Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    T-72 ΜΒΤ: Μodernisation and Variants

    Share
    avatar
    Interlinked

    Posts : 91
    Points : 93
    Join date : 2017-11-07
    Age : 27

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ: Μodernisation and Variants

    Post  Interlinked on Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:12 am

    GarryB wrote:

    So the improvement happened when the ammo was still Soviet?


    First big accuracy improvement came during early 80's, so it's Soviet APFSDS, but I don't know how exactly big was the improvement in accuracy. First APFSDS to use "bucket" type sabot was 3BM-26, followed by 3BM-32 and 3BM-42. However, all three of these rounds still used bore-riding fins, so high drag was still a problem.

    GarryB wrote:

    Sounds pretty whiny to me...

    It is an upgrade... there will be plenty more to come.

    Right now it is cheap enough to have in significant numbers without costing too much.

    Clearly they want to use Relickt on better protected tanks right now and not the 3rd upgrade of the T-72B.

    Once the T-14 is in mass production they might just skip the Relickt and fit the new ERA to all their older tanks to improve commonality and increase production numbers... or they might not.

    The fact that they are introducing four new vehicle families into service with state of the art features suggests they are not doing this on the cheap, they just don't want to waste money on stuff that does not do the whole job yet... so no expensive ARENA-2... wait until expensive but more capable Afghanit is ready...


    But the fact is that Relikt is fundamentally the same as Kontakt-5, except that the steel flyer plates are rearranged. They certainly didn't think that 4S24 is more costly than 4S22 or that the cost made a difference, because 4S24 is used in the T-72B3's Kontakt-5. T-90M has a good chance of resisting DM53, IMO, but the current T-72B3 can't even survive against DM33. If you want a high-low mixture of tanks, the "high" tank should be able to deal with the most advanced weapon currently in use, but "low" tank must at least be able to survive the most common type of threat.


    GarryB wrote:

    If it doesn't fit the feed systems then it is hardly adapted for the ground forces...


    If they increased the length then it would need fins, so APDS becomes APFSDS. There are other things that distinguish 30x165mm for the ground forces from the ones for the air force and for the navy...

    GarryB wrote:

    Or a better answer is that the high velocity armour piercing rounds might have been intended for anti armour use from the beginning due to the armour increases of western IFVs considering the primary purpose of the light cannon on the Russian and Soviet IFVs was to engage enemy equivalents.

    In contrast, while Soviet and Russian Anti ship missiles have gotten faster and more deadly, western anti ship missiles are still Exocet, Harpoon, blah blah blah.

    They didn't need APDS rounds for their cannon... very high velocity SAMs mounted on Kashtan mounts was easily enough of an improvement to deal with any future supersonic anti ship missile threat.


    And yet "Kerner" is hardly used in the Russian army at all. Most of its users are export customers. Another case of corruption?

    GarryB wrote:

    Yeah... hitting small fast moving targets any hunter will first reach for his flechette rifle... then after a few loud belly laughs he will pick up a shotgun... well known for the enormous velocity of its projectiles...


    I give you evidence that APDS is more accurate than full caliber rounds, and you just ignore it all and continue to say the same things you have always said, and then you use an idiotic analogy that has nothing to do with the topic.

    Using APDS doesn't mean low RPM, as you implied with your "flechette rifle" analogy. You should have said "flechette shotgun". We aren't even talking about APFSDS, which is what flechettes are similar to. We are talking about APDS for autocannon calibers, and such ammunition is proven to be more accurate than regular full bore ammunition.  

    You can fire thousands of rounds per minute and still use RPM, except you need less ammo because APDS is more accurate, so you don't need to fire fast and you don't need that much ammo, which means that your system can be installed on top of the deck. Systems like Kashtan require substantial deck penetration, which means that it is only suitable for heavy ships, and not smaller ones. Not only that, but firing fast also produces enormous recoil forces, which means higher vibration, which means even less accuracy.

    GarryB wrote:

    A baseball player times his swing to hit the ball... the speed of the bat does not need to be high to make a connection, the calculation to ensure impact is all that has to be right.


    Yes, so Kashtan only needs calculate all the variables and then fire one single shell to hit the target. Oh wait...

    GarryB wrote:

    But hang on.... surely they will use nuclear waste like the US Navy and that is both cheap and pollutes the world.


    You think Russia cares about polluting the world? Nizhny Tagil is the most polluted city in Europe Laughing

    GarryB wrote:
    If there is an actual enemy firing back with decent ammo then a different tank would be used.

    The problem is that the T-90 is only available in small numbers, and you can't always know what you will face before you start shooting at each other.[/quote]
    avatar
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 143
    Points : 169
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ: Μodernisation and Variants

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:13 am

    As far as APFSDS vs paper does this count?

    avatar
    Interlinked

    Posts : 91
    Points : 93
    Join date : 2017-11-07
    Age : 27

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ: Μodernisation and Variants

    Post  Interlinked on Tue Nov 21, 2017 8:02 am

    The-thing-next-door wrote:As far as APFSDS vs paper does this count?

    That hole is much too big to be APFSDS. Definitely HEAT or HE-Frag.
    avatar
    0nillie0

    Posts : 75
    Points : 77
    Join date : 2016-05-15
    Age : 31
    Location : Flanders, Belgium

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ: Μodernisation and Variants

    Post  0nillie0 on Tue Nov 21, 2017 8:46 am

    Interlinked wrote:
    If you want a high-low mixture of tanks, the "high" tank should be able to deal with the most advanced weapon currently in use, but "low" tank must at least be able to survive the most common type of threat.


    Ive been reluctant to chime in on this discussion, for multiple reasons. But ill just add my 2 cents worth anyway...

    I must say i have to agree with the post i quoted above. I will not talk here about accuracy of tanks in combat or training situations, as it will not result in anything but endless discussion. What nobody imho can argue with is that the coverage of the ERA in the T-72B3 could have been a lot better. Simply looking at the tank you can spot these gaps.

    T-72B3M should have addressed this issue. Except...it didn't. How can they have an excuse for not addressing the ERA gap for the smoke grenade launcher for example? If you leave such a weakness out in the open, the enemy can develop tactics to abuse these weaknesses, regardless of the accuracy of their own tanks. And one can not simply assume that suddenly every tank is going to be equipped with active protection systems, simply because the technology is available. It takes quite some time to integrate such technology into existing designs, and even more so to integrate it into crew training, tactics and doctrine. Not even talking about the costs.

    Hopefully there will be a modified version of the T-72B3M which is more inspired by the new T-90 upgrade, and provides better coverage of the ERA. With the rather limited amount of the new T-72B3M's delivered, there is still much hope for me that the next version will adress this issue, and the current batch delivered in 2017 could be upgraded later.

    As the guy said : The low end tank should be able to survive the common threats of the enemy. It seems to me that the T-72B3 upgrade plans where rushed because there was an immediate requirement of "somewhat better protected tanks" that would potentially operate in the Donbass area? Here, against less competent tanks/crews, the firepower and mobility of the T-72B3M would likely be a decisive factor during more aggressive maneuvers. Surely if Russia was expecting to face Western tank/ATGM crews in the very near future, than the T-72 would receive a more comprehensive "survivability" upgrade? Or is it simply a case of pure economics, where the MoD got exactly what it could pay for in order to stretch the budget for other  projects?

    An other thought that comes to mind is that the workforce, workspace, infrastructure and tools that it would take up for fully implementing a more comprehensive, adjusted armor package onto the fleet of the T-72B3 and T-72B3Mtanks, are now available for doing the same task on the T-80's and T-90's, and will also likely be an essential part of the initial production batch of T-14 tanks. This can be considered a priority i guess.

    At any rate : It is hard to estimate or quantify the combat effectiveness of a tank design before it is actually deployed in a conflict. I am sure the Israeli's for example will agree.
    You can speculate and discuss endlessly.

    Anyway : TLDR : do i think the T-72B3M is a bad tank ? No. Should it be better protected ? yes !
    There will be further upgrades to the design to come before 2020, and i have high hopes.
    avatar
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 143
    Points : 169
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ: Μodernisation and Variants

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Tue Nov 21, 2017 10:49 am

    Russia has over 3000 T-80s many of witch are T-80Bs that are to be upgraded to the T-80BVM standard so that is where all the Relikt is going not to mention all the T-90s and T-90As that still have Kontact 5 ERA.

    This is the same for active protection systems when Afganit and/or Arena are being fitted to older tanks the most recent tanks will get top priority so first will be the T-90A then T-90 and T-80B and then and only then will the T-72B receive an active protection system.

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 776
    Points : 953
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ: Μodernisation and Variants

    Post  Mindstorm on Tue Nov 21, 2017 12:37 pm

    Interlinked wrote:But anyway, what makes you think that those photos represent the best fire concentration and not the mean results? The average score for the crews was 4.86 out of 5 at the training ground for firing on the move, and the average score for the shooting during the two "combat" exercises was 4.77 out of 5 and 4.73 out of 5. Average seems to be pretty high, no?


    Obviously not.

    Score achieved or claimed has nothing to do with mean round dispersion among the shooter tanks. Someone could present a photo of the target with the lower rounds dispersion among the participants to the Army Games and that would be NOT representative of the mean one.

    Even more important, those photos say literally nothing of the distance or gun fire and even less of the conditions of theirs execution (MBT in movement, target in movement, limit of time or penalty for time of collimation or shot and so on...)


    Interlinked wrote:Errr, I don't think that those look like DM63 holes... lol! Diameter of the DM63 projectile is something like 2 cm. So those targets are either the size of an A4 sheet of paper, or there is a mysterious shell called "DM63" that is 120mm in diameter...

    That hole is much too big to be APFSDS. Definitely HEAT or HE-Frag.

    Definitely ......you do not know how an high caliber KE penetrator hole appear Rolling Eyes










    About the targets , those are the standard MBT-size target at Grafenwoeher (where Strong Europe Tank Chellenge is conducted)

    https://meggitttrainingsystems.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Stationary_Armor_Target_SAT_Rev3_GO.pdf



    Interlinked wrote:Whereas in real life, tank crews prepare for battle in an air-conditioned room where they get hot meals and occasionally have to perform some final maintenance and adjustment of their tanks. In real combat, tank crews don't have to do anything except run laps around a track, sometimes drive into a shallow ditch, and open fire with a 12.7mm machine gun at a static hovering helicopter at 800-1000 meters while the tank is stationary Laughing It's very realistic!
    I am simply responding to a joke with a joke. It's all in good faith.


