Showing posts with label tanks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tanks. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 25, 2017

More T-90 and BMPT contracts

Recently it has been reported that Russia has opted to purchase a small number of BMPT fire support vehicles following the combat experiences in Syria. Previously the BMPT had been rejected by the Russian Army, partly due to the T-15 version of the next-generation Armata family of combat vehicles being considered to handle the same taks while being an IFV with enough space to transport nine dismounts. The BMPT ordered by Russia is an improved model that has been described as the BMPT-2, a name that confusingly has sometimes also used in blogs and forums to describe another variant.
At the same time the Russian company UVZ and government sources have announced a number of new export contracts for the T-90 main battle tank.
 
The new variant of the BMPT-2 is mostly based on the existing BMPT Terminator model, but includes a number of enhancements. The guided missile launchers for the 130 mm 9M120 Ataka missiles (that are usually fitted with thermobaric warheads, but are also available with an anti-tank tandem shaped charge warhead) are fitted with a protective armor panel, which is also used on the BMPT-72. This is the main reason why some people have unintentionally mistaken it for the BMPT-72, ignoring the differences in turret and hull size and shape. The BMPT-72 uses a rather unmodified T-72 chassis with the turret proturding out by quite a bit - thus the BMPT-72 has a crew of only three: commander, driver and gunner. The other BMPT variants utilize a more heavbily modified chassis based on components of the T-72 and T-90, which has a rasied roof section to accommodate the larger crew of these vehicles; aside of the commander, the driver and the main gun operator, two further soldiers inside the BMPT are responsible of operating the hull-mounted automatic grenade launchers. The turret has a much lower-profile, due to the larger hull offering more space for the lower sections of the soldiers.

The new BMPT is fitted with the "bagged ERA"
The BMPT is protected by composite armor and advanced types of explosive reactive armor (ERA). The frontal aspect of the tank is fitted with heavy Relikt ERA, which not only provides a considerable reduction in the penetration power of single stage shaped charge warheads and kinetic energy penetrators (KEPs) such as APFSDS ammunition, but also can reduce the penetration of tandem shaped charge warheads as used on modern anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs). Compared to the original BMPT prototypes, the upper surface of this ERA is fitted with ribs in order to prevent bullets or splinters being deflected against the driver's sights.
The vehicle has been photographed in Syria while being fitted with a new type of ERA - or at least a new type of mounting existing ERA, which has been previously demonstrated on a few T-72B tanks. The armor modules are contained in cloth bags, which are strapped to the vehicle by two slings. The exact reason behind this layout has yet to be revealed, it is however believed that it allows an easier and faster replacement of damaged or detonated explosive reactive armor modules. Based on the thickness of the ERA and the fact that it is located ontop of a layer of composite armor, that also can incorporate a further reactive armor panel, this armor is believed to provide protection against at least some types of tandem shaped charge warheads.

The new BMPT variant uses armored panels for protecting the guided missiles
f
The BMPT is armed an array of different weapons, most of which are mounted in an overhead weapon station above the low-profile turret. This is not a remote weapon station (RWS) and also is not an unmanned turret. The main armament consists of two 30 x 165 mm 2A42 autocannons. The choice of this armament has been questioned in the past; apparently the idea behind using two guns of the same calibre fixed at the same target is only a cheap way of increasing the rate of fire and decreasing the relative barrel wear - a more modern gun might have been able to sustain the same rate of fire with just one barrel. A bigger point of critique is however the relative small calibre of the guns, which has been considered as being too small to engage targets hidden inside of buildings and structures by some members of the Russian Army.
The BMPT-2  has a newly added system allowing to fire programmable ammunition. Unlike comparable systems from Germany and the United States, the timer for the detonation seems to be set outside of the gun using an optical system - though this is not confirmed.

The weapons of the BMPT are arranged in an overhead mount
The new version of the fire support vehicle includes a number of improved components compared to the previous variant. The turret-independent panoramic sight for the commander is now based on the commander's optic used on the T-90MS, which includes a modern thermal imager, instead of using the previous BO7K1 optic with a simpler image intensifier. Storage boxes have been added to the rear of hull and weapon station, while the drivetrain makes use of the same tracks as the T-90, rather than using the less capable T-72 tracks. In Syria the vehicle has been showcased with a camouflage net ontop.

