Jump to content
tanknet.org

History of Soviet tanks


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 6.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Nice diagrams, Harkonnen.

 

 

The same story with armor – while the T-64-s and T-80 was equipment with high cost composite armor the T-72 had the simplest possible sand rods and then reflecting plates which were much less valuable than advanced compositions of T-80U

AFAIR on this board there was nice dissusion of sand rods and corundum armour. T-72s of 1976 serie probably got similar turret armour composition (Al2O3 in STEF) as T-64B (and T-64A 1974+). Was it changed to sand rods only for economical reasons? How better was T-64B turret protection compared with T-72A/M1?

 

 

Ad diagram

 

What is T-80R (T-80P)? Is it Object 219R - T-80B?

What is T-80RW (T-80PB) Is it Object 219RW - T-80BW?

What is T-80A and how it differs from T-80 and T-80B?

What does it mean усовершенствованная? Casted?

T-80U is Object 219AS?

Was Object 278 closer to T-64 than T-80 as at pic?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Was it changed to sand rods only for economical reasons?
Yes.

 

How better was T-64B turret protection compared with T-72A/M1?

Ad diagram

 

About 25% of both KE and CE

 

What is T-80R (T-80P)? Is it Object 219R - T-80B?

What is T-80RW (T-80PB) Is it Object 219RW - T-80BW?

 

It is how they called officialy - http://specmash-kb.com/shell.php?lng=eng

 

What is T-80A and how it differs from T-80 and T-80B?
New turret and hull which was later used on T-80U/UD

 

What does it mean усовершенствованная? Casted?

 

Improved.

 

T-80U is Object 219AS?
Correct.

 

Was Object 278 closer to T-64 than T-80 as at pic?

 

Don't understand the question.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What is the object 178? T-90M?

 

They are separate programs. I did not seen M designation for T-90 in Russia. All export versions are designated T-90C so far. The complictation may varygreatly.

Edited by Harkonnen
Link to post
Share on other sites
New tank project, based on the T-72 but with diferent front hull (looked like Leo-2 front hull)  and velded turret - turret was later used on the T-90.

269139[/snapback]

 

No, T-90 used rather simillar looking but different turret.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It is not o. 187 but it gives basic idea of what it is lokking like.

 

(model by Konstantin Kim ©)

 

269144[/snapback]

 

The turret looks rather small, i assume it still uses the same autoloader types like on the T-XX series. Therefore wouldnt it have the same similar disadvantages thats the older T-XX have, such has popping turrets, and low crew survivability. Also looks very underarmoured without the ERA placements.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The turret looks rather small, i assume it still uses the same autoloader types like on the T-XX series. Therefore wouldnt it have the same similar disadvantages thats the older T-XX have, such has popping turrets, and low crew survivability. Also looks very underarmoured without the ERA placements.

269156[/snapback]

 

It was said rather clear "It is not o. 187 but it gives basic idea of what it is lokking like". The tank is equiped with ERA and other devices like "Shtora"...

It use the same but redesigned for new ammo autoloader. Te protection of hull and turret sides is significantly increased against RPG-type weapons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very nice post Harkonnen:

 

 

You may want to clear up some of the language.......

 

 

"The same story with armor – while the T-64-s and T-80 was equipment with high cost composite armor the T-72 had the simplest possible sand rods and then reflecting plates which were much less valuable than advanced compositions of T-80U …"

 

 

I would further elaborate on "sand rods" as a matrix of steel with quartz/sand inserts. I would further change the "relecting plates" to "multiple thin plates of metal and rubber" or perhaps as BDD armor.

 

I would also perhaps mention that many different versions of the T72 were built. You many want to mention the small number of T72s with corundum/ceramic armor. I would also mention that 72s were rebuilt on a continuing basis and may have a mixture of older hulls and turrets with new features.

 

 

Davout

Link to post
Share on other sites
"The same story with armor – while the T-64-s and T-80 was equipment with high cost composite armor the T-72 had the simplest possible sand rods and then reflecting plates which were much less valuable than advanced compositions of T-80U …"
I would further elaborate on "sand rods" as a matrix of steel with quartz/sand inserts.

 

I don’t know what you understand here under the word “matrix”. Actually the "sand rods" is rather tangled term which corresponds to very simple method of producing a spaced armor with sand filler, used to produce cavities in the process of casting. This cavities very filled with advanced filler on a “primary” tanks like T-64B and T-80B. On the T-72A this sand was just left in the cavity which provided very chip and rather effective protection against cumulative weapon, though having rather limited effect against KE.

 

I would further change the "relecting plates" to "multiple thin plates of metal and rubber" or perhaps as BDD armor.
Yes, generally it is Bulging armor, the Russian eqivalent is reflective/repulsive plates.

 

I would also perhaps mention that many different versions of the T72 were built. You many want to mention the small number of T72s with corundum/ceramic armor. I would also mention that 72s were rebuilt on a continuing basis and may have a mixture of older hulls and turrets with new features.

 

This is similar for all other tanks which may future old hull and a new turret which was done during schedule repair. It is almost impossible to trace all such changes though they are very numerous.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It was said rather clear "It is not o. 187 but it gives basic idea of what it is lokking like". The tank is equiped with ERA and other devices like "Shtora"...

It use the same but redesigned for new ammo autoloader. Te protection of hull and turret sides is significantly increased against RPG-type weapons.

269159[/snapback]

 

Harkonnen; can you refresh my memory please...what is the Object 187? Do you mean Object 178?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Harkonnen; can you refresh my memory please...what is the Object 187? Do you mean Object 178?

