FCS in simulated T-72 and T-80?

[DemolitionMan]

Hi,

was just reading about the different older and newer optics and FCS of the Russian tanks and got curious which versions with their respective capabilities are simulated in the T-72M1 and T-80U.

[GH_Lieste]

No idea of the specifics...

I did however get some 'stick time' on an ersatz older FCS using the SB Leo2A4 in beobatchen mode to practice the 'lay twice' fire control method used by the T72 (and indeed many other vehicles of the same era)...

[Ssnake]

Actually, the Leopard 1's "Stab bereit" mode would come pretty close to how the T-72M1 is being operated. You would just need to do some extra wiggle with the sight after a laser shot since the laser aiming mark is not calibrated to the center of the crosshairs. You could also go to stabilized mode, but only for about 30 minutes before the hydraulics will overheat.

[Hedgehog]

Hydraulics overheating??

Please explain....

Does the fan not work in emergency mode?

Very strange.

[GH_Lieste]

I think he meant that the T72 could indefinitely have the sight aligned to the (loosely) stabilised gun tube, but that if you wanted a steady sight picture and 'upped' the stab gain to get something approximating a Western Vehicle in Stab mode, then the hydraulics would have absorbed a limiting amount of heat in 30 minutes to force a shut down or damage to the motors/piping.

(I tend to fire from the halt when possible (and prefer to sandbag targets that are also halted and flanking :biggrin:), so the dual lay is more important to my gunnery style than the absence or presence of stab (which only really applies when moving on rough ground and at speed)).

[dejawolf]

additionally, the T-72 sight has a fixed magnification of 8x. the gunner gets a wide FOV by looking into a periscope mounted above the sight.

the sight is always aligned with the gun tube, because its mechanically linked to the gun,

like the bradley is.

and since the stabilization of the gun is not perfect, if you're moving at high speed over bumpy terrain the sight picture will jump around as if it wasn't stabilized.

apparently the hydraulic motor isn't strong enough, which i guess is why it'd overheat with prolonged use.

the T-72 turret is stabilized in both elevation and traverse.

the turret traverse itself is somewhat tricky. the traverse is stabilized until about 6 degrees/second, and then violently throws the turret into unstabilized maximum traverse speed. so basically a jump from 6 to about 40 degrees/s.

the T-72 has some special features, namely delta-D, and laser cutoff.

delta-D automatically reduces range to a lased target as you move around, although its based on engine RPM, so if you move on slippery ground, the range will come out wrong.

range cutoff ignores LRF ranges returned below 1200 or 1800m.

the tank has an automatic loader, utilizing a "carousel" setup, which is basically an ammunition carousel under the turret floor. the carousel spins at about 40 degrees/s, and only spins 1 direction. so depending on how full the carousel is, loading time can vary from 6 to 12 seconds.

the autoloader is operated with a switch, and a button. you turn the switch to the desired round you want loaded, and then push the button.

the coax setup in the T-72 is also different from western tanks. instead of there being a switch for the gunner to swap main gun and coax, there's separate gun and coax fire buttons on the gunners handle.

the gunner also has a TPN-1-49-23 active near IR night sight,

which has a maximum range of about 700 meters with searchlights on, and a maximum ID range of about 500 meters.

the TC has a sight mounted in the cupola, with 4x magnification.

he also has 2 buttons on each handle, which when depressed, turns the turret left and right.

pressing both buttons simultaneously centers the turret on the angle the cupola is facing.

the cupola is traversed by hand, and only a small guy is able to turn the thing 360 degrees,

by standing on the seat.

the TC's MG

[Skybird03]

Hi,

was just reading about the different older and newer optics and FCS of the Russian tanks and got curious which versions with their respective capabilities are simulated in the T-72M1 and T-80U.

Last year, for sheer fun I had glued together a simple auto-running massacre in a flat desert environment. Two teams of 130 tanks each, racing down a 5 km wide corridor like in a football match and meeting each other head on. The one were Leopard-1A5DK, the other were T-72. Sabot ammunition were chosen so that the penetration power as listed in the weapon option for both tanks was around 600 mm, with the Leopards even have a small advantage. simple linear "React-routes for every platoon, down to the other side of the corridor which was 15 km or so.

The T72 mopped the floor with the Leopards, winning in a range of 130 : 30 or 35.

I then switched the sides, to see if terrain had something to do with it. The T72s became Leopards, and the other way around. Again, the Leopard force was humiliated.

Back in the days of the cold war, before the Leopard-2s were introduced in huge numbers, I really wonder if Western tank forces would have been able to stop those waves of T-72. It seems to me the T-72 gets massively underestimated due to their role in the Iraq wars. But these were export versions, and not operated by soviet crews, and it were abrams tanks against them. I do not take the superiority of the M60 and Leopard-1 equipped tank armies as granted.

But maybe the SBP "scenario" - no offence meant to call that stupid "Klamauk" a scenario - is just misleading, for whatever the reason is.

Impressive: the version last autumn, that was 2.370 then, if I am not mistaken, was able to run a mission with 260 tanks in full motion. That is multi-batallion size, isn't it.

It looked like Superbowl! Must see if I still have that thing somewhere on disc, would be great pleasure to watch that again, and now from the perspective of a flying drone. Oh the drama, oh the scale of obliteration and carnage...

Correction, I think it were no Danish Leopards, but Australian, to equalise chances regarding TIS.

