving robots that look like tanks (seemed kind of easy,the girls showed me how they program them, they smiled and said "its easy"). They were right, as I witnessed a quick lesson.

Regarding the video, I hope these young lads driving tanks get some much needed home cooked meals for the next 2 years, at the least, and go home to their relatives, sooner than later. They looked so unhealthy, anorexic, and stuck in servitude, to what. I wonder? Putin? ARRRRR, Mom's and Dad's are gonna want an explanation, why they look so bad? They would for sure, say, never again will you do that to my kin, Vlad.

Edited March 21, 2015 by Do Right

[John Kettler]

Do Right,

 

Did you say robot tank? Perhaps one of these Black Knight crewless AFVs? I think it would make a great SBU. Dig it in, camouflage it carefully (Nakidka a la US?), then have it switched off altogether until ordered to awaken. Oh the fun to be had with some of those covering the OPFOR MSR, providing intel, BDA, target designation of several sorts and, of course 30 mm goodness vs supply trucks, especially POL.  Sure, you could use it vs AFVs (BTR, BMP, tanks), while firing from the flank, but that's not the best approach, not least because the Black Knight wouldn't survive long. By contrast, SPA, ADA/SAM, MRL, mobile CPs, ESM, ECM and such vehicles would be juicy targets, ones whose loss would really smart and cause cascading effects. Since any good combat engineer would provide a ramp from which to back the AFV out of its initial fighting position, it could stick and move, perhaps to other similar drive-in hides. In any event, it wouldn't have to do much to make it economically worthwhile. The amount of havoc/Clausewitzian friction even a few could cause beggars description.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CxP7E2r8lA

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited March 21, 2015 by John Kettler

[Alexey K]

It occurred to me reading all these posts that in the not so far off future, from what I have heard in my circles, these tanks will be drones, and no one will be in them. They will be driven by highly trained people with the best of dexterity. Makes me want to do my finger exercises. The new tanks will be remote controlled using satellite technology and programmers. No more young men being blown up! I have witnessed young people being trained to operate computer software to learn how to program moving robots that look like tanks (seemed kind of easy,the girls showed me how they program them, they smiled and said "its easy"). They were right, as I witnessed a quick lesson.

 

And World of Tanks would be training simulator for unmanned AFV operators

[Stagler]

I don't think so. Too much risk of electronic attack. Oh, there goes all of our heavy forces.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Its just not especially feasible at this point. It also magnifies all the situational awareness issues a tank can have by like 10.

[Do Right]

Yes, I said robot tank. Thank you for the plethora of knowledge. You have so much which I have enjoyed on John Kettler.com. During WWII, my family member drove a tank (tank commander). It brings me great pleasure to know there are now robotic tanks to protect our men. Let our men and women come back home, sit on the computer, and run these machines. We need to enjoy their great company while their are still alive. We love them so much.

Thanks John Great video!

Edited March 21, 2015 by Do Right

[Do Right]

Alexey K:

And World of Tanks would be training simulator for unmanned AFV operators

Those were my thoughts exactly. Guess what, we have a new tank program here at our house, we just have to get the right box upgrade. But, what I learned from the little girl who showed us how to program tanks was laptop based, not an X-box 360. There is no way I am playing tank games because I can't keep up, and get shot in the beginning, not enough time to practice. Son,just has to drag me around, saves me over and over again. It is a drag playing with mom. Cheers

Edited March 21, 2015 by Do Right

[Do Right]

Stagler,

 

I don't think so. Too much risk of electronic attack. Oh, there goes all of our heavy forces.

 

I would not worry about the electronics since they have already thought of that.  I will ask Robert next time I see him.  They are not going to do this overnight,  but they are bringing it in because it is sensible.  It will happen on a need to basis.  Like John says, it adds a new surprise element on the field from the flank, dug in camouflage and more to protect our tanks with men.  I know very little about tanks and tanking, but I will ask Robert (70's) who is old and knowledgeable about the new tanks.  If I were a man in a tank, and I was under attack, I sure would welcome seeing 2 of these robot tanks to clear the trouble.   I would scream, yeeehaaaa   Kind of sort of  like sorties saving your ass, fly overs,  just on the ground.  I am so glad the direction of tech is going to save our men, and not just thrust them out there to die some honorable death while we all sit in our ivory towers and watch them get chased down and slaughtered, tortured. 

 

Cheers, to better lives for our boys, quickly men

Edited March 21, 2015 by Do Right

[Alexey K]

Yes, I said robot tank. Thank you for the plethora of knowledge. You have so much which I have enjoyed on John Kettler.com. During WWII, my family member drove a tank (tank commander). It brings me great pleasure to know there are now robotic tanks to protect our men. Let our men and women come back home, sit on the computer, and run these machines. We need to enjoy their great company while their are still alive. We love them so much.

Thanks John Great video!

 

Russians experimeted with remote controlled tanks ("Teletanks") in 30's. Some of them were used in Winter war. Later T-72 based teletank prototype was developed but didn't go into production.

[Do Right]

Alexey K:

Thank you, you information comforts me to know more and more about the beginnings of this idea which increases our men's chances to bring them on home, any which way, I don't care just bring em on home. They are irreplaceable. So smart you are. Thanks

[Hister]

Do Right, I think you are putting too much faith in remotely controlled, no life loss combat future war. Humans as a specie would have to evolve into something different before they wouldn't be willing to end each other's lives for whatever cause they fight for.

@panzer, you just used the word "tool" in the same sense I did some time ago which prompted you to aim your turret in my direction. Am surprised you used it yourself too.

I don't see this thread as bad for being derrailed - I got to learn a lot of new info and points of views from you guys. Very interesting indeed.