Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Share

    Poll

    Which was the best for soviet army?

    [ 3 ]
    8% [8%] 
    [ 22 ]
    59% [59%] 
    [ 12 ]
    32% [32%] 

    Total Votes: 37
    avatar
    Cyberspec

    Posts : 2343
    Points : 2500
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    The Bundeswehr does not possess ammunition that will pierce the armor of even Soviet tanks T-80 and T-90

    Post  Cyberspec on Tue Apr 28, 2015 12:06 pm

    Hmmm....maybe a push to import depleted uranium shells....apparently Tungsten-Carbide just doesn't cut it


    Die Welt: Germany has no chance against Russian tanks

    The Bundeswehr does not possess ammunition that will pierce the armor of even Soviet tanks T-80 and T-90, not to mention the latest "Armata", said the former head of the Department of Planning Ministry of Defence of Germany, Hans Rühle.

    ...

    According Rühle, back in the mid-1980s the Bundeswehr and the German domestic intelligence came to a disappointing conclusion that the shells "the world's best tank" Leopard 2 is not able to penetrate the armor of the Soviet T-80.

    The problem is that the ammunition for the Leopard 2 are made on the basis of tungsten carbide instead of depleted uranium, wrote Rühle. However, the German authorities, according to him, decided to "avoid anything where there is the word "uranium" although NATO allies - the US, Britain and France - use similar shells.

    Currently, the Bundeswehr uses tank ammunition DM63 based on tungsten carbide, which are almost equal to the American armor-piercing ammunition of the 1980s.

    "However, this is not enough to penetrate the new versions of the T-80 and T-90 and the new Russian tank "Armata"- wrote Rühle. In this regard, the Bundeswehr plans for the modernization of hundreds of decommissioned tanks Leopard 2 do not make sense, he said.

    "In some cases it is possible that there is a modern armor protection, which is able to withstand anti-tank ammunition Leopard 2", - said the Ministry of Defense of Germany in response to a request by Die Welt .

    "Against Russian tanks no chance" - summed up the publication.

    РИА Новости http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20150426/1061019925.html

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17753
    Points : 18315
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  GarryB on Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:25 pm

    Of course when was the last time a German tank faced a Russian tank... WWII?

    the cost of cleaning up practise ranges of DU will make the Tungsten shells seem to be a great investment...

    In its solid form the DU rounds aren't dangerous, but after hitting a steel target the radioactive dust created is genotoxic and very very dangerous... both for the victim and any children they might have...
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5268
    Points : 5473
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  Werewolf on Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:29 pm

    The major thing behind this is Lobbying and preparation of europe against russia, they are literally pushing for euro meatshield against russia.

    cracker

    Posts : 232
    Points : 273
    Join date : 2014-09-04

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  cracker on Tue Apr 28, 2015 5:54 pm

    and it's pure BS.

    DM53 out of L55 gun is frankly enough to penetrate any russian tank, the problem is probably the Kontakt-V that will break the arrow before in can penetrate. Some areas of turret on T-72B/T-90/A and T-80U are indeed unpenetrable, but most of the frontal aspect of the tanks are less protected.

    DM63 is for 105mm guns, the article is total BS they don't even  know what they talk about.


    Russian experts rate the 120 L55 with DM53 as the most powerful anti tank system in the world, on equal footing with 120L44 US firing M829A3.

    But that was before 2A82-M1 with new APFSDS rounds, which, might be the uber most, but, are not fielded yet and won't be until 2018 at least.

    Russians rely on tungsten too... Only US and china went full retard with DU rounds, most countries have a small number of DU and mainly use tungsten.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17753
    Points : 18315
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  GarryB on Wed Apr 29, 2015 8:20 am

    One reason to go for DU is that it is cheap... it is literally spend reactor fuel...

    Also its reaction to steel makes it an effective material for punching holes in thick structures.

