History of Soviet tanks

[RETAC21]

On another tack, Harkonnen, I think the total number of deployed T-80s is indeed correct and what's wrong is the detail provided by Lenskii, here's what the USMLM had to say about it, by years:

 

1983

05/04/1983: T-80 identified

28/04/1983: T-80 identified

Sanddune project identifies Object 219

 

1984

T-80 operational with 9 TD and 11 GTD. Observed with 27 GMRD

22/02/1984: T-80 seen with 23 TR/9 TD

At this time the T-64B is deployed with 1 company in each T-64A battalion

sep-84: 100 T-80s with 9 TD

07/11/1984: Object 219B(or R?) is identified in a training panel together with 434 and 447.

T-64 in 2 GTA, 3 SA, 20 GA; T-80 in 1GTA and 8 GA replacing T-62

Dec-84: T-80 with 10 GTD/3 SA

 

1985

T-80 identified with every division in the 1GTA and 8 GA

Reactive armor present in T-80 and T-64B

T-80 with 7 divisions in 1 GTA and 8 GA, 17 out of 28 regiments, 5 with ERA (at least 1,200 tanks)

 

1986

 

nothing worthwile.

 

1988

T-80 updating in 3 SA & 2 GT

Edited January 13, 2006 by RETAC21

[Harkonnen]

All aspects? Chriftain had comparable front armour, better HEAT protection of flanks due to skirts, safer electric turret drive, much more safe ammo stowage, was equipped with smoke launchers, had better gun elevation/depression angles.

Chieftrain performed quite equally vs. T-72M in Iran-Iraq war.

T-72M was much inferiour to T-64-s series in both armor and firepower.

The T-72 and T-64 also had skirts and smoke launchers, it is not an advantage.

Chieftrains proved about equal to the export Iraqi T-72-s and showed no advantage on it. Though I agree It was the best tank of the period in NATO.

As for the storage it is very qestionable in conditions of full scale conventional war.

(ammo in the Hull, vs ammo in a low protected turret bustle and hull)

 

 

 

 

Ammo placemrent in 64A

 

 

 

turret

 

 

hull

 

And Leo-2 for example

 

 

had better gun elevation/depression angles.

 

Yes. It is correct.

[Harkonnen]

On another tack, Harkonnen, I think the total number of deployed T-80s is indeed correct and what's wrong is the detail provided by Lenskii, here's what the USMLM had to say about it, by years:

 

OK... to summ it up their number was somewhat lower that T-64-s but about equal.

[Harkonnen]

-----

Edited January 14, 2006 by Harkonnen

[Davout]

Hi Davout:

 

Do you know if the filler is a fused quartz or crystalline quartz?

 

Thanks

JD

270208[/snapback]

 

Reports I've read here on tank-net is that the sand is glued together with waterglass...

 

Davout

[gorf]

T-72M was much inferiour to T-64-s series in both armor and firepower.

T-72M had better glacis compare to T-64. Turret KE protection was quite same, only HEAT somewhat inferior. Same guns, FCS was better than T-64A, but worse than T-64B.

 

As for the storage it is very qestionable in conditions of full scale conventional war.

(ammo in the Hull, vs ammo in a low protected turret bustle and hull)

It is always important. In 1973 Centurions with safer ammunition stowage and electric turret/gun drive performed better than better armoured M60A1s.

 

The T-72 and T-64 also had skirts and smoke launchers, it is not an advantage.

They were installed only in late 70-es. Those are very usefill things in war.

[Harkonnen]

T-72M had better glacis compare to T-64. Turret KE protection was quite same, only HEAT somewhat inferior. Same guns, FCS was better than T-64A, but worse than T-64B.

 

The only problem T-64 was in production only what to compare - T-64 was in production from 1963, T-72M from 80-th... So what else to compare?

What is better in T-72M FCS? LRF was installed on it the same time as on T-72A.

