Could Ukraine's T-84 Tank Take on the World's Best in a Fight?

[HAIDER]

June 16, 2018 Topic: Security Region: Europe Blog Brand: The Buzz Tags: UkraineArmortankMilitaryTechnology
Could Ukraine's T-84 Tank Take on the World's Best in a Fight?

Or is just the best of the USSR's long line of tanks?

by Charlie Gao
The T-84 Oplot-M is Ukraine’s latest Main Battle Tank. While it hasn’t seen combat service in the Ukrainian military, the type contains many advanced features. But the Oplot is hardly a clean slate design. In many ways, it is simply a highly advanced version of the T-80U main battle tank, one of the most lethal tanks the Soviet Union produced. But how did the T-80U become the T-84?

To understand where the T-84 comes from, it is important to understand its heritage. Like the T-64 and the T-80UD, the T-84 is a product of the Ukrainian Kharkiv Morozov Machine Design Bureau (KhKBM). As such, it draws many design features from the earlier tanks. The roots of the T-84 lie in a 1970s Soviet project to improve the T-64B: the Object 476 “Kedr.” In this project, the seven hundred horsepower 5TDF diesel engine in the T-64 is replaced by the more powerful 6TD engine, and the turret protection is set up in a manner that would become the setup on the T-80U. As the T-80U didn’t use diesel engines, preferring the GTD-series of gas turbine engines, the 6TD went unused on the basic T-80U. However due to some problems and the high cost of the GTD-series of engines (ten times that of the 6TD), a diesel variant of the T-80U was built, called the T-80UD (Object 478B). Introduced in 1985, the T-80UD was one of the best MBTs fielded by the Soviet Army before the dissolution of the union. This tank was the basis on which the Oplot would be built upon.
The lineage from the T-80UD to the T-84 is clearly traceable, as different variants of the T-80UD for export and versions of the T-84 all use the Object 478 designation. At the time of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, various versions of the T-80UD were being trialed with advanced equipment such as the Prana and Shtora Active Protection Systems (APS). Shtora was fit to the command tank variants of the T-80U, the T-80UK. The Soviets wanted to fit these to the T-80UD as well, so they commissioned a prototype that implemented Shtora and welded turret modules that improved protection. This prototype was called the Object 484, or T-80UDK.

The designers at KhKBM post-dissolution realized that it would be good for business if they rolled all of these advanced features into their own “new” tank. The T-80UD already was an export success, with sales to Pakistan . The process of creating the “new” T-84 began with the upgrading of the 6TD engine. The original 6TD-1 as installed on the T-80UD had a horsepower of around 1000 horsepower. The 6TD-2 upped this to 1200 horsepower, allowing the tank to retain its mobility with the increased weight of additional modules. The welded turret was also incorporated. The research and development to create welded turrets were there prior to the collapse of the union, but at the time, disrupting the production of cast turrets was not seen as a logical tradeoff to switch to welded production. When restarting production after the collapse, no reason was seen not to transition to the superior welded design, which gave better protection, greater upgrade potential of the armor in the future, and increased survivability. The first T-84 “Oplot,” designation Object 478DU2 rolled off the assembly line in the spring of 1995. The only substantive differences from the first T-80UDs were the new welded turrets, standard Shtora installations, and 6TD-2 engines. These changes added two tons of weight to the design, bringing the weight up to forty-eight tons.

