Russian Black Eagle Surpasses America's Abrams

[Balamut]

Voyager13b wrote:

By the way, tanks in forested areas are just as vulnerable as tanks in the desert. Maybe even more so, as they can be accurately located from above by multiple means, including RADAR mapping through dense foliage from standoff or drone aircraft

Is it so? Arguments please.

and attacked at standoff ranges to known coordinates, or quickly killed by helicopters that will know where they are, and can fire on them and retreat before a response can be made. Various other tank killers like the A-10, Su-25/39, etc would still be effective in that environment as well

Tanks would not act alone. Properly backed with Tunguska's and Shilka's they would be a back-breaker. And in range of S-300 and S400 it would be suicidal missions. Well AFAIK russian modern combat doctrine imply exactly this - cooperation of all branches. And role of tank there takes proper high place.

P.s. This goes for the Limey_Defence posts too.

Originally posted by Balamut

Tanks would not act alone. Properly backed with Tunguska's and Shilka's they would be a back-breaker. And in range of S-300 and S400 it would be suicidal missions. Well AFAIK russian modern combat doctrine imply exactly this - cooperation of all branches. And role of tank there takes proper high place.

P.s. This goes for the Limey_Defence posts too.

Also T-90 has "Reflex" anti-aircraft short-range guided missles that can be fired from the main gun (AFAIK T-90 is the only tank with such system). It allow tank to protect itself.

Russian AA complexes all were desingned to follow tanks with the same speed. Highly mobile Shilka, Tunguska; Buk, Kub, Tor; S-300, S-400 protect tanks from short-range, medium range and long-range attacks respectively.

[justin1987]

this thread, i felt, would do better to be in this forum, rather than the science forum. as such, i moved it here. hoping, everybody will comply with this. thanks, justin.
by the way, this thread is going on fine. keep it up! the debate's real good.

Originally posted by justin1987
this thread, i felt, would do better to be in this forum, rather than the science forum. as such, i moved it here. hoping, everybody will comply with this. thanks, justin.
by the way, this thread is going on fine. keep it up! the debate's real good.

This thread hasn't become another political fight yet... Since we're discussing only weapons and defence systems, i.e. technology and science in military field, this discussion could stay in science forum, imho.

[Voyager13b]

Originally posted by Balamut
Voyager13b wrote:

Is it so? Arguments please.

Tanks would not act alone. Properly backed with Tunguska's and Shilka's they would be a back-breaker. And in range of S-300 and S400 it would be suicidal missions. Well AFAIK russian modern combat doctrine imply exactly this - cooperation of all branches. And role of tank there takes proper high place.

P.s. This goes for the Limey_Defence posts too.

Balamut,

Radar mapping of earth works is not a very new science. It has been used by industry, and by military for a number of years. Kosovo comes to mind here. Nato military use of airborne RADAR tank hunting in the Balkan conflict has been well documented on the Discovery channel, and the History channel in the US during the past year or so.

No matter how dense the foliage, it is difficult to hide tanks from modern airborne sensors. Keep in mind that those sensors have the ability to relay accurate coordinates to command and control centers, as well as directly to mission support units. Remote piloted vehicles with stealthy structures are also capable of carrying such sensors.

Of course, I'm only considering anti tank technology that we are aware of. American and Russian attack helicopters are capable of taking out about 30 tanks each if given proper targeting data. That data is availavle to both forces, so don't be fooled into thinking that a vacuum of conectivity exists on the battlefield just because the information isn't public yet. We are always in the dark by a few years. All of us.

By the way, modern Russian (service cooperative) command and control is not new to the battlefield. It is molded on the NATO model that evolved during the cold war. No doubt, there are improvements here and there, but it is not revolutionary in concept. Besides, I think Russia and NATO will get closer with time. The new enemy will forge strong ties to replace suspicion between US and Russia.


I don't think tanks are a dead issue at all. They still have niche jobs within the theater of war, but just like the Battleship, the buggy whip, and the spear, it has been defeated by technology on most fronts. It's only stronghold is with politicians and engineers who remember the glory of the tank in years past.

Politicians and Engineers don't fight field battles...


Love the tank, honor the tank. Keep a bunch of tanks in inventory, as they will be handy from time to time, but at budget time, buy helicopters and sensor systems.


Voyager.

[Balamut]

Point by point.

Radar mapping of earth works is not a very new science. It has been used by industry, and by military for a number of years. Kosovo comes to mind here. Nato military use of airborne RADAR tank hunting in the Balkan conflict has been well documented on the Discovery channel, and the History channel in the US during the past year or so... No matter how dense the foliage, it is difficult to hide tanks from modern airborne sensors.

