Jump to content

4 T-90AMs against 2 M1A2.. open terrain, 2900-3000 meters, frontal slugfest


antaress73

Recommended Posts

 

 

wow, the T-90s thermals have ability to see up to 5 km and more, Its proven in trials the T-90 can hit tank sized targets with its ATGM with atleast 90% accuracy to 5 KM which is its MAX range. 

 

From the french knockoff stuff I've seen, it's still very 1999 type optics.  It doesn't have the resolution that western optics have, and it struggles when you're moving the turret/the tank to maintain a cohesive image.

 

Could be something fancier coming along the way, but because something claims an ability to "see" you really need to qualify what that means.  Abrams optics can acquire a man sized target at 30 KM (this number is fictional and provided only to sound outragous), but the thermal target is a little blobby thing that looks similar to other heat sources (to include rocks, bright spots on the ground, and badgers).  I have no doubts the T-90 can see things out to 5 KM.  I don't believe it has the resolution or discrimination to figure out the difference between blobs at 5 KM.  

 

 

 

 

The T-90As armor is layered many times ontop of that new versions of K5 are installed on it,

 

What's it layered with?  Simply layers are not really indicative of performance, and as discussed, most of the US weapons have if resistance, if not general purpose immunity in the case of the Javelin to the ERA package.   

 

 

 

I dare the Abrams to have any penetrating power to the T-90 at 5KM

 

I dare someone to find common engagement ranges at 5 KM. Additionally especially in frontal engagements it'll be a dicey shot with an ATGM against an Abrams, and with the state of Russian optics, you're aiming for "somewhere on the tank like blob" vs picking your targets at long range.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the french knockoff stuff I've seen, it's still very 1999 type optics.  It doesn't have the resolution that western optics have, and it struggles when you're moving the turret/the tank to maintain a cohesive image.

 

Could be something fancier coming along the way, but because something claims an ability to "see" you really need to qualify what that means.  Abrams optics can acquire a man sized target at 30 KM (this number is fictional and provided only to sound outragous), but the thermal target is a little blobby thing that looks similar to other heat sources (to include rocks, bright spots on the ground, and badgers).  I have no doubts the T-90 can see things out to 5 KM.  I don't believe it has the resolution or discrimination to figure out the difference between blobs at 5 KM.  

 

 

 

What's it layered with?  Simply layers are not really indicative of performance, and as discussed, most of the US weapons have if resistance, if not general purpose immunity in the case of the Javelin to the ERA package.   

 

 

I dare someone to find common engagement ranges at 5 KM. Additionally especially in frontal engagements it'll be a dicey shot with an ATGM against an Abrams, and with the state of Russian optics, you're aiming for "somewhere on the tank like blob" vs picking your targets at long range.  

Ok I would love to see your source on it being french knock offs, Since you don't read Russian sources on Russian tanks you probably read American sources on Russian tanks. But me I read both. And about the 5KM range im saying this because the M1 abrams is usually highly remarked for its range nothing special about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Ok I would love to see your source on it being french knock offs

 

It's a Thales designed CATHERINE-FC thermal camera, basically a downgrade from the standard western stocks, it has the sensitivity but from my understanding it lacks the processing power/something along those lines to maintain resolution when moving the camera.

 

 

 

And about the 5KM range im saying this because the M1 abrams is usually highly remarked for its range nothing special about it.

 

The Abrams has an excellent hit/kill ratio at range, something like in the 80% rate under tactical circumstances with targets that are trying not to die.  That's pretty good by most measures.  The ability to shoot very far in and of itself is not exceptional, it is the ability to shoot/hit, and acquire new targets that is more relevant.  In that regard the T-90 is significantly worse in the target acquisition, and merely not as good in the shoot/hit rates. It's not really a bad tank, but it stacks up well below the various NATO MBTs of similar vintage.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a Thales designed CATHERINE-FC thermal camera, basically a downgrade from the standard western stocks, it has the sensitivity but from my understanding it lacks the processing power/something along those lines to maintain resolution when moving the camera.

