Jump to content
tanknet.org

History of Soviet tanks


Recommended Posts

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.

269207[/snapback]

 

I wonder if it was ever thought about replacing the sand just like in T-64 or T-80 with more advanced armour material?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 6.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.
Actually until the appearance of M1A1 and Leo-2 western armor had nothing to compare to the T-tanks. USSR had M60-s and some other western tanks for trials after the 1973 war. They are nothing but simple steel hulls like T-54-55… The situation until the beginning of 80-th as so that no western ammo can penetrate the front areas of Soviet tanks of that time. The situation changed after the deployment of M111 class APFSDS (though it can penetrate only hull at ranges of beyond 1500m, the turret was much stronger) and resulted in leap forward in armor technology of the end 80-th tanks.

 

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.

 

Some materials of this period is just funny to read, for example western expert considered that T-64 has all-metal road wheals. In the beginning 80-th the Soviets outclassed every available tank of the west, this situation significantly changed at the end of 80-th and now remains the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Can I post an english-translation of your awesome article here for the delight of non-russian speaker boys?...

I Use Systran 5.0 Multilanguage Translator, think I can do a good job with your article

 

Actually do as you wish, but I suppose the text sometimes is rather complex even for Russian to understand :lol: :D . I don’t believe in robotized translators much, but you can try.

Edited by Harkonnen
Link to post
Share on other sites
The F-15 enters production quickly followed by a series of Russian aircraft with similar charasteristics and appearances.

268584[/snapback]

 

Are you refering to MiG-25? You must be, since ther is no other Sov/Rus aircraft wich resembles the F-15. Well, then you are wrong. The MiG-25 was built to intercept the XB-70 Valkyrie, but when the bomber was canseled the the Foxbat was allready entering service and Nato had nothing to match its performance, so the F-15 had to be developed to counter this new Sov. fighter.

To put it short: The F-15 was a response to MiG-25, not the other way around! Well, now we are far from tank armor, so let´s drop it...

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

I don't think they are availible. Maybe some chieniese 3D models having nothing the same with T-95.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think, it apply: Everyone looks with everyone. If we regard our cars, they are not always somehow similar itself all?. Certain solutions result from the research. Thus, the discussion is something in the inclination.

 

Always after the slogan, mine is longer! :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting location for the co-ax MG. Is it 12.7mm? I assume mounting it above the main gun makes fewer holes in the turret front/mantlet?

 

I like the particular attention to the join between the turret and the hull. They've even added extra plates to form a sort of "ring" and prevent rounds ricochetting up the glacis to become trapped in the gap.

 

What are the angled "boxes" or tubes along the turret sides, some sort of active armour elements?

 

Obviously autoloader in the bustle, I take it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The following questions are due to my lack of knowledge of tank armor. In earlier posts about this topic, Harkonnen mentions, let me paraphrase, "sand" armor and cavities in the T72's turret armor. Was/is the purpose of this "sand" to "disrupt" sabots and/or HEAT rounds? Harkonnen, let me thank you for the information you put on Tank Net about Soviet tanks and Soviet thinking. It is a learning experience.

Link to post
Share on other sites
My souce T-80 Tank (M. baryatinski)

268597[/snapback]

 

Harkonnen,

you have not explained why adding up the numbers in the table you posted from Baryatinski gives 838 T-80 not the 2256 claimed (or why the T-64 column adds up to significantly more than the 3990 total listed at the bottom). I am very interested in this issue, so any more information (such as a source for the 2000+ figure) appreciated. As RETAC pointed out, the book on the Soviet Army by Lenskii et al gives 838 T80 at this time. I am not aware of any better source than Lenskii.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

269626[/snapback]

 

 

Perhaps the main reason for using granite powder isn't getting a higher SiO2, but getting a more uniform properties (after mixing). Also, it's possible that a particular granite was preferred.

 

Regards, Sebastian

Link to post
Share on other sites
The following questions are due to my lack of knowledge of tank armor. In earlier posts about this topic, Harkonnen mentions, let me paraphrase, "sand" armor and cavities in the T72's turret armor. Was/is the purpose of this "sand" to "disrupt" sabots and/or HEAT rounds? Harkonnen, let me thank you for the information you put on Tank Net about Soviet tanks and Soviet thinking. It is a learning experience.

 

Yes the purpose of sand is protection, it is quite rational cause it is in tank’s turret.

But the sand has much less overall dimensional efficiency (about 0.15 of steel against APFSDS and 0.40 against HEAT if I remember it correct) as advanced filers used in “1-st line” Soviet tanks. During some period the T-72 was also equipped with advanced filler like T-80 and T-64, but it was quickly cancelled.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes the purpose of sand is protection, it is quite rational cause it is in tank’s turret.

