Soviet tank training required destruction of an enemy tank within 60 Seconds!?

[Tank Hunter]

I'm reading a book called Red Thrust: Attack on the Central Front, Soviet Tactics and Capabilities in the 1990s by Steven Zaloga and I know it's dated for detailed comparison of today's Russian capabilities but one thing that struck me so far is the claim by the author that typical Soviet tank crew was expected (on training ground) to destroy an enemy tank within 60 Seconds!

 

I found that strange since 60 seconds even in late 80s was considered an eternity on the modern battlefield. The author claims that the commander got 10 seconds to detect and mark the target, the loader received info on type of ammo and the gunner aimed at the target using laser designator and other targeting devices. The crew got than additional 20 seconds to fire the first projectile. This would mean 30 seconds to fire first projectile. Effective range meant 50% hit probability and to increase this to 80% additional two shots were required. The crew received another 15 sec for every additional shot.

 

What is remarkable is that I've seen western numbers in range of 4-5 seconds from detection to firing first projectile. If these numbers are true and considering the Soviet doctrine being to attack first in per-emptive purpose any type of armored thrust would quickly turn into a Turkey shoot for NATO. There have been claims that Western forces and Israel have been able to neutralize so many Arab tanks due to bad training and inferior equipment compared to a standard Russian tank of similar model. Looking at the numbers above one has to wonder how much better the Soviet army would actually be in a head on engagement against NATO.

 

If we look at top tier tanks of the Russian army today they are still based on the same base models as those in the 90s. Most likely they have improved fire and control but if 60s was norm in early 90s then let's say they got it down to 15s today it's still way much slower than 4-5 seconds. And here I'm assuming that NATO has been standing still in that dpt for the last 25 years which is most likely not the case....

 

One additional thing that the author claims is that a T-72 main gun showed serious wear after 120 fired projectiles, Soviet doctrine believed that tanks would not survive anyway for more than 120 shots so additional work on the main gun was considered waste of time and money. This led to heavy restrictions on how many projectiles the crew could fire on the training ground, most crews were trained in special training platoons and did not use their own tanks in order to save the main gun from wear and tear. This led to poorly trained crews in general.

 

It seems that current spotting advantage that American forces have over the Russian counterparts is properly modeled, they may even be somewhat off in favor of the Russians if the above is true.

Edited March 9, 2015 by Tank Hunter

[BTR]

The burden of proof is on Zaloga here. 

 

His numbers are quite interesting considering a stationary T-55 was required to eliminate a target in 7 seconds and be able to fire again in 14 seconds and that longest time allowed on one position was 13 seconds by norm. Now if we realize, that popping targets on the move show up for a total of 70~80 seconds and are supposed to be engaged on the move as well, 60 seconds is the least acceptable passing level for any crew in any tank at any distance between 2100—1800 in the least favorable conditions.

[Thewood1]

Zaloga usually lists his sources in the book, but not sure on the book that is being referenced.  I suspect it was written before a lot of Russian documentation was available to the public.

 

btw, what are your sources.

[c3k]

1. That may be true...as a minimum qualification requirement. Meaning, you don't get the tank badge if you can't do that. Unit commanders may certainly have expected better.

 

2. Turkey shoot: Sure, that's how all those zombie movies start. They're individually so easy to pick off. But more JUST KEEP COMING. (Not saying Soviet doctrine was equivalent to a zombie shuffle!)

 

Most training ranges/test ranges have "test gouge" released. Meaning, everyone going through knows where the targets are and how far away they are. Newer ranges are designed to remove that type of foreknowledge via random popup targets which can be at many different locations.

[BTR]

btw, what are your sources.

Сборник нормативов по боевой подготовке сухопутных войск. Для мотострелковых, танковых, парашютно-десантных, десантно-штурмовых и разведывательных подразделений. Книга 1. Министерство обороны СССР. Воениздат. 1984 г.

 

In other words, a compendium of military training standards for land army. For motor-rifle, armored, para-dropped, air-mobile and recon formations. Book 1 published by USSR MoD in 1984. 

[Thewood1]

Cool...just thought it was funny to question sources then mention some stats without sources.

[L0ckAndL0ad]

I've got a 2003 training book (КС СО, БМ и Т ВС РФ 2003) with training reqs listed. Not representative of today's reqs, but still, some actual textbook reference:
 

BMP-3 Platoon long range training. (page 149)

 

Targets: AT recoilless gun/ATGM and group of infantry (3 half-length figures, set up in a 30x20 meters area)

Range: 2000-2500 meters

Ammo used: 20 rounds of 30mm HE/HE-T mix for each BMP-3.

