Page 25 of 31 FirstFirst ... 16171819202122232425262728293031 LastLast
Results 361 to 375 of 458

Thread: Russia claims new tank invisible to radar/IR

  1. #361

    Military Professional
    Military Professional S2's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 06
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    10,825
    "An armor brigade would be 2 armor 1 infantry battalions and an infantry brigade would be two infantry and 1 armor battalion..."

    Armor/Mech division TO&E weren't set up that way in Corps 86. That was the model we took into Desert Storm. We had no formal "armor" or "mechanized" brigade save two separate brigades at Benning and Knox. A "heavy division" was assigned four manuever brigade H.Q.s-three "heavy" and one combat aviation brigade- and the personnel/vehicles/equipment to man, operate and maintain them. That same division (according to TO&E) was assigned 10 maneuver battalions, four artillery battalions, an armored cav squadron, an air defense artillery battalion and a combat engineer battalion.

    Composition differed depending upon whether an armored division (think 3rd Armored Div) or a mechanized division (1st Infantry Div, as example). A mechanized division would, according to Corps 86, possess five armored and five mech infantry battalions assigned. An armored division would possess six armored and four mechanized battalions. Division commanders would apportion battalions to brigade commanders as indicated by mission requirements. The U.S. Army embraced a notion of "span of control"- that is the minimum efficient and maximum controllable collection of forces. Generally, it is considered 2-5 primary subordinate units that can be efficiently controlled by a single command entity from the platoon level upward to Corps. Thus you may see brigades managing 2-5 battalion task forces.

    The term "task force" is loosely used when civilians discuss the military. Both "task force" and "team", however, carry doctrinal organizational significance within the U.S. Army. Once the division commander has attached or op conned (never assigned) a 2-5 manuever battalions to a brigade commander, depending upon mission requirements, those battalions may fight "pure", meaning no further attachments, "plus"- reinforced with company/platoon divisional assets such as engineers, ADA and others, "Pure minus" would indicate battalion forces DETACHED elsewhere or, finally, as a mixed TASK FORCE. A proper, old-school grease pencil map identification of these units would include graphics that indicated the nature of each unit represented on the map.

    A "task force" was a battalion-sized and controlled organization of mixed infantry/armor companies. This was accomplished by cross-attaching company-sized maneuver units between battalions within the brigade. Again, think span-of-control. It would not be uncommon to see battalions task-organized with 2-5 company sized units. Our doctrine authorized further cross-attachments at the company level. When platoons were cross-attached between company-sized forces within a battalion, they create "teams". This also was a doctrinal organizational term referring specifically to cross-attached company sized elements possessing 2-5 platoons.

    There were numerous real-world factors mitigating against this organizational fluidity. A number of U.S. based heavy divisions lacked an active component maneuver brigade bought by Congress. Those divisions either operated without the additional battalions or had Nat'l Guard maneuver brigades assigned to the divisional TO&E. As events revealed, at least two of those divisions (24th Mech and 1st Cav Div) deployed to Saudi Arabia without a third heavy brigade as the Army refused to validate the Guard brigades for combat. 1st Cav was, instead, given 2nd Bde, 2nd Armored Division (Tiger Brigade) to offset that loss only to have the Tiger Brigade sent east to the Marines just before hostilities ensued. 24th Mech never received a third heavy brigade and operated without.

    Europe brought its own issues for USAEUR. Because of housing constraints and other logistical impediments, brigade kasernes in Germany typically held battalion units as already semi-permanently attached...at least until the first shots of World War III were fired. Battalions and brigades spent decades in Germany in habitual attachments based upon initial war plans and IDPs (initial defense positions). Updating and altering plans was discouraged if it required re-attaching units. The costs of relocating a battalion within W. Germany was considered prohibitive. This worked for and against these units from a training perspective. Close habitual association clearly fostered deeper understanding of the operating nuances of sister battalions located on the same kaserne. The down-side was it didn't lead to rapid assimilation and inter-operability when taken out of their comfort zone.

    These issues were exacerbated by related issues. Artillery battalions on the same Kaserne would presume a direct-support relationship with the co-located brigade H.Q. Maybe, but ultimately that artillery battalion was the DIVARTY commander's asset to be used as the division commander and he saw fit. Understandably, this wasn't always made clear to younger officers and N.C.O.s. Oh, it'd been discussed at their basic courses...and then ignored by the imposed practical realities for better AND worse.

