Jump to content

History of Soviet tanks


Harkonnen

Recommended Posts

Why was he killed? Rather strange situation ...

270789[/snapback]

He shouldn't have been - it was against the rules applied to the missions.

 

Overall, the archives make fascinating reading, but as they are very condensed summaries of raw intelligence data, they don't always get the right answers.

 

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 7.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Re automated fire control systems on Soviet tanks...

From an article by Col Viktor Nikolayevich Sergeyev in "Voyenno-Promyshlennyy Kuryer" 11 Dec 2003:

"The ballistic computer (TBV) mentioned in Nikolay Kamalov's article was lacking on all versions of the T-72...In automated fire control systems (SUO) that have TBVs, all the enumerated operations are performed automatically, and the gunner need only hold the center mark of the sight on the target..Such SUOs appeared in our country starting with the T-64B, which was placed in service in 1976...that system made it possible to fire a guided missile...a range of up to four kilometres, including while on the move and not only in place as N. Karmalov feels. The 9K120 Svir KUV that was installed on the T-72B tanks (year of entry into service 1985) makes it possible to fire the 9M119 guided missile (and now the 9M119M missile) only in place or from brief stops...the field of vision of the 1K13 sight that is used in the 9K120 system was stabilised only on the vertical plane, and that is precisely what drastically reduces the probability of a missile hit on the target at long range when firing on the move...the SUO on the first T-80s really "effectively did not differ constructively" from the SUO of the T-64A...the TPD-K1 sight and rangefinder was installed on the T-80 a little later, the same one as on the T-72A. They started putting out the T-80B in 1979, and its SUO was the same as the one on the T-64B...Later versions of the T-80 - the T-80U, which was put into service in 1985 - had the multifuel GTD-1250 with 1250hp engine as well. What is more, it was namely on this vehicle that an SUO with redundant (from the tank commander's position) fire control appeared..The 9K119 Refleks KUV..was installed on these versions of the "eighties". This system uses the same 9M119 missile..as the 9K120 system on the T-72B, but as opposed to it, a guided missile can be fired effectively on the move."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the field of vision of the 1K13 sight that is used in the 9K120 system was stabilised only on the vertical plane, and that is precisely what drastically reduces the probability of a missile hit on the target at long range when firing on the move...

TPD-K1 was stabilised in the verstical plane, 1K13 was not stabilised at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"On the performance of M833, USMC tankers reported that it would commonly exit the rear of the vehicle on a frontal impact. It remains to be determined if they ever engaged Iraqi T72's with M833. S/F....Ken M "

 

The Iraqis had Ech1s and 2s versions of the T-72 so had only 280mm to 400mm protection levels, well below an M833s performance at reasonable ranges.

 

While again posting, I forgot to mention several other sources for documentation on the 105s vs the late model T-72s. In the late 80s, starting in 86 IIRC, Janes Defence Weekly (JDW), had 3 separate articles that I saved--sadly now in storage--that stated that late model T-72s were "virtually immune over the frontal arc to all NATO 105mm ammunition". I was subscribing to JDW back then. They were very specifc about it and emphasised that it was APFSDS. Back then ERA was viewed as only a problem to TOW, etc.

 

Also, also sadly in storage, Newsweek had 2 separate articles -- I think May 16 and 23 of '88--saying that the US had tested a late model T-72 against the latest 105mm ammunition which had failed to penetrate it. This purported to be a report on a secret US operation that got the 'stuff' from corrupt East Europeans.

 

I gave copies of both of these to Paul L. who may now have access to them and could maybe post scanned images. I don't now have access to my storage which is several cities away now.

 

In any case here's 2 more sources claiming to give classified information out for whatever it's worth.

 

Rick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TPD-K1 was stabilised in the verstical plane, 1K13 was not stabilised at all.

270847[/snapback]

 

Thats not full correctly. The 1K13 is dependently stabilised in vertical plane and in the horizontal plane stabilised with the turret.

