BUTT face to the pride of malaysia PT-91M?
-
Something I dug out from here ... http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4104
Raport WTO - Polish independent military magazine:
data from tests of PT-91M with FCS SAVAN 15:
"Prawdopodobieństwo trafienia pierwszym pociskiem
Za pomocą celownika działonowego Using gunners sight
- Noc, 2000 m czołg nieruchomy cel nieruchomy pocisk BM - 68% Night, 2000m Tank not moving, target not moving BM type round.
- dzień,2000 m czołg nieruchomy, cel nieruchomy, BK - 87% day, tank no moving, target not moving
- noc 1600 m czołg nieruchomy czołg przechylony o 10 stopni w prawo cel nieruchomy BK - 86%, night, tank not moving, standing on 10 deg side slope, target not moving
- noc 1600 m czołg nieruchomy strzela dowódca przy pomocy podglądu cel w nieskordynowanym ruchu poprzecznym pocisk BM - 91%, night, tank not moving, commander firing, target moving in scattered way
- dzień 2000 m czołg w kierunku celu 20km/h, cel nieruchomy OF -81% day, tank is moving with speed of 20km/h towards target, target not moving
- dzień 2000 m czołg nieruchomy, ruch celu w prawo BM - 74% day, tank not moving, target is moving from left to right
- dzień 3800 m czołg nieruchomy wyjątkowo BM - 25% tank not moving
za pomocą celownika dowódcy, Using commander sight
- dzień 1600 m czołg nierychomy cel nieruchomy BM - 77% day, tank no moving, target not moving
- dzień 1000 m ruch czołgu w kierunku nieruchomego celu OF - 98%, day Tank is moving towards its target
Sorry different charsets can't display properly ...
Anyone has gunnery stats from Western MBT ranges? -
Originally posted by moca:Did I say AK47?
"First hit probability of 2A46MS modernized gun compared to the original 2A46 gun was increased by 23%. In conjunction with a FCS of T-72 M2 MBT this value was even more enhanced."
Really? Maybe I read wrongly but I thought wosiu was implying the 2A47MS is 20 percent MORE precise then the L44(which I find dubious). A 23 percent increase on the 2A46 would be a much needed improvement, given that gun has a substandard mean error of 1m at 1,800m.
Granted it's a manufacturer blurb, but just like a high grade barrel enhances a sniper rifle accuracy, a proper main gun barrel can enhance accuracy over the typical 500-rnd monkey model barrels.
What remains to be asked is whether a 23% increase in the 2A46MS equates to a similar barrel accuracy of the Rheinmetall 120mm ... ?
Of course the blurb in itself is very vauge... 23 percent hit probability increase? Under what situtation? From what facts was this probability calculated?
The numbers quote from the gunnery range is certainly a lot better then the monkey T-72 gunnery in the Gulf War, but at the same time prehaps also points out that your gunnery is only as strong as the weakest link in your chain of features.
You can have a good gun and FCS, but the limited elevation and depression of the main gun will make laying it on target troublesome in rough terrain (a fault common in the low-slung soviet designs). Let's not even talk about trying to do hull down with that thing.
Given a new turret I think the gunnery scores might be even higher, for in any case they seem somewhat lower then the Pk on the manufacturer's website. Good FCS but inability to lay the gun properly on the target prehaps?
As for the Thermal and Radar paints... I dunno, they sound gimmicky to me (ie. the length of the sentence taken to describe it might be bigger then it's actual importance
). Granted they might reduce or manage the signature of the MBT somewhat, but I doubt you are getting any kind of a stealth tank. And fire up that engine, no amount of Thermal paint will help.
We know the Yanks had been painting their U2s and SR-71s with RAM paints for decades, and that didn't stop the soviets from tracking them easily. It's a nice measure no doubt, but I wonder if it really deserves mention. -
Right i read that on LDF too.
From there you can tell that it aint anything to laugh at. The FCS is good.
Now like i said, it doesnt matter what paper/numbers say. A tank is a tank. Especially when you are talking modern MBTs with modifications / add ons. It's something. Even more so in this region.