[dejawolf]

the T-72 tank was widely feared in the west during the cold war, and rightly so.

even the abrams, in its first incarnation wasn't equipped to deal with contemporary soviet rounds. only after 2 uparmour packages was it capable, in about 1992 to withstand the soviet 1985 ammunition. however, in FCS capability, western tanks far outperformed the soviet tanks, which still fail to field thermal imagers for their tanks in any significant numbers.

[Ssnake]

Last year, for sheer fun I had glued together a simple auto-running massacre in a flat desert environment. ... Sabot ammunition were chosen so that the penetration power as listed in the weapon option for both tanks was around 600 mm, with the Leopards even have a small advantage.

1. The Leopard 1 was designed to win a fight against a T-55 force
2. Everybody knew that against the T-72 it would be a tricky thing, and that you had to be better tactically and as far as crew skills were concerned.
   Even then the protection level of the T-72 was underestimated as contemporary 105mm rounds were considered to be still adequate; test firings ca. 1991 established that this was NOT the case, and new 105mm KE rounds had to be developed (represented by the DM63 in SB Pro, which is a post 1995 development).
3. The whole "test" is set up against the Leopard 1 as you have parity in armament, much better protection for the T-72, and neither a tactical advantage for either side nor all the options that could make the Leopards better, e.g. thermal imager.
   Try to run the scenario again, this time with 1500m visibility and thermals for the Leo 1, and see how much that will shift the balance.

[Sabot_Up]

What about the T-80U's FCS? Is it equivalent to the M1/Leo 2 as simulated?

[dejawolf]

What about the T-80U's FCS? Is it equivalent to the M1/Leo 2 as simulated?

its pretty different. for example, its got stepless magnification for the gunners daysight.

they didn't start fitting thermals to the T-80U until around 1992, and only in very small numbers. russia is considering to phase out the T-80 series tanks completely, in favor of the T-72 series tanks, like the T-90, as an interim design before they finish development of the T-95.

anyways, this page here is in german, but it gives a good description of the T-80U and T-90 FCS: http://www.kotsch88.de/f_1g46.htm

[Skybird03]

T-95 does not sound too shabby:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-95

I know it's just wikipedia, but most of what is known about the T95 seems to be speculative anyhow.

A 135 or even 155mm gun, ATGMs of 6-7 km range, crew completely seated in the hull not in the turret, tank as good as invisible in hull-down. Wowh. Turret must be flat as a flounder, if that is true.

[Sabot_Up]

T-95 does not sound too shabby:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-95

I know it's just wikipedia, but most of what is known about the T95 seems to be speculative anyhow.

A 135 or even 155mm gun, ATGMs of 6-7 km range, crew completely seated in the hull not in the turret, tank as good as invisible in hull-down. Wowh. Turret must be flat as a flounder, if that is true.

I'm curious as to the TC's view. His hatch will be quite a bit lower than that on an (already low) T-72 or T-90, as well as being completely blocked by the turret in one direction. Also, will he have to watch out for the gun barrel when unbuttoned?

[Ssnake]

I think we will get a better informed view with the fielding of the Puma IFV to the Bundeswehr which has an unmanned turret as well. Tests in the 1970s showed that it wasn't so much a problem in combat itself, but safely operating the vehicle outside of combat (the restricted view made it difficult for the crew to avoid collisions), so the idea was abandoned back then. Now that we can have multiple CCD cameras all around (compare the CV90/35 with its MFD) this may reduce these problems.

[Skybird03]

Armchairgeneral has some speculative but fascinating illustrations. According to some of these, the thing looks like an Alien.

http://www.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http://www.palba.cz/forumfoto/albums/userpics/10002/t-95-c.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php%3Ft%3D59103&usg=__kWJLo6-VHvpodiPq-z23g2HBgMY=&h=600&w=790&sz=48&hl=de&start=6&tbnid=2wZjVQuG_HROoM:&tbnh=109&tbnw=143&prev=/images%3Fq%3DT-95%26as_st%3Dy%26hl%3Dde%26sa%3DG

http://www.palba.cz/forumfoto/displayimage.php?album=55&pos=91

Those two boxes left and right on top of the turret, with round things (lenses?) in them - stereoscopic imagers, maybe?

[GH_Lieste]

ATGM jammers, operating in the IR spectrum to dazzle/confuse the tracking of the missile identification flare. Like on the fronts of the T90 as used by the RF.

[Skybird03]

There will come a day when a tank brigade will consist of one combat vehicle - and legions of technicians to maintain it. Like Stanislav Lems idea from the 70s regarding the size of the US Air Force at the end of the 21st century: three planes only standing in a deepoly hidden bunker-hangar, each of them being so incredibly expensive that it cannot be justified to let them fly, with all the risks that includes.

[SSG.GETCH]

Thinking about the "double-lay" idea....makes me wonder if the LRF cant be boresighted to the inverted vee aimpoint on the T72's reticle rather than the Lase circle, which on the reticles I've seen is quite low and right of center mass. I will try and ask this queston of local T72 experts.

[GH_Lieste]

The 'v' moves in the sight with range/ammunition selection.

The laser is fixed relative to the gun and sight picture.

While it might be possible to nudge the sight to be aligned perfectly for one ammunition/range it will always be off for all other combinations anyway for this type of sight.

Modern NATO sights have the laser aligned with the sight, not the gun, and fire at a constant sight location, offsetting the gun as required - very different.