History of Soviet tanks

[Harkonnen]

Some interesting details on T-72C (export) and T-72B of Russian army

 

Some addition on T-72B fire control.TheT-72B of final series are equipped with DVE wind sensor, the tanks with it have automatic fire control. They are also mostly BM variant.

The same automatic fire control is installed on T-72C (export) which were sold to Iran, they also received a license to produce it locally.

Though this version has better fire control as Russian T-72 produced before 1990 it has traditionally downgraded armour (sand rods in turret again and weakened hull protection).

Though this may concern only to those tanks delivered from Russia, the tanks assembled in Iran is another story.

 

And now about history of T-72C

 

The fist big batch of “Shildens” was ready to be delivered to Iraq and completed, but delay on the shipyard not allowed them to be delivered before the UN sanctions were raised and war started. So the “Shildens” stood on a factory yard long time until they were delivered to the Russian army! It is not known was their armour modified to Russian standard or not. T-72C1 were shown on Victory Day Parade in 1995 in Moscow.

 

How the T-72 and T-90 received the “C” letter in the name. The object 172M1M (T-72C) was 1-st soviet tank offered for export market for hard cash, so the marketing department offered a “name” for it –“protector” but it was not correctly translated into English as “Shilden”. So that’s how they received “S” (in Russian “C”) letter.

 

 

Iranian T-72C

[gorf]

I agree.

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

270649[/snapback]

KE protection of front was quite same. Frontal HEAT protection of T tanks was slightly better, on the other hand Chieftain had somewhat better HEAT protection of flanks.

 

T tanks had advantage in gun penetration, but it was compensated by much better post penetration survivability of Chieftain.

 

T-64B had advantage in FSC whic would give advantage on flat terrain, but in hilly terrian gun elevation and depression angles could be more important.

 

and so on and so on.

Edited January 14, 2006 by gorf

[Przezdzieblo]

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

270656[/snapback]

SAME means not SIMILAR. T-64A turret is SIMILAR to T-64B, shape, geometry (if drawing at morozov.com site are correct), so probably also LOS thickness.

 

What are arguments about T-64B advantage in protection compared with M1?

 

 

 

 

Again T-72C... please, use transliteration. T-72C is a form in cirilica only.

Edited January 14, 2006 by Przezdzieblo

[Harkonnen]

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.

I diont think so, T-64B (as all te T-64-72-80 series) has much greater angle of protection of the turret.

 

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.

 

The first series T-64 were with od hull, the proection of which is 350 mm (KE) and for turret 500 mm as stated by "Army of Ukraine" magazine for tis year. Then the hull on old 64B was upgraded, the new tanks recieved a new hull.

 

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.

As for the T-72B it is not quite right. Only M829A1 gave this possibility as the hull and turret of T-72B is much more protected as T-64/80B

 

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

 

Thanks

[Harkonnen]

What are arguments about T-64B advantage in protection compared with M1?

 

They are mentioned through this thread, I don't thin I should try to convince awrybody in this, belive or not I don't care. Or maybe I should bring T-64 to you and test fire it.

[Guest commander]

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.

270655[/snapback]

 

Conall

 

Thanks for that, you have said exactly what Harrkonen can not understand, he may plagarise and steal others work but thats not how others on the site work.

 

Harkonnen please explain about idle talking, that is something new to me, I like to think that I contribute to htis board in a fair and sensible manner and as a user of some of the equipment can sometime give an insight that may not be available to others. I may not agree with some of the comments 100%(who ever does) but I dont plagarise or sulk and get boorish.

[Harkonnen]

Thanks for that, you have said exactly what Harrkonen can not understand, he may plagarise and steal others work but thats not how others on the site work.

Harkonnen please explain about idle talking, that is something new to me, I like to think that I contribute to htis board in a fair and sensible manner and as a user of some of the equipment can sometime give an insight that may not be available to others. I may not agree with some of the comments 100%(who ever does) but I dont plagiarize or sulk and get boorish.

 

I removed the photo. Idle talking and wasting my time is what your are doing in this exact thread. Your stupid plagiarize charges show nothing but your meanness.

Let’s remind other reasonable people how it was - Stuart Galbraith said – “Bob Griffin will show you a shot of an Iranian Chieftain which shrugged off an 125mm Hit. And that was before the stillbrew mods arrived in the mid 80s.”

I said if this the photos he is talking about (and posted 2 photos of chieftains with damage from gunfire). Where is plagiarism here?

I share a large amount of information with the all good-will people of tank-forum, and never grudge for anybody to repost it.