When the round hits, it's going to hurt. Pray if you are the tankee and you live then shoot the bastard back. That's all it is.
Best hope is of course you will only see wreckage of before you from arty and other sensor shooters.
I'm in armour and i know what i face. The PT-91M is one mean beast and i dont want to see that facing me in working condition on the battlefield. -
Guys....
I am pretty sure that some of you read own and my posts not very carefully and do not understand all things full...
What I wrote about 20% more accuracy is simply and straight:
- as Konstrukta Defence informs, their 125 mm gun 2A46MS has 20% higher accuracy then their previous version of basic 2A46 gun,
- this is test accuracy - accuracy as average dispersion of hits - of gun in field test stand,
- this is "absolut" accuracy in "absolut" conditions, not connected to practical accuracy of whole system gun+turret mechanisms+FCS.
This +20% factor is not very very important. More important is new stabilisation system* + new FCS system. It is mentioned by me only as information that also accuracy of gun is improved.
Sorry to all, my English is rather very poor, I cannot to clarify you everything with easy.
*EPS-72 by EADS, derived from Leclerc stabilisation system for T-72 family. -
wosiu,
what are BK, BM and OF rounds from the PT-91M gunnery stats above?
Thanx -
It is old soviet, but still valid terminology:Originally posted by kotay:wosiu,
what are BK, BM and OF rounds from the PT-91M gunnery stats above?
Thanx
BK = HE-AT,
BM = APFSDS,
OF = HE-FRAG -
Pls read your Own Posting, within this thread dated : 08 May 2007 · 12:30 AM . Regarding what was written regarding the Upgrading T-72/T-91 to Leopard 2 Standards. Details, pls read the respective companies Press releases, (if they are willing to provided to you).Originally posted by kotay:Duh ...
This point was raised, as it highlighted that the Polish T-72/91 standards, differs (some say lower than the stored Leopard 2A4 tank), thus the comparison comment by the Polish Commander, need to taken, with this in Mind.
Sorry Off TopicOriginally posted by kotay:
Sorry, the word "buy" is very misleading, the initial batch were "sold" at Transportation cost. not sure about the later batch Leopard.
Okay, so NATO want to do it their way ... where does it say that part of NATO membership required Poland to buy a whole brigade of NATO/German equipment?
Where, it was said in NATO documents, you have to ask NATO(Brussels). I Don't think that it's part of NATO mandate for all NATO members, but it was an unique situation.
Without going in details. (Hint hint Off topic) Partly due to WWII, German law restrict the way their forces can be deployed. Poland (early 2000) is willing to provide their troops. Been "Neighbors", One had excess Equipment, another had excess manpower. "Win Win" for both. Other countries, may not be willing to enter into such situation.
(Off Topic)Originally posted by kotay:
Why these didn't use/buy Leopards. Political, National Pride, "Old Wounds" from WWII, Build up own industries ,in M1 case key technical differences. So many reasons. Life not so simple.
More importantly, you left out replying to my highlighting the diversity of platforms within NATO with the UK Challengers, French LeClercs, Italian Arietes and US M1s?
(Back to Topic)Originally posted by kotay:Look ... a lot of countries have purchased Leo 2s recently because the Bundeswehr have been conducting a fire sale of their surplus-to-requirements stocks ... literally in the thousands.
Tell me about the Fire Sale. Sale Started a few years after the Berlin War came down.
Operate T-72 move to Leopard 2A4, does not mean/imply that the country is part of NATO force. Similarly, some countries whom bought Leopard 2 or any of their variances, does not mean that it is Part of NATO Forces.
Stay on the Topic Thread. -
Snowfox?
State your background please?
IE...stuff like unit OR you work somewhere?
Thanks. -
AFAIK, the real difference between the “generations” of tank FCS has been the range of the Thermal Sight, and not the gun stabilization system, which has been already perfected since the first Gulf War.
