Posted on 01/06/2024 2:33:10 PM PST by delta7
Conventional ground warfare dead end is compounded by limited numbers of tanks as well as spare parts issues
A Leopard 2A4 tank with the addition of Russian ERA armor that still failed to protect it on the battlefield. Ukraine has been taking first generation ERA panels from Russian tanks and welding them onto Leopard tanks. The results are not good. Photo: Defense Mirror NATO has a huge problem that will take decades to overcome. Put most simply, the armor vehicles NATO has won’t survive in a firefight with the Russians, notwithstanding the fact that Russian armor is far from the best.
Russia has demonstrated in Ukraine that in conventional warfare it can knock out some of NATOs best tanks and decimate Western armored fighting vehicles like the US Bradley and the German Marder.
NATO does not have enough tanks, does not have sound logistics to support them, and faces significant problems coming up against modern Russian ground forces.
The Leopard tank has performed poorly, despite Ukrainian efforts to try and fix some of its many problems.
Even when it comes to the American M-1 Abrams tanks, Forbes reports the Ukrainians have not put it on the battlefield – probably because US advisors have told them it wouldn’t survive and the destruction of the Abrams would give the US a black eye.
So, instead, the Ukrainians have been urgently trying to “upgrade” the Abrams by gluing on Russian reactive armor and building cages on top of the tanks’ turrets to ward off Russian Lancet unmanned aerial vehicles.
The Germans, meanwhile, say that Ukraine no longer has any operational Leopard series 2 tanks; those that were broken down or salvaged from the battlefield have been sent off to Estonia for repairs.But Estonia does not have spare parts to fix them, so they are rusting in marshalling yards.
Modern tanks, like modern aircraft carriers, face serious challenges to survive in hostile environments.
Today tanks are vulnerable to anti-tank weapons, land mines including
air-launched mines, killer drones such as the Russian Lancet, helicopter and aircraft-launched missiles and bombs, and accurate artillery strikes. Anti-tank weapons today use tandem shaped-charge warheads designed to penetrate armor even where reactive armor appliques, known as explosive reactive armor (ERA) protect the tank.
I have not included the hand-held RPG-7 into the analysis since using them on a modern battlefield is a suicide mission. Western armies, of course, don’t have the RPG-7. These are well distributed to Russian clients and to terrorists. The Egyptians used them in the Yom Kippur war, but usually the operator was killed.
They use a shaped charge but not a tandem warhead configuration. The US equivalent is the precision shoulder-fired rocket launcher-1 (PRSL-1). It is not part of the regular US Army kit but is sometimes used by US Special Forces.
ERA are explosive panels that are put on tanks to defeat the impact of a tandem warhead weapon.
Neither the Abrams nor the Leopard has reactive armor (ERA) because the highly classified passive armor of the tank body (sometimes called Chobham armor) was supposed to be able to protect the tank from modern anti-tank weapons like the Russian 9M133 Kornet (Comet). Kornet uses a tandem HEAT warhead, where HEAT stands for High Explosive Anti Tank. It was designed to defeat explosive reactive armor.
Bogdan Voitsekhovsky The first ERA was developed by Soviet academician Bogdan Vjacheslavovich Voitsekhovsky (1922–1999) in 1949. However, early tests of Soviet armor showed that when a tank was hit equipped with the armor, all the ERA modules would explode, rendering the ERA ineffective.
Between 1967 and 1969 a German researcher, Manfred Held, working with the Israeli Defense Force (IDF), developed reactive armor that was used on Israeli tanks starting in the early 1980s and first proven effective in the 1982 Lebanon war.
Unlike the US, the UK and Germany, where Chobham armor (and its descendants) was available, Israel was not allowed access to advanced armor. Its Merkava tank, developed by the tank genius General Israel Tal, used spaced armor. ERA was vital for Israel in compensating against Russian threats.
Chobham armor is made up of layers of dissimilar materials including steel and polymers and is otherwise called composite armor. A T-80U Russian tank that was destroyed in the Ukraine war was fitted with composite armor similar to what is found in the Leopard and Abrams. The Russian armor was good at deflecting shape charge weapons. Anti-tank weapons use a shape charge to aid in penetrating thick steel plating. A shaped charge “focuses” the explosive blast, putting extreme heat and shock on the target.