Edited by Stefan Kotsch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1990 USMC Report (hosted by GlobalSecurity):

 

"In March and April of 1988, live fire tests conducted by the Army revealed that not one 105mm depleted uranium round fired from the M1 (same M68 cannon that is on the M60A1 and proposed LAV-AG) was able to penetrate the armor of an export model of the T72. 2 In fact, the M833 round, our current armor defeating round, can only penetrate up to the T62. 3 All follow-on tanks, T64 series, T72 series, T80 and FSTs are protected in the frontal 60 degree arc. This includes the export model of the T72. This failure of the 105mm cannon against potential threat armor and its lack of engineering growth potential to keep pace with emerging armor technology was a driving factor in the decision to procure the M1A1 with its 120mm cannon. Ammunition for the 120mm cannon will be able to defeat the frontal 60 degree arcs of all threat tanks, to include export models, far into the future."

 

And some stuff about ATGMs versus ERA:

 

"Reactive armor (RA) has also become a significant problem. RA renders the Dragon, Improved Tow (I-TOW), and TOW2 ineffective. 6 Again in live fire in March and April of 1988, the chemical enemy warheads of the I-TOW and TOW2A were unable to defeat the export model of the T72 when new RA boxes were added. The previous year the Army tested the tandem-warhead (a small charge to explode the RA prior to the main warhead detenation) TOW2A against an earlier generations of RA and the warhead was able to penetrate. The tests in 1988 were against a more advanced version of the RA believed to match what the Soviets are now deploying."

 

Thank God for tandem warheads and the TOW 2B.

 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/lib...rt/1990/TJD.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

270780[/snapback]

 

Well, 4 years later (sep90) it was possible for me and some others to walk to the maintenance hangar of the MiG-27s at Grossenhain and took notes of the constructionnumbers from a plate on the inside of the landing gearbox.

 

In the same trip it was possible to drive with a foreign registred car on Werneuchen air base were just the MiG-25s from Neu Welzow were based. Took some pictures and played a game of biljart with the pilots in the pilots bar!!! The guard even saluted when we drove off the base

 

This is no joke, sometimes these things went OK, but sometimes it went wrong. But it always amazed me how easy it was to get very close to their aircraft and helicopters.

 

Regards,

Lesley

Link to comment
Share on other sites

T64 series, T72 series, T80 and FSTs are protected in the frontal 60 degree arc. This includes the export model of the T72.

 

I suppose you are overoptimistic in this. Especially regarding M900.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harkonnen,

 

in reference to your chart comparing Russian and American APFSDS ammo, you said that the last Russian round was developed for an 'M-5' cannon to be installed on T-90.

Some questions:

-Will the auto-loader be changed to this purpose?

-If not, I gather that the maximum lenght for the penetrator remains the same as for other 125mm rounds (with the exception of those in 'black eagle' auto-loader)?

-Do you know what lenght the barrel of this new gun has?

-Or does it get it's increased performance from the use of heavier propellant charges?

-Is it the intention to retrofit all Russian T-90's with this gun?

 

Also, somewhat related, do you know what - experimental or not - cannons have been proposed for the T-95(XX?) series. (not just calibre, but more specific info?)

 

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in reference to your chart comparing Russian and American APFSDS ammo, you said that the last Russian round was developed for an 'M-5' cannon to be installed on T-90.

Some questions:

The full name of the gun is 2A46M-5, now T-90 has 2A46M-2

 

-Will the auto-loader be changed to this purpose?

 

Yes, but not radically.

 

-If not, I gather that the maximum lenght for the penetrator remains the same as for other 125mm rounds (with the exception of those in 'black eagle' auto-loader)?
No, the algoritms and working mechanic of autoloader allows bigger rate of fire.

 

-Do you know what lenght the barrel of this new gun has?

