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 Fri Nov 24, 2017 2:26 pm

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:

    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.

    When you prove someone wrong, you usually present evidence that shows that they are wrong. So far, I have been the only person that is able to consistently provide sources for a good number of my claims. You think I'm wrong on some things? That's perfectly fine. Doesn't mean you are right until you can prove it.
    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 2:34 pm

    Interlinked wrote:
    SeigSoloyvov wrote:

    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.

    When you prove someone wrong, you usually present evidence that shows that they are wrong. So far, I have been the only person that is able to consistently provide sources for a good number of my claims. You think I'm wrong on some things? That's perfectly fine. Doesn't mean you are right until you can prove it.

    See right there other people have proved you wrong in areas yet you keep rambling on that you are right.

    This is why having a debate with you in pointless your to dam ignorant to realize the fallacy of your own argument truth be told half of those pictures you posted you have no idea where they came from or the conditions in which things occurred for example. you are taking them out of GRAVE context.

    So don't be shocked when I don't want to argue with someone who is blind has a bat to their own ego since it would be like trying to convince a coke addict not to do coke and god dam I just don't have that kind patience for you armchair experts anymore.
    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 3:48 pm

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:
    See right there other people have proved you wrong in areas yet you keep rambling on that you are right.

    This is why having a debate with you in pointless your to dam ignorant to realize the fallacy of your own argument truth be told half of those pictures you posted you have no idea where they came from or the conditions in which things occurred for example. you are taking them out of GRAVE context.  

    So don't be shocked when I don't want to argue with someone who is blind has a bat to their own ego since it would be like trying to convince a coke addict not to do coke and god dam I just don't have that kind patience for you armchair experts anymore.

    So basically it's "You are wrong but I won't say why and I can't prove it". Isn't that what armchair experts do? Laughing Despite saying that you "have no patience", you seem to be intent on hounding me for being wrong, yet you refuse to say where, when and why. It shouldn't be difficult for you to select just one example and then prove that I am wrong by giving a source for your counterclaim.

    If you can't even find one example, at least have something productive to say along with your criticism. Otherwise, you are the one wasting people's time here.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 962
    Points : 960
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ: Μodernisation and Variants

    Post  Isos on Sat Nov 25, 2017 9:59 am

    Nice read and nice pictre of the first bmpt.

    [quote="https://www.facebook.com/tankchaser/?hc_ref=ARTkryOVL4bnco3Y25vILo8stJgKJT3ScY0UzLX_5d8XNgyMW77JIks2ofV8XN7WDNQ]
    Object 787

    The idea of creating a heavily armored dedicated anti-infantry vehicle was not exclusive to the Soviet Union but it was the Soviet industry that started working on it intensively as early as in mid-80’s.
    Nevertheless, between 1985 and 1986, Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant started working on a program to develop a vehicle they called “mountain tank”, producing between 1987 and 1996 three distinct projects they thought suitable for the tanks support role –Object 781, Object 782 and Object 787 (sometimes referred to as Object 745 by certain Russian sources).
    Even though the Object 781 research was cancelled, the war in Chechnya and the disastrous results of the tanks used in city environments re-started the development of the fire support vehicle in Russia. Once again, Chelyabinsk stepped up, developing a completely new vehicle between 1995 and 1996 called Object 787 (some sources refer to it as Object 754). One prototype was built in 1996. It was basically a T-72AV hull and turret (with the Kontakt-1 reactive armor as the tank designation suggests) but instead of the usual 125mm cannon, the vehicle was equipped with a pair of high-elevation 30mm guns, mounted on the sides of the turret (along with a pair of 12,7mm machineguns). The 30mm guns were paired with sets of unguided rockets (originally developed for helicopters) for added firepower. The vehicle was internally called “Gadyuka” (viper) by the designers.
    The trials have shown excellent results of this vehicle (the trials were performed at Kubinka from 5.4. to 10.4.1997), but it too was to be cancelled – for the strangest of reasons. Initially, many high-positioned Russian officers were supporting the vehicle (including the chief of GABTU Colonel-General S.A.Maev, former Marshal of the Soviet Union, V.L.Kulikov and the main Ministry of Defense military advisor, Army General M.M.Zaytsev). The military started advertising the vehicle in television and radio, trying to gain as much support for the new vehicle class as possible. This did not sit well with the overseeing institutions, which accused the participants (including the vehicle designers themselves) of “publishing Russia’s military secrets”. An investigation was held and the entire process resulted in numerous personal changes in the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant company as well as in the cancellation of the Object 787 development (as the accused designers were forbidden from pursuing the project further). The only prototype was transferred to Kubinka.
    The Object 787 farce did slow the development of this class of vehicle considerably, but it did not stop it. Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant was out of the picture now and stopped developing this type of vehicle altogether, focusing only on tractor building. The idea however did not die and was intensively discussed between I.N.Rodionov (the Russian minister of defense between 1996 and 1997) and other members of the military. In the meanwhile, designers from Uralvagonzavod from Nizhny Tagil started working on a prototype of their own, introducing the first Object 199 “Ramka” prototype to public in 2000.
    [/quote]