1: Ballistic cap; 2: Air-filled cavity; 3: Conical liner; 4: Detonator; 5: Explosive; 6: Piezo-electric trigger Tank armor also has to be able to defeat cannonfire from opposing tanks. Modern tank rounds (in the west 105mm and 120mm and in Soviet-origin weapons, 115mm, 120mm and 125mm) use penetrator rods made of either tungsten carbide or depleted uranium (APFSDS or Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot shells). Reactive armor can be effective against APFSDS.
The Germans say they already have a new version of the Leopard, the 2A7V. Germany has also entered into a deal with Italy, Spain and Sweden to develop a successor tank to the Leopard. The new tank will have a 130mm tank gun, and advanced situational awareness (rather like Israel’s new Merkava 5 excepting the gun).
The US has also scrapped the latest upgrade version of the Abrams (known as SEP v4) and is now working on a different way to upgrade the Abrams tank.
Both Germany and the US realize that neither the Abrams nor the Leopard can survive on the modern battlefield.
Types of ERA
There are many different types of explosive reactive armor. The Russian ERA has evolved from Kontakt 1 to Kontakt V and its latest tanks have a type called Malachit. Information about Malachit is classified but it was designed to deal with the latest APFSDS tank cartridge called M829E4 (which has a depleted uranium penetrator). The problem for the Germans and the US is that the penetrating rods used in these cartridges are limited in length because the 120mm guns cannot use rounds with longer penetrators. That helps explain why the German future tank will have a 130mm gun, and the Abrams may also have to up-gun.
Beyond reactive armor
One of the innovations for tanks, pioneered by Israel, is called active protection. Using specialized radar sensors and explosively formed projectiles to defeat incoming threats, Israel has two systems (Trophy produced by Rafael and Iron Fist by Israel Military Industries and General Dynamics) that are mounted on Israeli Merkava tanks and on armored fighting vehicles and other platforms.
Other countries, including Russia, have their own versions of Active Protection Systems, but none of them has shown up in Ukraine.
It isn’t clear if an active protection system can defeat an APFSDS round.
Most NATO tanks don’t have active protection onboard.
Mines and countermeasures
The Russians have relied heavily on air-launched mines against Ukrainian tanks and armored fighting vehicles. They also have developed a new type of top attacking mine called the PTKM-1R. The PTKM-1R mine is activated by the sound of an armored vehicle. Apparently it is equipped with an internal library capable of recognizing a significant target such as a tank or armored fighting vehicle. When the sound indicates the target is in range, the PTKM-1R fires its mine that homes-in on the topside of the target, destroying it.
Conventional mines, even if air launched, typically attack the underside of a vehicle. Either they can blow off the tracks or wheels (in the case of wheeled fighting vehicles) or they can destroy the vehicle itself. There are two weak points in any tank
the top, especially the turret, and the bottom or underside, which lacks heavy armor protection. Both the Russians and NATO have developed a variety of vehicles designed to destroy mines. These have some value. -Many use a tank chassis for the tank clearing system (which may be rollers or earth-moving plows). Unfortunately, mine-clearing systems must move slowly on the battlefield, making them vulnerable to enemy fire. Mine-clearing vehicles have been destroyed in Ukraine in significant number.
……more….
This is turning point 43,871 for American hegemony.
Isn’t Ukraine using 155mm artillery much faster than 3 shifts can produce?
This is true. Tanks are destined to become obsolete. No matter whose they are.
This war is a strategic meatgrinder for both sides.
Russia doesn’t want to conquer Ukraine.
Ukraine doesn’t want to conquer Russia.
Tanks in a meatgrinder just get ground up.
Tanks are meant to punch a hole and get into the enemy’s rear and start shooting up kitchens and supply dumps.
When this happens, the enemy goes to crap.
As long as humans live on ground, someone is going to have to fight on the ground.
You can have people wearing fabric against weapons or people in steel against weapons.
It’s a choice.
The results of the gulf war and Abrams versus t-74’s migh call this analysis into question
It’s the same with our failed carrier gunboat diplomacy. With drone and missile swarms two of our most cherished weapon systems, the tank and aircraft carrier, are in the process of being rendered obsolete.