However, this basic T-84 design was not adopted by any nation. So KhKBM continued improving the design. One problem that came with the dissolution of the union was a lack of new 2A46 125 millimeter tank guns to arm new production T-84s with. Various plants and industries were retooled, and Ukraine began producing its own indigenous KBA-3 125 millimeter tank gun, a close copy of the 2A46M-1. In addition, the “Kontakt-5” ERA that was used on the T-80UDs was also produced in Russia. For later versions of the T-84, domestic “Nozh” ERA was produced. Unlike Kontakt-5, which has limited effectiveness against kinetic energy projectiles such as the APFSDS projectiles used by most tanks, Nozh is designed to defeat these as well as HEAT warheads. The Soviet-era “Shtora” APS was replaced by the new “Warta” APS with the same capabilities but new sensors. Other changes included the addition of an APU, changes to the side screens to improve protection there, new radionavigation equipment, and new “shoes” for the tracks to reduce wear on road surfaces. With all these improvements, this “new” T-84 was called T-84U or Object 478DU9. Ten of these machines were acquired by the Ukrainian military in 2000.
While the T-84U Oplot (Object 478DU9) was adopted by the Ukrainian military, KhKBM also was gunning for contracts in NATO countries, specifically Turkey To this end, they created a version of the T-84 with a 120 millimeter NATO gun. Called the “ Yatagan” or T-84-120 (designation Object 487N), this tank was more than a simple gun conversion of the T-84. Because 120mm NATO ammunition is one-piece, and standard 125 millimeter ammunition is two-piece, a new autoloader design was devised for the Yatagan. This allowed the storage of some rounds in a blow-out compartment similar to those used on the M1 Abrams to increase the chances of crew survival in an ammo strike. A 120 millimeter gun-launched ATGM along with the fire control systems to guide it was also part of the Yatagan package. However, Turkey, in the end, decided not the acquire the Yatagan, and the project faded into obscurity.

Sometime in the mid-2000s, KhKBM realized that the T-84U tanks adopted by the Ukrainian military in the early 2000s were getting outdated and needed replacement. Here, the T-84 “Oplot-M” or BM Oplot (designation Object 478DU9-1) project was born. Planned as a modernization kit for the ten T-84Us already adopted by the Ukrainian military, this kit improves the protection of the type by installing a newer “Nozh-2”/“Duplet” ERA with improved resistance to all threat types. It also adds the massive PKN-6 stabilized thermal commander sight to the tank (commonly known as the “bucket”). While earlier versions of the T-84 and T-80UD had stabilized commander sights and gunner thermal sights, the PKN-6 introduced the thermal function for the commander, allowing the BM Oplot to have a true analog to the American M1A2’s CITV sight. Due to the size of the PKN-6, the commander’s machine gun was also moved. The engine was also changed to the 6TD-2E, a more ecological version of the 6TD-2 that produces less toxic exhaust. Some changes are made to the ammunition storage as well, with some rounds being stored in the turret bustle with blowout panels to protect against ammunition cookoff. The order to modernize all Oplots in Ukrainian service to the BM Oplot standard was given in May 2009, however lack of funds has delayed this upgrade. Only one tank has been seen with this package in Ukraine. The BM Oplot upgrade package adds another three tons, bringing the weight up to fifty-one tons.


Fortunately for KhKBM, the BM Oplot found limited success on the export scene. In 2011, Thailand signed a contract to buy forty-nine BM Oplot-Ms modified for Thai service. These Oplots were called Oplot-T (designation Object 478DU9-T) and featured an air conditioner, and different radios and APU. However, the slow pace of delivery caused Thailand to cancel the full contract.

A rough comparative evaluation of the Oplot’s combat qualities versus its Russian counterparts can be found in the Malaysian tank trials in the 2000s. A basic variant of the T-84 (designation Object 478DU7, a variation of the Object 478DU2) performed at around the same level as Russia’s export T-90S. If the Ukrainian ERA systems hold up to their claims, the BM Oplot would be a rough equivalent for any tank Russia can field. The independent commander thermal sight gives better situational awareness than a standard T-72B3, T-90A, or even the T-80BVM, Russia’s take on T-80 modernization. Recent tanks such as the T-90M or the proposed T-72B3M might match the BM Oplot in capability, and the new T-14 “Armata” almost definitely surpasses it. While the BM Oplot might be better than Russia’s “line” tanks, the tiny numbers in service render its advantages irrelevant. The T-84U’s poor performance at Strong Europe 2018 may also cast doubt on the quality of Ukrainian sights versus modern Western tanks.

Charlie Gao studied Political and Computer Science at Grinnell College and is a frequent commentator on defense and national security issues.

 

[blueazure]

the T 80s future will be that of a developing world's take for an MBT , at a discount , yet with decent capabilities.


combat record,


chechnya:-

not so impressive, yet the vodka - induced driver conscripts of the newly broken soviet army were to blame more

war in donbass:-

very few have been spotted , the Ukrainians prefer to field the T 64's more . maybe the 80s are being held for reserve does russia plan an all out war



how will it perform in a syria /iraq / yemen like mess ?