The stabilization upgrades to the T-72 design were more of playing catch-up to modern standards then actually excelling in them. Once again the limited elevation and depression of the main gun is an issue when it comes to stabilization over rough terrain or when climbing and going down slopes or even bumps on the road- thereÂ’s only so much you can do with a design that was intended to be used en masse with less regard to individual unit ability and more on numbers to overrun the enemy.
Aiming the gun and keeping it on target was not a problem, but the issue of detecting your enemy before he sees you is another, hence the emphasis on getting increasingly powerful sights.
On the other hand this might be a moot argument (for us at least), given the armies that have been attempting to go network centric have been putting an emphasis on “sensor-weapon” separation. That is, the separation of the platforms who do the detection and targeting from the weapons platforms that do the actual engagement.
This means that instead of having to manually acquire your targets yourself, this information is streamed to you from external sensors (other units closer to the target, UAVsÂ… etc) via network and your course of action is then decided.
On the other hand, while the long-range aquistion of the enemy is great in the latest-generations of Thermal Imaging Systems, they are outgrowing the range of their weapons platform (especially on use with tanks). For example, even with the ability of the SAVAN 15 to acquire a target at 5km is impressive, the tank using it (assuming a PT-91) has to close to within 2 km in order to use its rounds effectively. And within that range even a previous generation tank (with a Gulf War 1 era TIS) would have detected them by then (and itÂ’ll be a matter of who shoots first).
Tactically, the advantage of the latest Thermal Sights has not been that it allows you to engage the enemy first (unlike the first Gulf War where coalition armour could engage Iraqi tanks without even them being detected), but that it allows you to see the enemy first and take appropriate action before he receives the same intelligence (assuming he has a weaker FCS sight). -
I think snowie here is the same snowfox from militarynuts.com.Originally posted by CM06:Snowfox?
State your background please?
IE...stuff like unit OR you work somewhere?
Thanks.
He's got the same habit of deliberately misunderstanding posts, throwing out smoke screens when the debate is not going his way and making claims of having access to information but not being able to provide proof. (see his claims about press releases above).
He claims to be some staff weenie in the SAF, I think. -
Put it this way lah. S'pore's defence budget is a lot more than a certain country's. If SAF wanted to, I'm sure it could easily afford the PT-91M which some ppl seem to feel is some kind of super tank. No doubt SAF doesn't always get the latest stuff, but they aren't stupid enough to pay peanuts for sh*t either. For them to get the Leo2, I'm sure they know what they are doing.
And one point many ppl seem to forget is that the Leo2 WILL be upgraded. Just like our F-15s aren't F-15C or F-15E but F-15SG which is on par with if not better than the F-15K. -
---> kotay:
Even though i'm still young(1 ICT) being in HQ works wonders. I have seen with my own eyes the numbers(some). I hope to maybe see more(in the next few years) to build a better picture heh.
----> SGF:
Our F15s will be superior to F15Ks (i think they didnt purchase the AESA radar)? It will be in line with erm the mexican F-15s i think.
Regarding Leos. anyone noticed no European/USA Defense Company has mentioned any deals of selling FCS or other upgrades to us? Aint that wierd? -
Originally posted by snowfox_my:
Like I've been asking ... where is the proof that Poland Land Forces (Government) have declared an intention to replace all T-72/PT-91 with Leos?
[quote]Pls read your Own Posting, within this thread dated : 08 May 2007 · 12:30 AM . Regarding what was written regarding the Upgrading T-72/T-91 to Leopard 2 Standards. Details, pls read the respective companies Press releases, (if they are willing to provided to you).
This point was raised, as it highlighted that the Polish T-72/91 standards, differs (some say lower than the stored Leopard 2A4 tank), thus the comparison comment by the Polish Commander, need to taken, with this in Mind.
If you are referring to the press release, then why provide a link to the army technology webbie that doesn't contain the said press releases? Link to said press release(s) please?
In any case, an unsolicitated comment on the 2nd batch of 123 units of Leos being bought by Poland. They are to equip the 34th Armoured Cavalary Brigade which is part of the 11th Armoured Cavalry Division (along with the 10th Armoured Cavalry Brigade). IINM, this was done to commonalise the divisional platforms and logistics for 11th ACD.Sorry, the word "buy" is very misleading, the initial batch were "sold" at Transportation cost. not sure about the later batch Leopard.