    The only joke here is your almost inexistent knowledge of the subject and even worse totally corrupted mindset ..... (years of eating ridiculous wewstern claims and PR-engineered mantras can do thatto westren people devoid of the most basic critical thinking).

    Actually tank biathlon present battle-representative time and mechanical challenges even stressing and pressing both for the crew and the equipment than those of a typical battlefield maybe of at the level of a multi-front conflict against high-end opponents.

    Someone must have a true steel-face to get the courage to attempt to "belittle" actual fire executed at 1 km of distance with 12,7 mm MBT secondary machine gun against an hovering helicopter (maybe for the usual complex of inferiority coming from the awareness that the western 7,62 mm secondary MG could never hope to even reach that distance and even less damage an attack helicopter rotor or trasparency... Laughing ) against the NOTHING of western "CHALLENGE".

    This embarrassing garbage (to notice the western meaning of "offensive operation shooting practice" and "precision driving" challenges Razz )



    can be put even only in comparison with the challenges of TB



    only in the minds of the most western-PR-corrupted people.
    Western experts and operatives are perfectly aware that majority of theirs horribly conceived MBTs would not even come to the end of the 3 laps without broke and even less maintain integer the ridiculous myths circulating on theirs FCS and training level.


    avatar
    Interlinked

    Posts : 91
    Points : 93
    Join date : 2017-11-07
    Age : 27

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ: Μodernisation and Variants

    Post  Interlinked on Tue Nov 21, 2017 2:55 pm

    Mindstorm wrote:

    Obviously not.

    Score achieved or claimed has nothing to do with mean round dispersion among the shooter tanks. Someone could present a photo of the target with the lower rounds dispersion among the participants to the Army Games and that would be NOT representative of the mean one.

    Even more important, those photos say literally nothing of the distance or gun fire and even less of the conditions of theirs execution  (MBT in movement, target in movement, limit of time or penalty for time of collimation or shot and so on...)  


    True, true, and that means that those photos could possibly represent the worst dispersion, so the average accuracy should be even higher  Laughing

    1600-1800 m is the standard distance for tank targets, because that represents the average combat distance in Central European terrain. This means that practically all European armies conduct firing exercises at that kind of range, including Russian tanks. This was shown on the booklet, but if you disregard evidence that was presented to you (you know what I mean), then I simply don't know how you can be persuaded.


    Interlinked wrote:

    Definitely ......you do not know how an high caliber KE penetrator hole appear Rolling Eyes


    Luckily for you, I am familiar with all of those photos, and I can tell you that you are sorely mistaken.

    First image:


    According to Gurkhan, it is a "naked" T-90S turret tested in Russia at the NTIIM training grounds. Some time ago, I analysed the photo for my upcoming article on the T-90 and came to the conclusion that either BM-32 or BM-42 was used. There are two reasons: The size of the crater indicates that the projectile was sheathed in a steel jacket, which mushroomed out upon impact with the hardened steel face of the turret cheek. After all, there is no APFSDS round in existence with that kind of fin wingspan to body diameter ratio, so the entry hole was not clean. Second reason is that the marks made by the fins must indicate that the size of the fins is rather large, making it all but impossible for anything else to have made them except for Soviet-era APFSDS shell with bore-riding fins. This is further supported by the fact that there are five fins, which is characteristic of Soviet APFSDS. 120mm APFSDS like DM33, DM53 and M829A2/KEW-A2 have six fins, and so do many other 120mm APFSDS rounds.

    Compare the holes to these:



    And I think you see what I mean. These holes were made on a T-72M1 turret during testing with 105mm and 120mm ammunition at Meppen (apparently).


    Second image:


    Oblique penetration produces large entrance hole. This is a well known phenomena. See the photo below.



    This can only happen when impacting a target at an angle and if the target has some strength. It doesn't happen on paper or cardboard  tongue


    Third image:


    You are embarrassing yourself with this one. I can understand if you do not know that oblique impact produces large oval entry holes, or if you did not know that there are jacketed and monoblock long rod projectiles, because that only shows that you have the level of knowledge of a typical keyboard warrior from YouTube comments, but this is just silly. The photo comes from here (link), and the caption says this:

    1- Main battle tank t-55 100 mm armor piercing round (100 APCBC). Hit and penetration (4 pcs)

    2 - Main battle tank t-55 100 mm armor piercing round (100 APCBC). Hit,no penetration due the small angle of impact.

    3 - Light recoilless rifle (55 S 55) of Finnish origin. Two hits and penetrations. Note the small penetration hole of the HEAT (High Explosive Antitank) jet in comparison to the kinetic ammunition penetration (armor piercing, POS.1).

    9 - Hit by 100 mm tank gun HEAT ammunition directly to the penetration hole left by 100 mm kinetic Armor Piercing round.Note the impacts of the stabilizing wings of the shell around the impact hole.


    No wonder those holes are so big. They were made by 100mm BR-412D APCBC shells with a diameter of 100mm! Of course the holes are actually a bit bigger than 100mm, and that is because of the displacement of steel. If you were shooting at a paper or cardboard target, the hole would be the same size as the caliber of the shots.


    All the evidence you've given is worthless, so let me show you mine. The two screenshots below show holes through plywood made from 125mm APFSDS fired from a T-90S.



    Look at the size of that hole.



    And let's not forget about this famous photo of a telephone pole in Ukraine:



    And a photo of an M48 turret hit by some APFSDS round.



    And here's another photo, but it's copyrighted: http://cfs12.blog.daum.net/image/18/blog/2008/10/29/14/29/4907f4c2d86d1&filename=17.jpg


    Convinced?

    Mindstorm wrote:

    About the targets , those are the standard MBT-size target at Grafenwoeher (where Strong Europe Tank Chellenge is conducted)

    https://meggitttrainingsystems.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Stationary_Armor_Target_SAT_Rev3_GO.pdf


    I think you took the "A4 paper" joke a little too seriously...

    Mindstorm wrote:

    The only joke here is your almost inexistent knowledge of the subject and even worse totally corrupted mindset ..... (years of eating ridiculous wewstern claims and PR-engineered mantras can do thatto westren people devoid of the most basic critical thinking).



    Yes, that is why a person with high knowledge of the subject presented a photo of a T-55 turret bombarded by 100mm APCBC shells as proof that APFSDS rounds create large holes  Laughing


    Mindstorm wrote:

    Actually tank biathlon present battle-representative time and mechanical challenges even stressing and pressing both for the crew and the equipment than those of a typical battlefield maybe of at the level of a multi-front conflict against high-end opponents.

    Someone must have a true steel-face to get the courage to attempt to "belittle" actual fire executed at 1 km of distance with 12,7 mm MBT secondary machine gun against an hovering helicopter (maybe for the usual complex of inferiority coming from the awareness that the western 7,62 mm secondary MG could never hope to even reach that distance and even less damage an attack helicopter rotor or trasparency... Laughing ) against the NOTHING of western "CHALLENGE".


    Hmm, and having tank crews compete in the biathlon one at a time is more realistic and more challenging than having a platoon of tanks work together, using communications and teamwork to complete a challenge with multiple objectives. Okay. I understand.  thumbsup

    The fact that commander of a T-72 is required pop out of his hatch to manually fire at a static hovering helicopter at 800-1000 m means that it is worth something? I seeeeee. Usually this would be done with the main gun of an Abrams using M830A1 MPAT with a proximity fuse, and at ranges much further than 800-1000 m. You know, tanks usually don't sit still in front of enemy attack helicopters at that distance, and attack helicopters don't normally hover in front of tanks at that distance either. During USSR times, it was recognized that the tank crews of only two nations were trained in anti-helicopter tactics using the main gun: West Germany and Russia. Firing at hovering or moving helicopters would be done using APFSDS, and Russian crews had the additional option to use barrel-launched ATGMs. Firing at helicopter targets using a 12.7mm machine gun was not practiced by anyone, because it was recognized to be a waste of time.

    Mindstorm wrote:

    This embarrassing garbage (to notice the western meaning of "offensive operation shooting practice" and "precision driving" challenges  Razz  )

    can be put even only in comparison with the challenges of TB


    Perhaps shaving off some seconds is more important than driving over the grass?  unshaven

    Mindstorm wrote:

    only in the minds of the most western-PR-corrupted people.
    Western experts and operatives are perfectly aware that majority of theirs horribly conceived MBTs would not even come to the end of the 3 laps without broke and even less maintain integer the ridiculous myths circulating on theirs FCS and training level.


    You should apply for a position as a DPRK spokesperson or a newsreader.


    Last edited by Interlinked on Thu Nov 23, 2017 8:13 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16861
    Points : 17469
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ: Μodernisation and Variants

    Post  GarryB on Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:18 am


    I am not saying that T-64 autoloaders eat arms. I am saying that people during the 70's and 80's could neither confirm or disprove such myths, because they did not have access to that kind of information until much later.

    They could simply extend the length of the Sabot or move the APDS projectile further out of the case...


    And yet "Kerner" is hardly used in the Russian army at all. Most of its users are export customers. Another case of corruption?

    Or simply a case of they clearly have other anti armour options.

    Amusing that you keep banging on about corruption...

    I give you evidence that APDS is more accurate than full caliber rounds, and you just ignore it all and continue to say the same things you have always said, and then you use an idiotic analogy that has nothing to do with the topic.

    Velocity is not critical for interception of small fast targets... I realise the US believes this to be false as their 20mm cannon fitted to their fighter planes all use very high velocity rounds, but their (Air Forces) 23mm cannon actually use low velocity low recoil rounds for shooting down aerial targets at close range.

    High velocity is good for extending range but most air to air shooting involves very close ranges.


    Using APDS doesn't mean low RPM, as you implied with your "flechette rifle" analogy. You should have said "flechette shotgun". We aren't even talking about APFSDS, which is what flechettes are similar to. We are talking about APDS for autocannon calibers, and such ammunition is proven to be more accurate than regular full bore ammunition.

    The reason the Russians are looking at 57mm AAGs is because 30mm rounds are not good enough for very small targets like UAVs or munitions.

    Tightening the group or increasing the number of rounds within the group an be done a number of ways, but with most high speed targets you still need to cover a cube of air space where the target might move into in the time it takes for the rounds to arrive to the intercept point, so very tight little groups are not that useful.