    Anyway...off my soapbox. Loved organization for combat. One glance at the attachements annex to an op-ord would often tell commander's intent.
    Last edited by S2; 20 Sep 16, at 05:37.
    "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
    "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

  2. #362
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    4,119
    Interesting piece on the systems this new thing is supposed to use; http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the...ght-make-17859

  3. #363
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 08
    Posts
    1,798
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    Interesting piece on the systems this new thing is supposed to use; http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the...ght-make-17859
    " if Russian sources are to be believed.

    If Moscow’s claims are accurate,"

    very big ifs...

  4. #364
    Senior Contributor SteveDaPirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 13
    Location
    Kansas City, United States
    Posts
    1,246
    I'm not one to put much credence behind anything written by Dave Majumdar or the Kremlin's sometimes wild claims.

    Still, I don't think Moscow would be prepared to throw down a big investment into the T-14 as a whole new platform if it didn't offer some serious improvements on the tried and true method of periodically updating variations on the T-72.

    Radar directed active countermeasures defeating RPGs and top attack missiles seems fairly plausible, but I'll reserve judgement on the APFSDS rounds until I see some demonstrations or the US quickly rolling out a brand new variety of tank munition.

  5. #365
    Regular
    Join Date
    23 Jul 13
    Location
    Hampton Roads
    Posts
    65
    I'm going to add a bit to Z's earlier comments. I commanded a tank company team in Tal Afar and Ramadi, Iraq. We would often have very close interaction between dismounts and tanks. The notion that they won't be in close proximity in complex terrain is kind of older thinking. Would it change with APS? My thought is you need a device worn on the infantry, that is tracked by the APS sensor. It turns off the APS in the quadrant where the infantry are operating. Otherwise, the whole system has to be deactivated when dismounts or even thinner-skinned vehicles are in close proximity.

    The problem this brings up is whether you need a 'COMSEC'-type code for this IFF system. If so, it will be hard to do. As we often have infantry behind the tanks, perhaps an APS system focused on the front 120-180 arc would be utilized. I'm not sure, but we are definitely behind in regards to our ability to defeat modern ATGMs. In my job, I help design and equip the US Army's OPFOR (contractor - I retired in December). This is a capability that we are looking to add to OPFOR tanks (replicated in MILES, not a real APS), which will make life much harder for US formations.

    Tankersteve

  6. #366
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    14 Mar 08
    Posts
    1,900
    The Chinese are building their next MBT with an unmanned turret (might have a bustle mounted autoloader), and strangely, a crew of two people (though given that the study is only in the design phase, they could very well go back to three (or even four, if you believe those people arguing that you need to dedicate someone just to play with the EW systems and "robot wingmen/decoys").

  7. #367
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    5,099
    Quote Originally Posted by Tankersteve View Post
    I'm going to add a bit to Z's earlier comments. I commanded a tank company team in Tal Afar and Ramadi, Iraq. We would often have very close interaction between dismounts and tanks. The notion that they won't be in close proximity in complex terrain is kind of older thinking. Would it change with APS? My thought is you need a device worn on the infantry, that is tracked by the APS sensor. It turns off the APS in the quadrant where the infantry are operating. Otherwise, the whole system has to be deactivated when dismounts or even thinner-skinned vehicles are in close proximity.

    The problem this brings up is whether you need a 'COMSEC'-type code for this IFF system. If so, it will be hard to do. As we often have infantry behind the tanks, perhaps an APS system focused on the front 120-180 arc would be utilized. I'm not sure, but we are definitely behind in regards to our ability to defeat modern ATGMs. In my job, I help design and equip the US Army's OPFOR (contractor - I retired in December). This is a capability that we are looking to add to OPFOR tanks (replicated in MILES, not a real APS), which will make life much harder for US formations.

    Tankersteve
    A few observations.First,the Russians also use infantry very close to the AFV's.Like everything it has ups and downs.
    So this is a problem for everyone.