    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

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

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ: Μodernisation and Variants

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:17 am

    Interlinked wrote:
    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.

    That's a dummy round...they weren't going to use live ammunition on pokazuha.

    The idea that you could be an analyst while not even knowing Soviet history of using "black rounds" in these stunts is nothing short of amazingly unbelievable.

    What's your back ground, aside from internet may i ask.

    avatar
    Interlinked

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

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ: Μodernisation and Variants

    Post  Interlinked on Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:45 am

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Interlinked wrote:
    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.

    That's a dummy round...they weren't going to use live ammunition on pokazuha.

    Well duh.. Laughing I didn't think that The-thing-next-door meant live APFSDS rounds either. Why would you assume that I meant live HEAT or HE-Frag? Looking for an excuse to antagonize me?

    I'm not telling my background to you, just as I'm not telling my age, because you are clearly a very hostile individual.


    Last edited by Interlinked on Sun Nov 26, 2017 9:44 am; edited 1 time 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 Sun Nov 26, 2017 9:35 am

    Interlinked wrote:
    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.

    Hum Which real world scenario stacks up the odds of a face off head on at 70%?

    Base scenario of the three last world wars I know has been that armored threats have always been targeted on their weakest points.

    The fact the defending or attacking force would like to show their strongest side, means literally nothing. While the Frontal glacis may have a relevance in a mechanized push along a front (hint check why there are arcs of fire to cover when moving), in any other scenario (especially indirect fire support, especially against an asymmetrical force) that is garbage.

    Do you happen to know about Frag kits or are you REALLY that dense? Have you actually even sat into an uparmoured vehicle or is this another one of, i am willing to show as little as possible blabla?

    B-kits on the M1151 and Frag Kits (5/6/7) on the M1114 were not "composite" armor but bolt on armor with slots for anti EFP charges. without the Slots (that looked like huge radios) the bolt-on armor was 45mm RHA. It added between 1 and 1.5 tons to the M1114 and proved crappy. Mostly because the vehicles were already struggling with the power and also because bolt on is not always a safe bet.

    Here what a bolt on FRAG kit looks like on previous variants (M1165 Frag 3)



    The JRVV's they have a baseline 65mm on RHA that should not be penetrated by 23mm, but still, shit happens.

    The insulation foil for the B-kit that is also applied to the MATV/LATV/JRVV depends on requirements but it is never under the 15mm.

    The point however still stands, the 2A42 and 2A72 will have no issue whatsoever with the main threats they will be facing, infantry carrying vehicles, heavy APCS (with AP-T/ATGM/LATW carried on board) and trucks.

    500mm against CE? That's the minimum value if I take the angle. You can search for the Video which was posted during the battle for Mosul Hospital by Daesh. The Tandem Bulgarian warhead used went through the tank's front right hull at an angle of 20° give or take, If i have to trust this :



    It hit dead in the overlap between the front capsule and the mainstay of the hull. Basically in both cases it did something It should have not been possible to do. But it did.

    Now we have, omg the initial description is crap.

    Sources? Which ones?

    Let me tell you one thing that you might fucking get through you ears.

    Tank fire in WW2 killed less than 17% of the other armored vehicles. For the US tanks it was 7.5%. Which means that 83% of the the vehicles put out of combat were probably engaged elsewhere than in their frontal 70°, by something else than tanks. The round turrets of the T-series were made to cover flanks when showing front (skirting) but see how the hull wasn't made in a round shape, guess why? Oh I know stupid, incapable Soviet engineers. And they also tried to have an ovoidal hull as well, no need to tell me. However that skirting used on the turret, was done so to save both weight and material, by having the maximum amount of coverage WHILE SHOWING FRONT. However SHOWING FRONT is not a god given right.

    Now as for AT immobilization hits, the US found out of their sample, that most of the hits by AT guns (i stress out this) were on rear and tracks. Most in this case being 69%. So 69% were hit on weaker spots and Flanks/rear.