    Shotguns are used to cover an area with lethal pellets, the spread is to compensate for any moves the target might make after the shot is fired.

    A tighter spread extends effective range, but if the rounds are more expensive, then you need to decide whether you want to fire a 200 round burst at each target or if a larger calibre that fills that interception box by exploding nearby and filling it with shrapnel might not be a better idea.

    Systems like Kashtan require substantial deck penetration, which means that it is only suitable for heavy ships, and not smaller ones. Not only that, but firing fast also produces enormous recoil forces, which means higher vibration, which means even less accuracy.

    Kashtan has deck penetration for the missiles it uses.

    Yes, so Kashtan only needs calculate all the variables and then fire one single shell to hit the target. Oh wait...

    After the shells are fired the target is free to speed up or slow down or climb or descend or turn left or turn right.

    Given the time it would take for the rounds to reach the interception point a given target has a box in 3D space where it could be when the rounds arrive... the Kashtan is designed specifically to fill that box with 30mm rounds so that no matter what change in direction or speed the target manages to perform in the few seconds between fired and impacted there will still be some rounds headed its way.

    Most anti ship missiles don't manouver so the box is rather small, but the target is also very small too.

    You think Russia cares about polluting the world? Nizhny Tagil is the most polluted city in Europe

    I think you will find Brussels holds that title.


    The problem is that the T-90 is only available in small numbers, and you can't always know what you will face before you start shooting at each other.

    They are hardly going to be sending 10,000 tanks to any conflict. If the enemy turn out to be well supported then action will be taken.

    Ie at the start the Russians clearly assumed the Turks would not shoot down their aircraft and therefore let Su-24s operate on their own without a SAM umbrella.

    After the attack by the Turkish air force they changed their tactics to suit.

    If they send tanks to an area they will likely do the same.



    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Interlinked

    Posts : 91
    Points : 93
    Join date : 2017-11-07
    Age : 27

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ: Μodernisation and Variants

    Post  Interlinked on Wed Nov 22, 2017 6:14 am

    GarryB wrote:
    They could simply extend the length of the Sabot or move the APDS projectile further out of the case...

    You're replying to an unrelated statement, but disregarding that:

    Doing stuff like that is not straightforward. If you dig deep into how stuff works, you would realize that everything is riddled full of silly little mistakes that may or may not have a good reason. Why didn't they elongate OG-15V HE shells so that they could fit into the BMP-1 autoloader? Why didn't they put two long tungsten alloy rods into 3BM-42 instead of one short rod and one long rod? Why did they use a conical nose on 100, 115 and 125mm HEAT rounds instead of a flat nose which is more aerodynamic? Why did they decide not to put armour plating around the autoloader carousel on the T-72 Ural and T-72A and only start doing it in the T-72B?

    Your optimism really shines through. "just extend the length of the sabot" "just install APS later" "just replace Kontakt-5 later"

    It's really not so simple.

    GarryB wrote:

    Or simply a case of they clearly have other anti armour options.

    Amusing that you keep banging on about corruption...


    Oh sure, they do. They have 3UBR-6 APBC-T shells with a blunt steel penetrator that is worthless against anything with more armour than a jeep. The U.S Army has been using M791 APDS for the 25mm chain gun on the M2 since it was introduced in 1982. They've switched to M919 APFSDS since the 90's, and APDS is all but gone from their arsenal. The Germans were using DM43 APCR rounds for the Rh202 on the Marder 1 since it was introduced, and they switched to DM63 APDS in the early to mid 80's, and the British used APDS for the RARDEN since it was introduced in the 70's. On the other hand, BMP-3s are still mostly firing 3UBR-6 AP-T even today. You could argue that it can use its 100mm gun for anti-armour purposes, but it can only fire low velocity rounds and it's not efficient against moving targets, so it needs to use ATGMs for practically everything it comes across. It's that what you mean by "other anti armour options"?



    GarryB wrote:

    Velocity is not critical for interception of small fast targets... I realise the US believes this to be false as their 20mm cannon fitted to their fighter planes all use very high velocity rounds, but their (Air Forces) 23mm cannon actually use low velocity low recoil rounds for shooting down aerial targets at close range.

    High velocity is good for extending range but most air to air shooting involves very close ranges.


    Read what I said carefully please.

    \"Interlinked wrote:
    I give you evidence that APDS is more accurate than full caliber rounds, and you just ignore it all

    Why did you change accuracy to velocity?

    Besides, the U.S Air Force doesn't use the 23mm caliber; I believe you are referring to the 25mm caliber, which is not used in any U.S AF fighter except the F-35. All others use a 20mm Vulcan. Still, this is a pretty poor example to use, because dogfights are nothing like intercepting ASMs. I don't think you appreciate how big fighters are. I've seen and felt an Su-30MKM up close... It's not a small target, nor is it as maneuverable as an ASM, nor is it as fast as an ASM. How many dogfights occur at Mach 2? Actually, that's a bit generous. How many dogfights occur where one aircraft is going faster than the other plane by Mach 2? Besides, newer fighters like the F-35 use a 25mm cannon because the plane is supposed to have some ground support capability, so its cannon is supposed to be reasonably effective against ground targets as well as air targets.

    GarryB wrote:
    Kashtan has deck penetration for the missiles it uses.

    My mistake. I was thinking about the AK-630.

    GarryB wrote:

    The reason the Russians are looking at 57mm AAGs is because 30mm rounds are not good enough for very small targets like UAVs or munitions.

    Tightening the group or increasing the number of rounds within the group an be done a number of ways, but with most high speed targets you still need to cover a cube of air space where the target might move into in the time it takes for the rounds to arrive to the intercept point, so very tight little groups are not that useful.

    Shotguns are used to cover an area with lethal pellets, the spread is to compensate for any moves the target might make after the shot is fired.

    A tighter spread extends effective range, but if the rounds are more expensive, then you need to decide whether you want to fire a 200 round burst at each target or if a larger calibre that fills that interception box by exploding nearby and filling it with shrapnel might not be a better idea.


    If the rounds you fire are faster, the target has less time to move away and thus, a lower chance of dodging them. You said that the Western navies had to deal with more advanced Russian anti-ship missiles, whereas the Russian navy only has to deal with old stuff like Exocet and Harpoon. Apply that thinking here. The U.S Navy uses APDS because it gives a better likelihood of hitting and defeating fast and maneuvering ASMs (both Russian and Chinese ASMs), and the Russians expect to mostly face subsonic ASMs, so they rely on an inferior but cheaper type of ammunition. Make sense?

    GarryB wrote:

    After the shells are fired the target is free to speed up or slow down or climb or descend or turn left or turn right.

    Given the time it would take for the rounds to reach the interception point a given target has a box in 3D space where it could be when the rounds arrive... the Kashtan is designed specifically to fill that box with 30mm rounds so that no matter what change in direction or speed the target manages to perform in the few seconds between fired and impacted there will still be some rounds headed its way.

    Most anti ship missiles don't manouver so the box is rather small, but the target is also very small too.


    See previous answer.


    GarryB wrote:

    They are hardly going to be sending 10,000 tanks to any conflict. If the enemy turn out to be well supported then action will be taken.

    Ie at the start the Russians clearly assumed the Turks would not shoot down their aircraft and therefore let Su-24s operate on their own without a SAM umbrella.

    After the attack by the Turkish air force they changed their tactics to suit.

    If they send tanks to an area they will likely do the same.


    Not needing 10,000 tanks does not mean that a few hundred is enough.


    Last edited by Interlinked on Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:30 pm; edited 2 times in total
    avatar
    d_taddei2

    Posts : 1050
    Points : 1216
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ: Μodernisation and Variants

    Post  d_taddei2 on Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:22 pm

    Does anyone know how many BMO-T are in service? And people's view on it? Could have been useful in damascus.
    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3939
    Points : 3966
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ: Μodernisation and Variants

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Thu Nov 23, 2017 1:24 am

    Interlinked wrote:
    GarryB wrote:
    They could simply extend the length of the Sabot or move the APDS projectile further out of the case...

    You're replying to an unrelated statement, but disregarding that:

    Doing stuff like that is not straightforward. If you dig deep into how stuff works, you would realize that everything is riddled full of silly little mistakes that may or may not have a good reason. Why didn't they elongate OG-15V HE shells so that they could fit into the BMP-1 autoloader? Why didn't they put two long tungsten alloy rods into 3BM-42 instead of one short rod and one long rod? Why did they use a conical nose on 100, 115 and 125mm HEAT rounds instead of a flat nose which is more aerodynamic? Why did they decide not to put armour plating around the autoloader carousel on the T-72 Ural and T-72A and only start doing it in the T-72B?

    Your optimism really shines through. "just extend the length of the sabot" "just install APS later" "just replace Kontakt-5 later"

    It's really not so simple.

    GarryB wrote:

    Or simply a case of they clearly have other anti armour options.

    Amusing that you keep banging on about corruption...


    Oh sure, they do. They have 3UBR-6 APBC-T shells with a blunt steel penetrator that is worthless against anything with more armour than a jeep. The U.S Army has been using M791 APDS for the 25mm chain gun on the M2 since it was introduced in 1980. They've switched to M919 APFSDS since the 90's, and APDS is all but gone from their arsenal. The Germans were using DM43 APCR rounds for the Rh202 on the Marder 1 since it was introduced, and they switched to DM63 APDS in the early to mid 80's, and the British used APDS for the RARDEN since it was introduced in the 70's. On the other hand, BMP-3s are still mostly firing 3UBR-6 AP-T even today. You could argue that it can use its 100mm gun for anti-armour purposes, but it can only fire low velocity rounds and it's not efficient against moving targets, so it needs to use ATGMs for practically everything it comes across. It's that what you mean by "other anti armour options"?



    GarryB wrote:

    Velocity is not critical for interception of small fast targets... I realise the US believes this to be false as their 20mm cannon fitted to their fighter planes all use very high velocity rounds, but their (Air Forces) 23mm cannon actually use low velocity low recoil rounds for shooting down aerial targets at close range.

    High velocity is good for extending range but most air to air shooting involves very close ranges.


    Read what I said carefully please.

    \"Interlinked wrote:
    I give you evidence that APDS is more accurate than full caliber rounds, and you just ignore it all

    Why did you change accuracy to velocity?