 

 

The Abrams has an excellent hit/kill ratio at range, something like in the 80% rate under tactical circumstances with targets that are trying not to die.  That's pretty good by most measures.  The ability to shoot very far in and of itself is not exceptional, it is the ability to shoot/hit, and acquire new targets that is more relevant.  In that regard the T-90 is significantly worse in the target acquisition, and merely not as good in the shoot/hit rates. It's not really a bad tank, but it stacks up well below the various NATO MBTs of similar vintage.  

The thermals sold are not bad at all and it is not a downgrade or they would not be fitted onto the T-90s because thermals were already developed for the T-80UM but were deemed not good enough so why would they risk buying thermals from France if it is not at high standards? And the T-90A is up there with the best you cant just call it bad without stating what is bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Steve once put it the U.S. has spent more money developing that fire control system than some almost decent countries have ever made, period, full stop.

 

And the French can still just barely stand not to sell the Russians a couple of first line warships with full scale shooting war going on, and an airliner for collateral damage. In fact I predict they eventually do deliver them.  Though I wonder what sort electronic goodness the CIA has included? If they will take the Russians money, they can certainly stand the smell of Uncle Sams.

Edited by dan/california
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Steve once put it the U.S. has spent more money developing that fire control system than some almost decent countries have ever made, period, full stop.

 

And the French can still just barely stand not to sell the Russians a couple of first line warships with full scale shooting war going on, and an airliner for collateral damage. In fact I predict they eventually do deliver them.  Though I wonder what sort electronic goodness the CIA has included? If they will take the Russians money, they can certainly stand the smell of Uncle Sams.

Im not understanding what that has to do with T-90 but I would appreciate it if you left politics out. And about the FCS, Russia has been developing FCS for a long time too just because thermals are put on in the past 20  years (in mass numbers) on Russian tanks doesnt have anything to do with the FCS's calculation.

Edited by VladimirTarasov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, worth noting basically their charts (which are part of an advertisement mind you) are telling you that you'll have the ability to tell a T-90 from a M1 at 2 KM using the narrow field of view.  This is well short of the Abrams by a significant margin.  

 

 

 

 

Maybe the CATHERINE-FC was an upgrade because the T-80UM's thermals were very bad?

 

This is a reasonable assumption.  Russian optics in general have never been well regarded, and if you look at after market upgrades for Russian systems, you'll find some of the most common upgrades are for the optics package.  To clarify, the CATHERINE-FC provided to the Russians is an upgrade for Russians, but it's a poorer version of a commercially available French optic.  

 

 

Re: FCS

 

Russia has a long time of developing FCSes, but historically they've lagged with the widening gap in both computing power, and historically poor integration (as an example I believe it's only recently that the FCS automatically accepted LRF returns, and until the mid-90's still required operator input of range).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting conversation. Few questions to add:

 

1. Unit cost. I presume latest model Abrams is more expensive than top tier T90. How many T90s you can get with the price of 10 Abrams?

 

2. Which one is easier to supply, maintain and repair on the field? Which one hogs more resources. Materiel, specialized mechanics, spare parts, specialized repair facilities?

 

3. What's the average distance of combat among tanks, if you exclude desert. Mostly in western/eastern/northern european areas? If I look around here in southern Finland, It's hard to find spots where you can find unobstructed field of view more than 1km.

 

Oh, and one more question considering thermal optics. Might sound stupid, because I know nothing of them. Will the "common dust" which arises from sand or dirt, block in some degree the vision of thermal optics? I was thinking of that if the dust is made from microscopic particles of various stones, will the billions of small particles somehow block the vision by harassing the formulation of the image?  

Edited by wee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and one more question considering thermal optics. Might sound stupid, because I know nothing of them. Will the "common dust" which arises from sand or dirt, block in some degree the vision of thermal optics?

