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….
“...when NATO militaries are getting replenished and increasing production,...”
When is all this supposed to be happening ?
It takes the USA 3 years just to add a second forging press for artillery shells.
It’s a joke. The Army is REDUCING M1 production.
“The Army plans to produce 22 tanks in FY23, 80 fewer than previously planned; 30 in FY24, 71 fewer than planned, and 53 in FY25, 60 fewer vehicles. “
“...is in decline, with defective governmental institutions, pervasive corruption, a dismal civic life, and a shrinking population.”
Is this about California ?
” Russia’s fundamental military strategy throughout her history is to use large military formations and brutal attrition tactics to beat smaller neighbors, ...”
No. Russia’s fundamental military strategy starting in WW2 is to use artillery to win wars.
Unlike, DOD, they figured out a long time ago that land based artillery is 60-80 percent of casualties in peer wars (Ukraine War is estimated at 80 %).
Meanwhile, the US and NATO has their head up their ass with Gucci purse/Ferrari weapons designs which spends huge money on everything except artillery and artillery shell production.
The USA has ONE artillery shell factory producing shells with ONE forging press, and won’t have a second until the end of 2025.
The entirety of NATO plus Japan, S Korea, Australia etc can’t produce the 5000 shells a day that Ukraine needs.
The M-1 production facilities are not affected and can increase production if or when Congress appropriates the funds. Over 10,000 M-1 Abrams have been built. Maybe 200 have been significantly damaged or destroyed in over 40 years. It is the most survivable tank ever built, nothing comes close. The US Army does not need a lot of new M-1s per year. They have the M10 Booker coming into service, and are replacing Patriots and other weapons sent to Ukraine. They have to prioritize spending.
The Russian military is digging through vehicle graveyards finding anything that can start or shoot. There are no new T-90s, T-14 Armatas, no increase in current model Mig or Sukhoi fighter production. The US Army's decision is about spending priorities, not production ability. The US Army has choices in spending and production the Russian military does not have.
These are not the same problems.
That's the deep tradition of corruption and incompetent management making itself felt. Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy eventually cripples Western institutions, but in Russia they start out at the end state and decline from there. Might examine the hypothesis that Eastern Slav culture derives initially from the Byzantine at it's worst. (Even their alphabet was created by a Byzantine monk named Cyril. Before that they were entirely illiterate.)
At the end of the Cold War though, the US and NATO declined to keep producing more military materiel like artillery shells for stockpiles and to maintain full production lines. The assumptions were that: (1) technological advances and time would make much of what was produced obsolete; and (2), given the US post Cold War dominance, we would have enough time to mobilize industry to a war footing.
In fact, the potency of highly accurate guided shells and artillery rockets in Afghanistan led to a reduction in conventional artillery in the US military. Oh well. Who could have imagined that the US and NATO would be in a proxy war in Ukraine that requires lots of conventional tube artillery?
“...and are replacing Patriots and other weapons sent to Ukraine. “
2027.
According to you the Russians could be in Calais by then.
https://www.thedefensepost.com/2023/11/17/boeing-patriot-missile-seeker/#google_vignette
Patriot production capacity in 2019 was 500 per year. Now they are increasing by 30 percent.
Soon they will be up to two a day !
As well as using the "To: All" in the reply to encourage others to pile on with the abuse. It means you are running out of insults, since you don't understand your own facts.
This was old when newsgroups were new. 🙄 /s
“Who could have imagined that the US and NATO would be in a proxy war in Ukraine that requires lots of conventional tube artillery? “
I would have thought after 2014 Crimea that the risk of peer war should have been obvious. They certainly hyped the “threat” from Putin at the time. But as is always with current Western “leadership”, it was all talk. They did nothing.
In retrospect they should have been on an emergency schedule to replace the Paladin with something that could be fired at higher rates with a less trained crew and could be produced in large numbers.
There was a recognition at that point that they were outranged by the Russians and they did develop more rocket assist and longer range 155. But these were still always going to be small numbers of shells.
More importantly, if there is the possibility of peer war where there is 60-80 % of casualties from artillery, and there is ONE shell forging press in the whole country with a maximum output of 1500 per day... that should have been a double emergency, even more than the Paladin replacement.
When I first saw this Jimmy Thomist video going thru the dominance of land-based artillery in this video, my reaction was WHAT THE F*CK have these “leaders” in DOD and NATO been doing ?
(relevant section starts at the prompt)
https://youtu.be/0p2psJbLc44?t=293
We were 8 years on from 2014 and nothing had been done. How could they have been so careless ?
” As well as using the “To: All” in the reply to encourage others to pile on with the abuse. It means you are running out of insults, .. “
No. I use reply all when I have a link to actual factual material, not just opinion.
Because then everyone on the thread has the opportunity to see actual fact based source material, not just the usual ‘Merica, F*ck yeah ! cheerleading.