You just described practically any weapon system.
You must be thrilled anticipating your beloved Russia destroying the weapons of the West you so despise. Your gleeful anticipation of such a thing fairly leaps off your post.
Your animosity towards the West in general and the US in particular is well known here on FR, Ivan.
“There will only be a rump state of Ukraine left by then.”
Which would warm the cockles of your heart, Ivan.
“Russia doesn’t want to conquer Ukraine. Ukraine doesn’t want to conquer Russia.”
But who invaded who? Who said the other is an illegitimate country?
“Ruzzians are sub-human!!!!”
Wow, Bob, that’s a little rough and I’m saying that!
“Isn’t Ukraine using 155mm artillery much faster than 3 shifts can produce?”
Ukraine is currently using up the millions of 155mm rounds the USA had slated for disposal. They’re using our discards. Which I support.
But Congress is making us pay for them as if they’re new, which I oppose. They were paid for years ago.
Isn’t Ukraine using 155mm artillery much faster than 3 shifts can produce?
That’s what happens when you only have one forging press for all shell production.
But don’t worry ! They will have a second forging press by the end of 2025.
And then they will be able to produce half of what Ukraine needs every day.
Armstrong is a shameless self-promoter of snake oil; and his sycophants on FR are his peddlers.
The other side of the issue is the Russian economy and war production. Despite so many experts giving their expert opinions in the press, no one outside of Russia really knows the state of their economy or military production. Russian stopped reporting many economic indicators after the invasion started. Everyone reporting on the Russian economy, is using the official Russian numbers that can't be verified. No one is trading in Rubles anymore, so everything about the Russian economy and military is guesswork.
What is known is Russia is bringing obsolete equipment out of storage, putting ASW rockets on MTLB field tractors, buying munitions from North Korea and Iran. They are not producing new equipment of any kind, just refurbishing what they have. That shows Russian production is not going well either.
For example, the theoretical basis for stealth technology was recognized by a Russian mathematician and published in a technical journal in Russia. It was the US though that took up the idea and developed it into the F-117, F-22, F-35 and for use in ships.
Nevertheless, Russia sometimes does a good job when it comes to producing surprises with new model weapons made with existing technology. The RPG and AK-47 were potent weapons based on foreign innovations that succeeded as cheap and ready to use with minimal training -- ideal for guerrillas.
And the Soviet era Mig-25 Foxbat was a stunner, strong and capable of extraordinary speed due to massive engines and an air frame made with lots of stainless steel. Yet it relied on old technology of vacuum tubes in its electronics and required a massive load of ethanol to dissipate heat.
As it was, the Mig-25 was essentially a dead end in that it was designed for a limited mission -- attacking US heavy bombers at high altitudes -- that the US was in the process of abandoning. And full use of the Foxbat's speed burned out its engines.
Russia's fundamental military strategy throughout her history is to use large military formations and brutal attrition tactics to beat smaller neighbors, with her large territory absorbing and defeating invasions from even the most capable adversaries. Now, with the West providing weapons to Ukraine, Russia is struggling against even a traditional victim of her bullying.
Worse, Russia is in decline, with defective governmental institutions, pervasive corruption, a dismal civic life, and a shrinking population. Western sanctions limit Russia's access to foreign technology and equipment, while her decaying scientific and industrial base are unlikely to recover.
Is the armor weaker than it was two days ago, when this story was first posted here?
NATO’s war problem: weak armor
01/04/2024 7:23:22 PM PST · by FarCenter · 64 replies
Asia Times ^
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4207847/posts
Another words, they are pretty, but cannot fight? As an old, very old Infantryman, I cannot remember one firefight that wasn't a hostile environment. What exactly are they expecting? Daisies tossed at them? What is it with the 'modern' Infantry? They are totally weighed down with layer after layer of equipment and body armor and their maneuvering capability is severely impacted. Have watched video of them waddling around trying to get into positions that they then have to try to get back up from. Maybe if they turn them all into olympic level bodybuilders it can make sense, but wow I feel for those guys, us old fellas complained about hauling 50 pounds around.
I think you forgot to link to the other thread by the same title where I actually contributed:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4207847/posts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.