BATTLE: M-1 Abrams Vs. T-90

[Sledgehammer427]

Haven't done one of these in a while.

The idea is simple, You pick the operators of the tanks based on who is using them now.
Basically the Abrams is limited to the USA, Australia, Egypt, the democratic Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. Keep in mind, Only the American versions have Depleted Uranium armor protection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams

The T-90 would belong to Russia, India, Algeria, Saudi Arabia(,) and Turkmenistan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-90

You can pick your battleground, since all the countries listed have every type of terrain. Urban, desert, grassland, steppes, tundra...you name it.
Tactics are up to you, I will try not to give anyone the upper hand.

For my example, I will take a running battle between an even number of Abrams and T-90's (lets say, two platoons of four) from open meadows to a small city population less than or equal to 5,000.
This will be American tanks versus Russian ones, that way both sides have the best of both.
Now...where to begin. American platoons will be A and B, while Russian Platoons will be X and Y, tanks will have a letter-number setup, like the lead tank in Platoon A would be A-1, then the next would be A-2 and so on.
Heres the map I've come up with.

Platoon A is ordered to patrol the area east of its current position. Russian platoon X is ordered to patrol west. Nobody's dug in.

Platoon B is ordered to enter the town and push east,
Platoon Y is ordered to do the same, but move west.
these two platoons are the only ones who know there are enemies afoot near the town, A and X are simply patrolling in an alert condition.

with any luck this scenario is totally even.
The time is noon, overcast conditions, it rained recently.
-START-

Platoon A is moving in wedge formation at about....30 miles per hour.
Platoon X is doing the same, perhaps slightly faster.

X moves around the trees, and the two sight each other. Platoon A is caught slightly unprepared and X gets the jump and fires first. The Abrams' cobham armor ensure the crew will survive, but the first tank to get hit in PLT-A loses its sighting equipment. A tank from A returns fire and destroys one T-90. The sight-less tank from A fires a stray shot in manual mode, completely disabling a Russian tank before it is knocked out. A T-90 fires and disables the track on an Abrams. the last two Abrams turn north into the woods, and the T-90's attempt to fire but the Abrams move too quickly. the Abrams hide in the wood, and the T-90's move in. The ensuing fight goes quickly, the commander of one Abrams attempts to override the gun, but it hits a tree and fails to traverse, a T-90 fires and knocks it out.
One T-90 goes around the wood, and flanks the Abrams, and disables. In open areas the Abrams has an upper hand with survivability but something tells me the Russians would have the win, because the training that they recieved in this time period relied on open-area battles.

Now for the urban combat.
I'm going to condense this a little bit, the imagination tanks are kind of drained.
I can see it resulting in a draw, with all tanks disabled or destroyed. the Abrams has a speed advantage, cobham armor, as well as more training and experience in urban combat, whilst the Russian tank offers better survivability in urban environments with its 3-tier protection system.

Thus, the T-90 would win, in my opinion.

OKAY! Your TURN!

[Skybird]

One could try this with an SBP scenario, featuring t-80s instead of T-90s, and early M1s instead of M1A2SEPs. SBP has all these but T-90s.

Don'T know if the Rusisans still are with a 3 vehicles per platoon lineup. the Yanks surely run 4 tanks per platoon, so they already would have a numerical advantage, maybe.

Map is missing elevations and ranges - is the flat area between woods and town 2 km wide or 12 km?

Let'S assume the whole map being 6x6 km.

In this setup on the map, the Americans have a small advantage - I would prefer their positioning of platoon A to that of platoon X for the Russians.

Platoon A immediaqtely forms firing line south of the left wood and seeking hull down as best as terrain allows, covering a firing arc from 90 - 135 degrees (on the compass). It gives fire protection for platoon B that takes up hasty defensive position in the Western outskirts of the village and waits for infantry to do recce on the town's centre. An element of B would also have an eye at NNW to warn A if they get engaged from enemies popping up in their rear. If situation allows, B would slowly, verty slowly advance Eastward through the town, taking care not to expose the platoon's flanks to fire from the open range .

The Russians have already a slight time disadvanatge, while B and Y are equally positioned on both sides of the town, X is more distant formt he action than A, having to move around the whole damn forest first.With their Y platoon probably doing similiar action like Y, carefully advancing into or doing recce inbto the town, X would need to move into sight of A with A already being deployed, maybe hull down, and ready to engage from stationary positions. If they move south around the forest, they come under fire from A. If they move in between the two forests, they come under fire at even closer range. They would need to be clever enough to move west and pass around the left forest too to outflank the Americans completely and pop up ion the rear of A. But then the element of B would spot them, and either opens fiore, or A turns around in place and is fire-ready again.