But the sand has much less overall dimensional efficiency (about 0.15 of steel against APFSDS and 0.40 against HEAT if I remember it correct) as advanced filers used in “1-st line” Soviet tanks. During some period the T-72 was also equipped with advanced filler like T-80 and T-64, but it was quickly cancelled.

270110[/snapback]

 

The "sand" filler is basically quartz. It is extrememly hard. When contained in steel shell it causes a long rod penetrator to erode and it blunts the tip. When the penetrator hits the back steel wall of the turret its pushes a plug of quartz in front of it. This quartz must go somewhere. The penetrator, now eroded and blunted must push the this plug through the back wall as well as its own now enlarged blunted head. This of course requires a great deal more energy.

 

The same effect can be found in other more advanced ceramics. Those ceramics are more efficient. Sand of course is much cheaper.

 

This is how I understand it.

 

Davout

Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually until the appearance of M1A1 and Leo-2 western armor had nothing to compare to the T-tanks. USSR had M60-s and some other western tanks for trials after the 1973 war. They are nothing but simple steel hulls like T-54-55… The situation until the beginning of 80-th as so that no western ammo can penetrate the front areas of Soviet tanks of that time. The situation changed after the deployment of M111 class APFSDS (though it can penetrate only hull at ranges of beyond 1500m, the turret was much stronger) and resulted in leap forward in armor technology of the end 80-th tanks.

269694[/snapback]

 

It's true that the T-64A was a better tank than anything in the West when it was deployed. This Soviet advantage was maintained until the deployment of the M1 (in 1981 - years before the deployment of the M1A1) and the more advanced US APFSDS ammo. While the M1 had superior armor protection over that of the T-64A and T-64B (deployed to the GSFG in 1976 and 1981 respectively), it wasn't really until the deployment of the M833 round (1983ish) when the firepower advantage also switched to the M1. IIRC, the early German 120mm APFSDS ammo fired by the Leo 2 (first few tanks deployed in 1979) could penetrate the T-64A frontally, but I can't remember the IOC/deployment date (or designation...US XM827?) for that round.

 

During my first tour in Germany, I was deployed with my M60A1 RISE/Passive and later with my M60A3 TTS tanks...right in the middle of this Soviet tank advantage. In both of these tanks the primary APDS round we used was the M728...we didn't get the M735 APFSDS rounds until right before I returned to the states. We didn't know at the time that even this "new" round couldn't penetrate the frontal armor of the T-64A and T-64B (let alone the T-80B deployed in 1983). Finally, the Israeli M111 round was deployed (IOC) in 1978...

Link to post
Share on other sites
…. until the deployment of the M1 (in 1981 - years before the deployment of the M1A1) and the more advanced US APFSDS ammo.

While the M1 had superior armor protection over that of the T-64A and T-64B (deployed to the GSFG in 1976 and 1981 respectively)

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

 

it wasn't really until the deployment of the M833 round (1983ish) when the firepower advantage also switched to the M1.

 

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

Edited by Harkonnen
Link to post
Share on other sites
Chieftain.

 

First it was in not great number and 2-nd it is inferiour in all aspects to T-64-s and it]s modification.

By the way, It is Chiftain which made the russian tanks to be equipped with 125 mm guns, the recon info greatly owerestimated it capabilitis. This become clerar when it was delivered to SSSR from Iran or Iraq (captured) in mid-80th, if I remember correctly...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is the last Big red box in that chart a new Russian APFSDS? Is it in development or is it fielded, or just a paper design? Any pics on it?

 

Yes, new design, which is in dewelopment for some yers but will be filded only next year in a combination with an improuved gun (M-5) for T-90

Link to post
Share on other sites
First it was in not great number and 2-nd it is inferiour in all aspects to T-64-s and it]s modification.

By the way, It is Chiftain which made the russian tanks to be equipped with 125 mm guns, the recon info greatly owerestimated it capabilitis. This become clerar when it was delivered to SSSR from Iran or Iraq (captured) in mid-80th, if I remember correctly...

270198[/snapback]

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The "sand" filler is basically quartz.  It is extrememly hard.  When contained in steel shell it causes a long rod penetrator to erode and it blunts the tip.  When the penetrator hits the back steel wall of the turret its pushes a plug of quartz in front of it.  This quartz must go somewhere.  The penetrator, now eroded and blunted must push the this plug through the back wall as well as its own now enlarged blunted head.  This of course requires a great deal more energy.

 

The same effect can be found in other more advanced ceramics.  Those ceramics are more efficient.  Sand of course is much cheaper.

 

This is how I understand it.

 

Davout

270174[/snapback]

 

Hi Davout:

 

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

 

Thanks

JD

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...