db_zero Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Are they better than what the US had in GW1? A couple of things stand out. The autoloader system. Instead of storing ammo securely behind a blast door in a compartment designed to vent any ammo cook off upwards and away from the crew, the T90 loading system stores ammo in a very dangerous way. 3 man crew. 1 less person to do routine maintenance, stand guard and 1 less set of eyes to observe. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerdwing Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 I meant the optics systems. In terms of magnification and resolution, the Catherine looks more capable than the 1980's-era one the Abrams at the time were using. Plus, in GW1 it'd be M829A1 as the best round. Thats a no-contest loss versus the most modern Russian stuff. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Most of the stuff we've seen that's "modern" Russian stuff is pretty well mid to late 90's in terms of comparing to western equipment. Newest Russian hardware excluded because it hasn't been really well examined, but the T-90A and BMP-3 are both pretty much on par for a 1995 platform in terms of capabilities as equipped time now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 It comes up in other treads, mostly about how unfair it is, and makes QB impossible or something. I wouldn't say impossible, but there is one QB map -- it is about 5km long and 1km wide or thereabouts -- where a T-90 force can be stymied pretty well by equivalent Abrams unit since both sides have LoS into the area directly beyond their setup zone. That being said, I only lost two T-90s to actual tanks; the rest were due to UAV-directed fires making their presence felt and me being overly optimistic about the efficacy of 5m movements to defeat Excal and Hellfire. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
db_zero Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 I meant the optics systems. In terms of magnification and resolution, the Catherine looks more capable than the 1980's-era one the Abrams at the time were using. Plus, in GW1 it'd be M829A1 as the best round. Thats a no-contest loss versus the most modern Russian stuff. Gotcha. Too bad the T-90 isn't modeled in Steel Beasts. It would be fun to try it out. RE-Most "modern Russian" stuff is on par for 1995 stuff. Thats a 20 year gap between Russian and modern Western stuff. Combine that with design flaws like exposed ammo and it would appear the life expectancy of a Russian tanker would be very short and brutal in an encounter with a well trained force using the latest stuff. The Russians do have a different outlook. It would appear on first glance that's like a German Panther/Tiger/King Tiger going up against a M-60A1 Patton tank or Centurion or perhaps worse given the very good sighting and first shot kill capabilities of a M1A2. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codename Duchess Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 (edited) I feel like this ground has been thoroughly hashed out and summarily beaten to death in the 37 page Armata thread. As for Western optics, I recall hearing that the biggest prize for Iran, Pakistan, Russian, and China when the RQ-170 went down in Iran wasn't the stealth technology, but the optics onboard. Your mileage may vary on whether you believe that, but it makes sense to me even if it was surprising when I first heard it. Edited April 15, 2015 by Codename Duchess 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Williams Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 (edited) Lacroix, thanks for doing the testing. I already knew, based on my limited experience playing BS, that the Abrams was superior, but I wasn't sure just by how much. I just hope we don't start seeing threads calling for Abrams nerfing. The proper way to achieve game balance is to play well balanced scenarios or use "house rules" in quick battles. I would also suggest that the QB points value of T90s could be reduced, but (a) that would put Ukraine players at a disadvantage, and ( b ) I don't think BFC has *ever* changed a QB point value of a unit. We WW2 players have been dealing with armor imbalance for years, and are used to it. Edited April 15, 2015 by Doug Williams 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kieme(ITA) Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 I don't think BFC has *ever* changed a QB point value of a unit. QUICK BATTLES: * All vehicles equipped with Active Protection Systems (APS) now also cost Rarity points in Quick Battles, which under normal settings will further limit the amount that can be purchased. * A variety of IFVs and APCs with advanced sensor and defensive systems now cost more points in relation to older vehicles with less sophisticated equipment (such as thermals and night vision). * Russian vehicles equipped with APS now cost less points in Quick Battles, bringing the cost of APS in line with equivalent US Army systems. * T-90AM now costs more points in Quick Battles relative to the T-90A. * Most infantry units now cost less points in Quick Battles. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baneman Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 ...