I would do this scenario defensively for the Americans, not aggressively. Therefore I would prefer the Leo-2 over the Abrams in this case, since I prefer the heavier turret armour of the latest Leopards in defensive scenarios, whuile the Abrams with its more general armour in all aspects of the vehicle may have the edge in offenbsiove operations that expose it more. The differences between both tanks in these regards are result of different military doctrines, although maybe one should not overestimate these differences.

You cannot decide this by a thought experiment in this fashion, too many other factors play a roll: crew quality, ammo type, visibility conditions, to mention the three most important. I tend to be no friend of overly aggressive military moves, and think that often initiative can be better gained by being most unpredictable to the enemy, for which speed of advance can but must not be a vital element.

I would also prefer the Leopard over the M1 here, since I tend to favour the Leopards for the defensive and the Abrams for the offensive role, due to the slight differences in prioritizing armour distribution over hull and turret.

The bigger the map, and the longer the distances, the more aggressive the Americans would need to manouver, I think. If the map were 15x15, I would let A close in on the enemy to reject them the advantage of their longer shooting range with missile ammunition - but not so close as that their normal rounds would be able to threaten my probably superior armour as well. Somewhere in the midrange my preferred fighting distance would be, therefore.

Anyhow, doing recce in a totally unknown town with tanks sounds like a bad idea to me. I would demand infantry or gunships anyway. Or I would bypass the town. But I would not advance right through it if there is no infantry support, no matter the orders. If the town is occupied by enemy with ATGMs, it would be a suicide missioin. In case of dug in enemy tanks - probably as well.

[Sledgehammer427]

I agree with 99% of what you posted Sky, and if I was in command of this scenario, I wouldn't let any of this happen. my idea though was to run a scenario, judging the two tanks in question on urban combat, and open area combat. with the two sides completely even.

with the map, my guess is the distance between the two wooded areas is about 3,000 meters

the town wouldn't be to scale then. I'm thinking a town on the scale of Foy in WWII

[Skybird]

This video may be a bit overly patriotic in favour of the T-90, nevertheless it may hint at the right direction when claiming that the Abrams is overestimated.



In SBP it is already reflected that the T-80 can be a bug extremely difficult to crack open. It is smaller than Western tanks, and has quite some effective tough armour. That it already lays down fire on you with you still being out of gunnery range, doesn't make it easier. In SBP, I made it a habit to not engage T-80s directly and head-on, but to try to "out-tactic" them. Which is good advise with any modern MBT as opponent. We in the West tend to underestimate Russian tanks. That already started with the T-72 in the later years of it' appearance. The T-72 was the answer to the former Russian tanks being outclassed by the Leopard-1 in agility, speed, punch, precision, and armour. Maybe no other tank since world war two has been so dominant at its time like the Leo-1. What we often ignore is that the T-72 all in all turned out to be a worthy contender for the Leopard, despite its initial certain weaknesses. There must have been a reason why panic bells rang alive in Brussel when it entered the scene. Numerical superiority was not the reason, but toughness, and punch.

[Krauter]

Originally Posted by Skybird

This video may be a bit overly patriotic in favour of the T-90, nevertheless it may hint at the right direction when claiming that the Abrams is overestimated.



In SBP it is already reflected that the T-80 can be a bug extremely difficult to crack open. It is smaller than Western tanks, and has quite some effective tough armour. That it already lays down fire on you with you still being out of gunnery range, doesn't make it easier. In SBP, I made it a habit to not engage T-80s directly and head-on, but to try to "out-tactic" them. Which is good advise with any modern MBT as opponent. We in the West tend to underestimate Russian tanks. That already started with the T-72 in the later years of it' appearance. The T-72 was the answer to the former Russian tanks being outclassed by the Leopard-1 in agility, speed, punch, precision, and armour. Maybe no other tank since world war two has been so dominant at its time like the Leo-1. What we often ignore is that the T-72 all in all turned out to be a worthy contender for the Leopard, despite its initial certain weaknesses. There must have been a reason why panic bells rang alive in Brussel when it entered the scene. Numerical superiority was not the reason, but toughness, and punch.

What is interesting to note as well, at least I find it interesting, is that the T-90 is in effect not an entirely "new" tank design. Instead, it is an upgraded T-72 (Russian designation T-72BM I believe..). So in this case, the Abrams is fighting latest T-72 and not the latest "new" tank design.

I'm not really sure where I sit here, of course being from the West I'd love to ride out in an Abrams. But doing research on the T-90 has me thinking it has some critical advantages to which the Abrams has no answer. Of course, a lot of this Russian "wonder defences" can be PR'd to death, much like the Abrams is PR'd to be impregnable.

[Osmium Steele]

I really have a hard time with most THIS vs. THAT weapon platform threads.

Almost no thread considers the quality, training, experience, and tactics utilized by the most important element of ANY weapon platform, the crew.
Simply because it cannot be accurately predicted, or modelled.

