History of Soviet tanks

[Harkonnen]

 

Initially the possibility of explosive reactive armor conception was first mentioned in published works in 1946, first results of tests of explosive reactive devices was published in 1949.

The conception of 1 and 2 layers ERA was formulated and realized in firing trials of test rigs which results were published in 1968. In 1969 works to implement ERA on medium T-64 tank were planned in Kharkov design bureau.

A story about end 1960-s ERA tests - http://btvt.narod.ru/raznoe/dz68.htm

 

And another historical moment – T-64, T-72 and T-80s competitions shots –

 

andrei-bt.livejournal.com/458047.html

Would you perchance have the results of that shoot off?.

I presume that all three tanks are firing the same ammo.

 

TIA

 

Charles

 

 

there is a statistics from 70-s 80-s trials of all 3 tanks but it is too scientific and in Russian http://btvt.narod.ru/raznoe/suo7684.htm

[Jim Warford]

 

 

 

 

The real FST-2!

 

Well, not really...the designation "FST-2" actually referred to the 152mm gun test bed, not the Object 477A Molot.

 

 

it is t-80ud with Molot's turret, now stored in Russia

 

 

 

Well, actually, the FST designation referred to two different things to the US Army back in the day: first, FST-1 related to a level of technology found in the T-72B and T-80U; second, the FST-2 designation related to the 152mm gun test bed first seen in released drawings in the press (in 1988), and later in official US Army/DOD drawings.

 

 

 

No, that t-80 with molot turret was newer shown to public.

What drawings in the press (in 1988) ?

 

 

Hark; I'm not disputing anything about the Molot or a variant that used a Molot turret on a T-80 hull...I'm only saying that the vehicle designated by the US Army as the FST-2, is not the Molot. I was there is in those days and I followed the NST, FST, FST-1/FST-2 story very closely. The drawing below is one of the "official" drawings of the FST-2...

 

[Damian]

Maybe it was observed gun test bed?

[Gavin-Phillips]

 

 

Initially the possibility of explosive reactive armor conception was first mentioned in published works in 1946, first results of tests of explosive reactive devices was published in 1949.

The conception of 1 and 2 layers ERA was formulated and realized in firing trials of test rigs which results were published in 1968. In 1969 works to implement ERA on medium T-64 tank were planned in Kharkov design bureau.

A story about end 1960-s ERA tests - http://btvt.narod.ru/raznoe/dz68.htm

 

And another historical moment – T-64, T-72 and T-80s competitions shots –

 

andrei-bt.livejournal.com/458047.html

 

Harkonnen; that's a fascinating history brief on the development of ERA. I was not aware that its development stretched back that far.

 

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know about Israeli ERA development and how far back that goes as a comparison?

 

 

 

Actually one of the idea in the article is that ERA passed to Israel from USSR. This is not 100% confirmed.

The Israeli ERA called Blazer, the name of one of the Soviet ERA developer in 1968 is ... Blazer )

By some sources we have info that this person repatriated to historical homeland (Israel) in 70-s.

And after information of ERA in 1982 appeared some of ERA developers were questioned by KGB authorities, mysterious story.

 

Thank you Harkonnen. Got to love a good mystery!

[Panzermann]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Initially the possibility of explosive reactive armor conception was first mentioned in published works in 1946, first results of tests of explosive reactive devices was published in 1949.

The conception of 1 and 2 layers ERA was formulated and realized in firing trials of test rigs which results were published in 1968. In 1969 works to implement ERA on medium T-64 tank were planned in Kharkov design bureau.

A story about end 1960-s ERA tests - http://btvt.narod.ru/raznoe/dz68.htm

 

And another historical moment T-64, T-72 and T-80s competitions shots

 

andrei-bt.livejournal.com/458047.html

Harkonnen; that's a fascinating history brief on the development of ERA. I was not aware that its development stretched back that far.

 

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know about Israeli ERA development and how far back that goes as a comparison?

 

Actually one of the idea in the article is that ERA passed to Israel from USSR. This is not 100% confirmed.

The Israeli ERA called Blazer, the name of one of the Soviet ERA developer in 1968 is ... Blazer )

By some sources we have info that this person repatriated to historical homeland (Israel) in 70-s.

And after information of ERA in 1982 appeared some of ERA developers were questioned by KGB authorities, mysterious story.

Thank you Harkonnen. Got to love a good mystery!

Parallel development applies I think.

 

German engineer Manfred Held tested various HEAT warheads and hollow charges on captured tanks after the six-day-war in Israel. Still munitions inside and he found the ERA effect by accident. From there the Blazer tiles have been developed. The israel is kept them just as secret as the soviets theirs, so of course the KGB had suspicions when a very similar armour showed up in the '82 Lebanon war.

