[Igor Antunov]

Russia has invited the U.S. to participate a tank biathlon so that both nations may learn to play nice — with heavy artillery.

The invitation was apparently extended while Secretary of State John Kerry and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel Sergei Lavrov and Sergei Shoigu in Washington on Friday. The "two-on-two" talks were intended to relieve some of the tension between the two countries, so the suggestion of a little friendly competition — under fire — wasn't out of place.

Defense Minister Shoigu repeated the invitation during a Friday press conference, and according to Russia's , Shoigu says the U.S. agreed.

"'We've invited our American colleagues to participate ... and our invitation was accepted by US Secretary of Defense [Chuck] Hagel,' Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said Saturday."

NPR can't confirm this — calls to the Department of Defense went unanswered Saturday — but if such an event does take place, Shoigu says it'll be sometime next year.

Russia might have the advantage, however; Russia has already hosted at least two tank biathlons. Another, the championship, is planned .

As to what exactly happens in a tank biathlon, think of a regular biathlon — then forget about it:

"In the tank biathlon, every tank runs almost 20 kilometres at a maximum possible speed, while firing from all weapons the targets, which are rising in different directions and distances. On the course, a tank has to pass repeatedly a ford, fences, a rut bridge, high-speed sections and overtaking passages. At all the times, the crew remains constantly in the firing position."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201 ... k-biathlon


Tank Olympics.

[Godstud]

That'd be pretty cool to see, actually... from a distance...

[foxdemon]

That'd be pretty cool to see, actually... from a distance...

Sounds good,...pass the popcorn

[Beren]

What could be a more Russian idea? A competition of nuclear submarines?

[Oxymoron]

This should be interesting, but can they add jousting?

[Godstud]

They've already been doing war games in Europe between NATO countries for decades, this really isn't THAT new a thing. It's just a twist and more of a contest, like Bests Sniper, or some of those things.

[layman]

Russia tanks are inferior to most western ones are they not?

[Igor Antunov]

-Much lighter thus less immediate protection.

+Has autoloader which means less crew to train and operate.

+Less metal in construction thus cheaper to make and faster to make

+Can use ERA to add defensive depth to thinner armor negating biggest disadvantage

+Gun is just as deadly

+Low profile, more power per tonne, much better suited for offensive maneuvers in uneven terrain.

+Lighter means less fuel, longer range. Thus not only cheaper to manufacture, but cheaper to operate over longer distances.

Russian operational doctrine designates armour as part of a large scale combined arms offensive force. They are not supposed to be engaging enemy tanks in 1 vs 1 battles. Helicopter gunships are for taking other tanks out. Their advantage lies in speed, numbers, economy, their purpose lies in exploiting the weakest point in fortified enemy positions across broad fronts.

The latest Russian tanks are somewhat heavier and employ far more extensive ERA scheme, and are more suited for western style jousting engagements. But the Russians have not abandoned their numbers led offensive doctrine. A Nato-Russian conflict would still involved thousands of russian tanks storming europe and massed strategic missile attacks on nato airbases before aircraft can take off.

Western tanks are heavier and barebones 'tougher' because they are geared for the defensive role.

The reason the monkey model T-72's the iraqis were using flopped so much:

-Their guns were firing at half designated range due to shoddy shells, many would just bounce off. (by far the biggest shortcoming, it means they couldn't actually do anything to US/British armour beyond a certain distance).
-Their ERA was first generation shit
-Their tank crews were incompetent and coordinating as scattered agents on flat terrain using unencrypted radio, engaging enemy in small groups.
-They had no air presence/support
-They were telegraphing their positions to the enemy with their optics dazzlers, because after temporarily blinding the enemy gunner, they couldn't actually follow up with a fatal shot due to the disgraceful ammunition they were using.

[foxdemon]

Russia tanks are inferior to most western ones are they not?

Best person to ask is Typhoon. But I can say a bit.


The '80's vintage western tanks are superior to most Russian tanks, due to think armour, powerful main gun and advanced ammo, 3 axis stabilization, digital ballistic computers, thermal sites, etc. But they are bigger and heavier tanks.

The Russian T-90 is more like a western tank, so it might shape up well compared to western tanks. Be aware that even within a tank model there will be variations that significantly improve performance, eg: Abram with depleted uranium armour (HA) is a lot tougher than a standard M1A1.

[fuser]

Russia tanks are inferior to most western ones are they not?

The difference is in operational thinking behind the use of Tanks.

Russian tanks are not supposed to be engaging in tank duels unlike western ones, a remanant of cold war era strategy. They rely on number and speed to overwhelm the enemy, "deep operations".

[layman]

i am sure they are cheaper too but ..

Tank Olympics would be equal numbers I assume?

Leopard 2 seems to be widly considered the best.

Our own Challenger2 has the best armour and gun.