    Second is that in general the infantry needs to be more spread out than they are today for the simple reason that AT weapons have greater range.In order to protect the tanks you have to be in a position to engage ENY AT assets.In the age of the LAW or the RPG 7 the very close inf. near the tanks made sense.Modern ones,like the RPG29,32 or the PZF 3 have 3-4 times longer effective range.Let alone short range ATGM's.Infantry engagement range is pretty much unchanged,optics or not.
    This of course leads to problems of cooperation between inf and tanks,but the only solution is more training and more skilled use of the terrain and the cover it provides.

    Third is that modern AFV,given the multitude of sensors they can carry are no longer the blind behemoths they used to be,thus vulnerable to very close range threats.

    Fourth is that even more electronic devices on the inf aren't going to make them happy.And they don't solve the problem.There are gazillions of unique circumstances in which infantry carrying sensors may be unwittingly between the APS of the AFV and an incoming threat.The grunt may be WIA or even KIA,but the sensor keep beeping.
    Last edited by Mihais; 07 Oct 16, at 10:35.
    Those who know don't speak
    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

  8. #368
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Nov 07
    Posts
    3,544
    It sounds to me like a networked solution could help.

    You are most likely to have dismounted infantry when facing ATGMs.

    Against missiles, if you can spot the missile from longer ranges, you can engage it with non-kinetic options. A radar system mounted on an individual tank is a short range sensor. By the time the threat is detected, it's too late to engage. What you need is something like a passive longer range sensor mounted on a tower or a UAV coupled with the ability to see an ATGM immediately after launch. Then you need an option to immediately jam or disable the ATGM with directed radio frequency jamming or IR lasers. That would mitigate the ATGM threat for you without going kinetic.

    Then for the unguided KE rounds, you will have to use a hard kill method, but you are only likely to face that in the frontal arc and likely without dismounted infantry.

  9. #369
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    5,099
    The APS,like the Trophy or the Afganit also directs the turret to the threat,once detected.But fire and forget also means they shoot and scoot.Or they dug in.Thanks God grunts can do that
    Seeing an ATGM does not solves the problem of salvoes.A Russian force has a LOT of ATGM's and the ability to fire them in salvoes.
    So the real solution lies still in combined arms.See them first,blow them up with arty,mop the survivors with infantry.

    Speaking of ATGM's,these things are really a blast.A Spike and I suppose a Javelin too is really a nice asset.You're moving in seconds after the shot and even supposed open field offers a lot of concealment and cover for grunts.
    In the low density battlefield of today,these things might be even more useful hitting them in the back.Hit their AA,arty,hq's or logistics.
    Those who know don't speak
    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

  10. #370
    Senior Contributor Toby's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Nov 16
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    1,074
    UK military intelligence issues warning over Russian supertank threat

