Jump to content

Russian Tanks: Helium Armor?


Poopstain

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 110
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

6 hours ago, Interlinked said:

Well, I don't think that example is a textbook case of gun depression being critical, because in this case, the Centurions obtained a hull-down position behind natural berms with the concealment of tall wild grass. They only backed up behind a reverse slope to get into a turret defilade position. 

On the Syrian side - if they were obliged to attack over open ground, then having more gun depression wouldn't have mattered, because they were obliged to drive over open ground rather than attempt to hit the Centurions from positions on the crest of the hill. Whether it was even possible to take up positions on the crest of the hill is another matter, because it looks like quite a tall hill. Since they were obliged to attack, ideally, they should have fanned out into some type of attack formation and sought covered positions of their own in that field rather than continue marching in a single file on the road, apparently paralyzed with indecision. But, of course, this is all assuming that the scene in the film is completely true to life!

Best in mind, it wasn't just on the attack. They were defending on the same terrain when Israel counterattacked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But a lot of Merk's frontal projection would be "empty", like 1/4 of the left and right profie. With M1 and T-72 than ain't so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Interlinked said:

 His backrest is in the turret bustle at such a distance that the TC's back sticks out beyond the turret ring diameter. 

No, it is not.  The pole is mounted away from the turret ring.  Granted it doesn't go below the turret ring (why would it need to?) but the seat back is within the diameter of the turret ring.

Comander's seat.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, wendist said:

But do you really need good gun depression capability when on the offensive in general? Soviet tank philosophy seem to indicate they did not think so, low silhouette was more important.

We were taught that in an advance to contact, half the tanks would be turret or hull down in firing positions to cover the tanks that were moving with the two groups changing roles every tactical bound.

We were also taught to change position after every one or two rounds fired so Directing Staff would have been failing the crew commanders on this serial if this were an exercise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Tim Sielbeck said:

No, it is not.  The pole is mounted away from the turret ring.  Granted it doesn't go below the turret ring (why would it need to?) but the seat back is within the diameter of the turret ring.

Comander's seat.jpg

That's the seat cushion folded up, the backrest is some distance behind it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Tim Sielbeck said:

And if the turret weren't so tall would it still be?  

The turret's height is partly determined by the basic need to accommodate the tallest seated person, in this case, a 95th percentile TC would be 966.72mm tall (38.06"). With a helmet and some head clearance to avoid spinal injuries due to vertical accelerations when the tank is moving cross country, it's clear that a seated 95th percentile TC will require at least a meter of vertical space from the seat cushion to the top of his cupola. 

If the seat cushion is at or above the turret ring, the turret plus cupola must have a height of no less than 1 meter (plus the roof armour thickness) when measured from the turret ring. In reality, the M60A1 requires the commander to use the rangefinder, and the eyepiece for the rangefinder is in the turret, not his cupola. To accommodate this, the turret itself is 1.02 meters tall. 

image.thumb.png.11356d268ff3108670c660fc51380fc9.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, R011 said:

We were taught that in an advance to contact, half the tanks would be turret or hull down in firing positions to cover the tanks that were moving with the two groups changing roles every tactical bound.

If the advancing tanks cannot shoot while moving (no stabilizer or so), then it is better that they are guarded by tanks in hull down.

Soviet doctrine says otherwise here. Namely, all tanks in the company shoot while moving with weapon stabilization. This will bring maximum firepower to the enemy. But, this only works in coordinated combat of all different troops.
(It is better if you also master the other method.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

If the advancing tanks cannot shoot while moving (no stabilizer or so), then it is better that they are guarded by tanks in hull down.

Soviet doctrine says otherwise here. Namely, all tanks in the company shoot while moving with weapon stabilization. This will bring maximum firepower to the enemy. But, this only works in coordinated combat of all different troops.
(It is better if you also master the other method.)

 

Even if one can shoot on the move, it's probably better that the tanks covering are stationary so they can better watch what's going on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Poopstain said:

Isn't "negative elevation" a quality more closely associated with a defensive mindset?   If your doctrine is that you are going to be swamping your enemy charging ahead in inexorable "waves," what good is negative elevation going to do you?

Even in a very rapid strategic advance, the actual tactical maneuver will rarely just be 'mad rush'. If one can get a good position and fire while stationary with local over-match there isn't really any notable delay, and winning some particular phase in 6 minutes rather than 10 isn't that important. Also rapid advances can involve lots of defensive operations, i.e. with some dash to a position where ambushes and blockades can be set. Actually a lot of the 'mad rush' will be recon and barely opposed marches.

This is more so the case earlier on when fire while moving is of marginal efficacy.