    Besides, the U.S Air Force doesn't use the 23mm caliber; I believe you are referring to the 25mm caliber, which is not used in any U.S AF fighter except the F-35. All others use a 20mm Vulcan. Still, this is a pretty poor example to use, because dogfights are nothing like intercepting ASMs. I don't think you appreciate how big fighters are. I've seen and felt an Su-30MKM up close... It's not a small target, nor is it as maneuverable as an ASM, nor is it as fast as an ASM. How many dogfights occur at Mach 2? Actually, that's a bit generous. How many dogfights occur where one aircraft is going faster than the other plane by Mach 2? Besides, newer fighters like the F-35 use a 25mm cannon because the plane is supposed to have some ground support capability, so its cannon is supposed to be reasonably effective against ground targets as well as air targets.

    GarryB wrote:

    The reason the Russians are looking at 57mm AAGs is because 30mm rounds are not good enough for very small targets like UAVs or munitions.

    Tightening the group or increasing the number of rounds within the group an be done a number of ways, but with most high speed targets you still need to cover a cube of air space where the target might move into in the time it takes for the rounds to arrive to the intercept point, so very tight little groups are not that useful.

    Shotguns are used to cover an area with lethal pellets, the spread is to compensate for any moves the target might make after the shot is fired.

    A tighter spread extends effective range, but if the rounds are more expensive, then you need to decide whether you want to fire a 200 round burst at each target or if a larger calibre that fills that interception box by exploding nearby and filling it with shrapnel might not be a better idea.


    If the rounds you fire are faster, the target has less time to move away and thus, a lower chance of dodging them. You said that the Western navies had to deal with more advanced Russian anti-ship missiles, whereas the Russian navy only has to deal with old stuff like Exocet and Harpoon. Apply that thinking here. The U.S Navy uses APDS because it gives a better likelihood of hitting and defeating fast and maneuvering ASMs (both Russian and Chinese ASMs), and the Russians expect to mostly face subsonic ASMs, so they rely on an inferior but cheaper type of ammunition. Make sense?

    GarryB wrote:

    After the shells are fired the target is free to speed up or slow down or climb or descend or turn left or turn right.

    Given the time it would take for the rounds to reach the interception point a given target has a box in 3D space where it could be when the rounds arrive... the Kashtan is designed specifically to fill that box with 30mm rounds so that no matter what change in direction or speed the target manages to perform in the few seconds between fired and impacted there will still be some rounds headed its way.

    Most anti ship missiles don't manouver so the box is rather small, but the target is also very small too.


    See previous answer.


    GarryB wrote:

    They are hardly going to be sending 10,000 tanks to any conflict. If the enemy turn out to be well supported then action will be taken.

    Ie at the start the Russians clearly assumed the Turks would not shoot down their aircraft and therefore let Su-24s operate on their own without a SAM umbrella.

    After the attack by the Turkish air force they changed their tactics to suit.

    If they send tanks to an area they will likely do the same.


    Not needing 10,000 tanks does not mean that a few hundred is enough.


    Oh wow, please explain me why the Soviets did that, because as sure as I know my way home, the Soviets knew the limitations of their systems.

    I am very intrigued on how an 18 year old kid, is trying to explain us that the 30mm used on the 2A42 is useless, however I have seen firsthand what 23mm freaking useless rounds do to Cat 3 Maxxpro's in Yemen. I have also seen what the UAE's 30mm's mounted on their BMP's make on T-55's. Granted maybe not that better than a "jeep" but not that worse off.

    A lot of the numbers that get thrown around for Soviet armament are absurd and DO not

    Also why the soviets didn't do this or that. Maybe because their armament however theoretically sound was not put into its paces. A clever idea with a flaw, is judged on its luck.

    Soviets would have less luck their clients. The US more. However, and we are looking at a much more equal playing field, Soviet armament is as useful as the US one and the APDS overkill comes mostly from the fact that the Bushmasters were also required to take care of the Red Sea of Soviet armor that would go round in a case of hot war.

    Funny thing though the 30mm apcr round was more than enough for most US Infantry purposed vehicles/threats. It would take 15 years for the US to promptly kit up their Bradley's with NERA.

    Meanwhile in the dead 80's a LAV 25 would be as dead as anything if targeted by bmp-2.

    You can try and have a Pee-Pee contest based on numbers, but i see a contest of matches.

    And I am willing to bet a lot of cash on mutual destruction under TRE circumstances.

    Also fast moving targets? Such as? Even at full speed CC any target the 2A70 would engage would be way too slow to hit compared to a calibrated shot.

    Just to make you understand, 18 year old pro, a Bradley at full speed would go 15m/s CC, the Basnya or Dragoon would lock at anything going slower than 60m/s with a typical non ATGM round going 400m/s

    However the primary charge would be HE-Frag, which would do basically nothing above 200mm armor CE. So why are you even bringing up this topic.

    I would like you to take a step aside and stop cherrypicking and start having a look in the most recent head on of Western hardware and Soviet or Soviet derived ammunition and weapons.

    The main issue however is this, APS like ERA/XERA is available, and this is mostly due to a production capability, not related to a spending capability.

    Crunch less numbers, more scenarios.
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 1558
    Points : 1558
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ: Μodernisation and Variants

    Post  miketheterrible on Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:15 am

    Listen assholes, the 18 year old has lots of experience and knowledge clearly, and learned from the best - those two jackasses from mp.net.

    If you cant tell my sarcasm. It was sarcasm.
    avatar
    Interlinked

    Posts : 91
    Points : 93
    Join date : 2017-11-07
    Age : 27

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ: Μodernisation and Variants

    Post  Interlinked on Thu Nov 23, 2017 6:13 am

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Oh wow, please explain me why the Soviets did that, because as sure as I know my way home, the Soviets knew the limitations of their systems.

    I am very intrigued on how an 18 year old kid, is trying to explain us that the 30mm used on the 2A42 is useless, however I have seen firsthand what 23mm freaking useless rounds do to Cat 3 Maxxpro's in Yemen. I have also seen what the UAE's 30mm's mounted on their BMP's make on T-55's. Granted maybe not that better than a "jeep" but not that worse off.

    Was waiting for someone to catch that age  Laughing

    MRAPs are meant to withstand large IEDs and mines, not autocannon fire. In that regard, they are not much better than the latest modifications of the HMMWV. 23mm would be useless against serious IFVs like the Marder 1A3 and M2A2 Bradley.

    30mm HE-I can be useful against tanks and IFVs because it can damage or destroy external equipment, including the sights, but it isn't reliable. I'd wager that that T-55 you "saw" was damaged by HE-I and not AP. Also, the UAE is one of the export customers for 3BR-8 APDS, so unless you can say what exactly it was you saw, your anecdote is pointless.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    A lot of the numbers that get thrown around for Soviet armament are absurd and DO not

    Also why the soviets didn't do this or that. Maybe because their armament however theoretically sound was not put into its paces. A clever idea with a flaw, is judged on its luck.

    You have an unfinished sentence there.

    What exactly do you mean by "put into its paces"? Would they have realized to lengthen OG-15V grenades once the upgraded BMP-1 was tried out in combat? That's the kind of thing you catch and correct during the initial development stage, or during bench testing at the latest. Would they have realized to put a flat tip on the spike nose of their HEAT shells once they fired off a few of them? That's the kind of thing they find out during the testing phase in wind tunnels and by comparing lots of promising experimental designs.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Soviets would have less luck their clients. The US more. However, and we are looking at a much more equal playing field, Soviet armament is as useful as the US one and the APDS overkill comes mostly from the fact that the Bushmasters were also required to take care of the Red Sea of Soviet armor that would go round in a case of hot war.

    That is completely true, and also completely unrelated.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Funny thing though the 30mm apcr round was more than enough for most US Infantry purposed vehicles/threats. It would take 15 years for the US to promptly kit up their Bradley's with NERA.

    Meanwhile in the dead 80's a LAV 25 would be as dead as anything if targeted by bmp-2.

    3UBR-6 is not APCR. It's APBC-T with a blunt steel penetrator. The Bradley has never used NERA in its entire combat history, but it has been upgraded with steel appliqué armour. The M2 Bradley entered service in 1981, and was upgraded to the M2A2 standard in 1988. The BMP-2 entered service in 1980. I don't see where "15 years" comes from. I think you may want to stop throwing around abbreviations if you don't know what they mean.

    LAV 25 should be considered to be an up-gunned APC, like the BTR-80A.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    You can try and have a Pee-Pee contest based on numbers, but i see a contest of matches.

    And I am willing to bet a lot of cash on mutual destruction under TRE circumstances.

    NATO armour is not used by NATO alone...

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Also fast moving targets? Such as? Even at full speed CC any target the 2A70 would engage would be way too slow to hit compared to a calibrated shot.

    Just to make you understand, 18 year old pro, a Bradley at full speed would go 15m/s CC, the Basnya or Dragoon would lock at anything going slower than 60m/s with a typical non ATGM round going 400m/s

    However the primary charge would be HE-Frag, which would do basically nothing above 200mm armor CE. So why are you even bringing up this topic.

    I think you may need to rephrase your statement. It's completely unintelligible.

    I brought up the 100mm 2A70 because GarryB mentioned that there were "other anti tank options" (which is interpreted to mean "anti-armour", for obvious reasons). The primary weapon against lighter vehicles like IFVs and APCs is still the 30mm cannon, and it's still dependent on 3BR-6. If you do not understand the context behind the conversation between Garry and I, then perhaps you should refrain from sharing your thoughts until you are certain.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    I would like you to take a step aside and stop cherrypicking and start having a look in the most recent head on of Western hardware and Soviet or Soviet derived ammunition and weapons.

    The main issue however is this, APS like ERA/XERA is available, and this is mostly due to a production capability, not related to a spending capability.

    Crunch less numbers, more scenarios.

    What cherrypicking? It's not like I'm picking the oldest and least effective ammunition for the 2A42 and 2A72 and saying that it can't defeat modern IFVs. 3BR-6 is the standard AP-T shell. On the other hand, the inverse is true. You were cherrypicking the least armoured Western IFV and saying that 3BR-6 is more than enough for it, which misses the point completely. The BMP-2 and BMP-3 don't always fight in favourable conditions where the enemy has nothing but MRAPs and LAV-25s...