That is my take at least.

 

 

Always found it curious that the Bundeswehr never really bothered with ERA in contrast to the french for example.

[Harkonnen]

 

 

 

 

Initially the possibility of explosive reactive armor conception was first mentioned in published works in 1946, first results of tests of explosive reactive devices was published in 1949.

The conception of 1 and 2 layers ERA was formulated and realized in firing trials of test rigs which results were published in 1968. In 1969 works to implement ERA on medium T-64 tank were planned in Kharkov design bureau.

A story about end 1960-s ERA tests - http://btvt.narod.ru/raznoe/dz68.htm

 

And another historical moment T-64, T-72 and T-80s competitions shots

andrei-bt.livejournal.com/458047.html

Harkonnen; that's a fascinating history brief on the development of ERA. I was not aware that its development stretched back that far.

 

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know about Israeli ERA development and how far back that goes as a comparison?

 

Actually one of the idea in the article is that ERA passed to Israel from USSR. This is not 100% confirmed.

The Israeli ERA called Blazer, the name of one of the Soviet ERA developer in 1968 is ... Blazer )

By some sources we have info that this person repatriated to historical homeland (Israel) in 70-s.

And after information of ERA in 1982 appeared some of ERA developers were questioned by KGB authorities, mysterious story.

Thank you Harkonnen. Got to love a good mystery!

Parallel development applies I think.

 

German engineer Manfred Held tested various HEAT warheads and hollow charges on captured tanks after the six-day-war in Israel. Still munitions inside and he found the ERA effect by accident. From there the Blazer tiles have been developed. The israel is kept them just as secret as the soviets theirs, so of course the KGB had suspicions when a very similar armour showed up in the '82 Lebanon war.

That is my take at least.

 

 

Always found it curious that the Bundeswehr never really bothered with ERA in contrast to the french for example.

 

 

With all respect to great scientist M . Held "ERA effect" was found "by accident" during WW2 by Soviets, and in 1949 tests results essay was published, it was 20 years before six-day-war. Blazer tiles were developed about 15 years after Mr. Blazer tested ERA in Soviet union, you can see everything in the article.

[KV7]

Why did it take so long for the Soviets to deploy ERA ?

[Przezdzieblo]

So if we talk who was first... a small part of British report on armour development:

 

In July 1944 rather startling news was received by cable of some experiments carried out in Australia in which various oxidising agents, such as barium and ammonium nitrates, and explosives as Baratol, R.D.X., and Cordite S.C. had been tested, in thin layers on top of mild steel plate, against small hollow charges. The value claimed for these chemical layers in terms of steel was outstanding. Thus one inch of cast barium nitrate was said to be equivalent to three inches of steel armour.

 

UK tried the idea before December 1944 when a paper about result was published.

[Adam Peter]

Maybe ERA took off when it became a quickly replaceable add-on instead of part of the main armor.

[Gavin-Phillips]

I think ERA as a topic deserves a whole book of its very own. I think the term Dynamic Armour would make for some great reading.

 

Certainly I can understand why various military forces, designers and governments alike would have been very interested in any ERA-type development post-1945 with wide-spread use of infantry anti-tank weapons used (including but not exclusive to) during the battle of Berlin. The only time I have heard of British armoured vehicles having any involvement with ERA was apparently during the first Gulf War when some Centurion-based AVRE's had it fitted? This did create quite some discussion on this site the last time I mentioned it. Perhaps the arrival of specialist armours such as Chobham etc made it "obsolete" in the eyes of the powers that be?

 

It does indeed strike me as being quite odd that the Soviets did not have ERA fitted to at least their front line tanks before they actually did (1980's?), however I am sure there would have been a reason for that.

[KV7]

I think ERA as a topic deserves a whole book of its very own. I think the term Dynamic Armour would make for some great reading.

 

Certainly I can understand why various military forces, designers and governments alike would have been very interested in any ERA-type development post-1945 with wide-spread use of infantry anti-tank weapons used (including but not exclusive to) during the battle of Berlin. The only time I have heard of British armoured vehicles having any involvement with ERA was apparently during the first Gulf War when some Centurion-based AVRE's had it fitted? This did create quite some discussion on this site the last time I mentioned it. Perhaps the arrival of specialist armours such as Chobham etc made it "obsolete" in the eyes of the powers that be?

 

It does indeed strike me as being quite odd that the Soviets did not have ERA fitted to at least their front line tanks before they actually did (1980's?), however I am sure there would have been a reason for that.

Something like K1 would seem to have been possible by the 1960's at least, and pretty cheap to retrofit. T-55 with K1 equivalent would be quite good protection vs HEAT for the time.