Bah, nevermind. /RANT

[Sledgehammer427]

actually, in order to make the test as even as possible, I left the crew out.

"The gunner in tank 3 sneezes allowing an Abrams to blow his tank to smithereens"

[Skybird]

Just found this. Different to wide-spread argument, the T-90 has seen combat action, in the 1999 war in Dagestan.

The use of T-90S tanks in Dagestan deserves mention. A group of these vehicles consisting of 8 to 12 units according to different sources was supposed to be delivered to India. Fol­lowing a sharp aggravation of the situation in the Cauca­sus, however, the tanks were transferred to Dagestan. In the Kadari zone one T-90 was hit by seven RPG anti-tank rockets but remained in action. This indicates that with regular equip­ment T-90S is the best protected Russian tank, especially if Shtora and Arena defensive protection systems are integrated in it.

http://mdb.cast.ru/mdb/3-2002/ac/raowdsmcc/

[Preen]

In 'Thunder Run' (David Zucchino) I read that the Abrahms can survive 15 RPG hits without effect (besides girlie mags burning in the luggage).

Therefore, one Abrams is worth about 2 T-90s.

-But-, the American crews will hit their own tanks to effect. The Russian crews will also fire at their own tanks, but with those tube missiles that can be stopped by Shtora.

According to simulation projections, half of each force will be destroyed by fire. The remainder will become stuck on bridges, partially submerged in rivers, or navigating the town's roads in an endless loop, until becoming trapped between two buildings.

American casualties burn their disabled tanks and are treated for hearing loss and PTSD. The T-90s jettisonable canopy and pyrotechnic ejection system fails to live up to expectations.

[Gorshkov]

Originally Posted by Skybird

In SBP it is already reflected that the T-80 can be a bug extremely difficult to crack open.

Maybe in SBP but not in today's reality.

Originally Posted by Skybird

It is smaller than Western tanks, and has quite some effective tough armour. That it already lays down fire on you with you still being out of gunnery range, doesn't make it easier. In SBP, I made it a habit to not engage T-80s directly and head-on, but to try to "out-tactic" them.

To be sure T-80U is on par with T-90 except possessing better maneuverability. However now it is not any serious opponent for Western tanks present in SBP like Leo-2A5/A6. Its frontal armor can be penetrated by today's standard Western APFSDS ammo of M829A3, DM63 types from almost 2 km distance. On the other hand Leo-2A5/A6 and M1A2SEP frontal armor is almost impenetrable by outdated Russian tank ammunition. Moreover T-80U lacks thermal sight which is ridiculous these days.

Originally Posted by Skybird

We in the West tend to underestimate Russian tanks.

And now that is very reasonable and very well founded assumption!

Originally Posted by Skybird

The T-72 was the answer to the former Russian tanks being outclassed by the Leopard-1 in agility, speed, punch, precision, and armour. Maybe no other tank since world war two has been so dominant at its time like the Leo-1.

Not true. Leo-1 was not any huge milestone in tank development and it did not outclassed contemporary Soviet tanks. For instance T-62 tank was on par with Leo-1. It possessed very powerful 115 mm 2A20 smoothbore gun firing APFSDS rounds which could destroy Leo-1 easily at any practical distance during entire Cold War period.

Originally Posted by Skybird

What we often ignore is that the T-72 all in all turned out to be a worthy contender for the Leopard, despite its initial certain weaknesses. There must have been a reason why panic bells rang alive in Brussel when it entered the scene. Numerical superiority was not the reason, but toughness, and punch.

T-72 origins are different. This tank was designed as a second-rate model intended for second-line formations and for export because it was simple and cheap. In short it was indirect T-55 successor and replacement! However main Soviet battle tanks of this era were much better T-64B and T-80B which constituted backbone of Soviet armored forces deployed against NATO in Central Europe. In sum T-72A/M worse than those two in mobility, FCS and armor protection. Only during time of Soviet Union's crisis and collapse T-72 was chosen due to being cheaper than T-80B/U as a mainstay of Russian tank forces. As a result it was modernized using T-80U's technology and this way T-72B and later T-90 versions appeared.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Gorshkov

Maybe in SBP but not in today's reality.

It depends on the ammo - in SBP, and in reality.

To be sure T-80U is on par with T-90 except possessing better maneuverability. However now it is not any serious opponent for Western tanks present in SBP like Leo-2A5/A6. Its frontal armor can be penetrated by today's standard Western APFSDS ammo of M829A3, DM63 types from almost 2 km distance. On the other hand Leo-2A5/A6 and M1A2SEP frontal armor is almost impenetrable by outdated Russian tank ammunition. Moreover T-80U lacks thermal sight which is ridiculous these days.