    Last edited by Interlinked on Thu Nov 23, 2017 8:45 am; edited 4 times in total
    avatar
    Interlinked

    Posts : 91
    Points : 93
    Join date : 2017-11-07
    Age : 27

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ: Μodernisation and Variants

    Post  Interlinked on Thu Nov 23, 2017 6:16 am

    miketheterrible wrote:Listen assholes, the 18 year old has lots of experience and knowledge clearly, and learned from the best - those two jackasses from mp.net.

    If you cant tell my sarcasm.  It was sarcasm.

    I wonder why nobody is comfortable revealing their age in this forum Wink
    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3939
    Points : 3966
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ: Μodernisation and Variants

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Thu Nov 23, 2017 1:50 pm

    Interlinked wrote:
    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Oh wow, please explain me why the Soviets did that, because as sure as I know my way home, the Soviets knew the limitations of their systems.

    I am very intrigued on how an 18 year old kid, is trying to explain us that the 30mm used on the 2A42 is useless, however I have seen firsthand what 23mm freaking useless rounds do to Cat 3 Maxxpro's in Yemen. I have also seen what the UAE's 30mm's mounted on their BMP's make on T-55's. Granted maybe not that better than a "jeep" but not that worse off.

    Was waiting for someone to catch that age  Laughing

    MRAPs are meant to withstand large IEDs and mines, not autocannon fire. In that regard, they are not much better than the latest modifications of the HMMWV. 23mm would be useless against serious IFVs like the Marder 1A3 and M2A2 Bradley."

    MRAps are 50% heavier armored in all aspects and have a better volume to armour ratio than the M1511A2/A4 which also happen to be less than resistant to KPV fire. As Iraqis demonstrated. CAT 3/Cat4 Maxxxpro's have 80mm rating against KE. Unfortunately I don't know who did that rating.

    Marder A3? Really? Literally 25mm side armour? Metis-A wasn't supposed to dent the Leopard 2A4...Either.

    30mm HE-I can be useful against tanks and IFVs because it can damage or destroy external equipment, including the sights, but it isn't reliable. I'd wager that that T-55 you "saw" was damaged by HE-I and not AP. Also, the UAE is one of the export customers for 3BR-8 APDS, so unless you can say what exactly it was you saw, your anecdote is pointless.

    It was damaged by Aramco AP-T (Bulgarian copy of Russian AP-T).
    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    A lot of the numbers that get thrown around for Soviet armament are absurd and DO not

    Also why the soviets didn't do this or that. Maybe because their armament however theoretically sound was not put into its paces. A clever idea with a flaw, is judged on its luck.

    You have an unfinished sentence there.

    What exactly do you mean by "put into its paces"? Would they have realized to lengthen OG-15V grenades once the upgraded BMP-1 was tried out in combat? That's the kind of thing you catch and correct during the initial development stage, or during bench testing at the latest. Would they have realized to put a flat tip on the spike nose of their HEAT shells once they fired off a few of them? That's the kind of thing they find out during the testing phase in wind tunnels and by comparing lots of promising experimental designs.

    No a lot of issues with autoloaders comes from real combat, not theoretical testing. And Even raw combat can be an outlier. GW1 was basically an outlier of a campaign. Nothing that could have been used properly by Iraq was used. However with a largely less competent force, yet better equipped and supplied the same weapons deement obsolescent in the early 1990's proved to be more than enough in the current Syrian and Iraqi theatres.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Soviets would have less luck their clients. The US more. However, and we are looking at a much more equal playing field, Soviet armament is as useful as the US one and the APDS overkill comes mostly from the fact that the Bushmasters were also required to take care of the Red Sea of Soviet armor that would go round in a case of hot war.

    That is completely true, and also completely unrelated.

    Not unrelated. It is simply the cost effectiveness derivated from a different paradigm. The 2A42 was more than enough to take care of the US threats it would face. The volume was on the Soviet side. Why would the Soviets then invest on an overkill asset.

    You don'tget war. Obviously.


    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Funny thing though the 30mm apcr round was more than enough for most US Infantry purposed vehicles/threats. It would take 15 years for the US to promptly kit up their Bradley's with NERA.

    Meanwhile in the dead 80's a LAV 25 would be as dead as anything if targeted by bmp-2.

    3UBR-6 is not APCR. It's APBC-T with a blunt steel penetrator. The Bradley has never used NERA in its entire combat history, but it has been upgraded with steel appliqué armour. The M2 Bradley entered service in 1981, and was upgraded to the M2A2 standard in 1988. The BMP-2 entered service in 1980. I don't see where "15 years" comes from. I think you may want to stop throwing around abbreviations if you don't know what they mean.
    LAV 25 should be considered to be an up-gunned APC, like the BTR-80A.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    You can try and have a Pee-Pee contest based on numbers, but i see a contest of matches.

    And I am willing to bet a lot of cash on mutual destruction under TRE circumstances.



    this is 2008. NERA was used since 2004, that wasn't operational, Da?


    NATO armour is not used by NATO alone...

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Also fast moving targets? Such as? Even at full speed CC any target the 2A70 would engage would be way too slow to hit compared to a calibrated shot.

    Just to make you understand, 18 year old pro, a Bradley at full speed would go 15m/s CC, the Basnya or Dragoon would lock at anything going slower than 60m/s with a typical non ATGM round going 400m/s

    However the primary charge would be HE-Frag, which would do basically nothing above 200mm armor CE. So why are you even bringing up this topic.

    I think you may need to rephrase your statement. It's completely unintelligible.

    I brought up the 100mm 2A70 because GarryB mentioned that there were "other anti tank options" (which is interpreted to mean "anti-armour", for obvious reasons). The primary weapon against lighter vehicles like IFVs and APCs is still the 30mm cannon, and it's still dependent on 3BR-6. If you do not understand the context behind the conversation between Garry and I, then perhaps you should refrain from sharing your thoughts until you are certain.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    I would like you to take a step aside and stop cherrypicking and start having a look in the most recent head on of Western hardware and Soviet or Soviet derived ammunition and weapons.

    The main issue however is this, APS like ERA/XERA is available, and this is mostly due to a production capability, not related to a spending capability.

    Crunch less numbers, more scenarios.

    What cherrypicking? It's not like I'm picking the oldest and least effective ammunition for the 2A42 and 2A72 and saying that it can't defeat modern IFVs. 3BR-6 is the standard AP-T shell. On the other hand, the inverse is true. You were cherrypicking the least armoured Western IFV and saying that 3BR-6 is more than enough for it, which misses the point completely. The BMP-2 and BMP-3 don't always fight in favourable conditions where the enemy has nothing but MRAPs and LAV-25s...
    avatar
    Interlinked

    Posts : 91
    Points : 93
    Join date : 2017-11-07
    Age : 27

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ: Μodernisation and Variants

    Post  Interlinked on Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:17 pm

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    MRAps are 50% heavier armored in all aspects and have a better volume to armour ratio than the M1511A2/A4 which also happen to be less than resistant to KPV fire. As Iraqis demonstrated. CAT 3/Cat4 Maxxxpro's have 80mm rating against KE. Unfortunately I don't know who did that rating.

    MRAPs are generally rather heavy, but that does not necessarily mean that they are heavily armoured.

    Nobody uses RHA in millimeters to rate armour protection. STANAG levels are used. MRAPs usually offer STANAG 4569 level 2 to 3 protection from ballistic threats and level 3b to 4b for mine protection. That means that most MRAPs are only proofed against 7.62mm fire, and sometimes to KPV fire to a limited extent. What's so surprising about 23mm rounds going through an MRAP?

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Marder A3? Really? Literally 25mm side armour? Metis-A wasn't supposed to dent the Leopard 2A4...Either.

    The vast majority of shots come from the frontal 70-degree arc of the vehicle. This includes tanks, APCs, and anything else operating in a conventional battlefield. While there are many cases of heavily armoured vehicles being defeated by shots directed at their side or rear armour, it doesn't happen reliably. You can't count on always hitting the side of your enemies at the best possible angle, because the enemy is always going to try to do the same to you. Just to illustrate this point more clearly: The T-54, T-62, T-64, T-72 and T-80 all have 80mm of side armour. That's the same as a Tiger from WW2 era, but it doesn't mean that NATO did not need to move past 76mm guns. By your logic, 76mm APCBC rounds are more than enough against a T-72, but you and I both know that it isn't.

    Marder 1A3 has a spaced steel plate in front of the 15mm side hull armour, which is angled at 30 degrees. According to Rolf Hilmes, this was enough against 14.5mm rounds (probably B-32), but he did not give specific details. 30mm 3BR6 could easily go through that kind of armour on a straight shot (0 degree side angle), but not if the hull is slightly angled to the side. 3BR6 can penetrate 16mm at 60 degrees at 1.5 km, so it should be able to defeat the side armour of a Marder 1A1/A2 at a 30 degree side angle at 1.5 km, but this range would be much lower for a Marder 1A3.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    It was damaged by Aramco AP-T (Bulgarian copy of Russian AP-T).


    And what kind of damage was sustained? Was the commander's cupola torn off from a direct hit? Was the engine compartment holed from behind? Was the tank still operable after the shooting?

    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    No a lot of issues with autoloaders comes from real combat, not theoretical testing. And Even raw combat can be an outlier. GW1 was basically an outlier of a campaign. Nothing that could have been used properly by Iraq was used. However with a largely less competent force, yet better equipped and supplied the same weapons deement obsolescent in the early 1990's proved to be more than enough in the current Syrian and Iraqi theatres.  


    No, you misunderstand. The BMP-1 model 1973 (Object 765 sp.3) was produced without its autoloader. It wasn't that they introduced the BMP-1 and then tried using OG-15V grenades in there and found that it didn't work, because OG-15V grenades did not enter service until 1973.


    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    Not unrelated. It is simply the cost effectiveness derivated from a different paradigm. The 2A42 was more than enough to take care of the US threats it would face. The volume was on the Soviet side. Why would the Soviets then invest on an overkill asset.

    You don'tget war. Obviously.


    You're missing the point entirely.

    The volume was on the Soviet side, but the other side got thicker armour in the late 80's, so it simply wasn't feasible to keep on using old ammunition. 3BR6 was sufficient for almost a decade, but the armour on NATO IFVs evolved, and no new ammunition was fielded to deal with that. Even when the BMP-3 was formally adopted in 1990, there was no new APDS round to go with it. No new ammunition has been fielded for the 2A42 or the 2A72 in the 37 years since the introduction of the BMP-2 in 1980, and during that time, the armour on foreign IFVs and APCs has only gotten thicker.