So now you finally agree that the acquisition of the Leos by Poland was not because they needed them to join NATO per se?
Where, it was said in NATO documents, you have to ask NATO(Brussels). I Don't think that it's part of NATO mandate for all NATO members, but it was an unique situation.
Without going in details. (Hint hint Off topic) Partly due to WWII, German law restrict the way their forces can be deployed. Poland (early 2000) is willing to provide their troops. Been "Neighbors", One had excess Equipment, another had excess manpower. "Win Win" for both. Other countries, may not be willing to enter into such situation.
Yah yah, bought/sold at transportation cost ... whatever. Like you can have a "sell" without a "buy"
Later batch is supposedly at full price.
If you've read my post, I agreed that there were German-Polish political drivers behind the sale and subsequent integration of the unit. Why carry on harping about it?Originally posted by kotay:
More importantly, you left out replying to my highlighting the diversity of platforms within NATO with the UK Challengers, French LeClercs, Italian Arietes and US M1s?Originally posted by snowfox_my:
Mate, the original point related to your claim that there had to be commonality of platforms for NATO members, something you've since backed down from. So case closed ... no need to try taking it off on another tangent.
Why these didn't use/buy Leopards. Political, National Pride, "Old Wounds" from WWII, Build up own industries ,in M1 case key technical differences. So many reasons. Life not so simple.
So why did you bring up Finland then?
Tell me about the Fire Sale. Sale Started a few years after the Berlin War came down.
Operate T-72 move to Leopard 2A4, does not mean/imply that the country is part of NATO force. Similarly, some countries whom bought Leopard 2 or any of their variances, does not mean that it is Part of NATO Forces.
Right .... topic thread is "BUTT face to the pride of malaysia PT-91M?"
Stay on the Topic Thread.
So what relevance has a pissing contest between PT-91M and the Leo 2A4 gotta do with the topic thread?
This thread went waaaay off topic ages before we started ...
[edit]
p/s: btw, the "DUH" was in relation to your comparison of the PT-91M/Leo to the SM1 ... -
I want the Leo2s to come soon.
Then we can have more armour regulars.....there will sure be eager noobs to jump into this.
Did someone hear me say tankee regular is the way to go for officer promotion? Bwahahaha.
And we never have a habit of staying in topic for mil nuts. We all have our little knowledge to share.
I only do my part in shooing people from speakers corner from here. -
What topic you consider being back on track on? BUTT faced to the pride of malaysia PT-91M?
Frankly the current thread direction is far more constructive.Regarding Leos. anyone noticed no European/USA Defense Company has mentioned any deals of selling FCS or other upgrades to us? Aint that wierd?
Not really, does each and every purchase the SAF make need to be broadcast to the world?
In any case we are getting "refurbished" tanks, so it's anybody's guess on what "refurbished" means, and until we get official confirmation all the stuff we say here unfortunately (like the ability of Pakistani Penetrators) will be mostly speculation.
All we can make are educated guesses... I am guessing the SAF isn't so hard up for cash that we are going to send our Leo2A4s into our network centric battlefield along side the digital Bx2 deaf dumb and blind. I am guessing that our military budget, which is several times that of our friends, isn't exactly hard up to afford a FCS upgrade. I am guessing that we have already looked hard at the abilities of the PT-91M before considering what system to aquire that best fits our needs.
I am also guessing (based on some data) that in terms of crew and unit survivability the PT-91 will have more stuff to worry about then the crew of a Leo2. After all, "knocked out" can both mean "penetration to ammo compartment, fire damage to turret bustle" or "penetration to ammo compartment, catastrophic kill with turret seperation". And of course, mission kill and catastrophic kill are greatly different things entirely.
That aside, the final thing I am guessing is that ST has already long though of these things before we have, and it's anyone's guess (to use the word another time) if they intend to do something about it.
But we can't know until it's offically released or mentioned, and even then the SAF might want to be coy about talking too much about what FCS and stuff it uses, even with us military buffs wanting to know about it.
Needing to mention the Savan-15 explictly along with other upgrades was an important point in selling a T-72 derived design, given the negative reputation of the type in the world market, but not so for the Leo2 which could simply be sold on the weight of its "Germans-make-good-stuff" reputation. So market forces might have something to do with it. -
deleted
-
For example, even with the ability of the SAVAN 15 to acquire a target at 5km is impressive, the tank using it (assuming a PT-91) has to close to within 2 km in order to use its rounds effectively. And within that range even a previous generation tank (with a Gulf War 1 era TIS) would have detected them by then (and itÂ’ll be a matter of who shoots first).
if you can acqure target as far as 5km, it means you can plan ahead on how to kill it. Its not like as soon you detect it you rush it as soon as possible. An ambush can be set or a trap or whatever...
anyway this data cant be use on PT91M right? i mean what 2km unobstruct view? is there? a good FCS means it a lot. But you are righ the t72 gun elevation might be a problem. -
on the PT91M new gun from a friend of mine
PT-91M has as you know a slovak modernisation of Rapira gun, 2A46MS (modernized,slovak). It has increased hit accuracy by 23%.
Info on the PT91M new round
Better guns i can see only german 120mm L44 or L55, swiss one,russian/ukrainian modernisation or chineese (do not know the name, with increased kinetical energy by 30%). However Bumar Labedy is familiar only with slovak one.
So it's too complicated and costly to change the gun. In Poland the programme with 120mm L44 (like in Leopard 2A4) was abandoned.what we know however, that a military weapon research guys work over new apfsds projectile. next one. this one would have additional charge around the sabot. The apfsds amunition for t-72 is split in two parts, penetrator with sabot and propellant charge. and that's why the length of the penetrator seems to be limited (some say however that loader would accept longer penetrators anyway) and also the amount of propellant is limited. Malaysia bought new APFSDS and now they working on this next - this time the propellant will be in two parts of the amunition - in normal charge and additively around the sabot. So it could achieve biggest speed and biggest penetration.
The additive propellant charge around the sabot is for speed increase. Normally the amunition for T-72 (in oppose to western tanks amunition that is ine one piece) consist of 2 separate parts: propellant and projectile (sabot and penetrator). Normally propellant in one part burns at the moment of opening fire, and the projectile goes out of the barrel, then sabot breaks apart and lonely penetrator flies to the target. But the amount of propellant is limited due to construction of 2-part amunition. Now they want to add the propelant also around projectile - of course it burns also in the moment of opening fire. Two charges of propellant burn, (normal and around the sabot) and projectile leaves the barrel.
cheers
SGT rex wroteAs for the Thermal and Radar paints... I dunno, they sound gimmicky to me (ie. the length of the sentence taken to describe it might be bigger then it's actual importance ). Granted they might reduce or manage the signature of the MBT somewhat, but I doubt you are getting any kind of a stealth tank. And fire up that engine, no amount of Thermal paint will help.
the anti-radar, anti-thermal covering - reducing physical fields (smaller radar and thermal visibility) will make it hard to be detected, especially underneath bushes and secondary jungle. But you are right it doesnt make it stealth.
-
Do they plan to replace the autoloader? I believe the autoloader is among the biggest stumbling blocks to using better ammunition for the 125mm rounds, not least you are constrained by the length of the round. Some of the newer Western Tungsten and DU rounds are longer and thinner designed to deal with Kontakt-5.
As for stealth, the only real way to hide a tank is using smoke cannisters. You screw up any laser guidance and even radar. -
Agreeded, as I said in my post, the increased range in the sighting systems of in the context of the T-72 is allowing it to see futher and take the proper tatical actions.Originally posted by tankfanatic:if you can acqure target as far as 5km, it means you can plan ahead on how to kill it. Its not like as soon you detect it you rush it as soon as possible. An ambush can be set or a trap or whatever...
anyway this data cant be use on PT91M right? i mean what 2km unobstruct view? is there? a good FCS means it a lot. But you are righ the t72 gun elevation might be a problem.