^^
if this is what happened to turkish leopard 2's in afrin , one can assume the fate of T 80 .


the biggest enemy of tank is NOT a tank anymore, its the irregular militia foot soldier perched on a hill with a rusty ATGm :/

 

[Signalian]

how will it perform in a syria /iraq / yemen like mess ?

^^
if this is what happened to turkish leopard 2's in afrin , one can assume the fate of T 80 .


the biggest enemy of tank is NOT a tank anymore, its the irregular militia foot soldier perched on a hill with a rusty ATGm :/

There are ways of course. Post 8 and onwards:

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/paki...-in-tonight-with-fareeha-a-must-watch.448097/

war in donbass:-

very few have been spotted , the Ukrainians prefer to field the T 64's more . maybe the 80s are being held for reserve does russia plan an all out war

The reliability might be another factor in case of T-64.
T-64 BV didn't come last in 2017 challenge.

 

[blueazure]

yeap, infantry ahead of armor, send the squaddies to kill the ATGM gunner while the armor stays back, how convenient!

# of men Jaish al Arbi Suri and turkish military lost using this method !

1. the atgm team will have an MG cover to kill the forward fanning infantry team

2. by delaying the armor thrust , the ATGM team has achieved a mission kill anyway. EVEN knocked out 2,3 tanks

3. the tank was made as a break through weapon ( ww1 trench ) . the atgm team has now taken away that advantage

armored corps all over the world are scratching their heads :/

 

[Signalian]

yeap, infantry ahead of armor, send the squaddies to kill the ATGM gunner while the armor stays back, how convenient!

# of men Jaish al Arbi Suri and turkish military lost using this method !

1. the atgm team will have an MG cover to kill the forward fanning infantry team

2. by delaying the armor thrust , the ATGM team has achieved a mission kill anyway. EVEN knocked out 2,3 tanks

3. the tank was made as a break through weapon ( ww1 trench ) . the atgm team has now taken away that advantage

armored corps all over the world are scratching their heads :/

Told you to read, not skim and form an opinion in micro-seconds.
Factor in Artillery for suppression. If artillery is not available then infantry uses Mortar, for in direct fire and RPG for direct fire.

The chances to lose MBT become more in absence of infantry. First Chechen war, attack on AL Zarrar Tank etc.

This is not WW2, this is 21st century, MBT role has expanded rather than a break through weapon. Its used for fire support (as seen in WOT), flanking weak enemy areas (desert war) and still retains the role of leading assault with mechanised infantry, artillery and aviation (if available).

 

[Beast]

June 16, 2018 Topic: Security Region: Europe Blog Brand: The Buzz Tags: UkraineArmortankMilitaryTechnology
Could Ukraine's T-84 Tank Take on the World's Best in a Fight?

Or is just the best of the USSR's long line of tanks?

by Charlie Gao
The T-84 Oplot-M is Ukraine’s latest Main Battle Tank. While it hasn’t seen combat service in the Ukrainian military, the type contains many advanced features. But the Oplot is hardly a clean slate design. In many ways, it is simply a highly advanced version of the T-80U main battle tank, one of the most lethal tanks the Soviet Union produced. But how did the T-80U become the T-84?

To understand where the T-84 comes from, it is important to understand its heritage. Like the T-64 and the T-80UD, the T-84 is a product of the Ukrainian Kharkiv Morozov Machine Design Bureau (KhKBM). As such, it draws many design features from the earlier tanks. The roots of the T-84 lie in a 1970s Soviet project to improve the T-64B: the Object 476 “Kedr.” In this project, the seven hundred horsepower 5TDF diesel engine in the T-64 is replaced by the more powerful 6TD engine, and the turret protection is set up in a manner that would become the setup on the T-80U. As the T-80U didn’t use diesel engines, preferring the GTD-series of gas turbine engines, the 6TD went unused on the basic T-80U. However due to some problems and the high cost of the GTD-series of engines (ten times that of the 6TD), a diesel variant of the T-80U was built, called the T-80UD (Object 478B). Introduced in 1985, the T-80UD was one of the best MBTs fielded by the Soviet Army before the dissolution of the union. This tank was the basis on which the Oplot would be built upon.
The lineage from the T-80UD to the T-84 is clearly traceable, as different variants of the T-80UD for export and versions of the T-84 all use the Object 478 designation. At the time of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, various versions of the T-80UD were being trialed with advanced equipment such as the Prana and Shtora Active Protection Systems (APS). Shtora was fit to the command tank variants of the T-80U, the T-80UK. The Soviets wanted to fit these to the T-80UD as well, so they commissioned a prototype that implemented Shtora and welded turret modules that improved protection. This prototype was called the Object 484, or T-80UDK.