How effective can ERA be in an active and ongoing battle? The first missile hit may be defeated by the ERA, but the second should strike a killing blow.
Yes.
No money in a low cost high volume munition like unguided HE artillery shells.
That’s why they are built in a government factory.
You need to read Col. Doug MacGregor’s critiques of our front line tanks. He says the biggest problem is that we are using jet turbine engines whose heat signature is easily identifiable from space sattellites and they can be knocked out by Russian anti-tank missiles. Not to mention they have to be run continuously to keep them operable.
Yikes! I copied the link, but somehow neglected to paste it into my reply. Thanks for catching that and providing the link!
ROFL.
Those "cope cages" do NOT protect Russian tanks from modern ATGM's such as TOW2B or Javelin.
The current cope cages surround the entire tank/APC with chain-link fencing, thus preventing the crew from escaping.
“How effective can ERA be in an active and ongoing battle? The first missile hit may be defeated by the ERA, but the second should strike a killing blow.”
What’s the likelihood of hitting the same exact spot?
Factor in distance, wind speed, temperature, movement of the launch vehicle, movement of the target vehicle and it will be virtually impossible to hit the same spot twice.
BUT
The way around ERA, are missiles with tandem warheads. The first smaller warhead detonates the ERA brick, leaving the second larger warhead to penetrate the armor. For example, the TOW missile starting with the BGM-71C ITOW thru the BGM-71E TOW 2A had stand off probes to defeat reactive armor. At the tip of the probe is a small explosive charge to pop the ERA while the main body of the missile is just far enough away to keep from being disrupted by the exploding ERA.
No, they don’t do much when it comes to top tier ATGMs. They’re used more for drones.
And yes, they have got more sophisticated:
The tanks with the latest cope cage also feature factory-produced camouflage, replicating foliage, as part of a camouflage ‘wrap.’ This same covering, reportedly known as Nakidza, and produced by the NII Steel company, is also seen on an example of the T-14 Armata new-generation tank at the show. Although unconfirmed, it appears that the manufacturer also claims that these wraps help shield the vehicle from infrared sensors, which would be achieved by masking its heat signature.”
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/cope-cages-go-mainstream-at-russias-arms-bazaar
If you think they are so useless and stupid, maybe you should tell the Israelis. It appears the IDF is still in the improvising stage with their cages anyway:
Again, I never said they were perfect protection, just that they more or less worked (against drones — I didn’t think it necessary to specify drones, as I figured everyone knew they are for drones).
Heat signature identifiable from space?
Ol' Dougie needs to lay off the vodka because the heat signature of the BS coming out of his mouth can be seen from Alpha Centauri.
They can be destroyed by Russian antitank missiles?
All tanks can be destroyed to one extent or another by missiles. With the Abrams however, the crew has a better than 90% chance of survival when hit unlike their Russian counterparts.
And it's a historical fact that the Abrams has survived hits by other Abrams tanks using the M829A1 "Silver Bullet" rounds during Desert Storm, as well as shrugging off hits from the much more powerful M829A3 "Super Sabot" during OIF during attempts to destroy disabled tanks to prevent them from being captured. The M829A3 BTW hits with a muzzle energy of 12.1 MJ or 8.9 million foot pounds of force.
On April 5, 2003 an Abrams was hit by a recoilless rifle and set ablaze (gear on the outside caught fire). After several failed attempts to put the fire out, it was decided to destroy the tank in place. Oil and .50 rounds were spread in the turret, the ammo doors were locked in the open position, a few thermite grenades were tossed in the turret, and another Abrams fired a HEAT round at it. After all that the tank was only disabled. The Air Force later dropped a bomb on it to destroy it.
So Russian missiles should be of no issue.
Run continuously to keep them operable?
Hardly
Well, there’s this:
“Again, while the M1 has very advanced armor protection, and a low profile, so do other modern tanks. The M1 is unique, however, in suffering from an enormous heat signature. The heat signature (ability of the tank to be seen with infrared devices) of the M1 comes from the hot exhaust of its turbine engine. While the Soviets have reduced their tanks’ thermal signature by roughly 24% in recent models8, we have increased our heat signatures dramatically by adopting the turbine engine for the M1. The M1’s exhaust is so hot that it can burn the paint off a car should it follow the tank too closely. The operator’s manual repeatedly warns that the exhaust if “very hot and can burn personnel.”9 This means that the M1 is not only easily spotted, but is also positively identifiable at extremely long ranges with infared equipment - being the only tank in the world with such a heat signature.”
Excerpted from here:
https://www.pogo.org/reports/armys-m1-tank-has-it-lived-up-to-expectations
More on the Abrams’ problems discussed here, with suggestions for improvement (USMC officer):
https://www.g2mil.com/abramsdiesel.htm
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.