Jump to content

History of Soviet tanks


Harkonnen

Recommended Posts

jwduquette1: "While farting around with Segletes closed form solution ..."

 

Great. So look at the T-72 and ilk's turret tops also. What are/is its obliquity do you think? Assuming just the T-55's 430 BHN what are the ricochet possibilities? And I want the answer by.... :) .

 

The photo you are thinkng of may be a T-62 hit twice in the 73 war and given to the US Army for study. It has 2 separate hits on the roof. One glanced off and the other, at a sligthtly different angle so obviously the crew was traversing the turret, gouged out a long channel and finally penetrated at the back where the T-62 turret pinches up. The 73 war would have involved a downward angle if in the Golan and even vs the 96th Bde in Sinai a small downward angle.

 

Rick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 7.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"...more enemy armored vehicles were destroyed by Bradleys than by the Abrams Main Battle Tanks!"

 

Xonitex, stop finding such interesting quotes!!

 

Well that would explain Held's numbers. It fits with my observation concerning the Bradley's superior FLIR. I have never seen that claim before and it certainly is a shocker. If true, it is an important insight into the war.

 

The TOW being put on the Bradley was done under pressure from Congress. The Army didn't want it and even today the concept is argued over by Infantry Branch (because the AFV AT task interferes with the Infantry task--training, C3I, etc. etc.). So the civilians being proven so right would not be welcome news to anyone in the armed forces.

 

Rick

Edited by Rick Griest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fantastic photos Harkonnen.

 

The penetrated Commander cupola hit I've never seen before but it hit an obvious weak point in T-72 protection. But as you've said, compromises must be made and the T-64/72/80 cupola has excellent position for vision. In fact a friend of ours has a US report comparing the T-72 (as captured) to the M1A1 and it specifically mentions that the cupola had features worth copying into a future M1 follow-on. So....

 

Could you give your estimate for the obliquity angle for the silhouette of the turret top. Also, I was interested in any more detailed info you might have on the 3BM22 b3esides what Vasily has, etc.

 

thanks.

 

Rick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jwduquette1: "While farting around with Segletes closed form solution ..."

 

Great. So look at the T-72 and ilk's turret tops also.  What are/is its obliquity do you think?  Assuming just the T-55's 430 BHN what are the ricochet possibilities? And I want the answer by.... :) .

272349[/snapback]

 

Hey Rick:

 

Looks like about 80-degrees to me -- give or take a degree or two. I reckon a lurking spring-butt prolly knows the precise angle better than I. If it's HHA -- 430BHN -- than I don’t really need to run the numbers. The roofs nominal/design obliquity is going to be greater than the critical ricochet angle for most LRPs. This isn’t even accounting for engagements from "non-12-O’clock" firing positions. Moreover, as the relative angle between shooter and target move away from a straight-on 12-O'clock engagement the compounded angle of shot and plate will increase above 80-degrees. Of course like anything associated with terminal ballistics the critical ricochet angle represents a statistical boundary – not an absolute physical boundary. So ricochet below this angle is possible, and perforation above this angle is also a possibility. In other words theres a bit of slop in either direction depending upon the height of the pyramids or period of the Moon.

 

I wasn’t following the earlier part of this thread. I only tuned in to try and answer Phil Golin's post -- which apparently instigated the investigation into Desert Storm BDA practices? Where are you going with this – or are you gonna’ make me read the whole thread? ;P

 

Best Regards

JD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fantastic photos Harkonnen.
The penetrated Commander cupola hit I've never seen before but it hit an obvious weak point in T-72 protection.

 

Actually, if you are talking on this photo it is not commander cupola, it is turret side near the gunner, near the rear turret, anyway it s not protected area.

 

 

But as you've said, compromises must be made and the T-64/72/80 cupola has excellent position for vision. In fact a friend of ours has a US report comparing the T-72 (as captured) to the M1A1 and it specifically mentions that the cupola had features worth copying into a future M1 follow-on. So....

 

I am sure that if the US will have the new Main battle Tank (not that AGS, MGS, FCS…) it will have non conventional layout as the standard classical layout reached it’s limits.