According to not entirely confirmed reports, three countries have requested to purchase the T-90 main battle tank (MBT), while a fourth country is supposedly thinking about ordering a number of T-90 tanks. A statement in an official report from tank manufacturer UralVagonZavod (UVZ) confirms that a costumer with the index 704 has ordered 64 T-90S and T-90SK tanks. This index number is used for Russian arms exports to Vietnam, which has bought the tanks as part of a larger military equipment order funded with a Russian credit.

Vietnam has a history of buying Soviet/Russian military equipment, following the Sino-Vietnamese War (Third Indochina War) of 1979, which is why the country rejects buying most of its equipment from the largest regional arms exporter. Currently the Vietnamese ground forces are under-equipped, the most modern tank model in the inventory is apparently the T-62 MBT or an upgraded Chinese-made T-54 copy. Due to the lackluster infrastructure of the country, a large number of light and amphibious tanks aswell as infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) form the bulk of the military vehicles. Buying the T-90 hence seems very reasonable and likely.
The T-90S is an export model of the Russian version, sometimes also described as a monkey model, even though this might not properly reflect its true nature. Unlike the Russian variants, the T-90S usually is not fitted with the Shtora electro-optical countermeasure, a system which uses laser-warners, smoke grenade launchers and two large infrared jammers to prevent anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) from hitting the tank. Similar and often more complex systems have been made by China, Germany, Israel, the Ukraine and the United States.
When fitted with parts of the Shtora protection system, the export T-90 tank is commonly called T-90SA; the Algerian T-90SA tanks however still lack the MTShU-1-7 modulators found on Russian tanks. The T-90SK is a command variant of the T-90, fitted with a new internal navigation system (TNA-4-3), the more capable R-168-100KBE HF radio unit and a PAB-2M theodolite.  

The T-90SK is a command variant of the T-90S
The Iraqi Army has been claimed to purchase 73 T-90S and T-90SK tanks. The Iraqi ground forces have taken heavy losses in combat against the terrorists, even the American-made M1A1M Abrams tanks, an export version of the M1A1 Abrams without DU armor but fitted with a heavy conventional armor package, have proven to be vulnerable to anti-tank missiles and RPGs. The largest part of the Iraq's tank force consisted of Soviet-designed T-72M/M1 tanks, some of which were relative recently delivered by Czech manufacturer Excalibur Army. Lacking any sort of modern armor - even first generation Kontakt-1 ERA is not fitted to the tanks - these T-72 require an urgent replacement.

The T-90MS is a much more advanced tank
Kuwait has been claimed to have ordered 146 of the much more capable T-90MS/T-90MSK tanks, which are based on the T-90AM main battle tank variant. These vehicles will most likely serve as a replacement for the old M-84, a Yugoslavian modified variant of the T-72 MBT made under licence. The M-84 has not seen any upgrades to keep it relevant, lacking essential features of a modern MBT. The T-90MS is currently the latest available version of the T-90, that was first presented in 2011. It features a vast number of enhancements, boosting it's combat performance in all important aspects: armor protection, firepower, manageability, mobility and reliability.
The T-90MS uses a new elongated turret, which is fitted with number of bustle-mounted storage boxes, of which one is used to store some of ammunition. The improved variant of the T-90 includes a new electronics package, while the fire control system allows full hunter/killer operations thanks to the independent commander's Eagly Eye sight made by the Belarussian company Peleng, which contains a video daylight camera, a laser rangefinder and a modern thermal imager. Slaved to the commander's sight is a remote weapon station with a 7.62 mm machine gun and 800 rounds of ammunition. A better powerpack with a more powerful engine increases the mobility.
While not being fitted with the full Shtora system including IR jammers, the laser warning sensors are fitted to the tank, which most likely are linked to the smoke grenade dischargers for faster reactions. The T-90MS is armed with the 125 mm smoothbore 2A46M-5 gun, that unlike earlier models has an internal chromium liner and an improved recoil system. Compared to its predecessor. the 2A46M-5 is about 100 kilograms heavier, but has a 70% higher barrel life and has on average a 15% lower dispersion.