Yes. Even humidity will degrade it to a small degree. The dust kicked up by large artillery barrages can block it (although I don't think that is modeled in the game). Infrared light is still a type of light, after all. But infrared light will penetrate obscurants more readily than visible light because of its long wavelength -- particularly light on the mid to far end of the IR spectrum, which is why thermal sights can see through most types of smoke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Is the exact margin a no-go due to OPSEC?  Its hard as hell to find the exact stats on the GEN II TIS setup!

 

I'm not sure!  Usually if it's not listed or available it's either OPSEC or a system not offered for sale elsewhere.  I try not to share anything I can't find in less than five minutes on google as then I assume it's not something I should default to sharing.  Either way the Thales system would be a pretty solid system for 1999, or if you're building tanks on a budget.  

 

 

 

1. Unit cost. I presume latest model Abrams is more expensive than top tier T90. How many T90s you can get with the price of 10 Abrams?

 

This is deceptive.  The price of building something in America, by Americans, to American safety/union workplace standards etc would mean that if we built T-90s in the US, they would be much more expensive than the Russian T-90.  It's also worth comparing the ability to buy more than the actual price-point.  And to that end American has been able to afford several times as many M1A2s than Russia has been able to produce T-90s.

 

 

 

2. Which one is easier to supply, maintain and repair on the field? Which one hogs more resources. Materiel, specialized mechanics, spare parts, specialized repair facilities?

 

Armored vehicles all by their own nature of complexity tend to be fairly hard to maintain.  It's worth noting however the M1 is not especially hard to maintain, and the American system of maintenance has always allocated repair personnel to lower echelons (while still maintaining well fitted out rear repair areas).   More details:

 

a. The gas turbine engine while more fuel thirsty than most engines also has significantly less moving parts, and is actually fairly insensitive to lower quality fuels (basically if it'll burn and isn't too full of debris, the tank will run on it).  

 

b. The Abrams is very "plug and play" anything that cannot be readily fixed in the field can be pulled out as a module and replaced by field maintenance staff.  So while there's dedicated electronics repair staff, the tank doesn't have to actually go to them, and the matter of replacing even fairly complex systems if the part is available (and the amount of "bench stock" repairs in a war-footing unit is crazy) is capable of being accomplished by Company level personnel.

 

c. Each armored/mech infantry/armored cavalry type unit has a company level maintenance team of trained mechanics.  A tank has to be exceedingly broken before it gets sent to the rear

 

This question also ties back into the question of different capabilities.  The American supply system is amazingly robust, and efficient.  If there's one thing you can say about Americans, it's having more than enough fuel and supplies on hand is the norm by far.  US tank design can be more supply intensive for more performance because the US military can support supply intensive.  Historically the Russians have suffered in logistics, and their tanks are adjusted accordingly to be lower performing, but less supply intensive.

 

So to really tie these two points together, it's not best to compare economics one for one, but more of how well the system is adapted to the country it serves.

 

To that end the T-90 has proven expensive, and in many ways not enough of a tank for the money invested (see the focus on the T-72B3s, Armata programs over non-export T-90 upgrades). The US is quite happy with the M1 series.

 

 

 

3. What's the average distance of combat among tanks, if you exclude desert. Mostly in western/eastern/northern european areas? If I look around here in southern Finland, It's hard to find spots where you can find unobstructed field of view more than 1km.

 

Depends on the area of operations.  1 KM isn't a bad estimate in Europe.  If you're talking about someplace like, Korea then even shorter ranges may become the norm.  

 

 

 

Oh, and one more question considering thermal optics. Might sound stupid, because I know nothing of them. Will the "common dust" which arises from sand or dirt, block in some degree the vision of thermal optics? I was thinking of that if the dust is made from microscopic particles of various stones, will the billions of small particles somehow block the vision by harassing the formulation of the image?  

 

You pick up the heat signature of whatever dust is kicked up. however thermal imaging still "sees" through dust and the like much better than the naked eye, you need a lot denser cloud of obscurantion before it effects the thermal image.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^Meanwhile one needs to keep in mind that CM is a game made by a US company, sold mostly to North American and Western European customers.