Again, it depends on the ammo. If you set up old ammo against modern armour, or modenr ammo against old arnmour, do not be surprised of the outcome. Below a certain range, Western AND Eastern tank cannons with decent SABOT-type ammo have an overkill capacity against any MBT in the world - this range is slightly bigger for Wetsern tanks, probably, that's why they want to avoid letting diatnces become too short - they would give up an advanatge without compensation. However, Russian tanks shoot guided mini-missiles (Refleks etc.) at greta ranges exceeding conventional ballistic grenades, by that they acchieve shooting ranges exceeding the usually preprogram,med maximum shooting ranges of 4000m in Western tanks. While these things fly relatively slow, and need the shooter sitting still if I am not mistaken, their warhead is a major threat to armour.

The 80U was difficult to penetrate for Western tanks in its time. Also, it has thermals - the only Russian MBT of that time with thermals.

And now that is very reasonable and very well founded assumption!

In the wars of the past 20 years, only second- and third-class export versions of T-72s saw battle action against Wetswern tanks, and neither German nor American tank experts deny that the Russians during the cold war usually produced much better quality and kept the best equipment for themselves, compared to the tanks build in thwe CSSR or Poland. Also, training and maintenance were not of Soviet standards, when considering the cold war era or the ME. It ha snot been before the blocks fell apart that for exmapke the Czechs build a serious improvement kit for their T-72, the M1 version, with additional armour, Western electronics and thermal sights.

Ammo improved also over time, especially in Germany, Sweden and America. Latest Tungsten-type of German rounds almost amtch the destuctability of third-generation DU-rounds used by the Americans. Considering the different phasical characteristics of both materials, that really means siomething and indicates a small "wonder". In SBP, both rounds are therefore rated almost identical at ranges of up to 4000m, with just a microscopic lead for the the US round.

Not true. Leo-1 was not any huge milestone in tank development and it did not outclassed contemporary Soviet tanks.

Oh, it did, and by a very huge marghin - it coutclassed any tank when it was introduced. It wasa fast5er, more agile, the gun was more precise and had a longer reach, it had thwermals, it was quick in reverse, it had superior optics and - considering thát effectively it was a heavy turret on a medioum chassis - a remarkable armour protection for its time. Major advanatge was its agility, manouverability, speed and precise cannon. The T-72 was designed to be the Leo-1 killer, for the T-55, T-62 and T-64 were more or less chanceless against the Leopard-1, being infeiror in EVERY regard. Slow, even slower in reverse, unsufficient armour - these factors alone meant a death sentence considering we talk the era when ATGMs entered service. No thermals, IR which to use meant an invitation to shoot at it, and guns which had a huge callibre, less, but was short in range due to lacking precision and low muzzle velocity. Also, notorious mechanical failures and unreliable autoloaders.

The Leopard-1 also dominated any Western tank design of that era. It was a Porsche, armed to the teeth, moving in a field of under-motorized Beetles.

For instance T-62 tank was on par with Leo-1. It possessed very powerful 115 mm 2A20 smoothbore gun firing APFSDS rounds which could destroy Leo-1 easily at any practical distance during entire Cold War period.

As I indicated and summarised just above, it takes a little more than that. When comparing tanks, you alwqays must incldue the full package, the overall balacning fot he threer majhor factors of "mobility", "armour", and "armament". Usually focussing more on the one factor is at the cost of the two others. We also need to add "sensors" here.

T-72 origins are different. This tank was designed as a second-rate model intended for second-line formations and for export because it was simple and cheap. In short it was indirect T-55 successor and replacement! However main Soviet battle tanks of this era were much better T-64B and T-80B which constituted backbone of Soviet armored forces deployed against NATO in Central Europe. In sum T-72A/M worse than those two in mobility, FCS and armor protection. Only during time of Soviet Union's crisis and collapse T-72 was chosen due to being cheaper than T-80B/U as a mainstay of Russian tank forces. As a result it was modernized using T-80U's technology and this way T-72B and later T-90 versions appeared.

The T-72 was meant to cover thew weaklness in the army setup that was revealed by the T-55 and T-62/64 when the Leopard-1 showed up. It was a much better design to challenge the Leopard, than the earlier T-tanks, and remember, the T-80 was not around when the T-72 showed up. The T-72 was commissioned in or around 1972, the T-80 was pölanned during the 70s, was produced since 1978, and was delivered to the Russian army not before 1984. The T-80 did not base on the T-72 indesign, however, but on the T-64 which it was meant to repalce, due to the immense mechjnaical unreliability of the T-64.

When the T-72 appeared, it rang alarm bells in NATO HQs, and the developement of the new Ameican and German MBT was speeded up. Both the Abrams and the Leopard 2 were demanded to have the capacity to deal with and to defeat the T-72, while being outnumered. And then came the T-80 as well, but thankfully late, and in smaller numbers than the Soviet high command wanted.