As to the skirts they were also aquiped with the skirts though of old type -

 

 

The Hull protection compare is ill-posed task not taking into accout the version and year of production of the certain tank.

[RETAC21]

BTW Retac, is that my list you are quoting from? I hope so, I was hoping it would be used.

270259[/snapback]

 

No, I don't know where I put yours, so I had to look it up again from scratch.

[Jim Warford]

The M1 amour was inferior to T-64B, only M1A1HA got significant advantage over T-64B and T-80B

 

Untrue...pure fantasy.

 

M833 had about 450 at D=2000 m while this is more then sufficient for the hullm, turret still invulnerable for M833.

 

Also untrue...

 

Only M829 gave the US a possibility to penetrate T-72B,80B, 64 B. But that days the 1-st gen Heavy ERA was ready to counter it.

 

Well, the T-72B is a higher technology tank than both the T-64B and T-80B (FST-1 vs. Premium Tank technologies)...M833 could in-fact penetrate both the T-64B and T-80B turrets.

   

270197[/snapback]

[jwduquette1]

Reports I've read here on tank-net is that the sand is glued together with waterglass...

 

Davout

270247[/snapback]

 

Thanks Davout. So basically soda-lime glass.

[Guest commander]

You are talking about this one?

 

 

or this ?

 

270221[/snapback]

 

Harkonnen just to point out that those shots are crown copyright and should not be reproduced on here without permission, they also are copyright to the publisher.

[Guest commander]

Split ammo in hull in waterproof pressurised containers seems very safe to me, somewere there is a quote from I think a Kuwaiti tankie who said that although the tank blew the water jackets held the final explosion long enough for all the crew to escape which is the aim of the exercise methinks. Ammo in carousel makes Russian turret pop with much predictablity

[gorf]

The only problem T-64 was in production only what to compare - T-64 was in production from 1963, T-72M from 80-th... So what else to compare?

What is better in T-72M FCS? LRF was installed on it the same time as on T-72A.

My point is that Chieftain was comparable with T tanks.

[zwolo2003]

Harkonnen just to point out that those shots are crown copyright and should not be reproduced on here without permission, they also are copyright to the publisher.

270358[/snapback]

 

I believe that would depend on the laws of the country he is posting from. Many countries do not recognise copyright in photos being mere renditions of actual events (as opposed to photos which are altered, coloured etc.). If what Harkonnen posts is not copyrightable in his country then he is not infringing.

 

Cheers,

Zwolo

[gnocci]

I believe that would depend on the laws of the country he is posting from. Many countries do not recognise copyright in photos being mere renditions of actual events (as opposed to photos which are altered, coloured etc.). If what Harkonnen posts is not copyrightable in his country then he is not infringing.

 

Cheers,

Zwolo

270411[/snapback]

 

I never understood that. To make it more confusing, he's actually just posting an html tag that points to an image that resides on another server, wich is not of his own (imageshack in this case)

Edited January 13, 2006 by gnocci

[Davout]

Let me correct Baron Von Harkonnen!!!

 

The M1 amour was inferior to T-64BV , only M1A1HA got significant advantage over T-64BV and T-80BV

 

The M1 is generally thought of as having...

350-400mm Kep protection

700-800mm Cep protection

 

The T64BV

450-500mm Kep

800mm Cep

 

Of course angles and points of impact make all the difference. The M1 has better coverage. The T64BV's armor can be greatly increased by off angled impacts.

 

 

M833 had about 450 at D=2000 m which would have a difficult time at over 2000 meters vs both the hull and the turret of the T64BV.

 

Remember the T64BV featured a rather large increase in the hull armor over the regular T64B.

 

Only M829 gave the US a possibility to penetrate T-72B,80BV, 64 BV. But 1-st gen Heavy ERA was developed to counter it.

 

There! I think that improves Harkonnen's argument (though of course he might not think so!)

 

Davout

[Rick Griest]

"M833 had about 450 at D=2000 m while this is more then sufficient for the hull, turret still invulnerable for M833.