    It's pretty much the same with tanks. The steel ammunition for the 125mm D-81T was enough for more than a decade, since NATO was only fielding tanks with plain steel armour, but do you think that 3BM-9 or 3BM-15 is enough against the Leopard 2 or the Abrams? Obviously not. New ammunition was needed. It's also the same from the Western perspective. Why evolve beyond APDS when the vast majority of tanks from the USSR and from Warpac nations were the T-54 and its derivatives? Wouldn't it be more cost effective to just keep on using APDS? Why even bother developing a 120mm gun when it would be more economical to keep on using the L7? Why develop bigger and more powerful missiles? Not to mention the fact that APDS would be more than enough against the 80mm sides of a T-64/72/80...

    KoTeMoRe wrote:



    this is 2008. NERA was used since 2004, that wasn't operational, Da?


    That's a BUSK kit with ERA boxes. Yes, it's ERA, not NERA. You'll be shocked to find out that the word "EXPLOSIVE" is written on the back of every one of those boxes. A full set consists of 105 tiles of five types, each meant for a different part of the vehicle. The one in the photo below is an M6A1 tile.



    Frankly, I didn't expect you to double down on a statement that was so obviously incorrect...
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 711
    Points : 715
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ: Μodernisation and Variants

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Thu Nov 23, 2017 11:25 pm

    Interlinked wrote:
    miketheterrible wrote:Listen assholes, the 18 year old has lots of experience and knowledge clearly, and learned from the best - those two jackasses from mp.net.

    If you cant tell my sarcasm.  It was sarcasm.

    I wonder why nobody is comfortable revealing their age in this forum Wink

    Pal your 18 and you cheery picking and posting tons of incorrect biased information.

    You are the very thing the term "Armchair Expert" was created for.

    Yes buddy I also think that of people here, however at least they don't come up with half of the crooked stuff you do.

    I know your type, your the type that will argue and argue and argue despite the fact you are wrong and try and present numbers to make you look right.

    This is why I stopped bothering with you, your types just want to ramble and ramble and ramble.

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 776
    Points : 953
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ: Μodernisation and Variants

    Post  Mindstorm on Thu Nov 23, 2017 11:33 pm

    Oh my.....

    Ok , here we have another guy with a work (if any....) leaving to it too much time at its disposition:roll:


    Interlinked wrote:Luckily for you, I am familiar with all of those photos, and I can tell you that you are sorely mistaken.

    Oh yes sure Laughing

    Interlinked wrote:According to Gurkhan, it is a "naked" T-90S turret tested in Russia at the NTIIM training grounds. Some time ago, I analysed the photo for my upcoming article on the T-90 and came to the conclusion that either BM-32 or BM-42 was used.

    You.....YOU have "analysed" that pics and YOU came to any conclusion ? Oh Please An article about T-90 MBT by YOU would not reach the value of the paper on which it is produced.

    Obviously it is a naked T-90 turrett Razz, but to the contrary of you phantasious "analysys" it was exactly a ballistic test of the turrett composition, without ERA, against KE penetrators with performance representative of foreign samples.

    Ghur Khan " Знаю что стрельба на таких испытаниях обычно ведется с расстояния 100-150м. При этом специально рассчитывается энергия выстрела таким образом, что-бы соответствовать параметрам вражьих бпс с определенных ттз дистанций. Это называется "приведенные условия стрельбы". "

    http://gurkhan.blogspot.it/2011/11/90_14.html


    Interlinked wrote:Oblique penetration produces large entrance hole. This is a well known phenomena. See the photo below

    Razz Razz Razz

    Angle of attack of the KE penetrator (that obviously would have an effect on the hole produced by any KE round has nothing to do with that and several other photografic and video evidence that such penetrators produce in several kind of targets holes several times bigger than its diamater.









    It has instead to do with tunneling inizialization and it is strongly dependant on the composition of the target, distance of fire, and penetrator and fin's spin at impact and AoA.
    Observe those two video of the same round



    and this one



    When delivered at very short range and/or against some kind of targets (like some alluminium alloy surfaces or.......paper made fire-range targets ) where tip's deformation do not occur or spin momentum has not chance to trasfer enough energy you will observe relatively small star-shaped APFSDS holes while in others like in actual penetration of high density or reinforced plywood targets you observe almost circular entry holes (entry hole and exit hole is identical)


    Interlinked wrote:And let's not forget about this famous photo of a telephone pole in Ukraine

    Maybe observed.......entirely you could even realize how APFSDS round tunneling work Razz



    The same exact shot delivered from 1600/2000 would have produced in the same tree an almost circular entry hole similar to those (no trace of fin would have been visible) and exit hole would have been even bigger and out-axis.

    Interlinked wrote:Usually this would be done with the main gun of an Abrams using M830A1 MPAT with a proximity fuse, and at ranges much further than 800-1000 m. You know, tanks usually don't sit still in front of enemy attack helicopters at that distance, and attack helicopters don't normally hover in front of tanks at that distance either.

    You have a true iron face to attempt to climb mirror in this way Laughing Laughing Laughing
    Domestic MBT have since '80 years vastly more advanced and efficient options with theirs main weapon against low flying target still at today outside the engineering possibilities of western tank designers such as supersonic long range laser-beam-riding gun-launched missiles (not conceding attached helicopter even the chance to realize to being under attack) or ammunition time of detonation programming system «Айнет».

    Fact is that MBT formations ,both in open and in urbanized area, must mantain capability to engage low flying targets both when near to morphological masking elements of the environment (at example low hills or promontory usuable by hovering helicopters to get a partial radar picture of the enemy units positions ) or when hiding near to tall buildings.
    In both instances tank is virtually Always the outside radar footprint coverage of must mounted radar but elevation of main gun do not allow the engagement; it is a very important capability even more today with the increased presence on the battlefield of light/mini UAVs.

    But now let me briefly resume your ever changing hallucinations :

    1) You presenting some pics (that anyone here perfectly know since several yeras including its diseased origin) of some targets of live-fire tank training in Poland with a series of allegation about the modality of fire totally unsubstantiated coming from another odd visionary attempting to pass the thing (exactly like the phantasious author of this hypothesis) as proof that those western badly conceived was not so inferior to coeval domestic products like a strictly rational analysis of their cardinal parameter would suggest.

    2) When challenged on the subject you "shift" suddenly to another ridiculous mantra ( mostly used in the west to justify the inability of theirs designers to engineerize an efficient and mass-produceable long range multipurpose GLM) sustaining that LOS fire in Europe would be limited to 1,6 km - a true idiocy for what concern the area interested in an eventual armoured offensive/counteroffensive in the North and Eastern European Plain that was already debated here several years ago including the citation of domestic specialized publications explaing the concept of operation and employment of GLM and the capitalization of the huge range of engagement advantage against NATO mechanized and armoured forces just in those geographic area ) and to the score achieved by participants one more time totally unrelated to parameters of execution.

    3) When pointed out that the best polish crew in much more up to date Leo-2A5 has been overcome, just this year, in the most important western tank competion -the Strong Europe Tank Challenge 2017- by prehistoric Т-64БМ manned by Ukrainian crew at theirs first attendance, you attempt grossly to "shift" the question sustaining that therefore also low proficiency polish crew have managed to achieve those unbelievable results in live fire thanks to the..... older FCS of Leo-2A4 Laughing The most ridiculous of the non-sequitur

    4) At this point i hilight that the odd polish guy, with a serious inferiority complex problem, from which you have taken wide majority of those strange "ideas", attempt to use the video of shooting at Tank Biathlon where exclusively training HEAT rounds are used (with the exception of second year for the China team, a thing that allowed them to shoot on the move at significantly higher speed causing the usual amount of comical allegations among the typical scarcely informed western people) with the results, obviously only in score Laughing , of similar competitions in the west where instead APFSDS-T are employed

    From 2.32 you can see DM78A1



    From 1:44



    obviously heroic polish tank crew is the unique to train at shooting against tanks targets with anything except KE penetrator rounds (representing not only the type of ammunition by far more present in MBT loadout but also the unique western type with real anti-armor capabilities) Laughing Laughing Laughing

    avatar
    Interlinked

    Posts : 91
    Points : 93
    Join date : 2017-11-07
    Age : 27

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ: Μodernisation and Variants

    Post  Interlinked on Fri Nov 24, 2017 7:23 am

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:

    Pal your 18 and you cheery picking and posting tons of incorrect biased information.

    You are the very thing the term "Armchair Expert" was created for.

    Yes buddy I also think that of people here, however at least they don't come up with half of the crooked stuff you do.

    I know your type, your the type that will argue and argue and argue despite the fact you are wrong and try and present numbers to make you look right.

    This is why I stopped bothering with you, your types just want to ramble and ramble and ramble.

    That's the thing - I'm not 18.

    I did not present photos of T-54 turrets bombarded by 100mm APCBC and claim that it was hit by APFSDS. I did not claim that an APFSDS shell hitting the lower glacis of a T-72 would go out the belly and hit the ground. I did not say that the Bradley has NERA when it actually has ERA Laughing And you think that I am the "armchair expert" in this forum? Laughing Where are your complaints on the idiotic things that GarryB has said? Or the obviously incorrect claims made by Mindstorm?

    I know why people like you don't like me. All you want to hear is "Russia is *****!!!11one1!1". The reality is that there are flaws in everything, including the T-72. Some minor, some serious. You just have to accept that fact.
    avatar
    Interlinked

    Posts : 91
    Points : 93
    Join date : 2017-11-07
    Age : 27

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ: Μodernisation and Variants

    Post  Interlinked on Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:08 am

    Mindstorm wrote:
    You.....YOU have "analysed" that pics and YOU came to any conclusion ? Oh Please  An article about T-90 MBT by YOU would not reach the value of the paper on which it is produced.

    Obviously it is a naked T-90 turrett Razz, but to the contrary of you phantasious "analysys" it was exactly a ballistic test of the turrett composition, without ERA, against KE penetrators with performance representative of foreign samples.