Edited January 14, 2006 by Harkonnen

[Guest commander]

I removed the photo. Idle talking and wasting my time is what your are doing in this exact thread.

 

I am not wasting your time just rying to protect my intrests as a writer.

Your stupid plagiarize charges show nothing but your meanness.

 

You took crown copyright which I paid for and published it, no matter were you obtained it.

 

Let’s remind other reasonable people how it was - Stuart Galbraith said – “Bob Griffin will show you a shot of an Iranian Chieftain which shrugged off an 125mm Hit. And that was before the stillbrew mods arrived in the mid 80s.”

 

If I had seen the comment from Stu earlier I would have posted it myself you jumped the gun as Stu had already asked permission.

 

I said if this the photos he is talking about (and posted 2 photos of chieftains with damage from gunfire). Where is plagiarism here?

 

Taking copyright material, you might no take it seriously but then you did not pay for the licence

I share a large amount of information with the all good-will people of tank-forum, and never grudge for anybody to repost it.

 

I also do the same and have no problems although I admit most of mine is written and I do not post half as much pictorial content as you, and yes some of it is interesting.

 

I hope you can see were I am coming from and this is the end.

 

270734[/snapback]

[Jim Warford]

"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.

 

Rick; I'm not arguing about the penetration numbers/range of the M833 (which is obviously classified anyway); my point is that it could in-fact penetrate the T-64B and T-80B from the front.

 

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.....  ;-)

 

Perhaps...but since the actual performance of these rounds isn't in the public domain, I take any openly published information regarding them with a grain of salt. It was also good news for those trying to sell European tungsten rounds on the export market.

 

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".

 

As you know, no round is an "end-all" for tank ammo development. Calling the M829A1 a failure is an unfair claim...as it is for the M833. New and better protected threats require new rounds to be developed...the M900 wasn't "rushed" into service because the M833 was a failure...it was deployed because better-protected threats were deployed.

 

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.

 

You're right about that...I was there on the ground...studying everything I could get my hands on. There is no doubt...that for a period of years, the Soviets had better tanks than the US (something that has happened more than once in history); that pattern was reversed, however, and the development of the "fin" rounds leading-up to the M833 helped make that the reality.

 

270563[/snapback]

[Harkonnen]

I hope you can see were I am coming from and this is the end.

 

For the general good let us not continue this off-topic descussion here. I think the problem is soved, potos are removed.

[jwduquette1]

Dear Mr. Griffin:

 

I am afraid I am also guilty of having posted your excellent image of the Iranian Chieftain turret penetrations as well – two days ago. I emailed it to the Yahoo Modern Armor forum. However, in my defense I found the image posted on a Russian Forum site several days back. There was no proper cite or reference on the forum as to where the photo originated, so I could not pass along that information to the Yahoo forum when I reposted the photo. I actually have your excellent book on the Chieftain on my book shelves, but have not had occasion to look at it in some time. I should have leafed through it again prior to reposting the image. My bad.

 

“Chieftain” By Rob Griffin, The Crowood Press, 2001.

 

Another excellent title on my shelves is “Conqueror” – also by Rob Griffin

 

I see that it is something you would not like done and in the future and I will respect your wishes on this matter. I will not repost the photo without first seeking your permission. Please except my apologizes. I know from personal experience how much time, effort and money can go into the hunt for such things.

 

Best Regards

Jeff Duquette

[Jim Warford]

Your facts, please

 

Do you have any facts to support your claims about the M833's lack of performnce? I didn't think so...

 

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

 

The T-72B was first identified by NATO in 1988 (and labeled the M1988)...are you saying that it was inferior to the T-64B and T-80B then...or sometime prior to that year? I'm a believer in the Soviet Premium Tanks (I'm one of the very few around here that even uses the term Premium Tank); I've also written about those tanks on more than one occasion. However, the jump to the next generation...the FST-1 tanks (both the T-72B and the T-80U) meant that better tanks were on the street.

 

270637[/snapback]

[Guest commander]

For the general good let us not continue this off-topic descussion here. I think the problem is soved, potos are removed.

270748[/snapback]

 

Agreed done and dusted

[Harkonnen]

Do you have any facts to support your claims about the M833's lack of performnce? I didn't think so...

I gave the number for T-64B turret protection giveen in the officia army magazine (the article was about the insufficientt T-64B protection and urgent requirement of BM BULAT programm of modernization).

The data of 833 penetration are based on NIIStali chart and other credible sources, by the way confirmed by other forum members.

Your non-constructiv denial of such facts without providing yours sounds rather emotional.