The T-90MS features additional armor
The armor protection is enhanced over the T-90S thanks to a larger number of modifications. The frontal arc of the tank utilizes the more advanced Relikt ERA instead of the old Kontakt-5 ERA used on the T-90, T-90A and T-90S. Furthermore the side skirts are replaced with a newer design, which contains more composite/ERA segments than the previous T-90 skirts, on which they were mostly made of steel-mesh reinforced rubber (only three segments at the frontal section of each hull side included ERA). A big downside of the T-90 turret design - the poor side armor which proved to be vulnerable to RPGs in urban combat - has been fixed by adding spaced armor modules that can be fitted with composite armor or ERA panels. Slat armor is covering the rear section of hull and turret.
According to a conversation between Vladimir Putin and an official from the Russian Army, which was "leaked" (it seems very likely to be intentional propaganda), the frontal armor is claimed to provide protection equivalent to 850 mm steel armor against APFSDS ammunition and up to 1,200 mm against shaped charge ammunition with tandem warheads.
Furthermore the removal of some of the ammunition from the crew compartment increases the survivability in case of armor penetration.

The T-90M will be adopted by the Russian Army
Iran is indirectly copying the T-90MS in form of the Karrar tank, while India has ordered a total of 464 of the T-90MS tanks. According to Russian sources, Egypt (the biggest M1 Abrams user aside of the United States) has shown interest in acquiring the licence to produce up to 400 T-90S or T-90MS tanks locally. Kuwait also operates the M1 Abrams, the Kuwaiti tanks were recently upgraded to the M1A2 configuration, but with an export armor package, where the depleted uranium is replaced with other materials.
Russia is planning to upgrade many of it's current T-90 tanks to the new T-90M configuration as part of the Proryv-3 (breakthrough 3) program. This is very similar to the T-90MS, but includes a number of unique features such as slat armor covering the lower ERA section of the turret front, aswell as the more powerful 125 mm 2A82-1M smoothbore gun of the T-14 Armata. The weight of the T-90M supposedly will reach up to 50 metric tons compared to the 48 metric tons of the T-90MS and the only 46.5 metric tons of the T-90A.

Saturday, May 13, 2017

Austria won the Strong Europe Tank Challenge 2017

Two days ago the Strong Europe Tank Challenge (SETC) 2017 ended. The winning platoon comes from Austria, one of the first time participants. The soldiers of the Austrian Bundesheer deployed the 1980s' Leopard 2A4 main battle tank (MBT), beating last year's winner Germany. In the challenge held from 8th to 11th of May, teams from Austria, France, Germany, Poland, the Ukraine and the United States tried to show their skill in a number of different disciplines. These included offensive actions, defensive actions, target recognition/identification of thirty allied and enemy targets, estimating the range to a target without using the laser rangefinder, accurately reporting targets in a simulated urban area and firing crew weapons (pistols or submachine guns). Also part of the SETC was to recover a tank with simulated damage from an NBC attack, evacuating and treating wounded, calling for fire support by artillery/aircraft and precision driving along a pre-defined track. Crews also had to endure a physical fitness test. In comparison to last year the scoring was changed.

The confirmed rankings are:
  1. Austria (Leopard 2A4)
  2. Germany (Leopard 2A6)
  3. United States (M1A2 SEP v2)
As expected, the top ranks were occupied by the Leopard 2 tanks; last year the three top-scoring teams were all operating the Leopard 2 tank. That the older Leopard 2A4 managed to beat the sixteen years newer Leopard 2A6 gives a lot of reasons to speculate. It shows that the Leopard 2A6 tank (just like the Leclerc and M1A2 MBTs) probably could not make full use of their more advanced optics, as no night operations were tested. The Leopard 2A4 - fitted with only a single, older thermal imager - should perform a lot worse than these tanks. The limited range during firing trials also makes it impossible for the German and French crews to make full use of their longer barreled main guns.