 

Personally I like the Abrams a lot. Might be even a tad more than its western brothers like Leo2 and Chally. I've fell in love since it's stellar performance in 1st gulf war and its looks are awesome. So personally quite content. I've also seen no short amount of propaganda and censorship by authoritarian governments on information about its military's equipment.

 

But it doesn't mean I'm not aware of what's going on, to some degree.

 

(Meanwhile there's also games like Graviteam series, Theater of War, and other assortment of games on the eastern bloc side. In a way it balances things out. Some of them more than others maybe.)

 

And yes, incoming flak, and putting on my flame suit.

Edited by Skwabie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a beta, I can assure you that assiduous care is taken to remove any nationality bias in the game.

However, some materiel is unproven. It would be the height of folly to accept manufacturers' claims as presented. Combat reports are much more important than glossy sales brochures.

Nothing is nerfed or buffed because if the emblem painted on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a beta, I can assure you that assiduous care is taken to remove any nationality bias in the game.

However, some materiel is unproven. It would be the height of folly to accept manufacturers' claims as presented. Combat reports are much more important than glossy sales brochures.

Nothing is nerfed or buffed because if the emblem painted on it.

 

But how to obtain combat reports of M1 vs T-90? :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But how to obtain combat reports of M1 vs T-90? :)

Exactly.

When an item has no combat history, several techniques suggest themselves. One would be to take prior claims of performance about weapons that did see combat, and compre those claims to actual performance. Applying that decrement to the claims offered on the new equipment would be reasonable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, worth noting basically their charts (which are part of an advertisement mind you) are telling you that you'll have the ability to tell a T-90 from a M1 at 2 KM using the narrow field of view.  This is well short of the Abrams by a significant margin.  

 

 

 

This is a reasonable assumption.  Russian optics in general have never been well regarded, and if you look at after market upgrades for Russian systems, you'll find some of the most common upgrades are for the optics package.  To clarify, the CATHERINE-FC provided to the Russians is an upgrade for Russians, but it's a poorer version of a commercially available French optic.  

 

 

Re: FCS

 

Russia has a long time of developing FCSes, but historically they've lagged with the widening gap in both computing power, and historically poor integration (as an example I believe it's only recently that the FCS automatically accepted LRF returns, and until the mid-90's still required operator input of range).

The T-80UM's sight was not very bad, In the 1990s when the USSR collapsed money was  very hard to find and corruption was a lot so they didn't even look into designing it, It wasn't very bad but due to the design being expensive and that development was ceased plus Russia wanted better relations with the west they took in the Catherine thermal. Now the T-72B3 has the SOSNA-U which has multi channel views for the gunner including a new thermal (Russian made) the old sight still remains but that is as a secondary just in case. Saying that Russia didn't develope these things and falls behind America may be true but not by a very large margine in fact Russia has catched up.  Also saying that Russia has not made FCS really makes me cringe as the T-64A and so on started getting FCS in the 70s, US started mainly installing thermals in the 80s and now a lot of their gear has thermals but so does Russia and if it doesnt have thermals it has advanced night vision sights. Russia has been developing FCS from early 70s to present I do not understand why you are saying we lack on something. Saying the U.S. budget helps the design is okay but it will only help to a certain area your not gonna put millions into it simply because you dont have to. The T-72 did not have a FCS but sight correction which was decent by standards but the new T-72s being modernized such as the B3 have full Russian equipment and Russian FCS.  I do not deny the Abrams is good im just against when people underestimate Russian armor capabilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sure

 

http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewforum.php?id=8 

 

Otvaga is the best Russian forum on armor they have real armor experts and people who have worked on tanks check it out although you do not probably understand it because you dont know Russia so sorry, but maybe you can google translate?

Edited by VladimirTarasov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly.

When an item has no combat history, several techniques suggest themselves. One would be to take prior claims of performance about weapons that did see combat, and compre those claims to actual performance. Applying that decrement to the claims offered on the new equipment would be reasonable.

It may also be worthwhile to point out that BFC does have access to actual Russian armor experts living in Russia who speak Russian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...