Jump to content

History of Soviet tanks


Harkonnen

Recommended Posts

Where do the images that are in this article:

 

http://btvt.narod.ru/4/history/_45_2006.htm

 

Come from?  They are really enlightening.

271570[/snapback]

 

1. Tables and drawings of turret and some other are made by me.

2. Some drawings are from manuals

2. Photos are from the sourses showed below in the article, and belong to they authors, some are mine.

Edited by Harkonnen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 7.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"Harkonnen....it is not like choosing the thickest area at frontal arc and saying – IT IS MY TANk PROTECTION equivalent."

 

That is the defenders point of view,"over a given arc, what is the worst protection that my armor designer gave me?" But the attacker's point of view is the opposite. What is the worst problem my tank round has to overcome? "I have let my tank crews down if I can't overcome that problem." I didn't explain it very well but that was why I referred to the old ICBM vulnerability arguments since it mirrored the same dilemna.

 

Anyhow, like you said, the glacis weakness was not properly understood by Soviet tank designers. The reason would appear to be that they didn't fully appreciate that long rod penetrators 'prefer' angled armor over oblique armor. They left the tops of the turrets vulnerable all through the 80s and 90s. 76^ is just asking for death.

 

Why do you think they did this?

 

The tests at Haide used GDR tanks and went up as far as the T-72M1M which I guess corresponds to a T-72A in armor. Advise me here.

 

Rick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They left the tops of the turrets vulnerable all through the 80s and 90s. 76^ is just asking for death.
???? i don't completely understand your thought...

 

The tests at Haide used GDR tanks and went up as far as the T-72M1M which I guess corresponds to a T-72A in armor.  Advise me here.

 

Yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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".

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.  Rick

270907[/snapback]

 

C'mon Rick...so, we're basing this argument on what's been printed in Jane's and Newsweek? Global Security isn't much better...all this open source stuff should be taken with a huge grain of salt...at best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you saying that the armor of the T-72B is also inferior to that protecting the T-64B and T-80B?

 

I did not sayd this. I was talking only about fire contro capabilities and FCS. Concerning armor T-72B is another level over the previous tanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I gave the number for T-64B turret protection giveen in the officia army magazine

 

Does that "official" source normally include classified information?

 

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

 

So I'm emotional huh?  :lol:  Take a minute to review how you've been described by others here on the forum...

 

270766[/snapback]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does that "official" source normally include classified information?

271609[/snapback]

 

If it is included then it is not secret. Especcially in the regarded question of upgrade.

 

So I'm emotional huh?    Take a minute to review how you've been described by others here on the forum...

271609[/snapback]

 

It's their buisiness. We are talking about you refuses to accept any provided data on the mentioned question. And you "unbeatable" argument is - "if it is published in open media it is untrue".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Tables and drawings of turret and some other are made by me.

2. Some drawings are from manuals

2. Photos are from the sourses showed below in the article, and belong to they authors, some are mine.

271583[/snapback]

 

Quality work all around (I picked off the turret comparison, that's a keeper!)!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it is included then it is not secret. Especcially in the regarded question of upgrade.

It's their buisiness. We are talking about you refuses to accept any provided data on the mentioned question. And you "unbeatable" argument is - "if it is published in open media it is untrue".

271612[/snapback]

 

Not always...but I know enough not to take published information as gospel just because it shows-up in the press. Let's look at one of your sources...NII Stali. The problem here is that they normally don't include any information regarding the T-64B and T-80B. If you can provide an example where they do give some information regarding these two tanks, please post it so we all can see.

 

According to the handout provided by Nii Stali to the visitors of the Omsk Exhibition a few years ago, the only reference to the M833 round is in how it relates to the "improved protection level" provided by new variants of ERA fitted to the T-72. It states that the T-72 fitted with Kontakt ERA "Variant 2" (not the well-known Kontakt that's been around for years, but a new more recent development incorporating "built-in ERA"), is protected against the M833. Assuming that this claim is true, it still has no baring on the discussion of the M833 vs. the T-64B and T-80B. Remember, what started this was the discussion of the M833's capabilities against the two Soviet Premium Tanks back in the 1980s. Now, adding new and improved add-on armor will increase the protection levels of the T-64BM Bulat and the T-80B, but the rounds that could be used against them are obviously generations ahead of the M833.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"C'mon Rick...so, we're basing this argument on what's been printed in Jane's and Newsweek? Global Security isn't much better...all this open source stuff should be taken with a huge grain of salt...at best." Jim Warford

 

Jim, I have given multiple sources saying the same thing. I am sorry but I would hold Manfred Held as being above reproach. "RMO" in the 7/97 IDR ditto. Both may make errors but not repeatedly.