Leopard-1 was produced since 1965, btw.

It makes little sense to compare tank designs which are decades apart in developement. It also makes no sense to compare them just by their gun callibre. And callibre still does not mean the same like firing range and precision, and penetration value. In conventional (non-missile) gun projectile design, Russia still lacks, compared to Wetsern rounds, since it has a larger tank fleet ti equip and thus needs cheaper solutions. Its kinetic rounds for long time thus did not base on expensive Tungsten or deplreted uranium, but steel. Range of such projectiles, considering the typical (slower) velocities of Russian tank guns, gives htem an effetive (precise shooting) range of 25-30% less than Western rounds. In SBP it is modelled that weay that the L-44 gun of Westerntanks suually fires at a maximum of 4000m, Russian tanks fire at ranges of 3300m max, or less - while being able to shoot at ranges of up to I think 5000m with Refleks. But these are no miracle weapons in themselves, and come in smaller quantities also.

Not compare this to the advantages of thermal sights versus IR-sights or visual sights only. As the Iraqis said in 1991: they did not even see their opponents.

And then, agility: speed-in-reverse, speed, acceleration. Until today, Western tanks are superior in these fields.

[Gorshkov]

Originally Posted by Skybird

It depends on the ammo - in SBP, and in reality.

Again, it depends on the ammo. If you set up old ammo against modern armour, or modenr ammo against old arnmour, do not be surprised of the outcome. Below a certain range, Western AND Eastern tank cannons with decent SABOT-type ammo have an overkill capacity against any MBT in the world - this range is slightly bigger for Wetsern tanks, probably, that's why they want to avoid letting diatnces become too short - they would give up an advanatge without compensation.

It rather depends on selected time-frame! Now Western APFSDS ammo is much superior to Russian/Soviet designs. Take into account the best today's Western rounds M829A3 and DM63 fired from L/44 and L/55 guns respectively have penetration almost 800 mm RHA at 2 km, while old but still widely used Russian APFSDS rounds like BM-32/42/46 only reach 500-600 mm RHA penetration at 2 km. Moreover armor protection of latest Western tanks (M1A2SEP, Leo-2A6, Merkava-4) is much mode effective than T-80U and T-90 armor based on outdated ERA concept.

In sum, T-80U and T-90 are viable opponents for Leo-2A4 and M1A1 but are no match for Leo-2 and M1 latest incarnations.

Originally Posted by Skybird

The 80U was difficult to penetrate for Western tanks in its time. Also, it has thermals - the only Russian MBT of that time with thermals.

No Soviet tank had thermal sights in 1980s, buddy! Only several years later Russians firstly imported and later got license on French thermal sights. They were offered in T-80UM (1993 - purely export T-80U version) and later were introduced in some T-90s.

Originally Posted by Skybird

In the wars of the past 20 years, only second- and third-class export versions of T-72s saw battle action against Wetswern tanks, and neither German nor American tank experts deny that the Russians during the cold war usually produced much better quality and kept the best equipment for themselves, compared to the tanks build in thwe CSSR or Poland.

It depends. As for older tanks like T-54/55 I think they were produced at similar quality level in both USSR and NSWP countries. Later Soviets incorporated policy of producing several tank models simultaneously with some of them being build exclusively for Soviet Army (T-64, T-80). So there isn't odd those tanks were unique for Soviet arsenal. In the T-72 case all this looks quite different and...messy. In short Soviets designed...three basic T-72 versions: for Soviet Army, for NSWP armies and for their Third World clients. Essentially the latter were [much] worse than two previous versions while T-72 for Soviet Army did not differ much from T-72 built on license in selected NSWP counties.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Ammo improved also over time, especially in Germany, Sweden and America. Latest Tungsten-type of German rounds almost amtch the destuctability of third-generation DU-rounds used by the Americans. Considering the different phasical characteristics of both materials, that really means siomething and indicates a small "wonder". In SBP, both rounds are therefore rated almost identical at ranges of up to 4000m, with just a microscopic lead for the the US round.

I suppose recent US made APFSDS-DU ammo is better suited for penetration of advanced ERA armor than German wolfram APFSDS rounds. Yet this is only my guessing because real data are top secret.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Oh, it did, and by a very huge marghin - it coutclassed any tank when it was introduced. It wasa fast5er, more agile, the gun was more precise and had a longer reach, it had thwermals, it was quick in reverse, it had superior optics and - considering thát effectively it was a heavy turret on a medioum chassis - a remarkable armour protection for its time. Major advanatge was its agility, manouverability, speed and precise cannon. The T-72 was designed to be the Leo-1 killer, for the T-55, T-62 and T-64 were more or less chanceless against the Leopard-1, being infeiror in EVERY regard.