Edited January 22, 2017 by KV7

[alejandro_]

Upgraded T-90 for Russian Army:

 

More details on the modernization, from Gur Khan blog:

 

The new version will receive a 2A82-1M gun, same as Armata. Compared to the 120 mm type used by Leopard 2 it has 17% more muzzle energy and is 20% more accurate. A new automatic loader will allow rounds of 1 meter to be used. Invar and Invar M missiles will also be available. A new FCS "Kalina" will be integrated.

 

For protection the T-90M will receive an Afghanit APS system and a Malakhit dynamic protection.

 

http://gurkhan.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/90_21.html#more

 

I am sure the gun will have to be modified as the 2A82-1M does not have a bore evacuator. It will be interesting to see if a new automatic loader is actually installed (is it feasible in current chassis?).

[Hakka]

New inflatable targets will be used in the next Tank Biathlon.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAoJ0E7xeyk

[Stefan Kotsch]

Upgraded T-90 for Russian Army:

http://gurkhan.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/90_21.html#more

 

I am sure the gun will have to be modified as the 2A82-1M does not have a bore evacuator.

I think, I can clearly recognize the existing bore evacuator. (?)

[Laser Shark]

 

The new version will receive a 2A82-1M gun, same as Armata. Compared to the 120 mm type used by Leopard 2 it has 17% more muzzle energy and is 20% more accurate.

 

 

Which Rheinmetall 120 mm gun are they talking about? L44, L55 or the new L55A1?

[Panzermann]

 

 

 

The new version will receive a 2A82-1M gun, same as Armata. Compared to the 120 mm type used by Leopard 2 it has 17% more muzzle energy and is 20% more accurate.

 

Which Rheinmetall 120 mm gun are they talking about? L44, L55 or the new L55A1?

I put my money on basic Rh120/L44 to make it look better on paper.

 

 

with muzzle energy you have to ask what projectile and the exact loading of the cartridges measured. So grain of salt is advised with such claims.

 

20% more accurate. again compared to which 120 mm cannon exactly?

 

 

edit: the comments are very critical of the blog entry as well. More like rumour kitchen.

Edited January 24, 2017 by Panzermann

[DKTanker]

The new version will receive a 2A82-1M gun, same as Armata. Compared to the 120 mm type used by Leopard 2 it ..... is 20% more accurate.

I'd love to see exactly how that conclusion was derived.

[GARGEAN]

2A82 was usually being compared with L55, not L44. And it don't have bore evacuator. But yeap, in whole setup looks just like number of fancy words from T-14 programm. Nothing supports these claims or even hard existence of modernization programm for now.

[Damian]

Remember that "Gur Khan" (Alexei Khlopotov) is UVZ propagandist, he likes to call himself an expert but the only stuff he is doing on his blog is copy pasting from official russian media, and posting some advertisement for model kits. So yeah great expert in the AFV subject.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Could this gun be refitted to T72B3?

 

Just dont tell me it can fire HESH. Ill be really worried then.

[KV7]

Could this gun be refitted to T72B3?

 

Just dont tell me it can fire HESH. Ill be really worried then.

If it will go in T-90 it will go in T-72 anything more or less.

[Stuart Galbraith]

So this might potentially be part of the T80BV upgrade, funds permitting?

 

I guess what im saying is, we thought that the Russian only had about a thousand tanks that could scratch the paint of their western counterparts, and potentially it could be about 2 or 3 times that?

Edited January 26, 2017 by Stuart Galbraith

[alejandro_]

So this might potentially be part of the T80BV upgrade, funds permitting?

 

Yes, T-80 and T-72/90 have already been upgraded with similar components (thermal cameras). Gun would need some modifications because autoloading mechanism (*).

 

I guess what im saying is, we thought that the Russian only had about a thousand tanks that could scratch the paint of their western counterparts, and potentially it could be about 2 or times that?

 

It has been like that for a number of years though. T-72 upgrades with modern FCS started a while ago. During the worst years of the crisis (90s-early 00s) all that could be afforded were T-72BAs, which is more of an overhaul rather than modernization.

 

(*) 2A46M versions are different if used on T-64/80 or T-72/90.

[Stefan Kotsch]

2A46M Versions are different only in recoil guards. The guns self are equal.

[alejandro_]

Production of T-64/72/80 per year. Data are from a commemorative book on the 80th anniversary of the Uralvagonzavod tank factory.



First column is for T-72s produced at UVZ, second for T-72 produced at Chelyabinsk -these were for export IIRC-. Third column refers to T-72s received by Soviet Army.

Fourth column is for T-64 and fifth for T-80. I find remarkable how suddenly T-64 was phased out of production, from 600 to 0. Kharkov was supposed to manufacture T-80U and then UD, but production was slow to pick up.

Edited January 26, 2017 by alejandro_