    The Ministry of Defence internal briefing paper raises doubts over the UK’s ability to combat the threat posed by the Kremlin’s new Armata tank.
    It also questions why the Government has no plans for a rival tank for at least 20 years.The internal document, written by a senior Army intelligence officer, states: “Without hyperbole, Armata represents the most revolutionary step change in tank design in the last half century.” It adds: “Unsurprisingly, the tank has caused a sensation,” and it goes on to question the failure of current defence strategy to plan for a new tank that can compete.
    There is growing alarm among military chiefs that a presidential victory for Donald Trump, who has criticised US funding of Nato, could leave the West badly exposed to Vladimir Putin’s aggression, especially in the vulnerable Baltic states.
    A prototype of the Armata was rolled out last year at the annual May Day parade in Moscow, prompting the commissioning of the five-page intelligence report. The tank is pioneering, according to the document, because of a revolutionary turret design that makes crew less vulnerable under fire. The tank is also reckoned to be lighter, faster and lower in profile than Western rivals.
    The document also suggests the tank will be kitted out with a radar system currently used on state-of-the-art Russian fighter jets and new composite armour. It has a “reported higher muzzle velocity” gun and the possibility of an upgraded missile system.
    “As a complete package, Armata certainly deserves its billing as the most revolutionary tank in a generation,” concludes the intelligence briefing paper.
    “For the first time, a fully automated, digitised, unmanned turret has been incorporated into a main battle tank. And for the first time a tank crew is embedded within an armoured capsule in the hull front.”The Army intelligence officer says UK defence strategy has concentrated on the threat from improvised explosive devices deployed by insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan and ignored the danger posed by tanks.
    The paper asks: “Are we on the cusp of a new technological arms race? Has an understandable focus on defeating the single threat of IEDs distracted Western military vehicle designers? Challenger 2 [the British tank], with life extension programmes, is currently due to remain in service until 2035. Is it time to rethink?”
    The paper also raises concern over the Scout, a light armoured fighting vehicle due to be introduced for British forces from next year. “In a familiar story of measure and countermeasure, the intelligence assumptions that informed the procurement of Scout as a superior battle-winning platform may now be open to question.”The document says that on top of the Armata tank, Russia is adding “six additional armoured vehicles to the stable”, including a heavy infantry fighting vehicle and a self-propelled artillery system.
    The intelligence report, which it stresses should “not be interpreted as an official MoD statement”, also raises the spectre of far superior Russian tank numbers, with plans to build 120 Armata tanks a year from 2018.
    It points out Russia already has a fleet of 2,500 tanks with a reserve of 12,500, which is “35 times the size of the fleet in the British Army”.
    “With such numbers, decisive effect is credibly achievable and losses are less important,” says the document.
    The conclusions will ring alarm bells, not least following Russia’s annexation of the Crimea and the threat to the Baltic states.
    Analysis for Western military leaders has suggested Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania – all Nato member states – would be overrun by Russian tanks within 60 hours of an invasion.
    Brigadier Ben Barry, a land warfare specialist at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said two features on the Armata would threaten Nato forces.
    “Firstly, it is the first tank designed with an unmanned turret. This will potentially improve crew survivability,” he said. “The turret also looks to have the stretch potential to accommodate a larger-calibre gun of up to 150mm. If fielded, this would overmatch the guns and armour on existing Nato tanks.
    “Secondly, it appears to be the first tank designed from the outset with an active protection system, to intercept incoming anti-tank guided missiles and shoulder-launched anti-tank weapons.”
    He added: “This has the potential to greatly reduce the firepower of Nato infantry. Of course, there are few Armata yet, and it is not clear how rapidly they will enter service. But as they do, they will increase the effectiveness of Russian armoured forces.”
    The Russian defence ministry announced in September that it had signed a contract for the delivery of the first 100 Armata tanks. Another 2,200 are expected to follow.
    By contrast, the British Army has 227 Challenger 2 main battle tanks, dating from 1998. Germany has 410 Leopard 2 tanks, and France has 200 Leclerc tanks. America has 2,338 M1 Abrams main battle tanks – although just 250 tanks and armoured fighting vehicles are stationed in Eastern Europe.
    The Ukrainian government estimates that Russian-backed separatists in their country have 700 tanks.
    Lord West of Spithead, a former First Sea Lord, said he was “very concerned” about Russian rearmament. “At the moment, their economy is a war economy,” he said. “They have got the GDP of Italy and they are trying to spend the same on defence as America. What they are doing is unsupportable and when something is unsupportable, then anything could happen.”
    Fears over Russia’s tank programme have intensified over the prospect of a Trump win in Tuesday’s US election.
    Mr Trump has threatened to abandon a core tenet of Nato – that an attack on one member is an attack on all under article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty – over his belief that Washington is shouldering too much of the financial burden for the military alliance. General Sir Richard Shirreff, the former deputy supreme allied Commander Europe, said: “Here we are days from the election and that’s a real, real threat – Trump saying he might not commit to article 5.
    “The defence of Europe during the Cold War depended on total certainty that whichever president was in the Oval Office, of whatever party, [the US] would come to Europe’s defence.”

  11. #371
    tankie Military Professional tankie's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Nov 06
    Location
    Darlington UK
    Posts
    14,644
    Armata or ANY Tank is as good as the crew ,never forget that , 3k kills , 1st done by chally 1 1st gulf war 1991/2 , i believe firmly that the best tank trained crewmen are NATO trained , Brits being the cream of the crop of course .


    Trust gets you killed, love gets you hurt, and being REAL gets you hated.