 

Also untrue..."

 

Jim,

Actually I think this number is pretty accurate. The 833 penetrator was just 485mm long and only going 1440 m/s at 1 km which would give 470mm at best and 440 to 450mm at 1390 m/s at 2 km. This is why the US Army became so desperate to get the M900 deployed; the 833 turned out to be a big disappointment.

 

A related problem was the lack of stiffness in the barrel of all US high L/D DU rounds so there were accuracy and yaw problems down range. The 833 didn't cure this problem until the late 80s. Indeed in FM 71-123--which you worked on--Armor officers were specifically told to reverse decades of Armor and FM100-5 doctrine and no longer engage Soviet tanks at ranges over 2000m because of both the accuracy problem (caused by the ammunition, not the FCS) and the difficulty of frontal penetration. And by then they were counting on 120s being the norm!

 

Whereas before, anti-armor doctrine was to engage from the flanks as preferable because of the retaliation and deceased lethality problems, under FM 71-123 it became virtually mandatory. In fact they encouraged close range flank engagements and ignored the age old problem of having enough time to destroy the enemy before he overran you. Oddly this yaw problem depriving DU of some of its advantage over heavy Tungsten was pointed out in the 70s by the Tungsten suppliers in the debates as the US Army switched over to DU. The production problems that held up deployment of the long rod DU rounds you experienced first hand of course.

 

I believe you have a copy of Manfred Held's explanation of ERA, sent to you last December 11, 2001, in which he says--referring back to the FRG tests at Haide--

 

"The “motivation” for the use of additive reactive armours for the Russians was surely different compared to the Israelis. The Russian main battle tanks were armoured strong enough against the perforation of western KE-rounds in the “frontal arc”. That this expectation of the Russians was correct, was proven by tests against T 72 Ml M after the unification in Germany. In contrast the large caliber shaped charges were able to perforate these armours, With this additive explosive reactive armour the performance of the shaped charges was reduced to about 1/3 to 1/4. With this additional ERA systems they had a perfect protection against the existing KE’s - the conventional armour was enough -and against the large caliber shaped charges."

 

In that same mail packet there was the Deutsche Aerospace results of those tests which gave the M1Ms KE protection as being 520mm on the 'bugplatte' (glacis) and 510mm on the turret front. Deutsche Aerospace had been MBB which of course employed Dr. Held when he created the ERA patent. I personally wouldn't trust what Armor Branch was telling you if it conflicted with Dr. Held but maybe I am giving too high a regard for his expertise..... ;-)

 

Deutsche Aerospace would be reporting the worst problem that Western tankers would have to overcome whereas the Nii Stali numbers would be reporting the least amount of protection offered 'their' tankers. A similar problem in points of view afflicted strategic thinkers back in the ICBM vulnerabilty debates.

 

By the way, we don't know who posted the information on the site showing the Haide results so it's identification of 105mm KE hits was probably wrong and in any case is of unknown authority, unlike Manfred Held's.

 

You should also have a copy of the 7/97 IDR news brief on how K5 gave the Soviet tanks virtual immunity to 829 class rounds (and for the umpteenth time I will point out that it was an editorial boo boo to shorten the article by not naming the A1 or A2 as the round of interest--I've attended test firings of missiles and believe me, there is too much difficulty in bureaucratic poltics to have people's time wasted on an obsolete ammunition in 1997). The article starts with a reference to the new US test confirming the results of the earlier German test. "RMO", the author is Ogorckiewicz himself. In any case, defeating a 710mm penetrator after K5 activation is roughly achieving a 450 to 500mm protection level naked and is newsworthy. Defeating a 550 mm penetrator after K5 activation would be achieving 250 - 300 mm protection level and would not be news worthy--instead the article would have been about how terrible Soviet armor was. Instead we raced to develop the A2 AND A3 despite having no obvious armor threat facing us and just having won a great victory in which the A1's virtues were repeatedly trumpeted to the world. Clearly the A1 was not up to the job. And by simple analysis the same holds true for the 833 versus the naked T-72As and high class T -series over significant portions of the front back "in the day".