The designers at KhKBM post-dissolution realized that it would be good for business if they rolled all of these advanced features into their own “new” tank. The T-80UD already was an export success, with sales to Pakistan . The process of creating the “new” T-84 began with the upgrading of the 6TD engine. The original 6TD-1 as installed on the T-80UD had a horsepower of around 1000 horsepower. The 6TD-2 upped this to 1200 horsepower, allowing the tank to retain its mobility with the increased weight of additional modules. The welded turret was also incorporated. The research and development to create welded turrets were there prior to the collapse of the union, but at the time, disrupting the production of cast turrets was not seen as a logical tradeoff to switch to welded production. When restarting production after the collapse, no reason was seen not to transition to the superior welded design, which gave better protection, greater upgrade potential of the armor in the future, and increased survivability. The first T-84 “Oplot,” designation Object 478DU2 rolled off the assembly line in the spring of 1995. The only substantive differences from the first T-80UDs were the new welded turrets, standard Shtora installations, and 6TD-2 engines. These changes added two tons of weight to the design, bringing the weight up to forty-eight tons.

However, this basic T-84 design was not adopted by any nation. So KhKBM continued improving the design. One problem that came with the dissolution of the union was a lack of new 2A46 125 millimeter tank guns to arm new production T-84s with. Various plants and industries were retooled, and Ukraine began producing its own indigenous KBA-3 125 millimeter tank gun, a close copy of the 2A46M-1. In addition, the “Kontakt-5” ERA that was used on the T-80UDs was also produced in Russia. For later versions of the T-84, domestic “Nozh” ERA was produced. Unlike Kontakt-5, which has limited effectiveness against kinetic energy projectiles such as the APFSDS projectiles used by most tanks, Nozh is designed to defeat these as well as HEAT warheads. The Soviet-era “Shtora” APS was replaced by the new “Warta” APS with the same capabilities but new sensors. Other changes included the addition of an APU, changes to the side screens to improve protection there, new radionavigation equipment, and new “shoes” for the tracks to reduce wear on road surfaces. With all these improvements, this “new” T-84 was called T-84U or Object 478DU9. Ten of these machines were acquired by the Ukrainian military in 2000.
While the T-84U Oplot (Object 478DU9) was adopted by the Ukrainian military, KhKBM also was gunning for contracts in NATO countries, specifically Turkey To this end, they created a version of the T-84 with a 120 millimeter NATO gun. Called the “ Yatagan” or T-84-120 (designation Object 487N), this tank was more than a simple gun conversion of the T-84. Because 120mm NATO ammunition is one-piece, and standard 125 millimeter ammunition is two-piece, a new autoloader design was devised for the Yatagan. This allowed the storage of some rounds in a blow-out compartment similar to those used on the M1 Abrams to increase the chances of crew survival in an ammo strike. A 120 millimeter gun-launched ATGM along with the fire control systems to guide it was also part of the Yatagan package. However, Turkey, in the end, decided not the acquire the Yatagan, and the project faded into obscurity.

Sometime in the mid-2000s, KhKBM realized that the T-84U tanks adopted by the Ukrainian military in the early 2000s were getting outdated and needed replacement. Here, the T-84 “Oplot-M” or BM Oplot (designation Object 478DU9-1) project was born. Planned as a modernization kit for the ten T-84Us already adopted by the Ukrainian military, this kit improves the protection of the type by installing a newer “Nozh-2”/“Duplet” ERA with improved resistance to all threat types. It also adds the massive PKN-6 stabilized thermal commander sight to the tank (commonly known as the “bucket”). While earlier versions of the T-84 and T-80UD had stabilized commander sights and gunner thermal sights, the PKN-6 introduced the thermal function for the commander, allowing the BM Oplot to have a true analog to the American M1A2’s CITV sight. Due to the size of the PKN-6, the commander’s machine gun was also moved. The engine was also changed to the 6TD-2E, a more ecological version of the 6TD-2 that produces less toxic exhaust. Some changes are made to the ammunition storage as well, with some rounds being stored in the turret bustle with blowout panels to protect against ammunition cookoff. The order to modernize all Oplots in Ukrainian service to the BM Oplot standard was given in May 2009, however lack of funds has delayed this upgrade. Only one tank has been seen with this package in Ukraine. The BM Oplot upgrade package adds another three tons, bringing the weight up to fifty-one tons.