  12. #372
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    Quote Originally Posted by tankie View Post
    Armata or ANY Tank is as good as the crew ,never forget that , 3k kills , 1st done by chally 1 1st gulf war 1991/2 , i believe firmly that the best tank trained crewmen are NATO trained , Brits being the cream of the crop of course .
    If you go to a war with 5 tanks and face 50, you might kill 20, but you'd still lose.
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  13. #373
    tankie Military Professional tankie's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Nov 06
    Location
    Darlington UK
    Posts
    14,644
    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor View Post
    If you go to a war with 5 tanks and face 50, you might kill 20, but you'd still lose.
    Weight of numbers yes of course as the T35 proved ,lots of them , Adolf didnt believe how many tanks Russia possessed , but the evalution Goran is of a single tank , the Armata .With lots of them its a problem . But,however b/fields are never won with tanks alone .

    Anyhoo ,,,,remember the Alamo lol


    Trust gets you killed, love gets you hurt, and being REAL gets you hated.

  14. #374
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    Quote Originally Posted by tankie View Post
    Weight of numbers yes of course as the T35 proved ,lots of them , Adolf didnt believe how many tanks Russia possessed , but the evalution Goran is of a single tank , the Armata .With lots of them its a problem . But,however b/fields are never won with tanks alone .

    Anyhoo ,,,,remember the Alamo lol
    It's good for the crew to have a good machine with above fair chances to survive. However, in this interwined world, wars will be the same.
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  15. #375
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    18 Jun 04
    Posts
    1,845
    https://www.rt.com/news/340142-super-tank-armata-robot/

    Flying tanks: Russia’s robotic Armata system to have own scout drone
    Published time: 19 Apr, 2016 06:50
    Edited time: 19 Apr, 2016 06:51
    Get short URL
    A T-14 tank with the Armata Universal Combat Platform at the military parade to mark the 70th anniversary of Victory in the 1941-1945 Great Patriotic War. File photo. © Anton Denisov
    A T-14 tank with the Armata Universal Combat Platform at the military parade to mark the 70th anniversary of Victory in the 1941-1945 Great Patriotic War. File photo. © Anton Denisov / Sputnik

    The company that unveiled the Russian Armata supertank at last year’s Victory Parade in Moscow plans to turn it into a fully robotized “machine of the future.” What is more, Armata will employ a Russian-built unmanned aerial vehicle to gain a tactical edge.
    Read more
    © Egor EryomovProducer of Russia’s Armata T-14 plans to create army of AI robots
    “Unmanned Armata is the machine of the future, we have no doubts about it. Both we and the military are sure,” Oleg Sienko, director of Uralvagonzavod, leading Russia’s tank manufacturer, told RIA Novosti news agency in an interview Monday.

    It will be not the first time the Russian defense company has tried its hand in the construction of unmanned armored vehicles. Back in 2013 it presented a cutting-edge firefighting truck which can be operated by remote control due to the cameras mounted around it. The truck can be essential in carrying out operations in highly dangerous environments with a huge risk of explosion, for example, at military bases filled with ammo.

    “We are moving forward, we already have experience with designing a robotized firefighting vehicle on the basis of the T-72 tank…Generally speaking, even those vehicles shown on Red Square can be turned into unmanned vehicles or robots,” Sienko added, referring to the Armata’s impressive debut at the last year’s Victory Parade.

    The innovative vehicle, which is the first Russian tank designed entirely in post-Soviet Russia, boasts an unmanned turret fitted with a 125mm smoothbore cannon.

    Uralvagonzavod (UVZ) now intends to install a drone onto the heavy vehicle Armata-15 as part of the company’s strategy aimed at “moving away from crewed vehicles.”

    “It is a necessary element at a tactical level. It is very hard to move forward in the column ‘without eyes,’ that’s why the UAV is provided there and we will be actively introducing it,” Sienko said.

    It is not yet known which UAV will be used to fit into the vehicle, but it will certainly be one made in Russia, Sienko said, adding that it is for the Russian Defense Ministry to decide which device to choose as it runs the trials.

    “We will install whichever one [the ministry] tells us to. But there will be one for sure,” he said.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Russia Invites U.S. To A 'Tank Biathlon'
    By Doktor in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 16 Aug 13,, 00:04
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 14 Apr 12,, 18:14
  3. The Invisible Tank
    By Kernow in forum Ground Warfare
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 09 Dec 08,, 08:41
  4. Russia claims China backing in Georgia conflict
    By Nauticus in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 31 Aug 08,, 14:46
  5. Russia plays spoilsport in T-90S tank deal
    By Yusuf in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 25 Apr 08,, 10:56

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •