Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues
miketheterrible wrote:What?
Mobility of the T-72B3 and modernized T-90A is rather fine. Protection is too. As evident in Syria, even it's APS which T-90A already has.
I think you are confusing yourself.
The-thing-next-door wrote:miketheterrible wrote:What?
Mobility of the T-72B3 and modernized T-90A is rather fine. Protection is too. As evident in Syria, even it's APS which T-90A already has.
I think you are confusing yourself.
Oh yea it has definitely porved itself against all of thoes leopard 2's and m1a2s that its been fighting.
If its not clear I was just refuting the previous staement about the T72B with the welded turret *cough* T-90As armor.
The-thing-next-door wrote:You do realise that ERA leaves the main armor exposed when it is hit don't you? If you are going to use ERA you should not rely on it for your tank to survive.
Oh and ERA does not detroy incoming munition it only reduces thier effect so you will actually need to worry about main armor repairs ontop of ERA replacemnt.
You do realise that ERA leaves the main armor exposed when it is hit don't you?
If you are going to use ERA you should not rely on it for your tank to survive.
Oh and ERA does not detroy incoming munition it only reduces thier effect so you will actually need to worry about main armor repairs ontop of ERA replacemnt.
Anyway the reason I hate the T-90 is because it fails miserably at fulfilling the holy trinity of Soviet tank design by completely abandoning survivabilty along with other abominations like the
The T-90 was only ever supposed to be a stopgap measure to serve as a cheaper alternative to the T-80U untill the next generation of Russian tanks were ready to enter service
and the T-90A is a derivative of the T-90S which was designed solely for export.
Oh and it seems that the Russian army agrees that the T-90 is inadequate for thier needs as they have long since ceased production of it and are gearing up to build Armatas albeit slowly but atleast they are doing it.
Anyway they only have 300 T-90As it would probably be better in the long run to sell or canabalize them than to waste any more money on the damned things.
Maybe they could use the chasis as the basis for some kid of self propelled artillery vehicle or to make more BMPTs and TOS-1As.
The-thing-next-door wrote:You do realise that ERA leaves the main armor exposed when it is hit don't you? If you are going to use ERA you should not rely on it for your tank to survive.
Interlinked wrote:@GarryB I don't know where you learned that stuff, but I can assure you that replacing the base armour of practically all modern tanks only takes hours, not 6 months. In Western tanks with integrated composite armour arrays, the armour section can be dismantled in the field and the composite armour can be removed with basic tools. For example, this burnt-out Abrams tank had its barrel cut off and its side armour was removed in the field. The full story is not available (it was scuttled and dismantled to prevent capture), but you can already see that you don't need depot-level facilities to dismantle composite base armour.
And here's a T-72B as another example. You can see the weld seams outlining the armour cavities on either side of the turret, and the other pictures show the spaced NERA plates inside the cast armour cavities. You also see the internal plates taken out of the cavity and displayed. They used a torch to cut along the weld seam and then removed the cavity cover plate. After that, extracting the individual components of the armour is a trivial task.
All you need is a acetylene torch and a MIG welding machine. This stuff is carried on recovery and repair vehicles like the BREM-1. You can take out the damaged armour, replace it, and then just weld the cavity shut again. You don't even have to replace the armour every time it gets hit, since NERA panels can sustain multiple hits. Many other forms of composite armour don't degrade from multiple hits either. Replacing ERA is simpler, yes, but replacing composite armour isn't too difficult either, although it does take a longer time to do so. Still, the longer time needed to replace composite armour packs is balanced out by the fact that it can resist multiple hits before needing a replacement whereas ERA is destroyed in a single hit.
KoTeMoRe wrote:
Actually it doesn't, it indeed takes weeks, because you need to recondition and reseal the outer turret. That Abrams had been hit with DU as such the turret was deemed irrecoverable, which is why it was cut open on the side panel to move out the DU inserts and remove HazMat risk.
Same for the cut out of the T-72B, you can see that the cut wasn't supposed to be the norm, and re-welding a spot is structurally rendering it weaker. For an operational repair the best way is not touch the armor but seal the impact & return it.
For the Abrams up to the M1A1HA the logic is different, you need to make sure the DU isn't hit or shattered up front, then check the bolt on module, then reseal. Rear, side, and hull plates, this isn't done easily. It needs a depot repair, especially since the front units don't go around with 15 tons worth of elements.