 

"Excellent" mark - hit 4 targets OR hit a figure with 15 rounds (not sure if I get that one correctly) - under 2 min 30 seconds;

"Good" mark - hit 2 targets OR hit a figure with 10 rounds - under 3 minutes;

"Satisfactory" mark - hit 1 target OR a hit a figure with 5 rounds - under 3 min 30 seconds.

 

NOTE: When firing using laser rangefinder, time is shortened by 1 minute!

 

Tank engagement during assault (on the move) (page 150)

 

Targets:

- dug in tank (pops up for 45 seconds),

- ATGM position and infantry dug in (half-length figures, pop up together for 35 seconds),

- moving tank, at 25 degrees (relative), movement length 250-300 meters (not range to target), speed 15-18 kph, and dug-in BTR, appear together for 40 seconds;

- dug in IFV (45 seconds);

- recoilless gun on wheeled base, moving sideways at 15-20 kph, movement length 200 meters;

- helicopter, available for 45 seconds.

 

Range: there's a whole table, but usually 1100-1300 meters, depending on time of day/target/weapon used; when firing ATGM - 2100-2500 meters.

Ammo: 6 rounds, 2 of each type, 35 rounds for 7.62mm coax MG, 20 rounds for 12.7mm commander's MG.

Movement: frontal, 700 meters from start to finish.

Total time: 4 min 10 sec @ night, 5 min @ day.

 

Marks:

 

"Excellent" mark - hit all targets;

"Good" mark - hit 5 (4 @ night) targets;

"Satisfactory" mark - hit 4 (3 @ night) targets.

 

 

So there you have it. 35-45 seconds for pop-up targets, while being on the move yourself.
 

Most training ranges/test ranges have "test gouge" released. Meaning, everyone going through knows where the targets are and how far away they are. Newer ranges are designed to remove that type of foreknowledge via random popup targets which can be at many different locations.

As a matter of fact, modern day large scale maneuvers are done so that units train on someone else's ranges, not at home, so that the environment is new to them.

Edited March 9, 2015 by L0ckAndL0ad

[BTR]

I've got a 2003 training book (КС СО, БМ и Т ВС РФ 2003) with training reqs listed. Not representative of today's reqs, but still, some actual textbook reference:

 

That beats my vintage   . 

[L0ckAndL0ad]

Yeah

 

Also note that equipment changes. Sights, outside factors correction equipment (on-board meteo station, gps, gun temperature & curvature measuring thing, etc). Ammo changes. And they've been using those digital networked simulators (from inside of working mock-up turrets) for quite a while now. So it all should affect the training reqs over time as well.

 

Added:

 

Oh, and I forgot the most important part. First - post 2008 reforms, which resulted in huge changes in all sorts of areas, including training. Second - personnel. These reqs were meant for conscripts. By 2017, Russian Armed Forces would have, what is it, around 50% professional personnel (volunteers)? Don't remember their projected numbers. But long story short, contracted military serve after they underwent 1-1.5 years of prior conscription service (or having a military university degree) if I am not mistaken. So, not only 90s, but even 2003 figures will be different from 2017.

Edited March 9, 2015 by L0ckAndL0ad

[TankHunter]

Re: OP, are we sure that it does not include the T-62 as part of a typical Soviet tank and crew? As far as I'm aware they were notorious for taking a long time to load as a result of ergonomic/ammunition placement issues.

[MikeyD]

There's proficiency, there's optimal engagement times, and there's reality. When have those three things ever coincided? Someone had posted a short while ago that Bradley crews conducting initial live fire drills with TOW were getting something like an 80% failure rate. Not just failure to hit the target but failure to get the missile to exit the launch tube at all. I recall a Youtube clip of a (then-new) TOW Stryker in Iraq trying to reload while in action. The loader's roof hatch was banging against the underside of the TOW launcher unit and refusing to open. And we're talking a highly trained professional army here!

[Tank Hunter]

Don't know about the type of tank he refers to, he only mentions that the effective range for T-55 is 1500 meters which I interpret as an example. He also claims that local commanders tampered with training results many times because of the personal aim of getting promoted. A commander who´s unit did good in training was considered  for promotion much faster than a commander of average unit, this led to grades being higher than they usually were. If you put all these things together along with better spotting capabilities of NATO tanks you realize that Soviet tanks would have faced a very short life on the battlefield. Judging by the response of our Russian friends above it seems that Steven was not that far off with his 60 seconds claim at least not for the period he describes.