But in a pure shooting match it's not really an advantage. Previous generation technology (Gulf War era) could still aquire targets 4 clicks out, the 1 click advantage of the is not a big deal in terms of fighting, but more on intelligence gathering.
But in our case aquiring our targets in a network centric army (once the transformation is complete) relies less on the sensors onboard the weapons systems and on and more on sensors outside of the weapons system itself, so it'll be interesting to see how it plays out.
As for the attempts to "signature manage" their PT-91Ms... hmm, seems like an odd measure to me. To take off some of the edge from the SAF's 3G sensor networking technology prehaps?
I wonder exactly how effective it is, especially with the tank engine running and stuff. -
Actually being longer and thinner isn't exactly designed to deal with Kontakt-5, it was more of an attempt to make the long rod even more efficent at defeating penetrating so that it overcomes the added RHAe caused by the ERA.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:Do they plan to replace the autoloader? I believe the autoloader is among the biggest stumbling blocks to using better ammunition for the 125mm rounds, not least you are constrained by the length of the round. Some of the newer Western Tungsten and DU rounds are longer and thinner designed to deal with Kontakt-5.
As for stealth, the only real way to hide a tank is using smoke cannisters. You screw up any laser guidance and even radar.
HOWEVER, such a penetrator is also more vulnerable to yawing forces and snapping under them, and hence some more modern packages like the armour "wedge" of the Leo2a5-6 were (supposedly) designed to introduce a penetrating long rod to yawing forces, (hopefully) snapping it and making it far less effective.
Hence the reason why 120-5mm penetrators are reaching their limits. With current materials there's only so strong a dart you can make for the diameter-length ratio. The longer and thinner the better but the projectile also becomes weaker versus other forces. And I think we are approaching the limits of what current APFSDS technology can offer)
Hence recent efforts to improve the 120 performance involved increasing the length of the gun (L55, same penetrator but with more force, so there's no need to use a slimmer dart) and the like, and less on tweaking the round. The Yanks are experimenting with smart rocket "X-rods" and the like, increasing the effective kill range of an M-1 tank to 8.6km (tested).
Currently, the most powerful dedicated AP weapon ever created (in my knowledge) is the LOSAT. It strikes with so much kinetic energy that if none of it was dispersed by the armour breaking or melting or into sound or what, an MBT hit by it would be displaced 600 meters! -
Originally posted by kotay:I think snowie here is the same snowfox from militarynuts.com.
He's got the same habit of deliberately misunderstanding posts, throwing out smoke screens when the debate is not going his way and making claims of having access to information but not being able to provide proof. (see his claims about press releases above).
He claims to be some staff weenie in the SAF, I think. When was the Claimed Made?
Like you mentioned, Show the evidence Please. Or Like Before Put Up or keep your silence, and Stay on the Topic Thread.
If you want to talk about NATO Deployment, You may consider starting an another Thread on the Issue. You had done it before, recall the Ground Pressure Thingy.
Why Mention Finland, Try searching for Reports from the Fins reagrding their experiences using the T-72 and the Leopard 2A4. Get More independent reports, if possible get 1st hand experience. -
Some Videos to see how various Tank Smoke Screens System that are in use.
French Galix System
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=govQXYgh_j4
American Smoke System
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9O4PbbMJnpE
Note they are multi-spectra system, Optical/Infra Red ranges. Other Stuff, sorry I don't know. -
these smoke screen were deployed when the tank column were jumped by AH. T72 use generate smokes by injecting air in to the engine(plese confirm this) un fortunately modern thermal imagers especially mounted on AH can see tru the smoke. So these new smoke screen were invented to deny that.
-
There is an article claiming LOSAT is load of CRAP.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Currently, the most powerful dedicated AP weapon ever created (in my knowledge) is the LOSAT. It strikes with so much kinetic energy that if none of it was dispersed by the armour breaking or melting or into sound or what, an MBT hit by it would be displaced 600 meters!
http://www.g2mil.com/Losat.htm
What do you think?