 

Could you give your estimate for the obliquity angle for the silhouette of the turret top.
I have all required data but maybe we can talk later in separate thread ?

 

Also, I was interested in any more detailed info you might have on the 3BM22 b3esides what Vasily has, etc.

 

I will ask the comrade which can provide the data for it, as it is rather old round. Why are yu not satisfied with Vasilli’s data?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rick "The penetrated Commander cupola hit I've never seen before but ..."

 

 

Oops, my boo boo. Rear of gunner's hatch. Of course that's vulnerable. But round passed through. Wonder if gunner survived spalling. Tank obviously wasn't knocked out. Pretty scary.

 

Wow, that picture is of the T-62 I was talking about. I'm pretty sure. The rear is a puncture hole; I've seen the real scary inside photo with long gouge clearly evident. No fire. I'm pretty sure its the same tank.

 

More photos, Harkonnen?

 

Rick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I was interested in any more detailed info you might have on the 3BM22 b3esides what Vasily has, etc.

 

3BM32

 

Material - mass (kg)

 

Material - Urannium Nikel Zink

Mass of penetrator - 4,23

Guiding circle - polyamid 0,025

Guiding ring - allluminium alloy B96 - 2,07

Stabilizers - Steel 40 XFA 0,435

Trasser T-20-1 - 0, 03

Charge on the round - 2,5

Throwing cahrge - 4,6

case - 0, 425

pallet - steel 11UA 3,4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hetz were captured by Syrians in M48 tanks at Sultan Yakub and passed to Russians. Russians tested them on T-72A. Glacis was penetrated and thats why 17 mm HSS plate was added.

Hetz is 367 mm long.

 

Cheers.

271842[/snapback]

Was the captured M111 tested against T-72A glacis? Rastopshin for one says it was tested against T-80 glacis. Not only T-72 had HSS plate added, but also T-64 and T-80 had applique fitted after this revelation. After performance of Israeli TOW against T-72 and example of Israeli Blazer, ERA was also prioritised.

 

Addendum: I am one of those who believes there was no tank-to-tank combat involving T-72 in 1982. I have collected all the posts from fresh.il forum on the engagement involving the T-72s, and clearly it was TOW fired from jeeps. There are numerous photos.

Edited by jakec
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, that picture is of the T-62 I was talking about. I'm pretty sure. The rear is a puncture hole; I've seen the real scary inside photo with long gouge clearly evident. No fire. I'm pretty sure its the same tank.

 

Are you sure it is 1973? It is iraq as I know.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rick, 100mm Yugo M98 APFSDS (basicly M111 in a 100mm sabot) does 150mm@60deg@2km. 80% success required.

 

http://www.prvipartizan.com/products/milli...illery_ammo.htm

(note, we measures armor from a horisontal, hence 30deg on the site).

271979[/snapback]

80% is the certified penetration. Avarage penetration is some 10-15% higher: about 340 mm. Also 105 mm gun allows higher chamber pressure than 100 mm (Vo = 1455 m/s compare to 1375 m/s in 100 mm).

 

Was the captured M111 tested against T-72A glacis? Rastopshin for one says it was tested against T-80 glacis.

T-72A and T-80 glacises were same in that time anyway (50-105-60).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this the "Criticize Harkonen week? :)

Well, for me those numbers look good, interesting data Harkonnen and quick delivery. I do not think the question was: "What is the hit distribution if all shots are coming exactly to the 12-o'clock position and if no tanks are dug in", right? :) So the numbers Harkonnen cited are for a typical battle situation where tanks are hit from the sides and might be dug in. It is safe to assume that a lot of those tanks were dug in, maybe more that in other scenarios but Hey! we have some numbers to play with at least.

BTW: If memory serves, even in WW2, usually the turret was hit more often than the hull but unfortunately I do not have numbers.

Claudio

272217[/snapback]

 

Hello Claudio:

 

Dr. Held’s report basically corroborates what I had indicated in my reply to Harkonnen. Theory sometimes does not correlate well with reality. In these cases most of us might look for reasons why things don’t apparently mesh. What you might call “being critical”. ;) So I presented an explanation why AFV hits during Desert Storm diverge so much from other operational assessments of tank combat. But don’t take my word for it.