 

The T-72B was first identified by NATO in 1988 (and labeled the M1988)...are you saying that it was inferior to the T-64B and T-80B then...or sometime prior to that year? I'm a believer in the Soviet Premium Tanks (I'm one of the very few around here that even uses the term Premium Tank); I've also written about those tanks on more than one occasion. However, the jump to the next generation...the FST-1 tanks (both the T-72B and the T-80U) meant that better tanks were on the street.

 

So you may understand the fact that it is not equiped with ballistic computer.

It has much more simple ballistic corrector. T-72B and T-64B are equiped with ballistic computer (fully automatic FCS). I described this rin detail on the 1-st page.

The only advantage of T-72B was it's ladser guided missile, though not capabelo to be fired on the move.

[RETAC21]

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".

270596[/snapback]

 

I reckon I am going by guesses here, but you have USMLM assuming in 1986 circa 1200 T-80s and I suspect they were right, given they were entering soviet installations and tanks to get interior photos, so they could count more or less how many were around. Now, on the table posted by Harkonnen there are 2000+ T-80s even though the detailed breakdown doesn't agree to the total (i.e. 838) but I believe (and this is just a guess) that it is possible that the subtotal for the T-80 as given by Lenskii is the number of T-80BV which will tie up nicely with the 5 regiments observed by USMLM as having ERA.

 

But this is just a guess.

[Harkonnen]

What is USMLM? I highly doubt thay or anybody in the west could make a photos of modern tank interiours in 1986.

[DB]

What is USMLM? I highly doubt thay or anybody in the west could make a photos of modern tank interiours in 1986.

270780[/snapback]

US Military Liaison Mission.

 

You would be quite incorrect to assume that the various overt intelligence missions present in Eastern Germany during the cold war did nothing more than exchange pleasantries over cocktails.

 

In fact, there are several reported instances of BRIXMIS (The British equivalent of USMLM) walking into East German military bases and gathering extensive photographic information, not to mention the "dumpster diving" that revealed maintenance manuals and records, etc.

 

Stuart Galbraith pointed out a link to the declassified annual reports that give a good flavour of the results (the pictures are very badly reproduced though).

 

A starting URL: http://www.usmlm.org/

 

David

[RETAC21]

What is USMLM? I highly doubt thay or anybody in the west could make a photos of modern tank interiours in 1986.

270780[/snapback]

 

The US Military Liasion Mission in Berlin. Not only in 1986, but also in 1984 and before. You can find the reports here, be warned though that they are BIG downloads:

 

http://www.history.hqusareur.army.mil/uslmannual.htm

 

Highlights:

 

1982-1983 interior photographs of a T-64A

1984 interior photograph of a T-64B

1987 Major Nicholson killed exiting a T-80 shed...

[Harkonnen]

1982-1983 interior photographs of a T-64A

1984 interior photograph of a T-64B

1987 Major Nicholson killed exiting a T-80 shed...

 

Why was he killed? Rather strange situation ...

[Gavin-Phillips]

Is it correct to assume that is "gleaning for information" process is how a T-64 tank manual was discovered on a landfill site?

 

Just think, people do that now, just they are looking for your address and bank account info..

 

Is there any particular model of tank that the West identified as a "T-74"?

[RETAC21]

Why was he killed? Rather strange situation ...

270789[/snapback]

 

I made a mistake, he was shot in 24 March 1985 outside the sheds at Ludwiglust when a sentry caught them sneaking in and shot thrice. One shot hit the Major and he lay were he had fell for one hour without anyone assisting him (the NCO that went with him was prevented to do so by the sentry).

[RETAC21]

Is it correct to assume that is "gleaning for information" process is how a T-64 tank manual was discovered on a landfill site? 

 

Just think, people do that now, just they are looking for your address and bank account info.. 

 

Is there any particular model of tank that the West identified as a "T-74"?

270793[/snapback]

 

From the photos I have seen it's a T-72B

[Stefan Kotsch]

The only advantage of T-72B was it's ladser guided missile, though not capabelo to be fired on the move.

270766[/snapback]

 

The T-72B had an automatic FCS? That is new me. Which designation has the gunners primary sight?

[Harkonnen]

The T-72B had an automatic FCS? That is new me. Which designation has the gunners primary sight?

270807[/snapback]

 

1A40-1 targeting complex, the difference is describet on the 1-st page of this thread.

[Stefan Kotsch]

That is however only a 1A40 / TPD-K1 with an additional eyepiece for the announcement reproaches for moving targets.

An automatic FCS is that surely not.

 

Edited January 14, 2006 by Stefan Kotsch