 

Now this leads me to wonder if 4-5 seconds for NATO crew is really true? Maybe someone who has served in an Abrams or Leopard tank could pitch in here? I always kind of questioned fictional novels of WWIII where Soviet tank hordes were being picked off by few dug in NATO tanks. It always seemed to me as kind of wishful thinking rather than a scenario based on real world facts. They kind of reminded me of those old WWII movies where a steady stream of Germans would continuously run out through a door and get gunned down by Allied machine guns.

[Tank Hunter]

Now that I've read few more pages he does provide some data for NATO from a tank competition in June1985. Chieftain, Abrams and Leopard tanks were engaging targets (1.9 x 1.6 m) from both standing and moving positions. The distance to the targets was from 800 to 2000 m. The fastest crew was American, they successfully neutralized their targets with an average time of 6.2 seconds. Leopard 1 tanks required an average time of 16 seconds from detection to hitting the target. The Abrams tanks achieved 93% hit probability while Dutch crews with Leo 2 achieved 96% hit probability.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

Now this leads me to wonder if 4-5 seconds for NATO crew is really true? Maybe someone who has served in an Abrams or Leopard tank could pitch in here? 

 

In terms of "I see it" to "it has died" this is entirely possible.  The only really long part of a tank engagement is finding the target as it could be anywhere within a range of frontal arcs*.  This is actually where the Abrams shines, because unlike many other tanks, its commander's optics are as powerful as the gunner's optics, which really lets you employ full-on two sets of eyes looking with late model thermal optics, which can make for very short engagement times (indeed, in a "waves of tanks" situation, the idea is the commander already has the next target ready while the gunner is shooting the last one, and he can lay the tank's gun right on whatever he's looking at with a button press).

 

I also have to wonder if some of the earlier Soviet tables made allowances for having to manually input data into the FCS.

 

 

*Different ranges, different standards.  Combat is obviously pretty much all vairable, but gunnery at Fort Irwin in the middle of the California Desert is all looking right or left because it's otherwise pretty flat.  Warrior Valley range in Korea is narrow, but deep and going up a mountain range, so you're looking up and down tons.

 

Edit:

 

 

 

Now that I've read few more pages he does provide some data for NATO from a tank competition in June1985. Chieftain, Abrams and Leopard tanks were engaging targets (1.9 x 1.6 m) from both standing and moving positions. The distance to the targets was from 800 to 2000 m. The fastest crew was American, they successfully neutralized their targets with an average time of 6.2 seconds. Leopard 1 tanks required an average time of 16 seconds from detection to hitting the target. The Abrams tanks achieved 93% hit probability while Dutch crews with Leo 2 achieved 96% hit probability.

 

Yup.  And that was done with earlier generation sensors.  With more modern thermals you've got a lot better target discrimination, and the various FCS upgrades make the whole process pretty much two button presses* from the gunner (and a lever from the loader)

 

*Sort of buttons, more like, triggery-button things.

Edited March 9, 2015 by panzersaurkrautwerfer

[John Kettler]

Tank Hunter,

 

Good stuff, but where are the British numbers, please? The tank event to which you refer was known as the CAT (Canadian Army Trophy), a very hotly disputed event showcasing the best performance NATO tank crews could produce while not under fire, sleep deprived and such. In 1987 there was a radical change in the rules, for now the participating platoons, instead of being handpicked by the participating command, were picked randomly within same, in theory providing a much better sense of actual force proficiency. Great CAT goodies here. Some CAT participants recount their experiences here. Pretty sure the Chieftain gunner's numbers will water your eyes. I found them downright shocking.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

[L0ckAndL0ad]

Why would you even bring someone's individual stats at this? Training requirements for the army and some personal records are completely unrelated.

[Tank Hunter]

John,

 

You're right this is from the CAT competition.

Here is the data I have from the book

 

Team                  -   Tank         -   Time between Detection and Hit - No Of Hits - Hit %

USA                   - M1 Abrams -   10.2 sec                                  -  44-45       - 93%

The Netherlands  - Leopard 2    -   11.9 sec                                  -  46           - 96%

West Germany   - Leopard 2    -    11,9 sec                                 -  42-45       - 91%

West Germany   - Leopard 1    -    16,2 sec                                 -  45           - 93%

Belgium             - Leopard 1    -     16,2 sec                                -  41            - 85%

UK                    - Chieftain      -     13 sec                                   - 38             - 79%

USA                  - M60A3        -     14,1 sec                                 - 37            - 77%

Canada              - Leopard C1   -    16,2 sec                                - 34            - 71%

 

 

As you can see UK did not excel in any way, their detection times was decent but hit probability was not so good compared to top tier.