[foxdemon]

-Much lighter thus less immediate protection.

+Has autoloader which means less crew to train and operate.

+Less metal in construction thus cheaper to make and faster to make

+Can use ERA to add defensive depth to thinner armor negating biggest disadvantage

+Gun is just as deadly

+Low profile, more power per tonne, much better suited for offensive maneuvers in uneven terrain.

+Lighter means less fuel, longer range. Thus not only cheaper to manufacture, but cheaper to operate over longer distances

You are describing the T-72/T-80 series. Earlier Russian armour was design to a different doctrine. The T-90 is a heavier tank with thinker armour on the sides.

The T-72 series is highly optimized for tank battles, despite what fuser says. The armour is mainly on the front with very thin side and rear armour. The profile is very small, thanks to the auto loader and recruitment of small crew. I would describe this design philosophy as a tank destroyer.

As I mentioned in the last post, there are many variants. The battlefield presence of a late '60's T-72 isn't even close to the effect that a T-80 would have.

The reason the monkey model T-72's the iraqis were using flopped so much:

-Their guns were firing at half designated range due to shoddy shells, many would just bounce off. (by far the biggest shortcoming, it means they couldn't actually do anything to US/British armour).
-Their ERA was first generation shit
-Their tank crews were incompetent and coordinating on flat terrain using unencrypted radio.
-They had no air presence/support
-They were telegraphing their positions to the enemy with their optics dazzlers, because after temporarily blinding the enemy gunner, they couldn't actually follow up with a fatal shot due to the disgraceful iraqi ammunition they were using.

The T-72's of the Republican Guard didn't do too well. They had the problems you cite but there is more to the story. At the battle of 73 Easting , the Republican Guard crews were taking shelter from air attacks. So the Americans were shooting at unmanned tanks to start with. It is hard to judge the relative performance of equipment under these circumstances.


The regular army tanks were older T-62 vehicles, which were no match for Abrams or Challengers. The regulars fought bravely and scored hits. But there was little chance of 100mm guns with crappy Iraqi produced ammo doing anything to the western armour. The British tank gunners found it hard to knock out the T-62's with APFSDS as it went right though the tank. HESH tuned out to be more suitable as it blow them up completely. The Americans were use DU so that sets the target tank on fire even if it goes straight through.


BTW, it seems Iraq has the world's highest level of Leukemia.

[Igor Antunov]

BTW, it seems Iraq has the world's highest level of Leukemia.

Hmm I wonder why.

[SolarCross]

BTW, it seems Iraq has the world's highest level of Leukemia.

Also cancer and birth defects. This is the genius of using Depleted Uranium as ammunition. Any invader has really 2 enemies to subdue: firstly the formal military of the invaded country and then after that the civilian population. Civilians don't resist with tanks and other heavy gear but with their protest, civil dis-obediance and innumerable acts petty sabotage. You can terrorise a population into submission through executions and abductions but it is as likely strengthen the resolve of the resisting population as squash it, especially if the population is healthy and confident. Which is where the use of some chemical or biological agent that insidiously and drastically damages the health of the civilian population becomes an attractive weapon. However directly aiming a weapon like that at a civilian population is problematic from a PR perspective. So the smart choice is to conceal the civilian health damaging weapon in a weapon apparently solely for use against the formal military. DU used as ballistic ammunition is the perfect candidate for this purpose; it smashes the military tanks and rips up the civilian genes. It literally "kills two birds with one stone".

[foxdemon]

link


Here's a 2004 chart for leukemia (WHO) . Iraq really stands out. So does Afghanistan. The later is 10 per 100,000 inhabitants. The former is 12+ per 100,000, so the chart doesn't tell us how far above the typical level the rate of leukemia is in Iraq.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

Fuck the tank olympics, Syria is providing all the real life tank action I need
[youtube]cwIgfQLmBCY[/youtube]

[Oxymoron]

So after War after war, in which both the Americans, and Israelis have profoundly demonstrated that Russian tanks are crap. The Russian Fan Boys still want to compare the two? Seriously you people are just too much.

[Zionist Nationalist]

The Russian tanks aren't crap the Arabs just don't know how to fight.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

The Chinese made good use of them during the Korean war.

[Typhoon]

Some of the locals have been critical of the exercise, thinking it is a bit too gimmicky, it would be interesting to watch though.

Technically Russian and Western tanks are very comparable with a number of different strengths and weaknesses (most examples of Soviet tank failures like Iraq are due to generational overmatching), ideas have over the years been adopted from both sides. What is interesting about the Russian tanks in my opinion is that they are competitive as a medium tank with around twenty tonnes less mass than a western tank, I feel we would be hard pressed to remove twenty tonnes from the current western tanks without significantly degrading their performance.

What is very difficult to quantify but most important is the quality of the crews and their training at any given time.