 

So your days on the Fulda Gap were even scarier than you thought! In any case, as you can see, there's a lot of documentation supporting the claims of 833's limited usefulness in the real world where you worked.

 

Rick

[jakec]

On another tack, Harkonnen, I think the total number of deployed T-80s is indeed correct and what's wrong is the detail provided by Lenskii, here's what the USMLM had to say about it, by years:

 

1983

05/04/1983: T-80 identified

28/04/1983: T-80 identified

Sanddune project identifies Object 219

 

1984

T-80 operational with 9 TD and 11 GTD. Observed with 27 GMRD

22/02/1984:  T-80 seen with 23 TR/9 TD

At this time the T-64B is deployed with 1 company in each T-64A battalion

sep-84: 100 T-80s with 9 TD

07/11/1984: Object 219B(or R?) is identified in a training panel together with 434 and 447.

T-64 in 2 GTA, 3 SA, 20 GA; T-80 in 1GTA and 8 GA replacing T-62

Dec-84: T-80 with 10 GTD/3 SA

 

1985

T-80 identified with every division in the 1GTA and 8 GA

Reactive armor present in T-80 and T-64B

T-80 with 7 divisions in 1 GTA and 8 GA, 17 out of 28 regiments, 5 with ERA (at least 1,200 tanks)

 

1986

 

nothing worthwile.

 

1988

T-80 updating in 3 SA & 2 GT

270212[/snapback]

I agree that there are some sharp differences between USMLM reports and Lenskii and Tsybin, but lets not go too far. Most of the information above is fully consistent with Lenskii. All the divisions identified with T-80 by USMLM were identified as equipped with some T80s by Lenskii. The big difference comes in that USMLM at the time seems to have assumed that whole regiments and divisions were converted based on seeing a few examples*. Lenskii suggests that this was not the case. Rather only a company or two in a division might have the T80 by 1987. Who is correct? I don't know. Presumably veterans of GSFG could tell us who is correct. (perhaps tellingly, on page 8 of the 1984 USMLM report they admit "although a complete battalion set had not been observed they appeared to be replacing the T62 on a one for one basis")

 

*The key exception to this is on page 7 of the 1984 USMLM report where there is reference to BRIXMIS (not USMLM, so a second-hand report) supposedly seeing over 100 T80s on rail flats entering an exercise area. Reportedly these t80s came from two different 9TD regiments, which leads USMLM to judge that they are completely converted to T80s. This contradicts Lenskii, who reports only 11 T80 in 9TD at the start of 1987. One of these reports is mistaken.

 

On page 8 USMLM go on to assert that T80 is being deployed in 1 GTA and 8 GTA while the other three GSFG armies have a T64A/B mix. This was the standard assumption at the time in the West, and is often repeated by NATO veterans who received intel briefings at that time. Yet Lenskii contradicts this, claiming that the first unit to receive T80s in GSFG (in 1983, hence the US SMT 1983/1 designation) was 94 GMRD in 2 GTA. This unit had over 200 T80s in 1987 per Lenskii, leaving very few T64A/Bs. Going by Lenskii, 2 GTA has far more T80s than 1 GTA at the start of 1987. Again, someone is mistaken. Perhaps tellingly, on page 10 USMLM admit "Perhaps most disconcerting from our point of view, however, is the fact that the untarped T80 seen moving into the LHTA in December were with vehicles from the 10 GTD/ 3 SA. What happened to the neat deployment pattern of T64A and B in the north and T80 in the south? We hope to shed some light on this and other issues in the coming year".

[Guest commander]

I believe that would depend on the laws of the country he is posting from. Many countries do not recognise copyright in photos being mere renditions of actual events (as opposed to photos which are altered, coloured etc.). If what Harkonnen posts is not copyrightable in his country then he is not infringing.