Nr.1:
I know. I wanted to hear arguments how effective it is. Teoretical basis or some documented facts that radar can effectively find targets through folliage. Unfortunately I didn't see nothing about war in Yugoslavia - about the tank issue - on the Discovery. I'll be glad if you can provide me with this info. IIRC Serbia was left with 95% of it's military potential after the war. BTW Discovery isn't very reliable source. For exemple, not long ago I watched a programm about F-117 stealth, and in it, they were telling about actions in Yugoslavia and how superb this plane was there. Guess what. Not one word about downed F-117.
So... Make your conclusions.

And Nr.2: Camouflage. It varies a lot. Camouflage net can cover tanks, of course it would be visible on the radar, but you will never know what is under it, a tank or a tractor. Natural camo is even better. With improvised means crew can make a knoll out of the tank or simply dig it in the earth and cover with twigs.

Keep in mind that those sensors have the ability to relay accurate coordinates to command and control centers, as well as directly to mission support units. Remote piloted vehicles with stealthy structures are also capable of carrying such sensors.

I am aware about information transfer
And AFAIK Predator don't have any kind of stealth technology. But that a little bit offtopic

Nr.3:
About other stuff...

One thing is to detect, other is to destroy. As I and Alex stated before, with good AA defence cover tanks are not easy targets; therefore I consider tanks as one of the major factors of the victory.
Tanks with infantry support would move forward, siege inhabited localities, destroy strongholds and fortifications, and then again move forward with all kind of airdefence measures.

[Edited by Balamut on 3rd May 2004 at 15:52]

[Voyager13b]

Originally posted by Balamut
Point by point.

Nr.1:
I know. I wanted to hear arguments how effective it is. Teoretical basis or some documented facts that radar can effectively find targets through folliage. Unfortunately I didn't see nothing about war in Yugoslavia - about the tank issue - on the Discovery. I'll be glad if you can provide me with this info. IIRC Serbia was left with 95% of it's military potential after the war. BTW Discovery isn't very reliable source. For exemple, not long ago I watched a programm about F-117 stealth, and in it, they were telling about actions in Yugoslavia and how superb this plane was there. Guess what. Not one word about downed F-117.
So... Make your conclusions.

And Nr.2: Camouflage. It varies a lot. Camouflage net can cover tanks, of course it would be visible on the radar, but you will never know what is under it, a tank or a tractor. Natural camo is even better. With improvised means crew can make a knoll out of the tank or simply dig it in the earth and cover with twigs.

I am aware about information transfer
And AFAIK Predator don't have any kind of stealth technology. But that a little bit offtopic

Nr.3:
About other stuff...

One thing is to detect, other is to destroy. As I and Alex stated before, with good AA defence cover tanks are not easy targets; therefore I consider tanks as one of the major factors of the victory.
Tanks with infantry support would move forward, siege inhabited localities, destroy strongholds and fortifications, and then again move forward with all kind of airdefence measures.

[Edited by Balamut on 3rd May 2004 at 15:52]

Balamut,

I'll try to locate the information regarding the use of RADAR imaging to identify hidden tanks. I really don't know about the performance of the F-117 in that conflict, nor about any 117's that may have been shot down, so I can't comment on that issue. Discovery Wings channel is pretty credible though, even if some details are not known at the time of production, or are just left out of the story. The F-117 is still an incredible aircraft, even if a few were brought down during it's combat carreer to date.

I can't recall any outright lies being told on a Discovery Wings program, and the commercial technology of RADAR imaging is certainly mature enough to be able to locate and accurately identify vehicles that would remain cloaked even from infrared sensors, so I have little reason to doubt it's value on the battlefield. I will search Discovery to see if I can give you the name of the program though.

Predator doesn't have stealth technology (that I am aware of), but other RPV's do. Even some that we know about. Given the amount of R&D money going into RPV's, I would be surprised if the entire inventory was public knowledge.

Air defense or no air defense, I think massed tanks are far too vulnerable to be counted upon as the main strike weapon in a modern battlefield. In the middle east, there was a technology imbalance that allowed coalition forces to effectively use tanks, while destroying enemy armor in large quantities. If a country like Russia or the US were involved in a battle, the opposing forces would be making a grave mistake by sending lots of tanks at either one of them.

Tanks still have a place, and in some scenarios (like Iraq), they can be the big dog for one side of the battle, but one plan doesn't fit all situations any more.


Voyager