"Eunometic" wrote in message
om...
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , Eunometic
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
How much fuel, ammunition, spare parts et cetera come with them?
Tanks
are logistic-hungry beasts and need more support than most imagine.
Flying in a tank or three isn't that much help if you end up with an
immobile pillbox two days later.

Clearly a tank that weighs 70-75%% as much as a Western Tank and has 3
crew instead of 4 would tend to require 25% less fuel,

Why? Fuel consumption at idle (where tanks spend most of their time)
would be similar if diesel-engined: for that matter, the inability to
explain "idle power" to a gas turbine doesn't scale down much either.

Doubling the horsepower of a typical automobile doesn't usually double
the fuel consumption. Increase it yes, but not in direct ratio.

The superior fuel consumption of a 45 ton tank as opposed to a 63 ton
tank derives from the lower mass of the former.

According to the Finns, their T-72's require between 240 and 450 l per 100
km; the M1A1 comes in at about 400 l per 100 km, which places it within the
rather large range specified by the Finns for the smaller Russian designed
tank (M1 data extrapolated from:
http://www.mobrien.com/twr/Gulfwar/p...es/TWR15V2.txt ). Note that the M1A1/2
used today is not as fuel hungry as the original model courtesy of its
Digital Electronic Control Unit, which reportedly reduced the fuel
consumption by some 18-20% versus the earlier (M1 and M1A1 Block I) models.
You apparently like the T-80 an awful lot--you do realize it has a GT engine
(in most of its early production models at least), right?


Diesel engines are more efficient at both the high power range and
when near idle. In fact when opperating at low power levels or near
idle gas turbines are particularly inefficient compared to diesels.
Modern hyperbaric diesels don't give up anything in engine power to
weight ratio or size either. Only noise is an issue and the smoother
power of the turbine provides for better track grip.

A 45 ton tank with a hyperbaric diesel should consume 0.75 x 0.75 =
56% as much fuel as a 60 ton gas turbine vehicle.


less tankers,

Irrelevant - you've got so many warm bodies to feed and water that
removing a handful doesn't matter. (You *did* have supporting infantry
for these tanks, didn't you?)

A squdron of M1A2 Abrams needs 20 tanker trucks to support it and a
Leopard 2 needs only 15.

I hardly think the food consumption of the crew will match their fuel
consumption in weight.

You used the term "tankers"--Paul quite naturally took that to mean, given
the subject at hand, the number of tank crewmembers (known as "tankers"
hereabouts, though we used to also sometimes call them "DAT's", which equals
"dumb ass tankers"... :-) ).




less spare track,

Why? Track life will tend to be similar, and generally long enough that
airlift won't be crucial.

smaller recovery vehicles.

Which are still large heavy vehicles needing C-17 lift, whether they're
recovering Western or Soviet designs.

Sure, but that doesn't fix the catastrophic ammunition explosion
problem, or the hideously cramped interiors.

The Soviets field two completely different tanks: the T64 (not to be
confused with the T62) and the T72. The T72 was meant to be a cheaper
less capable tank for export. As it turned out the T72 was exported
in a degraded form while the also produced in greater numbers in a
higher standard forms for Soviet use becuase it was cheaper than the
T64 (which is superior and is deployed)

And the T-64 is more comfortable for Western-sized crews to operate for
sustained periods of time?

The soviet tanks do have multilayer composit armour as thick and heavy
but apparently less capable, night vision systems, gyro-stabalisation
etc. All of these could be brough up to western standards.

Sure, just throw enough money at it. That's the problem - you end up
spending more money to get to where you already were before.

No. The fire control system is merely an electronic device. It works
as well in 45 ton tank as a 60 ton tank.

A wee bit of a problem called "integration" exists. If you know of such a
simple way around that dilemma, start up a company quick and half the world
(those using the Russian equipment and desiring to upgfrade it) will beat a
path to your door, 'cause in reality it apparently is nowhere near as easy
as you seem to think, based upon past reports of "westernization" of Russian
MBT's.



The tanks are lighter, faster, require less logistics and manpower,
more easily transported and ultimetly more mobile and make smaller
targets.

Unfortunately, they've demonstrated a persistent inability to outfight
their Western counterparts.

First of all we have never seen contemporary Western tanks battle
against up to date Russian tanks. Iraqi T72s were even downgraded
with less armour and were forced to fire steel penetrators.