 

similar to old one

 

-Or does it get it's increased performance from the use of heavier propellant charges?
Maybe. But the main task is increased accuracy and life of the barrel.

 

-Is it the intention to retrofit all Russian T-90's with this gun?

 

I don't know. It is the question for responsible authorities, but this was stated by main armour departament long ago.

 

Also, somewhat related, do you know what - experimental or not - cannons have been proposed for the T-95(XX?) series. (not just calibre, but more specific info?)

 

There are several variants of 152 mm gun wit different characteristics. The projects of Kharkiv, Tagil and Leningrad may have verious guns. They exect characteristic are not disclosed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1990 USMC Report (hosted by GlobalSecurity):

 

"In March and April of 1988, live fire tests conducted by the Army revealed that not one 105mm depleted uranium round fired from the M1 (same M68 cannon that is on the M60A1 and proposed LAV-AG) was able to penetrate the armor of an export model of the T72. 2  In fact, the M833 round, our current armor defeating round, can only penetrate up to the T62. 3  All follow-on tanks, T64 series, T72 series, T80 and FSTs are protected in the frontal 60 degree arc.  This includes the export model of the T72.  This failure of the 105mm cannon against potential threat armor and its lack of engineering growth potential to keep pace with emerging armor technology was a driving factor in the decision to procure the M1A1 with its 120mm cannon.  Ammunition for the 120mm cannon will be able to defeat the frontal 60 degree arcs of all threat tanks, to include export models, far into the future."

 

And some stuff about ATGMs versus ERA:

 

"Reactive armor (RA) has also become a significant problem. RA renders the Dragon, Improved Tow (I-TOW), and TOW2 ineffective. 6  Again in live fire in March and April of 1988, the chemical enemy warheads of the I-TOW and TOW2A were unable to defeat the export model of the T72 when new RA boxes were added. The previous year the Army tested the tandem-warhead (a small charge to explode the RA prior to the main warhead detenation) TOW2A against an earlier generations of RA and the warhead was able to penetrate.  The tests in 1988 were against a more advanced version of the RA believed to match what the Soviets are now deploying."

 

Thank God for tandem warheads and the TOW 2B.

 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/lib...rt/1990/TJD.htm

271008[/snapback]

 

 

Take all this in the context of the USMC tanker community pushing to adopt M1A1. S/F....Ken M

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what you want to say? - They falsificated live fire tests?

271427[/snapback]

 

Sure, happened more than once, if those tests happened at all. This was same time frame at M247 Sgt York DIVADS and that travesty of "testing". S/F.....Ken M

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, happened more than once, if those tests happened at all. This was same time frame at M247 Sgt York DIVADS and that travesty of "testing". S/F.....Ken M

 

OK. I really think that the effect of the above mentioned round on basic export T-72M is underestimated taking about the hull, which in my opinion is vulnerable to it. Anyway this is not mentioned so I can assume that only turret was tested. Another variant was a range bigger than 2-2.5 km, but it is seldom an option on the fire tests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take all this in the context of the USMC tanker community pushing to adopt M1A1.  S/F....Ken M

271281[/snapback]

I suspected this but did not want to make any conclusions. I didn't post that report to advocate its claims, but because someone mentioned the late 80's live-fire tests. I was hoping you guys could comment on its validity, especially in regards to the *cough* failure of the M833 against anything higher than a T-62. How would the M833/M900 fare against more modern versions of the T-72/T-64/T-80/T-90?