 

With regards to the FRG Haide results, I have further evidence which I also had posted in an earlier forum showing the Rheinmetall's new smooth bore 105mm with new powder technology as compared to T-72 protection levels. The graph shows the 'old technology' DM63 failing against the latest T-72s and only marginally defeating the T-72M. You can scale the latest T-72 armor to about 500mm protection level. I'll look to see if I still have the scan and post it here.

 

JDW printed that report not once but multiple times during the late 80s when I subscribed to it. Yes like any publication it can make a mistake but I am sorry, I believe they do have special sources--you can disagree if you choose so--and they would have been corrected and not repeat the same statement if they were wrong.

 

The Newsweek articles by themselves were of questionable authority but they got backed up by an actual military reference and explanation discovered by Xonitex to whom we all owe a great debt of gratitude. As for John Pike's Global Security posting that article, well I have never heard anyone question his honesty. He is interviewed on TV all the time and if the Pentagon wanted to they could easily cast doubt on his honesty or bias and in today's environment the networks would stop using him as a source.

 

I know as a Armor Officer, and one of the only ones back then really sounding the alarm, you would take it for granted that the USMC should want to spend money on the M1A1. But back then speed of deployment was their perceived future. they even showed off 'their' mobile gun solution being heli-lfted by a CH-53E. In the 'strategic analysis' press there was more discussion of a war in Iran than on the Central Front where you were. The pre-positioned USMC gear on ships was way down by Diego Garcia and they wanted faster deplyment to beat Army.

 

Oh, and the Army strategists were equally disappointed when the Ares 75mm rapid fire weapon didn't strip apart laminated armor with multiple rapid sequence hits.

 

Finally, you have the Los Alamos pdfs. I sent them to you. I find it inconceivable that they would lie to their own employees about the anti-armor situation when they'd just won a huge contract to lead the US effort to win the Anti-tank race. they have errors on small facts--and big ones like no one knew about K5--but they would not have been put in charge of the program, to the disgrace of the US army, unless tested and verified facts supported the claim, by the Pentagon--not Los Alamos-- that there was a crisis. I hope you remember who Gen Donn Starry was. He is the spokesman. They even have X-rays of M833s in flight.

 

If no combination of public sources, even declassified ones like the USMC report, do not provide evidence of anything then it becomes impossible for any rational discussion of any security related topic. This seems to be your position and perhaps you are right. It is not my position but only because the end of the Cold War declassified so much. Remember, K-5 came as a shock. Look at the CIA documents of that era from their FOIA site.

 

The failure of the 105mm was unexpected for me also once the M833 came along. However, there had been an earlier era of fear. Look at the gunner's corner in your Dec. 1982 Armor. There, 6 months after the 82 war, despite all of the Israeli claims about their 'Hetz' round killing T-72s with ease, you'll see in black and white some simple warnings. Not a plan to buy 'Hetz'. Buried in an extensive discussion of the surperior dispersion of APFSDS vs APDS rounds is a simple statement: "don't frontally engage new soviet tanks". "Your round can't be guaranteed to pentrate." Then they suggest, besides the usual 'take flank shots where possible' nostrum, the suggestion that Soviet tank bellies be targeted when climbing over logs, etc. They even have a picture of one climbing a log. Sad. Really sad. And all of this while the Army share of the budget was only 28% and they were spending inordinate amounts of even that on attack helicopters that they couldn't deploy into Europe until September 1987 anyhow. And when, for the first time, they attempted to deploy them into a truly European setting in the mid 90s they failed. Miserably. They kept trying to find a shortcut to not have to fight the tank war. Eventually this mismanagement led to Los Alamos being handed the job of Anti-Tank warfare just in time to prepare for Gulf I.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim, I have given multiple sources saying the same thing.  I am sorry but I would hold Manfred Held as being above reproach.  "RMO" in the 7/97 IDR ditto. As for John Pike's Global Security  posting that article, well I have never heard anyone question his honesty. He is interviewed on TV all the time and if the Pentagon wanted to they could easily cast doubt on his honesty or bias and in today's environment the networks would stop using him as a source. 

 

271656[/snapback]

 

Rick; I'm not calling anyone a liar...only that some information is availabe in the public domain and some isn't...because some of it isn't available, certain information has been manipulated to support planned conclusions. For example, it does all the tank ammo manufacturers in Europe good to hear bad press regarding US DU ammo. Many of the reports that appear in the defense-related press make huge assumptions and outlandish claims. Again, I'm not saying discount it all, and I fully support and enjoy participating in these discussions, I'm only saying it's best to keep in-mind that simply being published in print or appearing somewhere on the Net, doesn't make it so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My own "76^ is just asking for death."