By this time Russians were fielding T80 tanks with composit armour.

For goodness sakes, the T-80 was their *first* production tank to have a
laser rangefinder and ballistic computer onboard (and since you want to make
the T-80 your model, you lose points on the fuel consumption fight, since it
too has a GT engine, at least in its original forms). The T-72, be it Syrian
going against Israeli systems (including their M60's...), or Iraqi facing US
and British weapons, has proven to be utterly outmatched. They could have
been equipped with the latest DU rounds during ODS and it would not have
made much difference, as they were often killed without ever having
*detected* the attacking tanks.



And a bloody useful one.

True but overcome in the T80UM2 black eagle. Admitedly this tank is
not deployed but it shows that the two main issues: seperate magaine
and a restricted gun depression can be overcome within the
Russian/Ukranian philosophy.

How well does a six-foot crewman fit into the T80UM2 and how well can he
man his position buttoned-up for 48 hours? (This was an acceptance test
right back in the 1960s for Chieftain...)

Confort is less but has been improved in the Black Eagle version of
the T80.

So they have moved from unconsionable to merely archaic?



So, you're talking about "Soviet tanks blessed with all the
advantages
of Western technology"? Except that the crews would mutiny if you
tried
to use Western professionals...

The problems can be overcome.

Certainly. Is it cost-effective to do so compared to the alternatives?

I am talking about using Russian tank designe philosophy in an
entirely western designe as opposed to modification to existing
Russian hardware with western systems.

You have been talking about dropping western systems into Russian tanks (see
your earlier comment about bringing them "up to western standards"). And
that has been the discussion topic for this branch of the thread. Going to
the "we could build new tanks using the Russian philosophy" is a bit
late--name any western new MBT development efforts currently underway or in
the immediate future? Nope. Because the emphasis is moving away from the
MBT, both in the US and in Europe, in terms of new armor development work.



Why? Still not designed for survivability or crew endurance, which
are
key factors for how the West fights.

The magazine is the main issue in survivablity but the smaller tank is
less likely to be hit. A lighter tank means you could have possibly 4
tanks in theater as against 3.

They'll shoot off more ammunition (four tubes rather than three)

That's a good thing.

Not for your logistics system. The daily allowance for reloads would be
calculated on a per-system basis--you just increased the ammo resupply
volume/weight by 33% by going from three tanks to four tanks in the TO.



and burn off little less fuel, and still come in one per airlifter.

Clearly a C5 could carry two 42-45 ton tanks and struggle with a
single 63 ton tank.

Toss the C-5 out of your calcs--it requires a big, long runway. The C-17 is
the rough field capable transport that will shoulder the burden for early
entry operations, along with the C-130 (which can't haul *any* MBT's, even
45 tonners).


A C17 could bring a 45 ton tank along with additional support
vehicles.

Or, it could bring an equal number of M1A2 or a Challeneger II's which are
definitely more capable than your Russian tanks.



So, if
you pursue this option... why bring in four tanks that keep losing
fights, when you can bring in three that keep winning?

They won't be loosing fights. Despite being 45 tons their armour is
of the same protective value.

No, it is not. Compare the external dimensions of the T-80 to the M1A1 and
you will find that other than height (2.9 meters versus 2.2 meters) they are
rather similar. Using that difference in height as a guage, your T-80 should
come in at 75% of the weight of an M1A2, which in its latest version comes
in at a hair under 70 tons (69.5 according to the US Army). But that would
mean your T-80 would have to weigh in at a bit over 52 tons. Seven tons
difference from the expected weight. So your "smaller" Russian design is
disproportionately lighter than the M1A1--wonder why? Less armor protection,
less emphasis on crew survivability, etc. Remember that the main armament,
fuel, ammo, etc., will tend to weigh about the same for both (and the T-80's
autoloader weight counts against it here as tank equipment weight you don't
have in the M1), so that weight difference does appear to be in the armor
protection area

Brooks



Or you can take the losers and spend a lot of money adapting and
improving them... but why bother when you already operate the winners?

In some cases it means having a few
tanks at all instead of none at all and in some cases it means not
having to hold an advance to let your logistics catch up.

If you're trying to do an armoured advance based on airlift, you're so
screwed before you start that the choice of tank is irrelevant.

Its not just airlift but other aspects of mobillity and logistics that
are effected.