    The enormous down side is that outside the body its weak radioactive nature makes it reasonably safe, but when fired as an effect of hitting steel targets it generates enormous amounts of super fine powder that is very easily ingested and of course once it is inside you the body can't process it or purge it so it stays inside your body, which can mistake it for other metals... Calcium is a metal. Imagine the body using DU as substitute calcium in your bones... the radioactivity of DU wont penetrate human skin but inside the body it is genotoxic... in other words it damages human tissue at the genetic level... which means children born with birth defects, or just born dead...

    I would say it wasn't worth it... the the German military said the same thing but it seems there is pressure for them to change their minds...
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5268
    Points : 5473
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  Werewolf on Wed Apr 29, 2015 1:16 pm

    I would say it wasn't worth it... the the German military said the same thing but it seems there is pressure for them to change their minds...

    That is the main issue, this push for DU comes from western not from within because no one in their right mind is even thinking about using nuclear waste as ammunition and polluding its own country or region, but ofc they do not care because they do not need to live over here our so called Allies that are suggesting to sacrifice europe as a meatshield against russian nukes and against US nukes.
    avatar
    higurashihougi

    Posts : 2120
    Points : 2213
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  higurashihougi on Thu Apr 30, 2015 12:59 pm

    DU has lower mass density and much lower melting temperature than vonfram (aka tungsten). DU penetrator has lower power penetration than vonfram.

    DU is much heavier than steel. That means, a large volume of steel is as heavy as a small volume of DU. Using that steel to make spaced armour is much more effective than using DU in armour.

    Conclusion: DU armour and penetrators of Abrams are pure sextoys, created by subhumans who dominate the Pentagon.

    The Pentagon jerks off with DU armour and bullet, while German's Leopard has spaced armour and Russian T-xx has ERA.
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1148
    Points : 1149
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 21
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  collegeboy16 on Fri May 01, 2015 7:10 am

    higurashihougi wrote:DU has lower mass density and much lower melting temperature than vonfram (aka tungsten). DU penetrator has lower power penetration than vonfram.

    DU is much heavier than steel. That means, a large volume of steel is as heavy as a small volume of DU. Using that steel to make spaced armour is much more effective than using DU in armour.

    Conclusion: DU armour and penetrators of Abrams are pure sextoys, created by subhumans who dominate the Pentagon.

    The Pentagon jerks off with DU armour and bullet, while German's Leopard has spaced armour and Russian T-xx has ERA.
    wtf, Rolling Eyes . i dont even...

    anyway, one main advantage of Tungsten over DU apart from it not being nuke waste is that it performs better/optimum at higher (think 2.2-2.5 km/s) impact speeds, not worse like DU which loses its self-sharpening properties at anything more than about 1.6km/s. the Germans reportedly made their tungsten alloys self-sharpening too, so the advantage is doubled. ofc. you can make DU perform better in the same range of impact velocity, but you have to remember its still nuke waste and the reason anyone would use dangerous waste is because its cheaper than alternative.
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5569
    Points : 5581
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  TR1 on Fri May 01, 2015 7:37 am

    higurashihougi wrote:DU has lower mass density and much lower melting temperature than vonfram (aka tungsten). DU penetrator has lower power penetration than vonfram.

    DU is much heavier than steel. That means, a large volume of steel is as heavy as a small volume of DU. Using that steel to make spaced armour is much more effective than using DU in armour.

    Conclusion: DU armour and penetrators of Abrams are pure sextoys, created by subhumans who dominate the Pentagon.

    The Pentagon jerks off with DU armour and bullet, while German's Leopard has spaced armour and Russian T-xx has ERA.



    Also that use of subhuman would make Adolf blush.

    You know USSR made DU sabot rounds as well lol...
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5268
    Points : 5473
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  Werewolf on Fri May 01, 2015 1:36 pm

    DU only actual advantage is that it is heavier, however every other attribute of DU is a huge disadvantage and obviously not used by anyone else but the aggressor who use it of course only on territories of other countries. There is also no one using DU for armor since again it is highly toxic despite the US propaganda to keep the moral high of their tankists, but reality looks different. Just see how they sargopharg their M1 tanks which got damaged when they are shipped and trailed through the US, untoxic DU. Rolling Eyes

    http://rense.com/general75/limp.htm
    Notice the one with damaged DU armor is put in a sarcophagus while the undamaged is not.