But you're free to think what you like.
KoTeMoRe wrote:Uuuh exactly, why they opened the whole seal, as not to cut two pieces of RHA for the same task, in order to salvage the DU inserts, they went through the already peeled seal. The Turret as such, is deemed irrecoverable for now, that's because the turret was hit by DU, The turret would have been already separated from the gun if the tank was to be returned within days to the frontline.
KoTeMoRe wrote:Again, you may read and watch a lot of stuff on the internet, you just don't seem to know how things work IRL. Entry hole from Sabot can be from 3 to 6 cm depending on the quality of sabot and exit hole can give up to 10 cm+. The seal can be patched, although it is not preferred, especially if it is the frontal arc seal, but usually it is simply peeled and replaced with ad hoc shapes.
Once again, NERA inserts on the core armor, are first bolted on springloaded inserts and then locked in place by the sealing process.
https://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.be/2017/01/early-m1-abrams-composite-armor.html
It's just NOT what you thing it is.
You don't have to be such a meanie about it. I was taking about HEAT entry holes and you shift the conversation to APFSDS holes. Of course, it is true that for a modern heavy metal long rod projectile with a diameter of 20-30mm, the entry hole into a flat or nearly flat armour plate is only slightly larger than the diameter of the projectile itself. That's still quite small, and the exit hole size and penetration channel size is difficult to pin down because of the wide variations of composite armour designs. It also depends on the degree of overpenetration. For serious work where the armour is penetrated fully and the interior is breached, factory level reworking is usually needed. Not only must the turret be seriously overhauled or replaced completely, but the internal equipment must be replaced as well. However, I am not talking about this kind of scenario. I am talking about the repair/replacement of composite armour modules on tanks that sustained hits or multiple hits that do not knock out the tank. KoTeMoRe wrote:Uuuh exactly, why they opened the whole seal, as not to cut two pieces of RHA for the same task, in order to salvage the DU inserts, they went through the already peeled seal. The Turret as such, is deemed irrecoverable for now, that's because the turret was hit by DU, The turret would have been already separated from the gun if the tank was to be returned within days to the frontline.
.. What are you rambling on about? What are the "seals" you speak of? And did I not just show you that there is no DU in the turret side armour? I also made no mention that the tank was supposed to go back to the frontline. I said that it was scuttled and the barrel was cut, nothing more. If you have more information to continue your story, then please share a link or something. I simply do not know what you are trying to say after I just showed you that there is no DU in the side armour. Still, you seem to have lots of details so it looks like you have lots of info. How about sharing some of it in another thread?
KoTeMoRe wrote:Again, you may read and watch a lot of stuff on the internet, you just don't seem to know how things work IRL. Entry hole from Sabot can be from 3 to 6 cm depending on the quality of sabot and exit hole can give up to 10 cm+. The seal can be patched, although it is not preferred, especially if it is the frontal arc seal, but usually it is simply peeled and replaced with ad hoc shapes.
Once again, NERA inserts on the core armor, are first bolted on springloaded inserts and then locked in place by the sealing process.
https://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.be/2017/01/early-m1-abrams-composite-armor.html
It's just NOT what you thing it is.
Suure because PG-7 war heads never vary in their penetration line, quality, type, nope they are all 73mm warheads from the 60's. The hell is wrong with you? Even a line cut charge from an EFP would leave a substantial mark...Sometimes I'm like, does this guy understand that there are people out there that can ruin your day with the most basic stuff?Hahahaha okay Mr. Expert, whatever you say.
This is what the equipment on recovery vehicles are for. The BREM-1 carries cutting and welding equipment specifically to deal with servicing tank armour and other tank-related problems in the field without needing to send the tank back to a depot. The BREM-L based on the BMP-3 also carries an argon welding machine for inert gas welding so that the aluminium armour of the BMP-3 can be worked on in field conditions, and it has to be an argon welder because aluminium requires different welding equipment than carbon steel. Sending your tank to the depot is preferable if you can do it, sure, but in war that is not always possible and sometimes it might not be necessary. Even so, the turnaround time is not 6 months as Garry said.
