Russian sourced AFV's

[JackD]

In the pictures Mr. Tomahawk6 posted on the Russia - Georgia thread, there is one of two T-55 (updated) (this ID Mr. George Wallace posits) tanks which obviously suffered catastrophic failure - the ammunition blew up - in your view, what are the merits or deficiencies of Russian produced/derived AFV's?

 

[Franko]

Way too many thing to be listed here.

In a nut shell....they're death traps.

- They break down easily (seen both BTR 70 and T 72 spewing parts from the engine bay with my own eyes)
- The auto loaders will rip your arm off if your not careful
- Asbestos line the turret and hull
- exposed batteries
- no automatic fire suppression systems
- BTRs are lightly armoured and can't take direct blasts
- BMP 1&2 are just as bad, I don't know about the BMP3.
- T80 and T90 are just updated T72s...I'm sure that there are problems with them as well.

Jeebus help you if your taller than 5'8" in any of them.

Regards

 

[JackD]

Of course there's the ammo storage set-ups - evidenced by the turret explosions - i seem to remember a comment in some other site of a Gulf War tanker stating that that was how they discerned a live tank from a dead one - no turret, they got it, and when ever they got it the turret flew - I can recall seeing the same in the Mitla pass and road to Cairo (1976) - catastrophic turret explosions - you'd think they'd work on that... The finish from what i've seen is pretty poor  too - evident hacking of excess metal. I wonder about the metallurgy and metal treatment.  In the newer models, have they addressed the problem of poor gun depression and rise?

Poland where i live was going to modify their t72s - updates etc.. but as one guy put it, an updated t-72 is still a t-72

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Let's not forget, they work on overwhelming numbers and manpower. Not technology and savvy. Casualties are not high on their priority list. You're supposed to sacrifice for the motherland and let your family tell their friends you were made a Hero of Russia. :

 

[JackD]

If they even bother - if you look at Russian military cemeteries  - (as in Poland) (mostly unmarked) mass graves for the men, single (marked) graves for the officers.  Do they wear metal 'dogtags' now? Then (WW2) it was a bakelite vial with a piece of paper in it with name and home. How an army treats its dead is a reflection i think on its ethos and integrity... Shows in equipment too - even in Canada.  Look at it nowadays - the current attitude - what can we do to prevent causalities  - in the 70's  - M113s for us - even though come the 90's they were considered inadequate for the Balkans... Had the balloon gone up we were speed-bumps... Thank God that attitude changed.

 

[wannabe SF member]

Makes you think. I know that The Abrams has A conttermeasure for exploding ammunition storage(directing the blast upwards and keeping it separated from the crew compartment), but do our Leos have the same stuff?






Mod note: OPSEC troops.

 

[JackD]

Open source documentation implies storage is different but attention is placed to such matters - unlike the carousal storage of Russian - derived vehicles (T-72) (Please note - I was a sapper, not a black-hatter). From reading about the 2nd World War Sherman - much of the bad press of that beastie being a fire trap was due to overloading of munition - and studies were done right away to find out what could be done to improve the situation (Water storage, ammunition storage discipline) - so the attitude that -"'We got a problem - what can we do to fix it?'' is what interests me. Also the attitude "Our people are valuable - how can we not waste them?" - (although wastage was common - sadly). System design  seems to be a factor  in Western AFV design - I can't recall pictures or information about blown turrets of Centurions or M-48, M-60 as used by the Israelis in the Yon Kippur War.. but mention has been made of the m-48/m-60 hydraulic fluid being flammable (at that time - and remedied fast) and causing  crew and tank loss (I apologise for not given sources - these are rather scattered). Would you say the quantum leap (revolution/evolution) in design of Western AFV came about in the middle eighties - leaving Russia far behind? if so, I wonder if it is connected to the end of the draft system in the US - the perception that the soldier costs too much to train so is too valuable to waste.

 

[George Wallace]

This is where a nations "philosophy" of what "Armour" is comes into play.  What order do they set their priorities on "Protection", "Manoeuvre", and "Firepower".  We see with the British the priorities were on Protection, Firepower and then Manoeuvre in their Centurion, Chieftan, Conqueror, and Challenger.  The Germans with the Leopards placed an empathise on Manoeuvre, Firepower and Protection.  The Soviets put a empathise on Firepower, Protection and Manoeuvre.  Where the West was looking at High Tech gunnery and ergonomics for crews, the Soviets were looking at basic/crude mechanics that would withstand a Conscript military, and gave no thought to crew comfort or fatigue.  They made their tanks small in size to offer smaller targets to their enemy.  They produced their AFVs in "volume" with the philosophy of having overwhelming odds in their favour and fighting aggressively.  As was mentioned, the West placed more value in their "highly trained" crews and looked at giving them better protection and "working conditions" which meant larger, more complex AFVs.

So you can see that the West and the Soviets had two completely different philosophies on AFVs.