What's interesting is comparison between Leo tanks, look at the times, it seems that those are what you could expect to get from Leo tank since it does not differ from country to country, hit % however is another story. Canadians had 71% in Leo 1 while the Germans had 93%

[John Kettler]

Tank Hunter,

 

Thanks for these. I think having the latest and the greatest sensors gave the US the edge on detection time, but at the price of a small accuracy loss when rush shooting. Looks like the Chieftain guys weren't having a good day, particularly when you look at what that Chieftain gunner says at the other link regarding his CAT experience. The consistent German and Netherlands apparent sensor edge with the Leo 2 is evident in the equally consistent 4.1 second slower Leo 1. Nor is this delta a national difference, for the numbers also apply to a non German unit in both cases. I strongly suspect the German did a lot more live fire gunnery training than did the Canadians, and their poor showing was something of a NATO and national scandal. I would've been surprised, though, had German gunnery been poor, Historically, the Germans have been excellent gunners (see, for example, German naval gunnery at Jutland and scored here (p 756 et seq) by the British themselves as on par or better than theirs. Nor was that an isolated case. There's also Big Bertha, the Paris Gun, Anzio Annie. I'll stipulate to the Panzer aces of WW II. At heart, they're all about being meticulous about gunnery. I'd say the traditions, thorough crew training and firing experience showed up unmistakably in the stats. Besides, if having the GSFG and the East Germans across the border doesn't motivate you to excel, what will?

 

LOckAndLOad (How I wish you'd picked a handle easier to type),

 

I linked to Chieftain gunner because I had absolutely zero notion, less still knowledge, the Chieftain could be fired that fast, with at least part of the course being firing on the move. This is a tank which is firing two part ammo, after all. Also, depending on what year of the CAT you selected, the way teams got to the competition changed more and more to resemble typical crews than the best of the best which characterized the early years.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler 

[John Kettler]

Spent too long on the editor! Here's what I was trying to say. As you can see, this is way more elaborate.

 

Tank Hunter,

 

Thanks for these. I think having the latest and the greatest sensors gave the US the edge on detection time, but at the price of a small accuracy loss when rush shooting. Looks like the Chieftain guys weren't having a good day, particularly when you look at what that Chieftain gunner says at the other link regarding his CAT experience. The consistent German and Netherlands apparent sensor edge with the Leo 2 is evident in the equally consistent 4.1 second slower Leo 1. Nor is this delta a national difference, for the numbers also apply to a non German unit in both cases. I strongly suspect the German did a lot more live fire gunnery training than did the Canadians, and their poor showing was something of a NATO and national scandal. I would've been surprised, though, had German gunnery been poor, Historically, the Germans have been excellent gunners (see, for example, German naval gunnery at Jutland and scored here (p 756 et seq) by the British themselves as on par or better than theirs. Nor was that an isolated case. There's also Big Bertha, the Paris Gun, Anzio Annie. I'll stipulate to the Panzer aces of WW II. At heart, they're all about being meticulous about gunnery. I'd say the traditions, thorough crew training and firing experience showed up unmistakably in the stats. Besides, if having the GSFG and the East Germans across the border doesn't motivate you to excel, what will?

Steve Zaloga, writing in Tank War, gives a thorough writeup on T-55 gunnery standards. They're not impressive, but the breakdowns he gives of the times allotted are. The T-55 standard has the first round out the door at 30 seconds, but to meet the >80% Pk (believe should be Ph), two more rounds must be fired to do that at max range of 1500 meters. That's why it takes 60 seconds. Also, the tank starts with the gun empty. The TC has 10 sec to find the target, designate it and order the desired round loaded. The crew then has 20 seconds to do its part. Whereupon the reload and fire drill occurs twice. Zaloga notes these shoots were on special ranges, rather than more demanding tactical courses. This isn't the vanilla T-55 but the one fitted with the Kladivo FCS ( ballistic comp and integral LRF). Tanks doing their quals operate from roads, too, and there are all sorts of "get you killed in war" cheats, such as ridiculously low MG numbers to neutralize a notional TOW. Tank for tank, at identical engagement range, I'd expect the NATO crews to be on the order of 20% and up more accurate gunners. Better training, more realistic training, way more live fire, better guns and fire control, better maintenance--all figure in. What Russian tanks routinely take three shots to achieve, NATO tanks would have a good chance of doing in one or two rounds at the outside. Good thing for NATO, since there are lots more Russian tanks!

 

Tank battle in RSVN (Ben Het) M48A3, 1100 m, night, firing on muzzle flashes only--while under fire. 2nd round hit and kill.  Oh, but that's the US. But look at what the US trained South Vietnamese did, using the M48A3.  This is from the second post at the same link.