The full story is not available (it was scuttled and dismantled to prevent capture), but you can already see that you don't need depot-level facilities to dismantle composite base armour.
In Chechnya, the number of hits that were recorded on the frontal armour of Russian tanks were just a few percent. The vast majority of hits were recorded on the sides and rear of the tanks, plus a few on the roof. There is no practical way for any tank to withstand that kind of punishment without ERA.
Garry The T-90A is not equipped with a hardkill APS which is one of my problems with it.
And secondly Russia is upgrading its T-90As to T-90AMs not buying new ones.
That they are giving the upgrade of antiquated T-72Bs a higher priority speaks volumes fo the T-90s effectiveness.
And would you all just stop bringing up Chechnia and Syria as examples of the T-90As alleged survivability It has never sustained a hit from modern APFSDS and until it does you have no argument.
And bring back the Kirov plant so Ural cannot get away with these scams.
The point about the Abrams was that its side armour could be dismantled in the field, and if your guess that it was dismantled for health/environmental reasons is true, so be it. That's irrelevant to my point.
6 months is typically the refurbishment rotation for foreign clients. Saudi Arabia had a 6 months period when its tanks were turned into M1A2SA's. Emirati upgrades have been done in 3to 5 months from France. Maybe he construed from that.
KoTeMoRe wrote:
The image you showed is a de-sealed turret side. The Seal is the Sheet of metal that locks the NERA into the primary plate. The tank you proposed had been hit with at least one DU APFSDS which on contact vaporizes toxic dust. The fact the gun was torched, means the tank has been already moved to parkway/Pool. As I told you when the tank are to be salvaged, the barrel is always recovered first, here it wasn't. It was gun. Most probably because the tank is deemed irrecoverable.
They opened the side seal to get to the front inserts, instead of cutting the front seal, because it is easier that way.
KoTeMoRe wrote:
Suure because PG-7 war heads never vary in their penetration line, quality, type, nope they are all 73mm warheads from the 60's. The hell is wrong with you? Even a line cut charge from an EFP would leave a substantial mark...Sometimes I'm like, does this guy understand that there are people out there that can ruin your day with the most basic stuff?
Now that ATGM's have officially become a sensitive and prevalent threat to armor, there's no "1cm" entry hole..
Again reality and shit.
GarryB wrote:
How many armour structures would a normal division carry around with it to replace armour arrays during a conflict?
I suspect bugger all.
GarryB wrote:
Which means uber western tank gets hit and damaged the damage would be assessed and it will either be withdrawn from combat or will continue fighting with the hole covered over.
Super inferior eastern tank gets hit and damage is mostly taken by ERA which can be removed and replaced in minutes and sent back into battle... as I said it could probably be done while the crew is reloading the main gun ammo.
The Chechens were familiar with Soviet military equipment and trained on it themselves, so they knew all the weak points and areas of vulnerability.
Ambushes are planned to expose the most vulnerable parts of enemy vehicles...
Well my point is that if it is dismantled in the field... by say Konkurs, then WTF difference does it make... one member is squealing about the T-90 not having enough base armour and suggesting that ERA is just a cop-out...
I am saying no tank has invulnerable base armour and especially from the side or rear there is no real case to answer for that the T-90 is not heavily armoured enough and is therefore some Leopard 1...
GarryB wrote:
Ural delivers a product that the customer has signed off on... any problems with the product then it is the fault of the customer.
GarryB wrote:The ERA plus existing base armour is perfectly adequate and the addition of an APS would make it one of the better protected vehicles available today.
Interlinked wrote:KoTeMoRe wrote:
The image you showed is a de-sealed turret side. The Seal is the Sheet of metal that locks the NERA into the primary plate. The tank you proposed had been hit with at least one DU APFSDS which on contact vaporizes toxic dust. The fact the gun was torched, means the tank has been already moved to parkway/Pool. As I told you when the tank are to be salvaged, the barrel is always recovered first, here it wasn't. It was gun. Most probably because the tank is deemed irrecoverable.
They opened the side seal to get to the front inserts, instead of cutting the front seal, because it is easier that way.