 

[JackD]

Of course economics comes into play too: The - for lack of  of a better term - force multipliers in regard to AFV's - arrangement of refueling point, ease of reloading ammunition, ease of maintenance (powerpack service and removal) and reliability - even track life. I don't think this part is considered much in the Russian AFV's.  Not to mention the whole package deal - availability of suitable resupply vehicles and bowsers - not particularly a Canadian strongpoint noticeable to anyone whoever was in a section dealing with that (nothing is more fun than trying to refuel all the vehicles on a bridging exercise by means of jerry cans alone). For maintainers - going from Centurion to Leopard must have been a prayer answered.

 

[time expired]

Interestingly,I was present at a demonstration of refueling speed
in 4CMBG, it pitted an American refueler,21/2 ton bowser,against
the standard Canadian 21/2 ton full of jerry cans each refueling a
troop of Cents.As the bowser was just finishing the 3rd.tank the
Svc.Bn.crew had just picked up their last jerry can.Speed was
obviously not the only consideration as we adopted the bowser
system shortly afterwards.Also visited the US Armies,Soviet
equipment demo unit,at Vilsek,south end of the Grafenwohr
trg. area.They had a good selection of the Soviets armoured
equipment of that time,early 70s,including a T62 with the automatic
reloader.The American demonstrator mentioned that it would
very quickly go out of adjustment, after which hot 115mm
casings would go flying around the inside of the turret causing
injury and sometimes death.He also pointed out what an
ergonomic nightmare it was,by western standards,and was very
tiring for the crew to operate.
                                      Regards

 

[George Wallace]

Jerrycan refueling can be very quick with the "Hopper" that the Centurions carried.  The fold up rig that came with the Leopards was not as efficient and prone to collapsing, especially at night.  The old "suitcase hopper" from the Cents was a prized possession of a Leopard crew. 

Anyone who has worked on AVGPs will also tell you that it doesn't matter if you fill by Jerrycan or Bowser, if the design of the vehicle is poor, refueling can be slow and troublesome.

The Russians did, however, create pipeline systems where they could refuel whole Bns at once, as opposed to only a few vehicles.  Time of refueling one vehicle didn't matter, if you refuel hundreds simultaneously.

 

[Blackadder1916]

It may not have been of much concern in 4 CMBG during the era of the Centurions, however later, "Manöverschäden" was a major factor in determining whether refueling was done by bowser or jerrycan.  There was less likelihood of accidental spills and the required clean-up if the bowser was used.  But when there was a spill from a bowser, it was usually more serious.

The Russians probably didn't have the same environmental concerns we did.

 

[George Wallace]

The Russians probably didn't have the same environmental concerns we did.

The Russians didn't.

The Bases in East Germany were ecological disasters.  Actually, after the Wall came down, all of East Germany was an Environmentalist's worse nightmare.

 

[JackD]

Any base the Russians were at - when they left, they also destroyed everything they could - sinks, pipes, wndows  - you name it. Mindless vandalism - and great loss of possible good-will

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Had the Leopard 1 been in many 2 way shooting conflicts, then it might have gained a bad rep as well, the early version had fairly light armour on the hull, with a large stack of ammo up front. The Russians went for as small an internal volume as possible, this makes getting out interesting. The autoloader/arm issue is not as bad as people make out. Keep in mind the T-72 is an old tank, the T-55 is from the 50's. US tanks also had weakness, the IDF M48 crews suffered horrible burns from the hydraulic fluid systems when hit. Also from reading is that the real problem with the T-72 ammo storage is not the carousal but from the storage of a number of rounds at the turret ring level. A hit into the carousal is highly unlikely.

 

[JackD]

Possibly another reason is the propellant used - or how it is contained -and no doubt an absence of appropriate fire suppression systems. The carousel system I'd say makes it somewhat vulnerable to mines (tilt mines in particular). I'd say it makes it difficult to reload too. Poland offers a rebuild of this tank, it still has this system though - albeit the automatic loader has been modified - the main differences being enhanced armour, different drive-train, different gun, aiming systems, suppression systems...  http://wirtualnepodroze.dziennik.pl/pt91_twardy/pokoj_h,289.html  http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/pt-91.htm

The early leopard was based on the concept of maneuver as protection and also at that time, going hull -down - digging in - was standard practice. regarding the M-48/m-60 - from what i've read that fluid was rapidly changed due to after-action reports.

 

[a_majoor]

Armour development and armoured philosophy continues to evolve as well. All the talk about the T-72 or T-55 deficiencies is somewhat moot, if you see these tanks at all they will have layers of add on armour and almost total rebuilds of their interiors to take advantage of new developments in FCS, radios, fire supression etc. based on the lessons learned. T-80's and T-90's have all these lessons "built in" from the start, although in the Russian context of mass manouvre and shock action. (An interesting side note; it almost does not matter how long it takes to refuel a Soviet/Russian tank as the entire unit was to be comitted until combat ineffective, wherupon the next unit in line mioved through and continued the battle). The Russians do try to add "work arounds" to their tanks to offset their weakness, active ATGM defense and through tube missiles for extended range gunnery come to mind.

The M-1 and various versions of the Leopard 2 are also quite different from the initial models, one again reacting to lessons learned in the field. Most Russian tanks and AFV's still reflect the basic doctrines that drive the Russian Army, even prototypes like the "Black Eagle" (Чёрный Орёл) or putative T-95 are built around that philosophy, while the vast majority of Western "Generation 3" AFV's reflect our philosophies.