    Ghur Khan  " Знаю что стрельба на таких испытаниях обычно ведется с расстояния 100-150м. При этом специально рассчитывается энергия выстрела таким образом, что-бы соответствовать параметрам вражьих бпс с определенных ттз дистанций. Это называется "приведенные условия стрельбы". "

    http://gurkhan.blogspot.it/2011/11/90_14.html


    I am quite sure that if I wrote "T-90 is the best modern tank in the world" it would get 10/10 review from you  Wink

    "performance representative of foreign samples", not actual foreign samples. Can you give me an example of a modern foreign APFSDS round that has five fins? No, you can't. Germany exports DM33, and the U.S exports KEW-A2. Both have six fins. The marks in the photo show five, which hints that it was made by domestic APFSDS, and this was what I was saying all along. Are you disputing this?

    Gurkhan is referring to the normal procedure of simulating long range by reducing the propellant charge of the shot. A hit from a shell fired at 2 km can be simulated by reducing the propellant charge and firing the shell at 100 m at a reduced velocity.

    Mindstorm wrote:

    Angle of attack of the KE penetrator (that obviously would have an effect on the hole produced by any KE round has nothing to do with that and several other photografic and video evidence that such penetrators produce in several kind of targets holes several times bigger than its diamater.

    It has instead to do with tunneling inizialization and it is strongly dependant on the composition of the target, distance of fire, and penetrator and fin's spin at impact and AoA.

    When delivered at very short range and/or against some kind of targets (like some alluminium alloy surfaces or.......paper made fire-range targets ) where tip's deformation do not occur or spin momentum has not chance to trasfer enough energy you will observe relatively small star-shaped APFSDS holes while in others like in actual penetration of high density or reinforced plywood targets you observe almost circular entry holes (entry hole and exit hole is identical)


    You talk so lot, but say so little. Try telling everyone here that APFSDS made these holes in that thin sheet metal target.




    Mindstorm wrote:

    Maybe observed.......entirely you could even realize how APFSDS round tunneling work  Razz



    The same exact shot delivered from 1600/2000 would have produced in the same tree an almost circular entry hole similar to those (no trace of fin would have been visible) and exit hole would have been even bigger and out-axis.


    Ah, so you know that that shot was not delivered from 1600-2000 m? Of course you don't. I'm rather tired of all the bullshit that you are trying to peddle, especially since it's so easy to disprove.

    Size of the holes made by M1002 MPTP-T. It's a saboted shell, but it's still quite big, so it makes big holes. Easy to understand.



    Size of the holes made by KEW-A2 APFSDS at 1.7 km. By your "tunneling" theory, it should have made big holes as well. Hmmm. Must have been those damn NATO dogs falsifying those holes by actually firing at short range...



    Here's an even better photo of the holes made by M830A1 MPAT shells at 1.7 km. Same size of target as the one fired upon using KEW-A2.




    Each square is 1 m^2, so just put the photos side by side and see which holes are bigger. When firing at plywood, sheet steel, or whatever, big shells make big holes, and small shells make small holes. Therefore, Polish Leopard 2A4s were firing training HEAT and not APFSDS in that exercise. Case closed.

    Mindstorm wrote:

    You have a true iron face to attempt to climb mirror in this way Laughing Laughing Laughing
    Domestic MBT have since '80 years vastly more advanced and efficient options with theirs main weapon against low flying target still at today outside the engineering possibilities of western tank designers such as supersonic long range laser-beam-riding gun-launched missiles (not conceding attached helicopter even the chance to realize to being under attack) or ammunition time of detonation programming system «Айнет».  

    Fact is that MBT formations ,both in open and in urbanized area, must mantain capability to engage low flying targets both when near to morphological masking elements of the environment (at example low hills or promontory usuable by hovering helicopters to get a partial radar picture of the enemy units positions ) or when hiding near to tall buildings.
    In both instances tank is virtually Always the outside radar footprint coverage of must mounted radar but  elevation of main gun do not allow the engagement; it is a very important capability even more today with the increased presence on the battlefield of light/mini UAVs.


    I'm not even going to bother replying to the first part, because you're just ranting off-topic.

    Second part: If the helicopter is at an altitude high enough that the main gun cannot elevate enough to reach it, then rest assured that the helicopter is either a few feet away from the tank, or the helicopter is high enough that it is not covered by terrain features. Simple exercise: At a distance of 1000 m, a gun elevation angle of 15 degrees like on the T-72 is able to cover an altitude of 268 m. The altitude of the helicopter target in the TB was 12 m.

    Is it realistic to use a machine gun on a helicopter at that altitude and at that range? Well, I think that you already know the answer...


    Mindstorm wrote:

    But now let me briefly resume your ever changing hallucinations :

    1) You presenting some pics (that anyone here perfectly know since several yeras including its diseased origin) of some targets of live-fire tank training in Poland with a series of allegation about the modality of fire totally unsubstantiated coming from another odd visionary attempting to pass the thing (exactly like the phantasious author of this hypothesis) as proof that those western badly conceived was not so inferior to coeval domestic products like a strictly rational analysis of their cardinal parameter would suggest.

    2) When challenged on the subject you "shift" suddenly to another ridiculous mantra ( mostly used in the west to justify the inability of theirs designers to engineerize an efficient and mass-produceable long range multipurpose GLM) sustaining that LOS fire in Europe would be limited to 1,6 km - a true idiocy for what concern the area interested in an eventual armoured offensive/counteroffensive in the North and Eastern European Plain that was already debated here several years ago including the citation of domestic specialized publications explaing the concept of operation and employment of GLM and the capitalization of the huge range of engagement advantage against NATO mechanized and armoured forces just in those geographic area ) and to the score achieved by participants one more time totally unrelated to parameters of execution.

    3) When pointed out that the best polish crew in much more up to date Leo-2A5 has been overcome, just this year, in the most important western tank competion  -the Strong Europe Tank Challenge 2017- by prehistoric Т-64БМ manned by Ukrainian crew at theirs first attendance, you attempt grossly to "shift" the question sustaining that therefore also low proficiency polish crew have managed to achieve those unbelievable results in live fire thanks to the..... older FCS of Leo-2A4  Laughing   The most ridiculous of the non-sequitur

    4) At this point i hilight that the odd polish guy, with a serious inferiority complex problem, from which you have taken wide majority of those strange "ideas", attempt to use the video of shooting at Tank Biathlon where exclusively training HEAT rounds are used (with the exception of second year for the China team, a thing that allowed them to shoot on the move at significantly higher speed causing the usual amount of comical allegations among the typical scarcely informed western people) with the results, obviously only in score   Laughing , of similar competitions in the west where instead APFSDS-T are employed  

    obviously heroic polish tank crew is the unique to train at shooting against tanks targets with anything except KE penetrator rounds (representing not only the type of ammunition by far more present in MBT loadout but also the unique western type with real anti-armor capabilities)  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing
       

    1) Don't mix flowery language with bad grammar and sentence structure.

    2) It's so funny that you accusing me of "shifting" to another "mantra", because this is exactly what you are doing. I was just minding my own business talking about how unrealistic it is in the TB for a T-72B3 to fire at a stationary hovering helicopter with its 12.7mm machine gun at 800-1000 m, and that better options were available, and now you are talking about how great Soviet GLATGMs are.  Off Topic

    3) I think you do not understand what a non-sequitur is.

    Interlinked wrote:
    Mindstorm wrote:
    Naturally my advice for Polish tank crews would be to first attempt at least to best with theirs most advanced Leo-2A5 the largely outdated T-64BM manned by Ukraine crews that have beated them at theirs first attendance in the Strong Europe tank challenge of this year, before even think to sign-up with the top of world crew and equipment.
    Since Polish crews aren't that great, it makes that shot group from the photo even more impressive, eh?

    Disregarding the fact that the Strong Europe Challenge is a holistic challenge and isn't focused on any one aspect (so Polish crews could have been better at gunnery but suffered in the other events), and disregarding the fact that the original intent of the photo of the shot grouping was to illustrate the need for Relikt due to the weakness of the turret ring of the T-72B3...

    Advanced FCS from the Leopard 2A5 gave a worse result than the T-64BM, which we know to be mostly obsolete. Therefore, Polish crew training is not so good. Logical enough? Moving on; Polish crew using Leopard 2A4 managed to get good results during training. Polish training is not so good, so results are considered bad compared to the shooting accuracy of German, American, Austrian and even Ukrainian crews. Therefore, the fact that all shots landed near the center of mass of the dummy targets in that Polish firing exercise is actually only an average result.

    It's not a strong argument, of course, because there are too many leaps of faith that need to be made, but the thing is, my original argument was about the fact that most shots land near or at the center of mass of the target, and that better results could be obtained using APFSDS. You were the one who brought up the Poles and how badly they did at the Challenge, which is completely unrelated to our topic, so now you are here trying to accuse me of using non-sequiturs scratch

    The reality is completely different, of course. We cannot disregard so many other factors. The results of the teams in the Challenge are somewhat clear. Poles did fine at defensive shooting (stationary hull down position shooting at moving targets). T-64BM was bad all-round. All the other teams got 400+ marks out of 500 for shooting, and the Ukrainian team got 300+.



    And not to mention that the Polish team got 3rd place in the 2016 Challenge, which was higher than the U.S team. So really, there is nothing more to be said here. The original point remains: The T-72B3 needs Relikt, because the number and size of weakpoints at its center of mass are just too huge with Kontakt-5, and Kontakt-5 itself is already outdated. Enemy fire gas a very high chance of hitting the center mass of their targets, so T-72B3 needs to add protection to that area. It's just that simple.

    4) I feel sorry for you. No


    Last edited by Interlinked on Wed Nov 29, 2017 3:45 am; edited 4 times in total
    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3939
    Points : 3966
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ: Μodernisation and Variants

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:21 am

    That's the thing you are not 18, but you don't get to understand the paradigm between war and spreadsheets. BTW that's misleading people.


    Now i have some time, i will reply in a more focused fashion.

    1. Sorry indeed i used a wrong term NERA carelessly, because I was a bit annoyed and hurried to reply.
    2. You are looking at this equation in a very narrow way and i am willing to take your "70° arc protection" as a sounding absurdity. The Enemy will not attack you on your strongest side, that's nonsense.
    3. JRVV's use a 65mm base plate at 1° and a secondary "insulation foil" that varies from 15 to 45 mm at 0 or 15° depending on the slots available. In Afghanistan the median foil was 25mm, that makes a total armor value of 90mm. Compared to the M1511A2's 45mm bolt on that is indeed a better value at the get go. This doesn't take into account structural weaknesses of the MRAP's (tires/Windshield,Joints). However the fact is that better armored the MRAP's are.
    5. Which side had thicker armor? Do yo know what the values of the M1 or M1A1 were in the dying days of the CW? According to the Iraqi feats on the BF, not nearly enough to make a dent. An Iraqi M1A1 was even penetrated live wy a tandem warhead fired from ISIS goons on it's right front side. There, the armor is theoretically at 500mm vs CE. Furthermore the mass armor that the US had in Europe was still M60A3's. That too proved to be less than resilient to even baseline Metis (Crusty or Kurdish bidi bidi).