Fortunately for KhKBM, the BM Oplot found limited success on the export scene. In 2011, Thailand signed a contract to buy forty-nine BM Oplot-Ms modified for Thai service. These Oplots were called Oplot-T (designation Object 478DU9-T) and featured an air conditioner, and different radios and APU. However, the slow pace of delivery caused Thailand to cancel the full contract.

A rough comparative evaluation of the Oplot’s combat qualities versus its Russian counterparts can be found in the Malaysian tank trials in the 2000s. A basic variant of the T-84 (designation Object 478DU7, a variation of the Object 478DU2) performed at around the same level as Russia’s export T-90S. If the Ukrainian ERA systems hold up to their claims, the BM Oplot would be a rough equivalent for any tank Russia can field. The independent commander thermal sight gives better situational awareness than a standard T-72B3, T-90A, or even the T-80BVM, Russia’s take on T-80 modernization. Recent tanks such as the T-90M or the proposed T-72B3M might match the BM Oplot in capability, and the new T-14 “Armata” almost definitely surpasses it. While the BM Oplot might be better than Russia’s “line” tanks, the tiny numbers in service render its advantages irrelevant. The T-84U’s poor performance at Strong Europe 2018 may also cast doubt on the quality of Ukrainian sights versus modern Western tanks.

Charlie Gao studied Political and Computer Science at Grinnell College and is a frequent commentator on defense and national security issues.

Isnt this the same stupid ABC who claimed JF-17 is assisted by American and its a Mig-21 modify?

 

[blueazure]

Told you to read, not skim and form an opinion in micro-seconds.
Factor in Artillery for suppression. If artillery is not available then infantry uses Mortar, for in direct fire and RPG for direct fire.

The chances to lose MBT become more in absence of infantry. First Chechen war, attack on AL Zarrar Tank etc.

This is not WW2, this is 21st century, MBT role has expanded rather than a break through weapon. Its used for fire support (as seen in WOT), flanking weak enemy areas (desert war) and still retains the role of leading assault with mechanised infantry, artillery and aviation (if available).

this is all good on paper, call the arty, lob mortars, send the infantry, no one had more heavy arty and mortars than SAA yet they failed repeatedly to dislodge rebels from even urban centres until russian air support crippled their logistics basis



empirical evidence from syria and ukraine tells otherwise , atgm teams, hiding in bush and perched on hill crests get the first shot and usually bog down the assault before disengaging . the maximum hits and casualties are in the first few minutes . ( range of ATGM vs 125mm barrel, mortar , ? ) how to spot the atgm gunner ? can you hit something you cant see ?

first chechan war > rebels had no ATGMs / no CIA supplied TOWs, they had RPGs and had to get close, v close . spetsnaz and conscript soviet fodder could push them back

attack on alzarrar > i have no idea about that . what happened, which op?


tanks role > can be debated

 

[GriffinsRule]

this is all good on paper, call the arty, lob mortars, send the infantry, no one had more heavy arty and mortars than SAA yet they failed repeatedly to dislodge rebels from even urban centres until russian air support crippled their logistics basis



empirical evidence from syria and ukraine tells otherwise , atgm teams, hiding in bush and perched on hill crests get the first shot and usually bog down the assault before disengaging . the maximum hits and casualties are in the first few minutes . ( range of ATGM vs 125mm barrel, mortar , ? ) how to spot the atgm gunner ? can you hit something you cant see ?

first chechan war > rebels had no ATGMs / no CIA supplied TOWs, they had RPGs and had to get close, v close . spetsnaz and conscript soviet fodder could push them back

attack on alzarrar > i have no idea about that . what happened, which op?


tanks role > can be debated

Urban warfare is not what is being talked about here so your examples of Chechnya or Syria with fighting in the cities is not really valid. No ATGM has made tanks any less fearsome or necessary ... and out in open terrain where tanks are really in their element, any ATGM team will be spotted and might be lucky to even get a 2nd shot off. All the videos I have see are where the tanks are static when being engaged. Even if a few tanks are taken out, as is expected in war, it would not stop an armored thrust towards an objective. The most effective weapon against a tank will remain another opposing tank.