    Russia has DU rounds but it is black ammunition for use only in case of invasion of NATO any advantage of DU is useless when considering the massive disadvantages it brings and developing WHA is much better and DM53 is pretty much proof that WHA is more than adequate to achieve good penetration.
    avatar
    higurashihougi

    Posts : 2120
    Points : 2213
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  higurashihougi on Sat May 02, 2015 8:32 am

    TR1 wrote:Also that use of subhuman would make Adolf blush.

    I didn't say all individiuals in the Pentagon are subhuman. And I didn't say all US citizens are subhuman, either.

    So that has nothing to do with Hitler.

    TR1 wrote:You know USSR made DU sabot rounds as well lol...

    They did not use DU to create sextoys like Abrams.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17753
    Points : 18315
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  GarryB on Sat May 02, 2015 11:14 am

    DU has lower mass density and much lower melting temperature than vonfram (aka tungsten). DU penetrator has lower power penetration than vonfram.

    Not true.

    The West German Tungsten round... Wolfram round, required a longer barrel to achieve the same or better performance than its US DU equivalent... in other words it needed a higher velocity to get the same or better performance... wolfram is expensive. DU is nuclear waste.

    Du reacts with steel to generate a very powerful incendiary effect that actually weakens the steel and gives even better penetration than other materials.

    DU is much heavier than steel. That means, a large volume of steel is as heavy as a small volume of DU. Using that steel to make spaced armour is much more effective than using DU in armour.

    It is denser than steel and therefore offers better protection... at the cost of the danger when struck in combat.

    Conclusion: DU armour and penetrators of Abrams are pure sextoys, created by subhumans who dominate the Pentagon.

    they are slightly better than the best tungsten rounds and much cheaper... if you don't care about the cost of the clean up they are ideal... if the US had tried to clean up the mess of agent orange in Vietnam then they likely would not use DU for fear of the cost of cleaning it up... but they couldn't care less about what is used on enemy territory.

    DU only actual advantage is that it is heavier, however every other attribute of DU is a huge disadvantage and obviously not used by anyone else but the aggressor who use it of course only on territories of other countries.

    Every country that uses the AA-8 (R-60) Air to Air missile uses DU... with such a small warhead it uses a DU fragment shell to maximise the effect of the shrapnel... Rather less dangerous than an APFSDS round as HE will shatter it into still fairly large and non digestable fragments whereas a high velocity impact of a DU APFSDS round creates lots of fine dust...

    The Soviets also use DU rounds.

    They did not use DU to create sextoys like Abrams.

    Its effect on steel makes it useful as an armour... except when that armour is penetrated...
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1148
    Points : 1149
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 21
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  collegeboy16 on Sat May 02, 2015 11:38 am

    GarryB wrote:
    DU has lower mass density and much lower melting temperature than vonfram (aka tungsten). DU penetrator has lower power penetration than vonfram.

    Not true.

    The West German Tungsten round... Wolfram round, required a longer barrel to achieve the same or better performance than its US DU equivalent... in other words it needed a higher velocity to get the same or better performance... wolfram is expensive. DU is nuclear waste.
    apples and oranges - the DM53's penetrator is shorter by about 140mm than the M829A3 while maintaining similar performance(going through RHA-wise).
    avatar
    VladimirSahin

    Posts : 408
    Points : 424
    Join date : 2013-11-29
    Age : 27
    Location : Florida

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  VladimirSahin on Sun May 03, 2015 11:47 pm

    Is the DU Apfsds round still in use with the Russian army?
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5268
    Points : 5473
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  Werewolf on Mon May 04, 2015 12:05 am

    VladimirSahin wrote:Is the DU Apfsds round still in use with the Russian army?

