Thread: Russian ATGM's ineffective?

Originally Posted by Shadowsided

Is it just me or are Russian ATGM's seriously lacking behind their Western and Israeli counterparts. Every operational NATO country and Israel operate top attack atgm's with tandem heat charges to defeat reactive armor and hit the most vulnerable part of the tank. To me it would make sense if Western atgm's lack top atack given that russian tanks have less armor but given that in any scenario Russians tanks will likely face Abrams and Challengers and lacking top attack would put the atgm operators at significant disadvantage. I could see the missiles mounted on Russian helos as hitting the top armor of tanks given the fact that those fly in a ballistic trajectory. Just wondering if anyone could help me out here. Thanks

Time to break out the books if you want to know the truth. It is an interlocking field of study, here is a thumbnail sketch.

Russian direct fire ATGM's reflect their technology base which effectively took a 15 year pause in development from 92-07. However, in other areas Russian missiles remain even more advanced the western models. The Kornet missile out ranges the TOW by 1750m and packs nearly twice the warhead weight in a missile the same size, has a faster flight time and is a beam rider not wire guided.

The Soviet Union put a lot of effort into developing effective ATGM systems in part to make up for the lack of gun power vis a vis the far superior RhMtl 120mm compared to the Soviet 24A6 125mm. In the West the reverse held, the NATO 120mm standard was/is such a good platform that vehicle mounted missiles were an afterthought or extra. Top attack munitions were only created to keep the missiles as effective as they had been even against ERA equipped foes. No stolen marches with the upgraded TOW. The Javelin is a killer, but short ranged. The Lahat has Soviet style range but is near worthless against a modern MBT as it is only a 100mm diameter weapon. In the US current efforts are combining tube fired smart rounds not missiles like the MRM-CE which can kill out to 10+ km.

Also of note is warhead performance. The Kornet proved it can kill a modenr MBT like the Merkava IV. It can't do it as effectively as the AT-3 Sagger did in 73, but it can do it. This is because the advances in armor technology beginning in the UK in the 1960's and continuing through the 90's radically swung the balance towards protection v penetration. Modern MBT frontal armor on some designs like the Abrams is now so heavy that it is unlikely that any missile small enough to be usefully deployed on a vehicle can penetrate it unless there is a major breakthrough in chemistry or warhead design. The draw back to this protection is weight.

Weight is a problem that only offers a few solutions none of them ideal. 1- lower the weight devoted to armor and thus lower overall protection. This is the route the Abrams took, armor is directed to the front. 2- sacrifice mobility AND frontal protection by increasing the weight of armor. This is the route taken by the Merkava and Challenger. 3- Reduce the overall interior volume of the tank so that there is less need for total weight of armor offering increased protection without reduced mobility. This is the route taken by the Soviets in the T-series and the French with the Leclerc. However, deleting the 4th crewman has huge disadvantages.

Small but important advances have helped reduce the impact of each choice but the impacts are still there. More powerful engines preserve performance, better optics and fire control systems as well as auto-loaders reduce the need for the 4th man in combat in not in pre and post-combat roles etc.

Z,
For awhile the US operated both the 105-mm and the TOW in the eighties but I am sure you know that already. If I recall an old conversation with you and OoE, the Soviets didn't really expect their armored formations to match the tactical performance of their US counterparts even then, 120 or no 120. The Red Army were more interested in deploying ATGMs and artillery fire against NATO tanks then trying to fight it out with their own.

Originally Posted by Triple C

Z,
For awhile the US operated both the 105-mm and the TOW in the eighties but I am sure you know that already. If I recall an old conversation with you and OoE, the Soviets didn't really expect their armored formations to match the tactical performance of their US counterparts even then, 120 or no 120. The Red Army were more interested in deploying ATGMs and artillery fire against NATO tanks then trying to fight it out with their own.

The M68 105mm was a good gun in the 60's and against any tank made then. But even by the 1970's Soviet T-72 (non-export) and T-64 were all but immune to 105mm HEAT rounds. That made the TOW very important, we still trained to use the 105mm sabots.... That changed radically once the 120mm with the silver bullet showed up and sabots became a weapon that actually worked. As the test after the end of the Cold war show, the M68 was not up to the task of killing Soviet spec T-72's. The Soviets would have murdered me in a Patton and in an M1 or M1IP it would have been trading blows looking for the golden BB.