269209[/snapback]

 

I mean Object 187, I constantly mix up them and feel too lazy to correct the table :(

Edited by Harkonnen
Link to post
Share on other sites
I don’t know what you understand here under the word “matrix”. Actually the "sand rods" is rather tangled term which corresponds to very simple method of producing a spaced armor with sand filler, used to produce cavities in the process of casting. This cavities very filled with advanced filler on a “primary” tanks like T-64B and T-80B. On the T-72A this sand was just left in the cavity which provided very chip and rather effective protection against cumulative weapon, though having rather limited effect against KE.

Yes, generally it is Bulging armor, the Russian eqivalent is reflective/repulsive plates.

This is similar for all other tanks which may future old hull and a new turret which was done during schedule repair. It is almost impossible to trace all such changes though they are very numerous.

269207[/snapback]

 

Harkonnen:

 

Perhaps you are correct about matrix. It perhaps is just a tangled as "sand rods". Perhaps a label of "composite armor of steel with a quartz filler" would be better.

 

Just to be clear I was giving suggestions to make your post more clear. One of the problems we have on Tank-net is that we assign different meaning to different terms and use jargon that may not be well defined. For instance "sand rods" may be an apt description of the T72A filler. The term however can also be misleading.

 

When you state "reflective/repulsive plates" you are giving a good description the operation of the armor. The terms however could be misleading to some without further elaboration.

 

Davout

Link to post
Share on other sites

First, thanks for the interesting information.

 

Secondly, and specifically regarding the T-64, T-64A and T-64B, could you clarify your understanding of the dates for :

 

1: prototype completion date

2: decision to manufacture

3: first production tank produced

4: first training unit formed

5: first front-line unit operational.

 

 

and thirdly, there seems to be lots of "western" sources which believe Soviet tank armour to be inadequate versus western anti-tank weapons. Did the soviets AT THE TIME believe their tank armour to be adequate ?

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites
and thirdly, there seems to be lots of "western" sources which believe Soviet tank armour to be inadequate versus western anti-tank weapons. Did the soviets AT THE TIME believe their tank armour to be adequate ?

 

269487[/snapback]

 

Can you name any serious western sourse saying this?

The Soviets first ever made a tank with combined armor in serial production in 1964.

Through all periods it was modernized constantly which allowed significant supiriority over western tanks of the same period.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't accept "copying" arguments, such as that the russian aircraft are just copies of their western counterparts. MiG-25 preceded F-15, but A-5 Vigilante (1958) preceded MiG-25 (1961?). All these aircraft just looked similar, infact, they were very different. The laws of physics are the same for all, it's only the matter of knowhow.

 

It's the fact that the Soviet tanks were and are somewhat underrated. They were-are very well suited for mass-production, simple to operate and offer comparable armour protection while being 15 t lighter. During Coldwar, these beasts gave NATO a serious headaches, not only because of their numbers, but because their quality too.

 

Yes, so called sand-rod insert is made as a casting core left into cast turret front-slightly protruding to the side. As far as I know, Yugoslav M-84A doesn't use the regular "beach" sand, but rather crushed granite rock, because it contains a much higher proportion od SiO2 than the regular sand. I don't know if this goes for T-72M1 too. I wonder what protection would a homogenous granite rock offer instead. I bet that KE protection would have been better.

 

Regards, Sebastian

Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, a simple thanks to Harkonnen for dredging up his usual great pictures of Soviet/Russian tanks, those development charts are great. Somewhat as an aside, weren't there supposed to be T-95 drawings or prototype photos out there that were going to be posted to the forum? I remember someone mentioning this several months back.

 

Matt

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, so called sand-rod insert is made as a casting core left into cast turret front-slightly protruding to the side. As far as I know, Yugoslav M-84A doesn't use the regular "beach" sand, but rather crushed granite rock, because it contains a much higher proportion od SiO2 than the regular sand. I don't know if this goes for T-72M1 too. I wonder what protection would a homogenous granite rock offer instead. I bet that KE protection would have been better.

 

Regards, Sebastian

269512[/snapback]

 

I'd not heard this bit about using granite instead of sand. It seems to me that if you want more SiO2 you would use Quartz sand (all SiO2) rather than granite which is a mix of all sorts of things (Feldspars, Quartz, biotite...) but generally not to high a proportion of SiO2.

 

Perhaps they had access to some specific granite that gave some other advantage?

 

Some ASTM rock properties can be found at:

 

http://www.coldspringgranite.com/comparing...other_build.htm

 

And more: (This granite number looks more typical)

http://www.engineering.com/content/Content...tentId=41005035

 

It should be noted that these natural materials show a WIDE variation in properties.

 

Regards,

 

Jay

Edited by arcweasel
Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you name any serious western sourse saying this?

The Soviets first ever made a tank with combined armor in serial production in 1964.

Through all periods it was modernized constantly which allowed significant supiriority over western tanks of the same period.

269496[/snapback]

 

Harkonnen,

 

That's the reason I asked the other questions. I am a great fan of both the Chieftain and T-64A (and also the Centurion, but....).

 

As this thread is about Russian tanks, I would like to see some real info on when the decent (and very dangerous) T-64A were really available as the general response seems to be that they were a minor nuisance due to small numbers and late deliveries. I.E. the "gap" in tanks fielded from the late 1960s to, say, 1981, is minimised, whereas I can see a time when the Soviets had both an advantage in numbers and some of the best tanks around.

 

As far as your actual question goes, I believe most US sources reckon that by the early 1980s the US (and British and German tanks had advantages in both gun/projectile and armour.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...