 

in response to Harkonnen's "???".

 

76 degrees isn't shallow enough to create ricochet, as I understand it, so as angled armor would be easier to penetrate than vertical armor of same LOS, so the tank tops become "weakened zones". LOS is only about 186mm in any case. The tank tops are about 29% of tank turret heights for the T-72 series. Correct me here if I'm wrong.

 

Rick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rick, thanks for the compliments. I often get lucky with the obscure search terms...in this case, I plugged "T-64 T-72 T-80 FST-1" into Google and that report was the first thing that popped up. GlobalSecurity has a good collection of reports, organized by year, but it would take a long time to flip through them when looking for specific information.

 

This discussion keeps getting better and better. If someone can refresh my memory...what was the exact ROF of the ARES?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The failure of the 105mm was unexpected for me also once the M833 came along. However, there had been an earlier era of fear. Look at the gunner's corner in your Dec. 1982 Armor. There, 6 months after the 82 war, despite all of the Israeli claims about their 'Hetz' round killing T-72s with ease, you'll see in black and white some simple warnings.

M111 aka DM23 was able to penetrate the glacis of T-72A but failed to penetrate the turret. M833 (~450 mm) was considerably supperior to M111 (~ 360 mm).

 

Here are KE protection estimates from Russian books and booklets for Glacis/Turret:

 

T-72: 305/380-410

T-72M: 335/380-410

T-72M1: 400/380-410

T-72C: 485/540

 

Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

T-64B and T-80B. If you can provide an example where they do give some information regarding these two tanks, please post it so we all can see.

 

Because they did not make the armor for them ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

76 degrees isn't shallow enough to create ricochet, as I understand it, so as angled armor would be easier to penetrate than vertical armor of same LOS, so the tank tops become "weakened zones". LOS is only about 186mm in any case. The tank tops are about 29% of tank turret heights for the T-72 series. Correct me here if I'm wrong.

 

What about Abrams glacis then ?

 

 

 

And abrams -

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This discussion keeps getting better and better. If someone can refresh my memory...what was the exact ROF of the ARES?

 

ARES

Length 5,661 cm

Mass 1144 kg

Recoil 136 kN

ROF 70 (!) shots/min

Ammo - 60 rounds (AAI RDF/LT ARES)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rick:

 

I will take the liberty of speaking for Jim.... I believe that Jim's point is that test results can be slanted for political use.

 

Open sources backed by analysis suggest that various parts of the T64 turret and the T72A turret are quite invulnerable to the 833 from various angles. The same analyis also suggests that various parts are quite vulnerable.

 

Really the question outlines the difficulty of the issue. The Soviets publically stated the protection level of the T64B and the T72A to be 510mm (if my memory of the treaties serves me correctly). They didn't lie. Parts of the turret hit from certain angles should actually have even a higher resistance. Of course the opposite is also true. A large area is actually less than 300mm (around the gun and the turret top). Therefore the 833 will easily penetrate. The variation in protection is not a mistake. It is the purposeful design.

 

A real question is "how does one state the level of protection for the tank?".

 

Of course we have the same question with the original M1. Various sources relate its Kep protection as between 350mm and 480mm. Both can be justified from analysis open sources. Both are probably true depending on how the tank is hit.

 

Davout

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the handout provided by Nii Stali to the visitors of the Omsk Exhibition a few years ago, the only reference to the M833 round is in how it relates to the "improved protection level" provided by new variants of ERA fitted to the T-72. It states that the T-72 fitted with Kontakt ERA "Variant 2"

(not the well-known Kontakt that's been around for years, but a new more recent development incorporating "built-in ERA"), is protected against the M833. Assuming that this claim is true, it still has no baring on the discussion of the M833 vs. the T-64B and T-80B. Remember, what started this was the discussion of the M833's capabilities against the two Soviet Premium Tanks back in the 1980s. Now, adding new and improved add-on armor will increase the protection levels of the T-64BM Bulat and the T-80B, but the rounds that could be used against them are obviously generations ahead of the M833.

 

Jim. I did not await such dirty tricks from you! It is nothing but disinformation from your side.

Variant 1 is KONTAKT-1 ERA

Variant 2 is KONTAKT-V Heavy ERA

Variant 3 is for M829A2 and tandem HEAT

Variant 4 – 140 mm gun and so on…

Here is the Upgrade proposals you are talking about and you forgot to mention that M829 goes in the same column as M833. Another thing to note, that it is for plain export T-72M1, not T-64B, T-80B or other.

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...