Nope, buddy! you overestimate Leo-1 capabilities against T-62 by a large margin. Look at basic data:

- firepower: T-62 - 115 mm 2A20 gun (first smoothbore gun firing APFSDS round ever created), Leo-1 - 105 mm L7 rifled gun
- frontal armor protection: T-62 - 250 mm, Leo-2A1/A3 - 190-250 mm
- mobility measured in power/weight ratio: Leo-1 - 14,4 kW/t, T-62 - 11 kW/t
- FCS - no Leo-1 had thermal sights until Leo-1A5 introduced in 1987!

So in sum early Leo-1 (A1-A3) and T-62 models were almost equal. Their armor protection was on par, T-62 has better firepower while Leo-1 had better mobility.

Later it was changing but not to a large degree as you describe it! For instance Leo-1A4 (IOC 1974) got quite advanced automatic FCS but T-62M (IOC 1983) was very deep T-62 modernization with good "Volna" FCS (digital computer, laser rangefinder, gun stabilizer), better BDD frontal armor equals 480-500 mm RHA and gun launched AT-10 ATGM providing capability to destroy Leo-1 from 4 km distance. As a result T-62M was better than Leo-1A4 and partially that's why Leo-1A5 was developed. However in 1987 Cold War was almost over and both tanks were seen as outdated.

Summarization - T-62 and Leo-1 were similar second generation tanks which were modernized as a small part of arms race between two military blocks. However none of them outmatched another.

Originally Posted by Skybird

The T-72 was meant to cover thew weaklness in the army setup that was revealed by the T-55 and T-62/64 when the Leopard-1 showed up. It was a much better design to challenge the Leopard, than the earlier T-tanks, and remember, the T-80 was not around when the T-72 showed up. The T-72 was commissioned in or around 1972, the T-80 was pölanned during the 70s, was produced since 1978, and was delivered to the Russian army not before 1984. The T-80 did not base on the T-72 indesign, however, but on the T-64 which it was meant to repalce, due to the immense mechjnaical unreliability of the T-64.
When the T-72 appeared, it rang alarm bells in NATO HQs, and the developement of the new Ameican and German MBT was speeded up. Both the Abrams and the Leopard 2 were demanded to have the capacity to deal with and to defeat the T-72, while being outnumered. And then came the T-80 as well, but thankfully late, and in smaller numbers than the Soviet high command wanted.

You have false vision of Soviet and Western tank development in that era. Basically Soviets relied doctrinally more heavily on tanks and that's why they were not satisfied with T-55 and T-62 tanks versus contemporary Western models like AMX-30, M48/60 and Leo-1. So in 1960s they took heavy effort to gain qualitative superiority over NATO tanks. Doing so they designed T-64 in 1967 which was much better tank than each Western counterpart and thus T-64 was chosen as a premiere Soviet tank model. However you should know Soviet tank arsenal was gigantic - 60000 tanks, more than entire World combined! No way advanced and expensive T-64s can be built in such numbers. Therefore USSR had to develop another tank - cheaper and simpler than T-64 and this was T-72 - a direct replacement of hordes of T-54/55s and even...T-10M tanks. As I pointed out above T-72 was seen in Soviet Union as second-line model which means it did not constituted backbone of Soviet tank forces in hypothetical war waged on Central Front against NATO. This role was reserved for T-64 and later T-80 tanks. So NATO strategists could not afraid T-72 more than those two tanks and Western third generation tanks (Abrams, Leopard-2, Challenger) were designed primarily as a counterweight against T-64B and T-80B.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Leopard-1 was produced since 1965, btw.

And T-62 from 1961 so not far away. Besides Leo-1 production number is 4744 tanks while T-62 production reached 22000. Note Soviets always preferred quantity over [alas constantly better] quality.

Originally Posted by Skybird

In conventional (non-missile) gun projectile design, Russia still lacks, compared to Wetsern rounds, since it has a larger tank fleet ti equip and thus needs cheaper solutions. Its kinetic rounds for long time thus did not base on expensive Tungsten or depleted uranium, but steel.

Well, buddy - you are amazing me! Where did you get that BS? Actually Soviet APFSDS rounds were made with DU even before Western ones! Look at BM-21 and BM-28 rounds for...T-62 - first was introduced in the middle 1970s! They could defeat all Western second generation tanks and even first models of third generation tanks (M1, Leo-2A1) up to 1,5-2 km thanks to 330-400 mm RHA penetration at 2 km.
As for 125 mm rounds - look at BM-22 APFSDS (wolfram) introduced in 1976.
In contrast I can't see any NATO 105 mm APFSDS-DU round fielded before 1980s and their first wolfram APFSDS appeared in 1978. They relied heavily on...APDS rounds back then!