 

[Signalian]

this is all good on paper, call the arty, lob mortars, send the infantry, no one had more heavy arty and mortars than SAA yet they failed repeatedly to dislodge rebels from even urban centres until russian air support crippled their logistics basis



empirical evidence from syria and ukraine tells otherwise , atgm teams, hiding in bush and perched on hill crests get the first shot and usually bog down the assault before disengaging . the maximum hits and casualties are in the first few minutes . ( range of ATGM vs 125mm barrel, mortar , ? ) how to spot the atgm gunner ? can you hit something you cant see ?

first chechan war > rebels had no ATGMs / no CIA supplied TOWs, they had RPGs and had to get close, v close . spetsnaz and conscript soviet fodder could push them back

attack on alzarrar > i have no idea about that . what happened, which op?


tanks role > can be debated

If it's all good on paper only, then Infantry School Quetta, Staff College Quetta, Armor School Nowshera etc should shut down, because all concepts arise from there and are then tested in exercises and ranges. PA MBT's don't hold active protection systems, so other methods are devised to counter ATGM's. This is why the pictures in the thread of the link i posted show infantry leading and assaulting positions followed by MBT's. I did not make the pictures, I got them from a book on the topic. Like i told you above whats being taught and now i am sure its being taught correctly as losses are suffered when opposite is done, e.g Syria/Ukraine. There was also a debate about use of M-113 in PA, which pertains to dis-mounted infantry attacking enemy positions instead of only a MBT + IFV attack on enemy positions.

Use of MBT and AFV in Urban and build-up areas is tricky; Usually Light forces which are specialized in CQB like SF and LCB are sent in urban and build up areas to minimize collateral and causalities. Bringing in Air force, artillery, mortars and then MBT's will ruin the area. The deployment of MBT's in urban areas is very different from MBT deployment in rural or open areas.
The Rebels using RPG's and other Anti Tank weapons against T-80 and other AFV's in Chechen wars show how vulnerable MBT's are in Urban areas without proper infantry support and coordination. And this is exactly my point !!!!

Ranges of ATGM, Mortars, Tank cannon can vary according to terrain. It depends how close they can get to each other before firing. Its irrelevant unless a situation is discussed.

You are from Military background, the word recce or recon is not new for you. Before any Military assault Ops is implemented, full intel on enemy weapons, enemy strength, their deployments of MG, ATGM, AFV, Artillery support, Air support, Reserves, Logistics etc is shown in the planning room to all commanders taking part in the assault. For such a preparation, Recon units of Corps, Division or Brigade, and even recon elements of a battalion are used which stay in designated area, keeping an eye on enemy build-up even while plans are drawn in the planning room as to update changes. There are other sources of intel too, from intelligence units operating close or with-in the enemy set-up who report on movements of enemy formations, weapons, logistics and assaulting forces. The intel reports are usually the first ones to arrive and then the recon elements continue giving reports on enemy activity in the area of responsibility of a certain formation and this actively continues during even the assault phase, actively coordinating with commander on the ground who then makes decision and gives order during the battle.
In short, ATGM positions are known before hand, this is why artillery is used in open spans of area, and more precision guided munition is being developed to take out targets of vital threat. Infantry also uses ground radars, sensors, NVG's etc. Laser warning receivers can be used to detect laser painting from laser guiding ATGM. The wire guided are hard to detect. MBT's can use smoke dischargers when flash of wire guided ATGM is spotted.

You can search AZ story here or google it.
Debate the MBT role as you like.

Your arguments are good. Do a bit of home work on your end too. Work a bit on your sentence formation and presentation. You are one of the few members i remember and miss from the old forum.

It's good to have you here.