Even in 1992 USAR vs Soviet Army the gun battles would have been "interesting" the M829 and M829A1 were not at all effective against formations equipped with the Kontack 5 HERA and likely would ahve left a lot to be desired against the Dolly Parton t-72's as well.

I was under the impression Russian Kornet's and Metis-M's had only taken out older Merkava models and not the latest Merkava IV version?????

Originally Posted by Shadowsided

I was under the impression Russian Kornet's and Metis-M's had only taken out older Merkava models and not the latest Merkava IV version?????

Several were knocked out, sometimes multiples in a single fight such as at wadi Saluki.

" As the test after the end of the Cold war show, the M68 was not up to the task of killing Soviet spec T-72's. The Soviets would have murdered me in a Patton and in an M1 or M1IP it would have been trading blows looking for the golden BB."

I will be interested to know which test. Vasiliy Fofanov thought T-72A was not going to cut it against DU tipped 105 projectiles and cite that as a reason for the massive up-armoring of Soviet tanks after the 80s. Anyway, I am sure you also know that the Soviets piled all of their T-64/80 tanks in the Fulda Gap to counter what they suspect would be an American thrust into their territory.

Originally Posted by Triple C

" As the test after the end of the Cold war show, the M68 was not up to the task of killing Soviet spec T-72's. The Soviets would have murdered me in a Patton and in an M1 or M1IP it would have been trading blows looking for the golden BB."

I will be interested to know which test. Vasiliy Fofanov thought T-72A was not going to cut it against DU tipped 105 projectiles and cite that as a reason for the massive up-armoring of Soviet tanks after the 80s. Anyway, I am sure you also know that the Soviets piled all of their T-64/80 tanks in the Fulda Gap to counter what they suspect would be an American thrust into their territory.

I was talking the Dolly Partons for the most part, let me see if I can remember the name of the tests the [officially] West Germans and we did on cast off east German and Soviet kit.

Heide test- partial translation. T-72M1 turret could defeat 105mm APFSDS outside of 1500m and HEAT at any range. Hull front glacis vulnerable to both at 2000m
</center>

Untranslated

http://www.militaertechnik-der-nva.d...sversuche.html

http://www.militaertechnik-der-nva.d...versuche2.html

http://www.militaertechnik-der-nva.d...versuche3.html

Fofoanov's discussion of Dr. Held's lecture of the effect of adding K5 HERA

Modern Explosive Reactive Armours

Thanks Z, that makes perfect sense. The Russians hoped the T-72s would be totally protected against 105mm at all ranges at the frontal arc. That the US/NATO was relying on APFSDS that was capable of defeating its frontal armor was disconcerting. Also, K-5 kits were great on the B series tanks but K-5s were issued only to the Moscow Guards Division.

Originally Posted by Triple C

Thanks Z, that makes perfect sense. The Russians hoped the T-72s would be totally protected against 105mm at all ranges at the frontal arc. That the US/NATO was relying on APFSDS that was capable of defeating its frontal armor was disconcerting. Also, K-5 kits were great on the B series tanks but K-5s were issued only to the Moscow Guards Division.

Late era 105mm sabots defeat early model T-72's. I think early 105mm sabots would have pancaked or bounced.

In the short convo I had with Fofanov, he thought the T-72As were doomed against the older M774 rounds and there was something akin to a technological panic after Arab tanks ecountered Israeli 105mm projectiles in (IIRC) Lebanon. He speculates that measures to increase the steel armor on the turret and brow of early T-72A/M tanks must have been inadequate since the T-72B was developed in the aftermath. Arguably that development might be spurred by the inevitable adoption of 120mm by the US Army, but I will take his USWAG over mine any day.

On a side note and to derail this thread further (sorry, OP!) Jim Warford once spat in an argument that the T-64B's armored protection was not remotely comparable to contemporary M1 tanks (original and IP). Granted there might be some hyperbole, but considering the not-so-mature Russian APFSDS technology at the time and their reliance on HEAT rounds and ATGMs launched by gun, the armored forces might be more evenly matched then your original post suggest.

I do fully support your contention that modern observers often fail to see the remarkable engineering virtues of Soviet military equipment during the Cold War.