    Let's not start talking properly with actual facts, otherwise this will turn into a bloodbath.
    Stick to numbers, parrots are good at that.



    Real world tends to make one reconsider its facts.
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 711
    Points : 715
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ: Μodernisation and Variants

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:10 am

    Interlinked wrote:
    SeigSoloyvov wrote:

    Pal your 18 and you cheery picking and posting tons of incorrect biased information.

    You are the very thing the term "Armchair Expert" was created for.

    Yes buddy I also think that of people here, however at least they don't come up with half of the crooked stuff you do.

    I know your type, your the type that will argue and argue and argue despite the fact you are wrong and try and present numbers to make you look right.

    This is why I stopped bothering with you, your types just want to ramble and ramble and ramble.

    That's the thing - I'm not 18.

    I did not present photos of T-54 turrets bombarded by 100mm APCBC and claim that it was hit by APFSDS. I did not claim that an APFSDS shell hitting the lower glacis of a T-72 would go out the belly and hit the ground. I did not say that the Bradley has NERA when it actually has ERA  Laughing And you think that I am the "armchair expert" in this forum?  Laughing Where are your complaints on the idiotic things that GarryB has said? Or the obviously incorrect claims made by Mindstorm?

    I know why people like you don't like me. All you want to hear is "Russia is *****!!!11one1!1". The reality is that there are flaws in everything, including the T-72. Some minor, some serious. You just have to accept that fact.

    Oh you clearly know crap I have called out people on here for saying Russia is number one, you can Ask Garry, you can ask Mike, anyone here can tell you I do not consider Russia number one in areas.

    It is true there are flaws in everything however you are wrong about the flaws and using incorrect information to justify your claims.

    I have called Garry many times out and I have had words with Mindstorm. You will find I am one of the most objective people on this forum

    That doesn't change the fact you are wrong and presenting information incorrectly, the pics you posted alone prove that to me.
    avatar
    Interlinked

    Posts : 91
    Points : 93
    Join date : 2017-11-07
    Age : 27

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ: Μodernisation and Variants

    Post  Interlinked on Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:39 am

    KoTeMoRe wrote:That's the thing you are not 18, but you don't get to understand the paradigm between war and spreadsheets. BTW that's misleading people.


    Now i have some time, i will reply in a more focused fashion.

    1. Sorry indeed i used a wrong term NERA carelessly, because I was a bit annoyed and hurried to reply.
    2. You are looking at this equation in a very narrow way and i am willing to take your "70° arc protection" as a sounding absurdity. The Enemy will not attack you on your strongest side, that's nonsense.
    3. JRVV's use a 65mm base plate at 1° and a secondary "insulation foil" that varies from 15 to 45 mm at 0 or 15° depending on the slots available. In Afghanistan the median foil was 25mm, that makes a total armor value of 90mm. Compared to the M1511A2's 45mm bolt on that is indeed a better value at the get go. This doesn't take into account structural weaknesses of the MRAP's (tires/Windshield,Joints). However the fact is that better armored the MRAP's are.
    5. Which side had thicker armor? Do yo know what the values of the M1 or M1A1 were in the dying days of the CW? According to the Iraqi feats on the BF, not nearly enough to make a dent. An Iraqi M1A1 was even penetrated live wy a tandem warhead fired from ISIS goons on it's right front side. There, the armor is theoretically at 500mm vs CE. Furthermore the mass armor that the US had in Europe was still M60A3's. That too proved to be less than resilient to even baseline Metis (Crusty or Kurdish bidi bidi).

    Let's not start talking properly with actual facts, otherwise this will turn into a bloodbath.
    Stick to numbers, parrots are good at that.

    Real world tends to make one reconsider its facts.

    1. I picked 18 years because it's the minimum age to be considered an adult without disclosing my real age. Many websites and some forums about military stuff sometimes require users to be at least 18. I didn't know that the age could be left empty, as almost everyone here is doing (for some reason).

    2. In conventional warfare, the vast majority of hits land on the frontal arc of the tank, and this is a fact.





    This was known for a long time, and the shape of the turret of the T-64/72/80 was designed with this in mind. If you can read Russian, I recommend you to read the works of established experts like Baryatinsky, Suvorov and Sevchenko. To be more specific, you should read these:

    Grigoryan, V.A, Tank Armour (Защита Танков), 2007

    Grigoryan, V.A, Ammunition (Боеприпасы), 2005

    Shevchenko, Ya.V, Actual problems of protection and safety: Proceedings of the Eighth All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference (Актуальные проблемы защиты и безопасности: Труды Восьмой Всероссийской научно-практической конференции), April 4-7, 2005

    Held, M, Warhead Hit Distribution on Main Battle Tanks in The Gulf, 2000


    There are also a myriad of declassified Soviet and U.S documents that mention this. The only situation where tanks are indeed hit more often on the sides or rear is when they are used in urban locations. Unconventional warfare in an urban area like in Chechnya showed that most of the hits suffered by Russian tanks were sustained on the sides, the roof of the turret and the rear of the hull. That is undisputed. However, if you are talking about tanks shooting at other tanks, then you must recognize that the vast majority of hits land in the frontal arc, which was determined by Soviet analysts to be 70 degrees, hence the shape of the T-64/72/80 turret. A statistical model was developed by Whittake's statistical model for directional probability variation, and oval distribution models have been used since before WW2. These models were used to determine the most optimal distribution of armour and the amount of slope necessary for sufficient protection, and such models were validated by data from tank combat in WW2, and was later modified with more and more data from subsequent wars. I suggest you read up more on this. I recommend this study as an introduction to hit distribution on tanks: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/BF02477759.pdf

    BTW, I find it very strange that not a single person in this forum has the habit of providing sources for the things they are saying. Even if these debates are intended to be informal, it is good to provide sources. Otherwise, it is merely a battle of opinions and anecdotes, which leads nowhere because neither side is willing or able to substantiate their claims, so either side may be wrong or may be right, and nobody can really say for sure. Not unless sources are given.

    3. I have no idea what you are talking about, but you seem to be describing composite armour. The thickness of the armour would not properly describe its protection level. The sides of the M2A0 Bradley, for example, are technically 130mm thick according to figures from Hunnicutt, but it only provides protection against 14.5mm B-32 bullets and 155mm fragments. In other words, it's only STANAG level 4. That's because most of that 130mm-thick armour is just air. MRAP armour is usually composite, and usually incorporates layers of low and high density plates in order to attenuate blast waves from roadside IEDs while providing sufficient ballistic protection against fragments and splinters. Thickness =/= protection level in RHA, and RHA is not used anyway. Again, I must remind you that protection levels are certified by STANAG levels. There is currently no MRAP out there that has attained STANAG level 5 protection on the sides, and 23mm AP is somewhere between level 4 and 5, and 30mm AP is slightly higher. It would have no issue with any Maxxpro MRAP. However, it's not going to be easy to go through the sides of an M2A2/A3 Bradley, which has a huge 32mm steel plate draped over the sides of the hull and spaced from the base aluminium armour, one inch thick.


    4. I don't know why you are bringing this up or where you got that "500mm vs CE" figure from (if you got it from Steelbeasts, then I should remind you that that includes the front hull fuel tanks into the equation), and I don't think that RHA figures really mean that much except against specific types of ammunition. For example: early Abrams was not designed to deal with tandem warheads, so even if the claimed protection level of 800mm RHA vs CE is accurate if faced with a single warhead, it may not be true if faced with a tandem warhead. My answer to your question would be that it depends on which variant and what kind of ammunition hits it, but really, I don't know why you bring this up.


    Last edited by Interlinked on Sat Nov 25, 2017 7:34 am; edited 2 times in total
    avatar
    Interlinked

    Posts : 91
    Points : 93
    Join date : 2017-11-07
    Age : 27

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ: Μodernisation and Variants

    Post  Interlinked on Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:51 am

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:
    Oh you clearly know crap I have called out people on here for saying Russia is number one, you can Ask Garry, you can ask Mike, anyone here can tell you I do not consider Russia number one in areas.

    It is true there are flaws in everything however you are wrong about the flaws and using incorrect information to justify your claims.

    I have called Garry many times out and I have had words with Mindstorm. You will find I am one of the most objective people on this forum

    That doesn't change the fact you are wrong and presenting information incorrectly, the pics you posted alone prove that to me.

    Calling people out usually involves pointing out what exactly was incorrect. You did not do that. Right now you're just saying that I'm wrong, without evidence and without saying where I am wrong. You don't even mention which photo it was that "proved" it to you, and then you call yourself "one of the most objective people on this forum"...
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 711
    Points : 715
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ: Μodernisation and Variants

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Fri Nov 24, 2017 1:59 pm

    Interlinked wrote:
    SeigSoloyvov wrote:
    Oh you clearly know crap I have called out people on here for saying Russia is number one, you can Ask Garry, you can ask Mike, anyone here can tell you I do not consider Russia number one in areas.

    It is true there are flaws in everything however you are wrong about the flaws and using incorrect information to justify your claims.

    I have called Garry many times out and I have had words with Mindstorm. You will find I am one of the most objective people on this forum

    That doesn't change the fact you are wrong and presenting information incorrectly, the pics you posted alone prove that to me.

    Calling people out usually involves pointing out what exactly was incorrect. You did not do that. Right now you're just saying that I'm wrong, without evidence and without saying where I am wrong. You don't even mention which photo it was that "proved" it to you, and then you call yourself "one of the most objective people on this forum"...

    Simply because you have been proven wrong afew times but despite this keep inventing facts and going on and on and on a key feature of an armchair expert, when someone does this. I see no reason to enter the debate zone.

    It's wasting my time, I am not saying all you have said is wrong however you have said wrong things and then buckled down on them if I wanted to have this type of chat I could go to a youtube posting pissing contest.

    Sponsored content

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ: Μodernisation and Variants

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:48 pm