[Skybird]

I may be wrong in some details, for example I lived by the idea that upgraded T-80 before the U-version had thermals, but not every vehicle, but only a small number of them, much like the German Marder AFVs had a Milan only for the platoon leader'S vehicle, not for his wingmen. But maybe I mixed up "thermals" with "night vision equipment" - like infrared. However, I stick to my statements about the Leopard-1's superior fire control system and cross-country mobility and reliability. Also, even during the 80s NATO was given the advantage in night-fighting capabilities. On paper, the T-64 indeed looks very much like the Leo-1, but practice showed it to be different. It is described to be extremely maintenance-heavy, the autoloader is a notorious danger for the gunner, and the engine is said to be extremely prone to mechanical problems and breakdowns. The gun suffered dearly from wear and tear and the barrel had to be replaced more often than in Western tanks - every 80-100 AP-shots, I read on the web, with cases of replacement known that even were much lower than 80 (after high rate of firing). The tank for the most was used in first-line GT-units of the Soviet army in East-Germany, and was produced in significantly lower quantities than the T-62 or T-55, both of wich still would have been met on the battlefield in case a war would have broken out in the 80s. While the Russians studied the use of DU very early indeed, to my knowledge they did not produce them in quantities that would have made them a regular piece of equipment, but more exotic - like you also have artillery-delivered minefields available - but not as something the ordinary fighting force would just see any day (that ammunitions was damn expensive and thus only made available in limited quantities on NATO's side).

The T-72 may or may not have been designed with the intention of stopping the Leopard-1, we will not solve here to what degree intel of both sides knew in advance what potential the new tank of the other side would have. Those close release dates of the T-64 and the Leo-1 speak against the T-64 having been a direct answer to the Leo-1. On paper, the T-64 may appear as the better tank (and more expensive to build, compared to other Russian tanks), but it'S notorious mechanical unreliability made the T-72 the tank being more popular, since it is more reliable, and slightly easier to maintain. It had a nice maximum speed on the road, but in cross-country mobility was generally inferior. Several of its features nevertheless were considered as innovations.

I am no insider on these things, just an interested layman picking up information when it jumps into his face. I had more information on it than the following text excerpt, and from so many different sources (as well as forum discussions I listened to and which were held by insiders for sure), but I give the following snippet from the SBP manual'S appendix just because it is easily available for me - I just had it at hand - and I do not want to re-search all the other stuff manually. There are dedicated tanksites on the web, though. The full text from which I take the section on Russian AP-design neither is historically complete nor is it up to date, it does not include the third generation of US DU-rounds, for example. But it is the only thing I easily and comfortably have available now without letting this become a piece of real time-consuming work.

Russian APFSDS

for the 125 mm 2A46 gun uses a

distinctly different design than APFSDS rounds manufactured in the

West. When the Russians first started making 100 mm and 115 mm

APFSDS in the 1960s, they used steel penetrators rather than dense
materials like tungsten or uranium. Since the Russians needed vast
quantities of APFSDS ammunition (they produced some 20,000 T-62
tanks alone), manufacturing considerations played a very strong role
in their ammunition designs. Steel was strong, easy to machine,
readily available, and quite economical, so it made sense to use it for
the penetrator. Although steel penetrators were not as effective as
denser metals

, they performed well enough if they could be fired at

high velocities.

To ensure high muzzle velocities the Russians chose a very

lightweight sabot design, called a "ring sabot". This resembled a
narrow disc around the center of the penetrator, and it weighed
much less than the "spool" designs now in use in the West. The light
rounds could be accelerated to very high speeds, and muzzle
velocity was an unmatched 1800 m/s for early 125 mm rounds.
However, using the ring sabot design meant that the penetrator's tailfins
had to touch the barrel walls, to keep the projectile properly
aligned while it was in the gun. These wide fins cause large amounts

of drag, and Russian APFSDS rounds all slow down quite quickly,

lowering their penetration at long range.

The other factor affecting Russian APFSDS design is the
fact that the 125 mm gun uses two-part ammunition. The projectile
and main propellant charge are stored separately, and loaded into
the gun one after the other by a mechanical autoloader. This means
that Russian APFSDS rods can only be as long as the stowage cells
in the autoloader. On the T-72 the ammunition hoist doors are only
long enough to let a 70 cm object through, so long projectiles like the
M829A1 (78 cm long) simply cannot fit. This is the fault of the tank,
not the gun, and is the price the Russians have paid for a compact
autoloader system.
The Russians fielded a number of 125 mm APFSDS
projectiles in the late 1960s and early 1970s, including the steel
3BM9, and the steel and tungsten carbide 3BM12, 3BM15, and
3BM17. These low performance rounds are no longer in front-line
service with top Russian units, but many remain in storage, and
large numbers were exported or licensed to client states. Many
nations used them throughout the 1980s, and, in some cases, up to
the present day. Iraq, for instance, was still manufacturing 3BM15s in
1991. A further series of rounds, including the 3BM22, 3BM26, and
3BM29, were produced in the late 1970s and early 1980s, but very
little is known about them, and they were not widely exported.
The next round, the 3BM32, entered service in 1984,
although it was not shown to the outside world until it was offered for
export in 1993. The 3BM32 is made of depleted uranium, unlike
previous 125 mm rounds, and it has an enlarged redesigned ringsabot.
The round is quite short, only 49 cm from tip to tail, and the
penetrator weighs about 4.5 kg. The 3BM32's 1700 m/s muzzle
velocity is good, but the wide fins make it slow down fairly quickly, so
long range performance suffers.
The 3BM42 is part of the same generation as the 3BM32,
with a very similar rod shape and sabot. It entered service in 1986,
although it too was only revealed in 1993. The 3BM42 uses a
tungsten alloy core, but this particular alloy is too weak to form the

