From: antispam@uvic.ca (Robb McLeod) Subject: Re: T-90 verus M1A2 Date: 1997/06/30 Message-ID: #1/1 Sender: military@ranger.daytonoh.ncr.com (Sci.military Login) References: Organization: University of Victoria Newsgroups: sci.military.moderated From antispam@uvic.ca (Robb McLeod) In article , "John M. Atkinson" wrote: >After two weeks of really chaffing at the limits of the MILES >battlefield, I came away convinced that a lot of the US's advantages >don't show up on the field. Give me an example. A good example of a OPFOR advantage that's never appeared is the inability of Western weapon systems to penetrate their armor. I've always felt that was important: T-64: First ever production MBT to carry combinational armor. It carried Combination K, which appariently is composed of glass fiber suspended within a plastic resin. Through a mechanism called thixotropy, the resin changes to a fluid under constant pressure, allowing the armor to be molded into curved shapes. DOI: 1966 RHA verus APFSDS: 410 mm RHA verus HEAT: 500 mm T-80B: Along with the T-64B and T-72A, this vehicle substituted a Boron Carbide filled resin aggregate in 2nd generation Combination K, similar to the above mentioned GRP, but was more compact and provided better protection for the same weight. DOI: 1978 RHA verus APFSDS: 500 mm RHA verus HEAT: 580 mm T-80BV: The introduction of ERA on Russian vehicles led to a massive emergancy program on the behalf of NATO to requip their ATGMs with tandem warheads. The first T0W-2A appeared after the T-80U was introduced. DOI: 1983 RHA verus APFSDS: 500 mm RHA verus HEAT: 1 000 mm T-80U: The first vehicle to carry Kontakt-5 EDZ, effective both against HEAT warheads and APFSDS. It also carried an applique armor pack which is composed of a frontal steel plate about 60 mm thick backed by an insert of three layers of inert interlayer reactive armor, composed of steel plates and penapolyurethane filler. Tests by a unified Germany in 1995 found this material to have an Em of about 5.0. Also had significant increases to vehicle survivablity in other areas, mostly the armoring and cellurization of ammunition storage and the incorporation of composite steel/GRP armor on the vehicle's flanks. DOI: 1985 RHA verus APFSDS: 820 mm RHA verus HEAT: 1 300 mm T-90 The T-90 was the first vehicle to incorporate inert interlayer reactive armor, along with Kontakt-5, into it's armor system rather than relying on applique packs, lessening the number of null zones on the vehicle. DOI: 1995 RHA verus APFSDS: 1 005 mm RHA verus HEAT: 1 560 mm US Armor Piercing Ammunition: M735: DOI: 1978 Penetration: 395 mm @ 1 km M774 DOI: 1982 Penetration: 445 mm @ 1 km M833 DOI: 1985 Penetration: 495 mm @ 1 km M827 DOI: 1986 Penetration: 450 mm @ 2 km M829 DOI: 1988 Penetration: 590 mm @ 2 km M829A1 DOI: 1991 Penetration: 670 mm @ 2 km Oh gee... The M829A1 can't penetrate the frontal armor of a T-80U, but it can kill a T-72G at about 8 km. Pitance that the guy who designed Air-Land battle doctrine, General Don Starry, says the same thing I do about the balance of technology. US ATGMs: TOW: DOI: 1973 Penetration: 600 mm Improved TOW: DOI: 1981 Penetration: 800 mm TOW-2 DOI: 1983 Penetration: 900 mm TOW-2A: DOI: 1987 Penetration: 1 000 mm Hellfire-B DOI: 1987 Penetration: 1 200 mm Another one is the basic lack of LWRs and guided tube launched munitions for use against BLUFOR ATGM platforms, especially attack helicopters. The Sherridan conversions are all hot, and show up nicely on thermals, even though the Russians have been incorporating thermal signature suppression in their vehicles since the T-80U and T-72B, circa 1985. Oh yes, OPFOR doesn't get to use Hot Smoke, called S-4 by the former Soviet Union. It's a bunch of rubber pellets coated with white phosphorous, which throws a large amount of carbon into the air as it burns. Then there's radioelectric combat. BLUFOR never has to deal with all of its radio links being jammed as the would have to in real combat. I don't know. I've just listed four major problems that you don't have to deal with at the NTC in about five minutes. The basic critisms at NTC seem to be that BLUFOR can't attack nor defend, which seem to be major problems to me. The other major problems seem to be that the S-3 is overloaded and that dismounted infantry operations are not being conducted properly, if at all. Oh yes, US reconaissance is being massacred by the more aggressive OPFOR recon patrols. -- Robb McLeod rmcleod@uvic.ca (Please replace the "antispam" with "rmcleod" if replying via email)