( b ) I don't think BFC has *ever* changed a QB point value of a unit. Also I believe that the points costs of rockets were recently changed in Red Thunder I mention this just to annoy Doug, of course 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Williams Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 @ Kieme & Baneman I stand corrected. In the past, BFC has been very reluctant to change QB point costs of units. Perhaps that is changing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 The autoloader system. Instead of storing ammo securely behind a blast door in a compartment designed to vent any ammo cook off upwards and away from the crew, the T90 loading system stores ammo in a very dangerous way. The autoloader carousel is actually reasonably safe; it's a fireproof box that is shielded from any nastiness. What's killer is the the common practice of storing additional rounds in the fighting compartment of the tank. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 What's killer is the the common practice of storing additional rounds in the fighting compartment of the tank. I'm not sure how realistic this is. It pops up in a few Russian source documents but I have not found a lot of evidence the popgoestheweasel T-72s of the Iraqi Army had full loads, let alone extra ammo to spare inside the fighting compartment (indeed the internal space of the T-72 seems to beg the question where these rounds actually fit). Spalling from the turret stands a respectable chance of entering the opposite side of the carousel anyway, and the "loose" round caused by the loading cycle of the autoloader seems like a reasonable candidate for being the source of ignition anyway. Regardless the turret ejection usually happens fairly promptly indicating there's not much delay between penetration and initiation, and fact the whole mess goes up more or less at once indicates the fireproof box might not be good at its job. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antaress73 Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 (edited) Maybe they were cutting corners on export models at the time. The data i've seen about russian tanks in chechnya and georgia / Ukraine (soviet grade tanks) seems to indicate they turned into volcanos/ champagne bottles less often and the crew survival rates were higher. Edited April 15, 2015 by antaress73 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 I think in general: 1. In reference to T-72s, a lot gets handwaved as being a Iraqi monkey model, while ignoring the straight up standard as built by Poland to fight the HATO dogs T-72Ms and T-72M1s blew up equally well compared to the alleged "monkey" Iraqi models (there's also some strong evidence there might have never been anything more than knockdown kit assembly of Polish tanks with standard armor array vs some sort of mild steel Iraqi model). 2. A lot of the AARs from Grozny need to be viewed with some sense of skepticism. A lot of blame gets dumped on the T-80's gas turbine or performance vs the T-72 equipped units, but it has a lot less to do with the T-80 as a tank, and a lot more to do with not installing the ERA, and the amazingly moronic Russian battleplan. With that said, the majority of Russian tanks in Grozny were knocked out by basically getting blobbed on by RPG-7s. It's less "the vehicle is penetrated and destroyed!" and more "it is mobility killed, the turret jammed, and the crew bailed." Death by a thousand needle pricks vs from getting hit by a truck if you will. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danzig5 Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 Also on the subject of monkey model nonsense, the Syrian's operate the T-72A, the Soviet model, in some numbers still (Even warsaw pact didn't get this model) and they feature exciting turret-lift action of the type seen in Iraq, but recorded live for our viewing pleasure due to the wonders of the digital age. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 I'm not sure how realistic this is. It pops up in a few Russian source documents but I have not found a lot of evidence the popgoestheweasel T-72s of the Iraqi Army had full loads, let alone extra ammo to spare inside the fighting compartment (indeed the internal space of the T-72 seems to beg the question where these rounds actually fit). Spalling from the turret stands a respectable chance of entering the opposite side of the carousel anyway, and the "loose" round caused by the loading cycle of the autoloader seems like a reasonable candidate for being the source of ignition anyway. Regardless the turret ejection usually happens fairly promptly indicating there's not much delay between penetration and initiation, and fact the whole mess goes up more or less at once indicates the fireproof box might not be good at its job. That's easy enough to explain: the sabot entered the carousel itself via a hull hit, which would obviously still cause a catastrophic, tank-ending event to occur. Example: Anyway, it isn't exactly a secret that the T-72 had rounds stored outside the carousel; its total capacity is only 22 rounds. The other 15-20ish shells have to go somewhere and pretty much every diagram of a T-72's internal configuration plus the actual statements by T-72 tankers agree on the point that they load shells in the fighting compartment. Other than that, I haven't seen or read anything about Iraqi T-72's having a reduced fighting load. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, but I don't imagine they were doing much shooting up to that point, so even poverty-level logistics should have been able to keep them topped up. 2. A lot of the AARs from Grozny need to be viewed with some sense of skepticism. A lot of blame gets dumped on the T-80's gas turbine or performance vs the T-72 equipped units, but it has a lot less to do with the T-80 as a tank, and a lot more to do with not installing the ERA, and the amazingly moronic Russian battleplan. With that said, the majority of Russian tanks in Grozny were knocked out by basically getting blobbed on by RPG-7s. It's less "the vehicle is penetrated and destroyed!" and more "it is mobility killed, the turret jammed, and the crew bailed." Death by a thousand needle pricks vs from getting hit by a truck if you will. One of the accounts (in Russian) that stuck out to me was a T-80 that was struck around 22-24 times with RPGs, with half of those penetrating to one degree or another, and still managed to limp away from the immediate battlefield before its engine finally gave up the ghost, causing the crew to abandon it. The general in charge of writing the study used this anecdote as a point against gas turbines' unreliability/fragility and I'm just like, "Man, what the hell are you putting in your pipe?" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 That's easy enough to explain: the sabot entered the carousel itself via a hull hit, which would obviously still cause a catastrophic, tank-ending event to occur. Example: We had some old timey folks who talked about zotting T-72s through the turret and getting the same going off like a firecracker effect. I think I've mentioned it elsewhere on this forum, but they described it as a brilliant blue spark on the outside of the tank, like a very short delay then BOOM. Dunno. Regardless of if the carousel survived the strike, the contents of the turret usually did not. As far as internal round storage, eh, fair enough, but that still rather gets to a major disadvantage of the whole system in terms of rounds carried. One of the accounts (in Russian) that stuck out to me was a T-80 that was struck around 22-24 times with RPGs, with half of those penetrating to one degree or another, and still managed to limp away from the immediate battlefield before its engine finally gave up the ghost, causing the crew to abandon it. The general in charge of writing the study used this anecdote as a point against gas turbines' unreliability/fragility and I'm just like, "Man, what the hell are you putting in your pipe?" I've seen similar accounts. The tanks themselves did not fail that day nearly so much as the men who put them in the city. Of course it's easier to blame the turbine than the general so there you go. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerdwing Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 Yeah thats pretty absurd, definitely reeks of politics rather than the machine itself falling short. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 Yeah thats pretty absurd, definitely reeks of politics rather than the machine itself falling short. Grozny is one of those moments in terms of being a history and culturally interested person in which you wish you could have all the details of the original event, just to better understand the mythology and semi-truths that occurred afterwards. It's pretty clear it went badly for the Russians, but not the "we killed the entire Russian Army!" that the Chechens push, and the Russian accounts make it seem like for want of more diesel fueled tanks, some more luck, and the Chechen's not at all real armored regiment it would have gone swimmingly (the comparisons to the 2003 Thunder Run, as if it was just a matter of luck it went well for the US Army always causes some terminal eyeroll on my part). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTR Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 (edited) Here's an overwiew of most recent conventional conflict involving a lot of T-72's. Georgian side: In 2008 all the T-72(AV/B)'s had K-1, out of total 65 georgian tanks, 15 were destroyed in combat, 20 were detonated after the conflict and 30 were taken as trophies. Out of the 15 tanks lost in combat five had their turret removed. 1 due to airstrike, 1 due to being abandoned and then detonated from inside, 3 due to RPG hits. Russian side: A total of three tanks were lost. T-72B(M) armed with K-5 Era which expended all of its amunition and was abandoned after being damaged by and RPG (no turret loss). T-62M, damaged by an RPG - turret kept (perhaps not relevant to this). T-72B (K-1 ERA), ambushed and struck by an RPG which cased ammo detonation. All in all, out of all 17 combat lost tanks only 4 lost their turret in direct combat. https://sites.google.com/site/afivedaywar/Home/rutanklosses Edited April 16, 2015 by BTR 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codename Duchess Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 (edited) That's still almost 25%, not odds I'd be super comfortable with if I were a tanker. Edited April 16, 2015 by Codename Duchess 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 How did turret removal become a necessary indicator of catastrophic loss? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTR Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 Well, people were talking about turrets being removed... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kieme(ITA) Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 Seems important to cross-reference with the kind of weapon that destroyed the vehicle. And then evaluate the % of blown up turrets. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thewood1 Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 So my understanding is that the 25% numbers are blown turrets, not just catastrophic loss? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.