    As far as i know stored but not used. They are for use only in case of NATO invasion, but i don't know the figures and performance of them.
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1148
    Points : 1149
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 21
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  collegeboy16 on Mon May 04, 2015 2:11 am

    VladimirSahin wrote:Is the DU Apfsds round still in use with the Russian army?
    probably not- like Werewolf said they are stored but not used. mainly because the rounds produced in significant numbers are pre-1991, terribad against modern armor, and is a nuke waste. the new ones- i can think of a svinets round(just going by english wiki here), but it supposedly wasnt produced in numbers (along with other tungsten round), probably because they still werent enough for opfor armor so they just waited for new gun and new ammo still.

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17753
    Points : 18315
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  GarryB on Mon May 04, 2015 12:43 pm

    apples and oranges - the DM53's penetrator is shorter by about 140mm than the M829A3 while maintaining similar performance(going through RHA-wise).

    They developed a new gun... 120mm L55 just to give their tungsten round the same performance as the US DU round... do you think they did that for fun?

    That would be enormously expensive... do you think if it just meant they had to make their tungsten rounds 140mm longer that they would get the same effect that they would have done that instead?

    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1148
    Points : 1149
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 21
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  collegeboy16 on Mon May 04, 2015 1:38 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    They developed a new gun... 120mm L55 just to give their tungsten round the same performance as the US DU round... do you think they did that for fun?

    That would be enormously expensive... do you think if it just meant they had to make their tungsten rounds 140mm longer that they would get the same effect that they would have done that instead?

    they could, since they (allegedly) have tech. to make tungsten self-sharpening too it wont lack in performance compared to US round- but they didnt, yet.
    why they didnt, probably since they are comfortable with where they were back then.

    and besides the decision to reequip late model leo 2s with L/55 is taken with the future in mind. who knows, maybe the new a4 round proves to be inadequate against armata and then suddenly they go for an upgunning too.

    and wouldnt it be more prudent to have another way of cracking the enemy's protection- just in case the other cant cut it. the two rounds have significantly different characteristics and tricks to defeat the enemy armor- one is massive and hits relatively slow but relies on sheer length and mass to resist counteracting/reacting armor and go through, other relies on its extra velocity to give it a lot more push when going through armor.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5268
    Points : 5473
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  Werewolf on Mon May 04, 2015 5:10 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    apples and oranges - the DM53's penetrator is shorter by about 140mm than the M829A3 while maintaining similar performance(going through RHA-wise).

    They developed a new gun... 120mm L55 just to give their tungsten round the same performance as the US DU round... do you think they did that for fun?

    That would be enormously expensive... do you think if it just meant they had to make their tungsten rounds 140mm longer that they would get the same effect that they would have done that instead?


    Making a new gun with few calibres longer barrel increases accuracy and velocity of all rounds not just APFSDS and that is certainly more worth than just upgrading one kind of ammunition that probably will never see use anyway.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17753
    Points : 18315
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  GarryB on Tue May 05, 2015 12:38 pm


    Making a new gun with few calibres longer barrel increases accuracy and velocity of all rounds not just APFSDS and that is certainly more worth than just upgrading one kind of ammunition that probably will never see use anyway.

    Accuracy is not related to velocity and APFSDS is the only round that benefits from high velocity... for penetration and not accuracy.
    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1439
    Points : 1602
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Tue May 05, 2015 1:39 pm

    DU has far lower melting temperature than even ancient RHA, making it completely useless against any sort of HEAT munition. In addition the HEAT penetrator will ignite the DU it passes through creating a dangerous radioctive mess. No wonder the abrams fared so poorly against 60s RPG-7 charges.

    DU armor is fine only if you're ok with the tank that has it to become nuclear waste if it's damaged or destroyed by anything that can ignite DU.
    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1439
    Points : 1602
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Tue May 05, 2015 1:48 pm


    Not true.

    The West German Tungsten round... Wolfram round, required a longer barrel to achieve the same or better performance than its US DU equivalent... in other words it needed a higher velocity to get the same or better performance... wolfram is expensive. DU is nuclear waste.

    Du reacts with steel to generate a very powerful incendiary effect that actually weakens the steel and gives even better penetration than other materials.


    And in that incediary effect DU becomes dangerous because it becomes radioctive when ignited.