The crews of the four Austrian Leopard 2 tanks with their trophy
However there is also another major factor for the Austrian victory: crew training. The Strong Europe Tank Challenge is not meant to be an evaluation of the technical characteristics of a main battle tank, but instead tries to measure how well a platoon from a country can perform with it's own equipment. The Austrian crew won, because they were the best trained crew (or rather: they could make the most use of their training).
Based on a photo from a score sheet, that was taken during the competition, the Austrians managed to perform best in calling for fire, the highest scored part of the competition. The Austrian crew got 696 of 700 possible points, while other teams such as the Germans and the Poles got only 500 and 450 points respectively. The Leopard 2s managed to get the best results in offensive operations, which might be related to the high quality and performance of the Leopard 2's fire control system (FCS) and optics. The platoons manning the Leopard 2A4 and the Leclerc tanks both managed to get the fastest time in the precision driving challenge; both these tanks happen to have the highest power-to-weight ratio of the competing models. This should give some of the tank designers a reason to think, if upgrading the engines shouldn't be a priority for the future, specifically after armor upgrades lead to an increase in combat weight of tanks like the M1 Abrams and the Leopard 2 by more than seven metric tons.

The score sheet during the competition
According to the US Army's own news report, there were different 12 events/challenges in the SETC 2017, which allowed for a total score of 1,500 possible points. However official data from the Austrian Army (scores during the competition, not all teams have finished the same amount of tasks) and the photo from a score sheet during the competition suggest that there were more than 1,500 possible points.
Unconfirmed rumors from an Ukranian websites suggest that the French team with the Leclerc MBT managed to get the fourth place, while the Ukranian platoon - operating an upgraded version of the T-64BV tank (sometimes described as T-64BM) - got the fifth place. These tanks were fitted with new radios, GPS systems and night vision optics before being send to SETC 2017. Apparently the crews managed to beat other Ukranain soldiers with T-64BM Bulats and T-80BVs in a national competition before being send to Germany. Supposedly the Polish team with the Leopard 2A5 was on the last place, something that has been blamed on poor training; last year the Poles managed to outperform all but the Danish and German crews. Based on the score sheet from during the competition the Polish crews apparently underperformed in the recovery of a damaged vehicle in a CBRN scenario, in precision driving, in calling for fire, in identifying vehicles and in determining the range. Other claims to justify the poor performance of the Polish platoon say that the fire control system of a single Leopard 2A5 broke in such a way, that the crew couldn't repair it. However the Polish press claims, that they managed to get the fourth place, beating the French and the Ukranian squads - it might be possible, that after the challenge a modifier was added to compensate the lack of a single tank.
According to claims from the US website Stripes.com, all scores are rather close to each other.

The trophy and the awards for first, second and third place
In 2017 the US Army had only one single platoon competing in the Strong Europe Tank Challenge; previously two US platoons tried their best to win the trophy. Back then the M1A2 SEP v2 tanks managed to only secure the fifth and sixth place, beating out only the M-84s of the Slovenian platoon. For the second time in a row, the US Army used the most modern of all tanks (the M1A2 SEP v2, which first entered service in 2011), but again failed to beat at least some of the Leopard 2 users with much older hardware. This means that the either the training of the US tank crews is lackluster, or that the M1A2 SEP v2 still requires some work in order to reach the same level of performance as the older German designs. Based on the very few known scores, the US tank platoon did perform slightly worse in offensive actions (gunnery, target spotting) than either German-speaking team, while also being a lot worse in precision driving. Specifically the offensive actions should be among the events, that are most affected by equipment.

The runner-up of the SETC 2016, Denmark, couldn't afford to participate. The Strong Europe Tank Challenge is rather expensive, it not only requires sending four tank crews, but also four tanks, to Southern Germany. Denmark instead decided to compete at the Worthington Challenge in Canada and the Nordic Tank Challenge in Scandinavia; both these competitons require only two crews, while tanks can be leased.
Next year Sweden will compete in the Strong Europe Tank Challenge, probably with an upgraded version of the Strv 122; there are hopes that the United Kingdom with the Challenger 2 and Canada with the Leopard 2 (2A6 or 2A4M) will also be part of the Strong Europe Tank Challenge 2018.