Edited by KV7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/16/2022 at 4:04 AM, sunday said:

There is that video from the "Valley of Tears" TV series that show hull down Centurions firing on T-55s from what seem as prepared positions.

 

I wanted to shout 'REVERSE! CHANGE POSITIONS!!'  after the opening salvo...the Israelis looked to be sitting there way too long...

----

Manic has a video where, standing in front of an M60, he talks about how the M60 was designed with defensive actions in mind; that the crew might have to live in the thing for days, waiting for an attack--THEN be able to function efficiently--where the Sov smaller tanks were designed with an offensive goal, so extended habitability was not as important (they didn't actually have to stay in the things, but climb in just before jump-off).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The situation is very much unlike a textbook attack on defended positions, the way it is depicted shows that the Syrians were ambushed. In an organized attack, the positions of the enemy should be determined beforehand, the platoons should be assigned their own lanes of maneuver, they should transition to an attack formation to initiate the battle, they should coordinate fire on the enemy, etc. In this case, they drove down the valley in a typical marching formation, and continued to march on the road for minutes after receiving fire from the Centurions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KV7 said:

Even in a very rapid strategic advance, the actual tactical maneuver will rarely just be 'mad rush'. If one can get a good position and fire while stationary with local over-match there isn't really any notable delay, and winning some particular phase in 6 minutes rather than 10 isn't that important. Also rapid advances can involve lots of defensive operations, i.e. with some dash to a position where ambushes and blockades can be set. Actually a lot of the 'mad rush' will be recon and barely opposed marches.

This is more so the case earlier on when fire while moving is of marginal efficacy.

Yes, the "rapid advance" that readers will routinely encounter in company and battalion level tactics textbooks is not a disorganized human/tank wave attack, but coordinated high-speed, high-momentum shock attack where maneuver is used to gain the advantage by acquiring favourable overwatch positions and flanking the enemy.

122.thumb.png.c994dc71ae9ec8525f7035b08321ed86.png

According to a Soviet tank tactics manual, this is what should be done:

In the case where friendly tank forces only detect enemy tanks in defensive positions due to the enemy tanks being the first to open fire, which is closest to the scenario depicted in the film, then the recommended course of action is not for everyone to drive towards them head-on. The first prescribed method of overcoming the enemy defence is to withdraw to cover and call in artillery while trading fire with the enemy from covered positions. Then, maneuver around the flanks of the enemy and attack at close range. The second prescribed method, when artillery is not used for whatever reason, is for some tanks stay behind and trade fire from cover (overwatch) while others maneuver around the enemy.

Quote

Атака закопанных в землю танков противника может происходить в различных условиях: а) когда танки противника наши танкисты обнаруживают неожиданно и б) когда им заранее известно место расположения танков противника. От этих условий будут зависеть и боевые приемы атаки.

Кроме того, необходимо учесть характер местности, тип танка противника, дистанцию до его расположения и ряд других факторов.

В том случае, когда наши танки неожиданно обнаружат танк противника, в то время как он уже откроет огонь, не следует его атаковать в лоб, а необходимо отойти в укрытие и, ведя прицельный огонь, вызвать огонь артиллерии для ослепления его. После ослепления танка противника наши танки совершают бросок на сближение и, обходя закопанный танк с флангов и тыла, уничтожают его огнем.

В том же случае, когда танкистам не удается вызвать артиллерийский огонь, одна часть танков обходит танк противника с флангов, а другая прикрывает огнем их маневр. Выйдя во фланг танку противника, танки уничтожают его прицельным огнем с коротких дистанций (из-за укрытий), при этом атака должна быть стремительной и дерзкой. При отходе в укрытие танкисты не должны подставлять под огонь противника слабые места своего танка. Целесообразнее всего отходить задним ходом. Следует помнить, что противник обычно минирует подступы к своему закопанному танку, вследствие чего наш танк, идущий в атаку, должен атаковать противника с тыла.

Google translate:

Quote

The attack of entrenched enemy tanks can take place under various conditions: a) when enemy tanks are unexpectedly discovered by our tankers and b) when they know in advance the location of enemy tanks. The combat techniques of the attack will also depend on these conditions.

In addition, it is necessary to take into account the nature of the terrain, the type of enemy tank, the distance to its location, and a number of other factors.

In the event that our tanks unexpectedly detect an enemy tank, while it has already opened fire, it should not be attacked head-on, but it is necessary to retreat to cover and, while delivering aimed fire, call in artillery fire to blind it. After blinding the enemy tank, our tanks make an approach roll and, bypassing the dug-in tank from the flanks and rear, destroy it with fire.