 

[saltyashell]

Modern armies are not going to do armour thrusts like in ww2 using tanks solely.
Like the Americans showed in the gulf war 2 , they cleared the only road to Baghdad by massive aerial bombing and this will be the tactic in future wars.
Air assets and tanks working in tandem with infantary.
Population centres will be left alone and bypassed , no one wants to fight in congested overpopulated areas.
All depends on what the aim of the invading force is.
I don't really see territorial grabs in the 21st century succeeding in the long term. Even USA does not know what to do after it's initial wins , like in Iraq and afghanistan.
Though Russia and it's crimea operation are still hanging but at a heavy price for Russia.

 

[HAIDER]

Pakistan should go for Russian T72, it battle tested tank and Russian did lots of modification in its protective armor. A Syrian war tested machine. Russian did lots of modification .

 

[blueazure]

If it's all good on paper only, then Infantry School Quetta, Staff College Quetta, Armor School Nowshera etc should shut down, because all concepts arise from there and are then tested in exercises and ranges. PA MBT's don't hold active protection systems, so other methods are devised to counter ATGM's. This is why the pictures in the thread of the link i posted show infantry leading and assaulting positions followed by MBT's. I did not make the pictures, I got them from a book on the topic. Like i told you above whats being taught and now i am sure its being taught correctly as losses are suffered when opposite is done, e.g Syria/Ukraine. There was also a debate about use of M-113 in PA, which pertains to dis-mounted infantry attacking enemy positions instead of only a MBT + IFV attack on enemy positions.

Use of MBT and AFV in Urban and build-up areas is tricky; Usually Light forces which are specialized in CQB like SF and LCB are sent in urban and build up areas to minimize collateral and causalities. Bringing in Air force, artillery, mortars and then MBT's will ruin the area. The deployment of MBT's in urban areas is very different from MBT deployment in rural or open areas.
The Rebels using RPG's and other Anti Tank weapons against T-80 and other AFV's in Chechen wars show how vulnerable MBT's are in Urban areas without proper infantry support and coordination. And this is exactly my point !!!!

Ranges of ATGM, Mortars, Tank cannon can vary according to terrain. It depends how close they can get to each other before firing. Its irrelevant unless a situation is discussed.

You are from Military background, the word recce or recon is not new for you. Before any Military assault Ops is implemented, full intel on enemy weapons, enemy strength, their deployments of MG, ATGM, AFV, Artillery support, Air support, Reserves, Logistics etc is shown in the planning room to all commanders taking part in the assault. For such a preparation, Recon units of Corps, Division or Brigade, and even recon elements of a battalion are used which stay in designated area, keeping an eye on enemy build-up even while plans are drawn in the planning room as to update changes. There are other sources of intel too, from intelligence units operating close or with-in the enemy set-up who report on movements of enemy formations, weapons, logistics and assaulting forces. The intel reports are usually the first ones to arrive and then the recon elements continue giving reports on enemy activity in the area of responsibility of a certain formation and this actively continues during even the assault phase, actively coordinating with commander on the ground who then makes decision and gives order during the battle.
In short, ATGM positions are known before hand, this is why artillery is used in open spans of area, and more precision guided munition is being developed to take out targets of vital threat. Infantry also uses ground radars, sensors, NVG's etc. Laser warning receivers can be used to detect laser painting from laser guiding ATGM. The wire guided are hard to detect. MBT's can use smoke dischargers when flash of wire guided ATGM is spotted.

You can search AZ story here or google it.
Debate the MBT role as you like.

Your arguments are good. Do a bit of home work on your end too. Work a bit on your sentence formation and presentation. You are one of the few members i remember and miss from the old forum.

It's good to have you here.

ahhh, signalian aka green beret from signals corps ? its good to see lurkers like myself from pdf here.

times have changed alot since then, married +kid now, writing elaborate posts and spell check is a luxury when there is a toddler+wifey lobbing atgm's at me from every direction, if you know what that means, ( im effectively reduced to 1 post / day if lucky ) . , professional responsibilities, exponentially up .

 

[ZY-CN-CA]

Pakistan should go for Russian T72, it battle tested tank and Russian did lots of modification in its protective armor. A Syrian war tested machine. Russian did lots of modification .

why not T90s ? ..T72 is a little out

 

[Hu Yao]

Maybe next year Pakistan should play the tank biathlon 2019.