I am very curious about this Abrams that got hit in the front of the turret by DU ammunition, but back to the original point: The fact that you can remove the turret side armour by simply unbolting the "seal" is a good example of the ease of access to the composite armour. If your story is correct and they were accessing the front turret armour, nothing is changed. It is still an example of being able to access the composite armour and remove components without needing to send the tank to the factory or something.KoTeMoRe wrote:
Suure because PG-7 war heads never vary in their penetration line, quality, type, nope they are all 73mm warheads from the 60's. The hell is wrong with you? Even a line cut charge from an EFP would leave a substantial mark...Sometimes I'm like, does this guy understand that there are people out there that can ruin your day with the most basic stuff?
Now that ATGM's have officially become a sensitive and prevalent threat to armor, there's no "1cm" entry hole..
Average shaped charge jet diameter for a wide range of RPG-7 warheads is 3mm. Changes in diameter, liner material, liner thickness, etc, are responsible for differences in shaped charge jet diameter up to a few tens of percent, with the determining factor being the warhead diameter. In general, shaped charges with a diameter of 57-81mm produce jets with a diameter of 2-3mm for liners made from copper, steel and brass. For RPGs in particular, the variances in design can only account for less than a millimeter in shaped charge jet diameter. Aluminium liners produce large diameter jets (up to 200% the diameter of a steel or copper jet) but aluminium is not widely used in anti-tank weapons due to the poorer armour penetration capability compared to copper liners and they are not used at all in shoulder fired anti-tank weapons.
When we move up to large anti-tank missiles, only then do we see a substantial increase in jet diameter. The shaped charge jet diameter for an anti-tank missile warhead up to 152mm is around 4-6mm with a jet tip velocity of up to 12 km/s. For reference, a molybdenum 152mm warhead developed by RUAG with a 146mm shaped charge cone diameter produces a penetration channel diameter of 1.8-2.0 cm. When your turret has a surface area of 2.0 m^2, holes of these sizes are just statistically insignificant. A hole of that size would occupy 0.000157% of the total surface area of the turret.
Again, with a total penetration from an EFP (Jesus every single time we have almost a reducto ad minimalis with you) the turret will not be repaired but proofed and reconditioned. An EFP going through will cause a bigger path. Here an "ice cone" the first time it was seen, largely attributed to an RPG-29, now we now it was a EFP charge, 35mm liner. See what has to be replaced inside the tank.
https://file.wikileaks.org/file/m1-penetration-iraq-2008.pdf
Then we had bigger EFP's with a shorter range, mainly used as FF AT/AAr weapons. I could show you countless images of EFP carnage on lighter vehicles and on heavy ones. Then we can show the random entry path of a Konkurs on Merkavas or more lately on the 20 or so Abrams that were penetrated by Soviet ATGM's in Saudi Arabia and Yemen.
There at least 4 cases of PG-7VR penetration in Iraq vs Abrams, with whole cuts. It's simply a random result in size & shape but with the same principle. Good Hit will mean penetration.
Again reality and shit.
Yeah, and Garry just admitted that he pulled 6 months out of thin air. Reality and shit. Yeah, right.
You and I both know that this is a loaded question. Who even knows how many spare ERA panels are provided during a conflict?
Sure, ERA can be replaced in minutes by the crew themselves. I do not dispute that. However, the notion that composite armour requires weeks or even months to repair or replace is absurd. The tools and specialists are available along with mobile workshops in rear echelons.
That is perfectly true, but then again, all tanks have relatively weak armour on the sides, rear and top. Even the T-14 only has slat armour to protect the engine compartment when the rest of the hull gets ERA.
I am not The-thing-next-door...
Oh really so when I order an expensive new car that is claimed supposed to be top of the line and it is made to the lowest standards the manufacturer can get away with it is my fault?
Ural are just putting new ERA made by NII Stali on thier shitty tank and pretending that they are overhauling it.
What is this APS you talk about? It is clearly not present on the T-90AM!
And Relikt ERA uses very large bricks that can easily be striped of in a few hits while more durable methods of protection like NERA, BDD or other composite armors can survive dozens of hits to the same square meter of armor before protection is compromised.
And I am not saying ERA is a bad thing just that the tank should not be completely relient on it for protection.
GarryB wrote:
Yes, because combat has proven that the enemy always hits tanks in one place and one place only and repeatedly hits them there, which is why next generation T-14M only has one ERA block in that location...
|
|
|
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