 

On page-7 of Manfred Held's paper; He is discussing specifically the BDA reports from Desert Storm. He states:

 

"77% of the hits are against the turret, which is much more than on the hull (23%). The reason for this is likely that the tanks are generally dug-in in trenches, so that the hulls were not exposed to direct hits.

 

Surprisingly low are the "hits on the target' in the frontal arc or +/-45-degrees quadrant with 30%, compared to the side hits (+/- 45-degrees to 135-degrees sector) with 32% from the right and 27% from the left, and 11% from behind in the >135-degree sector."

 

Furthermore: within Dr.Held's introduction he comments that the hit distribution on AFVs in Desert Strom was unusual relative to previous wars -- wars in which the defender employed a tad bit more strategic, operational and tactical mobility. Maneuver – a combat power multiplier – brings tanks out of holes and exposes there hulls to hits (or in the case of Iraqi Armor it exposes them to Maverick and Hellfire Missiles). If you sit in a hole your hull isn’t likely to get hit. Great strategy – that is until your flank is turned by a force that can, and will use maneuver to their advantage. This might partially explain the high proportion of flank penetrations amongst Iraqi AFVs. The coalition may have had a tactical advantage in their Abrams and Challengers but they multiplied this advantage by maneuver.

 

But I digress -- Dr. Held on page-1 of his paper indicates:

 

“Abstract. After the Gulf War, 308 armoured vehicles were inspected to investigate the damage caused by kinetic energy (KE) rounds and shaped charge (SC) warheads. The resulting data is analysed and compared to data from World War II1944/45, the 1967 Six-day War, the 1983 Yom Kippur War as well as with the hit distribution data used by Germany, the USA and the UK for tank design and vulnerability prediction. It is shown that none of these correlate with the Gulf War data. Analysis is also conducted of the Coalition ammunition used and it is shown that the KE rounds (from type 3 on) and the SC warheads (from type 2 on) were overmatched to the T55, T62 and T72 tanks used by the Iraqi forces.”

 

Best Regards

JD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry – just a P.S. to my last post, but is the T-72’s turret top piece cast armor?

272371[/snapback]

 

Yes its cast and I recall Bojan reported the T-72 armor at upto 275 BHN? From my measurements I got that the upper front turret is around 76-78°.

 

Heres the link to that ricochet discussion from before.

 

http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showtopic=10291&st=40

 

I will see if I can find the pdf file for that paper and forward it to Rick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes its cast and I recall Bojan reported the T-72 armor at upto 275 BHN? From my measurements I got that the upper front turret is around 76-78°.

 

Heres the link to that ricochet discussion from before.

 

http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showtopic=10291&st=40

 

I will see if I can find the pdf file for that paper and forward it to Rick.

272460[/snapback]

 

Danke Paul. The lower hardness and lower obliquity would change things a tad.

 

Do you reckon it's the same hardness for the lower turret armor on T72 as well? What about hardness of the exterior glacis plate?

 

Regards

JD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Paul:

 

I looked at this again. The top of the turret's shape is fairly complex. There are a number angle changes along the center section. I would guess there is also a bit of variation out-of-plane of the center cross section -- at least that my impression from looking at photos of the turret.

 

The numbers are my guesstimate for top of turret obliquity for the given shaded area.

 

 

Regards

Jeff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Are you sure it is 1973? It is iraq as I know."

 

Boy,what a photo. As you can see the round did not enter. Amazing. Well, the interior photo is quite different than the one I know so apparently it is not the 1973 tank that I remember.

 

Oh, on tank armor hardness, I know that some of the 73 specimens were 430 BHN. I didn't claim to know the T-72's.

 

Looking forward to the pdf. thanks Paul and JD.

 

Rick

Edited by Rick Griest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harkonnen: "I am sure that if the US will have the new Main battle Tank (not that AGS, MGS, FCS…) it will have non conventional layout as the standard classical layout reached it’s limits."

 

The review was written by users, not project managers, and expressed their findngs vs the current tank, the M1, rather some future dream. But of course you can't ask for a major re-design of the tank you're using so you just implicitly criticize it....but nicely.

 

Most of the review involved cross country driving speeds, etc.

 

Rick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...