 

Cheers,

Zwolo

270411[/snapback]

 

Thats as maybe but as I had to pay for the licence to use them a small matter of courtesy would not have gone amiss and i think that copying from publications without permission is fairly standard in the developed world

[Harkonnen]

Untrue...pure fantasy.

 

Also untrue...

Your facts, please

 

 

Well, the T-72B is a higher technology tank than both the T-64B and T-80B (FST-1 vs. Premium Tank technologies)...

 

T-72B was not equipped with automatic fire control (until final production sreries), and in some areas inferior to T-64B and T-80B.

Anyway should compare it to T-80UD and T-80U of the same period.

 

M833 could in-fact penetrate both the T-64B and T-80B turrets

 

Yes, but one small correction - from behind or sides

Edited January 14, 2006 by Harkonnen

[Harkonnen]

Thats as maybe but as I had to pay for the licence to use them a small matter of courtesy would not have gone amiss and i think that copying from publications without permission is fairly standard in the developed world

 

Actually I don't care about posting on forum the photo from a book and pay for the licence for it.

 

If I payed somewhere for licence for posting photo from a book on forum I would be beggar long ago

If I used this photo in my book as mine or used it for commercial purposses it may be a copyright vioation, but now I think you are just idle talking.

[Harkonnen]

My point is that Chieftain was comparable with T tanks.

 

I agree.

It is completly comparable, but not in question of armour.

[Przezdzieblo]

The M1 amour was inferior to T-64B, only M1A1HA got significant advantage over T-64B and T-80B

 

I guess you sometimes use SOME estimates then.

 

In the thickest place M1 front turret is, as you pointed in other topic, about 65 mm(and much less in gun mask).

T-64B (and T-80B) turrets seems to have very similar shape to T-64A turrets, which armour LOS thickness in mantlet zone is (I am using Irina`s estimates from GSPO) about 39 cm, 56 cm in the middle of one side of turret front and finally near 68 cm near corners:

Т-64А -- Т-80У

красная линия (амбразура) --- 39 см --- 39 см

синяя линия (середина) ------- 56 см --- 66 см

зеленая линия (край) ---------- 68 см --- 90 см

оранжевая линия (нормаль) -- 40 см --- 60 см

(gun mask however seems to be much more thinner, ~20-30 cm of cast steel?)

T-64B turret inserts are said to be "better" than in T-64A (btw. Al2O3 inserts - Combination-K? - appeared around `74, then last series of T-64A should have it).

 

It could be seen that in most cases of frontal threat Abrams` armour is thicker. So why so big difference between M1 and T-64B protection?

 

 

 

 

350 mm RHAe vs KE is a value gived by S. Zaloga in early 90s. For M1A1HA he claimed about 650 mm RHAe vs KE. But it was more than a decade ago, I suppose today there are better data than S. Zaloga had.

 

 

 

 

P.S. Maybe it would be a good thread for another topic - comparison of T-64B/T-80B FCS with those from M60A3 and M1 Plus Chieftains` ICFS.

[Conall]

Actually I don't care about posting on forum the photo from a book and pay for the licence for it.

 

If I payed somewhere for licence for posting photo from a book on forum I would be beggar long ago 

If I used this photo in my book as mine or used it for commercial purposses it may be a copyright vioation, but now I think you are just idle talking.

270638[/snapback]

 

I don't you think you understand. Bob is the author of the book from you posted those photos. He paid the Crown in order to reproduce their copyright material in his book. As a matter of courtesy you should have asked his permission to post these photos, which are still Crown copyright. In addition you also ought to attribute the source when you post photos in general - to do otherwise is not only impolite but also undermines your credibility.

 

Your reaction is not only ill-informed but also typical of your boorish behaviour on this board.

[Harkonnen]

similar shape to T-64A turrets

 

The T-64A turret is ot the same as T-64B