entire rod, so the tungsten is sheathed inside a strong steel casing to
keep it intact.

The projectile is longer than the 3BM32, at 57 cm, but
its mixed steel and tungsten construction means its performance is

worse. The 3BM42 has a 1700 m/s muzzle velocity, but its wide fins

slow it rapidly, just like the 3BM32.
The next generation of Russian APFSDS is the 3BM42M,
which is quite different from other Russian APFSDS because it uses
a spool shaped sabot with frontal support flanges, and has narrow
fins, like typical Western designs. The penetrator uses a longer onepiece
tungsten alloy body, but few other details have been released
so far. Deliveries of the round were supposed to begin sometime in
1998-99, but the state of the Russian economy may have delayed

this.

(by Andrew Jaremko)

On Soviet doctrine, I would summarise it like this: extremely heavy preparatory artillery bombardement, three-waves, the follow-on wave exploiting the breaches cut into the enemy front by the first wave, and doing so not in width, but in depth. Third wave had second-.class equipment for cleanup-operations and securing the "Hinterland", major offensive burdenm on the first two waves. With the appearance of the T-72, a slight change in doctrine, no longer was the best equipment to be forming the opening offensive (T80s were available, T-64), but the T-72. When NAQTO suffered losses and its frontline was in danger, or penetrated, then the real flagships would take over, that way causing even greater damage to the enemy. Lost equipement was to be cannibalised for maintaining the effort of the ongoing first and second wave offensive. Goal was not necessarily to flank and destroy NATO frontlines, but to strike deep and reach the logistical supply network and control-command infrastructure far behind the front, and crush it. All this, like the "general aggressiveness" or "offensiveness" of military politics of the USSR, was a lesson learned the hard way in WWII, when the Russians learned they could beat the Wehrmacht only by ammassing firepower in hotspots of interest and by claiming the offense no matter the cost, not limiting themselves to defending. The restrictive chain of command and somewhat "automatted" battle lineup in the Russian army results from a general distrust of higher ranks into subordinate ranks, and from limited communication networks that did not allow as individualised command-and-control decisions as in NATO armies where subordnnate ranks are left with greater freedoms and space for flexibility. That'S what I took from various sources, and that's how a former Eastgerman Major described the Russian doctrine to me some years ago. I think we can agree at least on this part.

[mr. whukid]

People actually believe what the Russians say about their tanks? HA.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The restrictive chain of command and somewhat "automatted" battle lineup in the Russian army results from a general distrust of higher ranks into subordinate ranks, and from limited communication networks that did not allow as individualised command-and-control decisions as in NATO armies where subordnnate ranks are left with greater freedoms and space for flexibility.

To be fair, the Soviets are also very much interested in good control and speed. The "parade-ground" tactics of the Soviet Army may give up any chance of a casualty-free attack, but:
1) It is easy to control, thus has the highest probability of working if an immediate attack is required (such as in meeting engagement). If you try and launch a sudden attack and everyone is working out his own solution with the terrain, the attack will likely to break apart.
2) The support phase of the artillery offensive can be concentrated into a few minutes, thus more guns can be ready to fire, at a higher rate. Remember, to a great extent modern overwatch (fire-and-maneuver and all that) and terrain-usage tactics really came because artillery CANNOT fully suppress defenders. The West adopts overwatch. The Soviets try to create the conditions for artillery to successfully suppress the defenders, including the use of direct fire artillery where necessary.
3) In minimizing the amount of time used for the attack, even with a higher casualty rate the Soviets minimize the disruption to the advancing column behind it. Taking (lots of) time to use terrain works at the tactical level, but while you are doing that, the operational column behind you is forced to stop, and eat more NATO airstrikes. The Soviets will probably gladly trade some companies to be allowed to continue to move.

There is actually an article in the American Military Review back in 1989, that basically says the American (NATO) practice of overwatch doesn't work even in exercises, and maybe they should incorporate more Soviet techniques into their approach.