Edited by Xonitex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Take all this in the context of the USMC tanker community pushing to adopt M1A1. S/F....Ken M"

 

Well, they can't make up results that weren't there. They were referring to tests done by the Pentagon, not by them. Los Alamos was supposed to have even been involved (Los Alamos took over development of our Anti-tank technology in the late 80s because of the crisis in our ability to kill Russian tanks frontally as, for example, demonstrated in these tests. In a previous forum I'd posted a huge pdf file with a public version of the Los Alamos reports)

 

The USMC mission would have been much better served wth the 105mm armed light tracked vehicles being proposed back then. There was a lot of pressure to have "strategic mobilty" and both the Army and Marines back then were competing to be the first to be deployed by the Central Command--i.e. to the Persian gulf to stop the russkies seizing Persian Oil. It was not politically advisable to be the guy arguing against being the most mobile (i.e. not being able to use C-5s). The Army dropped the 75mm Ares gun armed light AFV first and the USMC continued with the competition for a while longer. The report cited apparently is the reason everyone finally called it quits.

 

I have seen several references to the 1988 tests years back when it happened and it definitely was not happy news to anyone. The tests were a very big deal since they affected our plans to be able to rapidly deply real tank killers to Iran to stop the russkies. It wasn't a small time BS operation.

 

Xonitex has made a real find. I had good documentation but not on the web like he found.

 

As for Harkonnen's remarks, of course the M900 should be able to defeat parts of the late T-72s frontally because it could be tested against near copies. But when the round was first deployed only late model M1s had the heavy breech needed to fire the round. By now everyone should have been retrofited.

 

The glacis was certainly more vulnerable than the turret--except it's top of course--but the Deutsche Aerospace figures--see my earlier post--and the JDW reports indicate that the glacis could present as much of a problem as the turret. Probably the Ukranians, and Nii Stali, who are both trying to sell ERA upgrades, are probably referring to 'weakened' zones that exist in the glacis because of the manufacturing method. In any case, there is disagreement between Western APFSDS testers and East bloc armor designers. As I mentioned earlier, the exact same asymmetry existed in strategic discussions of ICBM vulnerability for the same reason. Back then our Air Force had to plan for the worst possible outcome of an attack whereas the 'enemy' attack planner--in the discussions of course--had to plan for the minimum or least 'desirable' probability that his attack force might experience.

 

 

Rick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The glacis was certainly more vulnerable than the turret--except it's top of course--but the Deutsche Aerospace figures--see my earlier post--and the JDW reports indicate that the glacis could present as much of a problem as the turret. Probably the Ukranians, and Nii Stali, who are both trying to sell ERA upgrades, are probably referring to 'weakened' zones that exist in the glacis because of the manufacturing method.
I have a good reasons to say that the hull of T-72M and it’s Russian version A is vulnerable the mentioned round. Though I can’t support my opinion with such authoritative reports. The test of foreign rounds in the beginning 80-th required an urgent upgrade of it with additional armor. Though the round may have limited after armor effect and can be countered easily. The information of the Iraqi tests of captured chieftains required them to add on 30-mm pate to make it non penetratable.

In the beginning 80-th the USSR finally turn down the old design glacis for a new one because of this threat.

 

The glacis was certainly more vulnerable than the turret--except it's top of course--but the Deutsche Aerospace figures--see my earlier post--and the JDW reports indicate that the glacis could present as much of a problem as the turret.

 

It may describe already upgraded glacis with add on plate, this may be the reason. Anyway it could not be T-72S as it appeared only in 1990.

 

Probably the Ukranians, and Nii Stali, who are both trying to sell ERA upgrades, are probably referring to 'weakened' zones that exist in the glacis because of the manufacturing method.
Off course NII Stali has some interest. But they numbers are not incorrect as you certainly find the area with mentioned figures on the described tank. Another thing is that the data gives the protection in all the 60 degree arc, it is not like choosing the thickest area at frontal arc and saying – IT IS MY TAN PROTWECTION equivalent.

 

any case, there is disagreement between Western APFSDS testers and East bloc armor designers.

 

It is not disagreement but different way of approach to tests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RIPper,

One pdf is 1.7 megs and the other is 3 and the introduction is 2.5 meg although it has only 2 paragraphs describing the authors. The latter is helpful but not necessary. Someone will have to tell me how to post such large files. On the other forum we actually had a web site with posted files.

 

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...