 

The battles of the Easter Offensive saw considerable armor action, since the NVA fielded hundreds of tanks in the various battles. In fact, the battles during the spring of 1972 should have been an indication of the way that tank combat would be fought during the rest of the decade and into the next, if anyone had been paying attention. In the north, on the approaches to Dong Ha and Quang Tri City, the ARVN 20th Tank Regiment fought fierce tank versus tank engagements against NVA armor, including T-54s and Type 59s, as well as PT-76 and Type 63 amphibious tanks. In their first engagement, at ranges of 2500 - 3200 meters, the ARVN tankers killed 11 NVA tanks with no losses to themselves.  
 

To provide a frame of reference, in Tigers in the Mud, the very highly decorated Otto Carius said open fire range for the Tiger 1 was 1800 meters.

 

How about a tank battle using the far less impressive M41 Walker Bulldog, armed with a 76 mm gun? Lam Son 719

 

"In the first battle between North Vietnamese and South Viet- [192] namese tanks, Sergeant Nguyen Xuan Mai, a tank commander in the 1st Squadron, 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, destroyed a North Vietnamese T54 tank.¹⁴ The South Vietnamese forces retook a portion of the landing zone by the end of the day. Twenty-two enemy tanks-six T54's and sixteen PT76's-were destroyed, with none of the South Vietnamese M41's lost."   I'd call that a pretty decent kill ratio. The PT-76 had 76 mm gun quite capable of killing an M41 light tank. Many times the much more potent Chinese Type 63 with an 85 mm gun was reported as a PT-76.   These battles neatly illustrate what NATO grade gunnery translates into in combat vs Russian trained forces. The ARVN tankers at Quang Tri and Dong Na were hitting and killing T-54s in some cases at over twice their effective range. In the worse for ARVN case it was at 1000 meters farther. 

 

LOckAndLOad (How I wish you'd picked a handle easier to type),

 

I linked to Chieftain gunner because I had absolutely zero notion, less still knowledge, the Chieftain could be fired that fast, with at least part of the course being firing on the move. This is a tank which is firing two part ammo, after all. Also, depending on what year of the CAT you selected, the way teams got to the competition changed more and more to resemble typical crews than the best of the best which characterized the early years.

 

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler 

[jomni]

I play Steel Armor and Steel Beasts. Some things to note.

M-60 vs T-64. Fire control was still bit manual back then. M-60 has a visual range finder operated by the commander and range is inputted in the "computer" then gun auto elevates based on the round. T-64 has the usual scales in the sights like in WW2. But the gun is stabilized as opposed to the M-60.

M1 vs Leo vs Challenger (chieftain not modeled so I cannot comment on it). The Leo 2 initially had the better independent commander optics. The M1 SEP became much improved and is now better than the Leo. Challenger Fire control is the weirdest especially for HE rounds. Definitely the least accurate method. My tank of choice in SB Pro is the Leo 2.

Edited March 11, 2015 by jomni

[Nerdwing]

Pretty sure SB doesnt get the M60A3 or T64 as playable.  At least not yet .  Plus the Chally 2's FCS is radically different from the Chally 1's.

 

In fact, isnt the Chieftain Mk10 or 11 the same FCS as the Chally 1?  If I remember right they were similar.  Or was it the 11 that got the TOGS upgrade, and 10 was just some other stuff?

 

I'd enjoy an M60A3 in sim though.  Contrasting it with the base M1 even would be very interesting   Especially versus 125mm Soviet tanks!

Edited March 11, 2015 by Nerdwing

[John Kettler]

jomni,

 

Which M60 version, please? Makes a big difference in both general capabilities and in terms of comparison with the T-64. M60A3TTS, for example, had stabilized gun, LRF, ballistic computer and thermal sights.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

[jomni]

The M60A1. The one that the Iranians are using during Iran Iraq War. In Steel Armor Blaze of War, it has ridimentary night vision (don't think it is thermal) and a balistics computer. But gun is not stabilized. Range finder is optical, you have to converge the view from two view finders to get the distance.

Edited March 11, 2015 by jomni

[John Kettler]

jomni,

 

From what I can tell here, the vanilla M60A1 uses active IR for night vision, almost certainly with a powerful light which has white and IR capability, same as the M48 tanks preceding it. Rangefinder is optical coincidence. Here, in the turret manual for the M60A1 and M60A1(AOS), are the ins and outs of the M17A1 rangefinder on the M60 series tanks. Cookies may be available if you can master all this. If we can find one, testing will be done with live ammo. We both wish!

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited March 11, 2015 by John Kettler

[jomni]

Yes it's that big "spot light". Anyway were digressing a bit. But an interesting conversation.