    It is denser than steel and therefore offers better protection... at the cost of the danger when struck in combat.
    No matter how dense it is the low melting temperature radioactivity of ignited makes it useless against incendiary or HEAT weapons.


    The Soviets also use DU rounds
    .
    Not true. Soviet DU rounds were just an experiment and for good reason. Unlike the americans they actually care for the health of their crew and limiting nuclear waste dispersal.

    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5268
    Points : 5473
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  Werewolf on Tue May 05, 2015 6:44 pm

    Accuracy is not related to velocity and APFSDS is the only round that benefits from high velocity... for penetration and not accuracy.

    The velocity defacto is not responsible for higher accuracy but a longer barrel undoubtly is responsible for higher accuracy. The RPK-74 also fires more accurate than AK-74 despite being essentially the same rifle except the barrel is heavier and longer giving higher velocity and accuracy and therefore higher lethality.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17753
    Points : 18315
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  GarryB on Wed May 06, 2015 1:17 am

    DU has far lower melting temperature than even ancient RHA, making it completely useless against any sort of HEAT munition.

    What has melting point to do with anything?

    HEAT warheads don't melt their way through armour... a HEAT warhead has velocity and density... velocity comes from the explosion and density comes from the material used for the cone of the warhead. DU armour is effective because it is dense and hard. In comparison Lead is pretty useless for armour from high velocity penetrators because it is dense but also soft.

    In terms of penetration HEAT penetrators are treated pretty much the same as APFSDS penetrators... the difference is that the former is not as hard though the science of looking at penetrations at these velocities is fluid mechanics... treating hard metals like they were slow moving fluids, while the latter are hard but also moving much slower than the average HEAT warhead.

    I personally would not include DU in armour, because I don't particularly want three heads and webbed feet for my grandkids... or anyone living near the combat zone.

    And in that incediary effect DU becomes dangerous because it becomes radioctive when ignited.

    DU is always radioactive. When ignited it burns to a very fine powder which makes it very ingestible... and therefore very very much more dangerous to humans and nature.

    No matter how dense it is the low melting temperature radioactivity of ignited makes it useless against incendiary or HEAT weapons.

    Modern armour structures consist of a range of materials including hard and soft materials... even including empty air pockets.

    Most metals can ignite depending on the circumstances... iron powder is used in thermite, and aluminium powder is used to make the bright sparks in fireworks. Magnesium obviously burns as does lithium and anyone who has worked hard metals like Titanium will attest to the showers of sparks that come off it when cutting it with a high speed rotary tool.

    Not true. Soviet DU rounds were just an experiment and for good reason. Unlike the americans they actually care for the health of their crew and limiting nuclear waste dispersal.

    Even the R-60MK uses DU in its warhead... they don't use them much because of the costs of cleaning up afterwards, but they do have them.

    The velocity defacto is not responsible for higher accuracy but a longer barrel undoubtly is responsible for higher accuracy. The RPK-74 also fires more accurate than AK-74 despite being essentially the same rifle except the barrel is heavier and longer giving higher velocity and accuracy and therefore higher lethality.

    The increased accuracy of the RPK-74 over shorter barrel modifications largely comes from the fact that it also has a heavier barrel and a bipod to support the firing position.

    The AKS-74U is evidence that if you shorten the barrel too far you can dramatically effect accuracy in a negative way, but we are talking about APFSDS rounds which are certainly not as accurate as full calibre rounds.

    The US Army had extensive tests for weapons to replace the M16 and 5.56mm cartridge. One of the most fun contenders was from Steyr and it fired a flechette... basically an APFSDS round. the rifle had fixed iron sights because the enormous muzzle velocity and small low drag projectile meant you didn't need to correct the elevation for range to about 800m so elevation was fixed... aim at the targets chest and fire... from 10m to 800m and you should hit the target.
    two problems... wasn't particularly accurate even if there was almost no bullet drop, and it wasn't particularly lethal... unless it tumbled and fishhooked it make an ineffectual puncture wound.

    Sponsored content

    Re: T-64 vs T-72 vs T-80

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Jul 23, 2018 5:33 pm