In the same case, when the tankers fail to call artillery fire, one part of the tanks bypasses the enemy tank from the flanks, and the other covers their maneuver with fire. Coming to the flank of an enemy tank, the tanks destroy it with aimed fire from short distances (because of cover), while the attack must be swift and daring. When retreating to cover, tankers should not expose the weak points of their tank to enemy fire. It's best to go backwards. It should be remembered that the enemy usually mines the approaches to his dug-in tank, as a result of which our tank, going on the attack, must attack the enemy from the rear.

This was clearly not done in the Syrian case, even though the Centurions revealed themselves by opening fire and not relocating, and despite the fact that the Syrians outnumbered the defending Israelis in that encounter.

(BTW, can anyone guess when the tactics manual was published?)

Edited by Interlinked
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Interlinked said:

If the seat cushion is at or above the turret ring, the turret plus cupola must have a height of no less than 1 meter (plus the roof armour thickness) when measured from the turret ring. In reality, the M60A1 requires the commander to use the rangefinder, and the eyepiece for the rangefinder is in the turret, not his cupola. To accommodate this, the turret itself is 1.02 meters tall. 

Or you could say they put the seat above the turret ring because the turret roof/cupola were so high.  

As to placement in comparison with the range finder, even I had to stoop some to use it when the seat was at its lowest height.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Interlinked said:

That's the seat cushion folded up, the backrest is some distance behind it.

That is the bottom seat cushion folded against the backrest, there is no distance involved.  The whole thing can be tilted 90 degrees to the front giving the TC a place to stand while he has his head outside of the cupola.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tim Sielbeck said:

Or you could say they put the seat above the turret ring because the turret roof/cupola were so high.  

As to placement in comparison with the range finder, even I had to stoop some to use it when the seat was at its lowest height.

It is in fact true that the rangefinder eyepiece isn't placed conveniently (and was a noted deficiency), but perhaps the absurdity of your two sentences is worth chewing on. The problem with using the rangefinder is that the height of the turret wasn't enough even with the seat on its lowest height, and they put the seat above the turret ring because the turret/cupola was so high. Was the commander's station designed by saboteurs?

unknown.png

1 hour ago, Tim Sielbeck said:

That is the bottom seat cushion folded against the backrest, there is no distance involved.  The whole thing can be tilted 90 degrees to the front giving the TC a place to stand while he has his head outside of the cupola.  

I mean that when unfolded, there is a certain distance between the rearmost point of the seat cushion and the backrest, around 5-6 inches. The seat cushion isn't hinged directly on the pole, it's mounted on an arm with the hinge behind the pole. 

m60a1oshawaimg_1468-res.jpg

The plate that the backrest is mounted on is physically on top of, and slightly behind the turret ring snag guard.

Edited by Interlinked
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Interlinked said:

According to a Soviet tank tactics manual, this is what should be done:

In the case where friendly tank forces only detect enemy tanks in defensive positions due to the enemy tanks being the first to open fire, which is closest to the scenario depicted in the film, then the recommended course of action is not for everyone to drive towards them head-on. The first prescribed method of overcoming the enemy defence is to withdraw to cover and call in artillery while trading fire with the enemy from covered positions. Then, maneuver around the flanks of the enemy and attack at close range. The second prescribed method, when artillery is not used for whatever reason, is for some tanks stay behind and trade fire from cover (overwatch) while others maneuver around the enemy.

Note that neither the Syrians nor the Egyptians applied Soviet doctrine in 1973, else they wouldn't have attacked in the first place, as they lacked the required superiority in the attack sectors in the case of Syria and the forces to execute an advance out of the bridgeheads in the case of the Egyptians.

The Syrians didn't attack frontally out of a suicidal death wish, but because they were aware of the very limited window of opportunity to occupy the Golan and the limited training of their tankers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

If the advancing tanks cannot shoot while moving (no stabilizer or so), then it is better that they are guarded by tanks in hull down.

Soviet doctrine says otherwise here. Namely, all tanks in the company shoot while moving with weapon stabilization. This will bring maximum firepower to the enemy. But, this only works in coordinated combat of all different troops.
(It is better if you also master the other method.)

 

What is your judgement on Soviet/Russian tanks when firing from hull-down positions, are they hampered by their limited ability to lower the gun? Do the tank crews find it difficult to find suitable firing-positions in general? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

Note that neither the Syrians nor the Egyptians applied Soviet doctrine in 1973, else they wouldn't have attacked in the first place, as they lacked the required superiority in the attack sectors in the case of Syria and the forces to execute an advance out of the bridgeheads in the case of the Egyptians.

The Syrians didn't attack frontally out of a suicidal death wish, but because they were aware of the very limited window of opportunity to occupy the Golan and the limited training of their tankers

In this case, it seems the Syrians weren't using any doctrine at all, just rolling the dice and hoping something good will happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...