    So which is this source that shows that you are going to get hit frontally on 70% of the time. The idea of head on attack works if you have a careful situational awareness and positional skill. However it is VERY rare that you get to lead an assault through head on. The actual very idea of conventional mechanized warfare is one of pivot and covering your damn flanks. WHY? Because at some point you are going to have three things happening to your damn attack.

    1. Break through & Focus on exploitation. This causes you to have the brunt of the enemy on your back. Yes a kettle will open the way for enemy reinforcements to hit you on your back.
    2. Wood and icing. Your attack hits hard wood and it starts to stall, you get pinned and the enemy WILL ABSOLUTELY try to go around.
    3. Transition period after break through that will see you and the enemy in limbo. Looking for each other.


    In a nutshell, you will be able to get the enemy in front of your sights if you manage other areas of combat that do not need your tank have super duper Sabot rounds. Those areas will allow you to maintain a high percentage of advantage and initiative (ergo showing the strongest part of the armor to the enemy). There's a causality there, but it is not automatic.

    With the new portable threats, the very strength of the armored vehicle is being challenged, especially in an exploitation movement. A light vehicle, with an ATGM provides, more mobility, less footprint and detectability than the said tank. There is no sense to bringing tank to tank combat idiocy when we are talking about how the Marder M1A3 is ill suited into a discussion as a far superior APC/IFV than the BMP2. If you are going to box the BMP to front only then you are indeed cherry picking.

    Once again, you are very good at parroting stuff, but it is becoming evident that you do not have real time with warfare.
    avatar
    Interlinked

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

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ: Μodernisation and Variants

    Post  Interlinked on Sun Nov 26, 2017 11:46 am

    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    Hum Which real world scenario stacks up the odds of a face off head on at 70%?

    Base scenario of the three last world wars I know has been that armored threats have always been targeted on their weakest points.


    I didn't say that 70% of shots landed on the front of tanks and IFVs. I politely said that the majority of shots landed on a 70 degree frontal arc.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    The fact the defending or attacking force would like to show their strongest side, means literally nothing. While the Frontal glacis may have a relevance in a mechanized push along a front (hint check why there are arcs of fire to cover when moving), in any other scenario (especially indirect fire support, especially against an asymmetrical force) that is garbage.


    You clearly ignored the part where I said this:

    Interlinked wrote:
    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.

    If you aren't actually reading what I write, then I won't bother writing. Seems like you are only focused on boosting your own ego by trying to be right, talking about how I "don't get war" and that I "do not have real time with warfare", as if you are some super-duper strategic genius or something.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    Do you happen to know about Frag kits or are you REALLY that dense? Have you actually even sat into an uparmoured vehicle or is this another one of, i am willing to show as little as possible blabla?

    B-kits on the M1151 and Frag Kits (5/6/7) on the M1114 were not "composite" armor but bolt on armor with slots for anti EFP charges. without the Slots (that looked like huge radios) the bolt-on armor was 45mm RHA. It added between 1 and 1.5 tons to the M1114 and proved crappy. Mostly because the vehicles were already struggling with the power and also because bolt on is not always a safe bet.

    Here what a bolt on FRAG kit looks like on previous variants (M1165 Frag 3)




    What does this have to do with anything? Was I talking about Frag kits? Take a long, hard look at what I wrote before trying to respond.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    The JRVV's they have a baseline 65mm on RHA that should not be penetrated by 23mm, but still, shit happens.

    The insulation foil for the B-kit that is also applied to the MATV/LATV/JRVV depends on requirements but it is never under the 15mm.


    Once again, I would like to remind you that nobody actually expresses protection level in RHA. If you actually measured the thickness of the base armour to be 65mm of pure steel, then please share your evidence with us. I am very interested in your findings.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    The point however still stands, the 2A42 and 2A72 will have no issue whatsoever with the main threats they will be facing, infantry carrying vehicles, heavy APCS (with AP-T/ATGM/LATW carried on board) and trucks.


    It would have a big issue with an M2A2/A3 Bradley at any range worth mentioning, even if a BMP-2/BMP-3 manages to take up better positions and score multiple side hits. Sure, old M113s and Ferret scout cars aren't a challenge, or even other BMP-2s for that matter, but that's not exactly a high bar to pass.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    500mm against CE? That's the minimum value if I take the angle. You can search for the Video which was posted during the battle for Mosul Hospital by Daesh. The Tandem Bulgarian warhead used went through the tank's front right hull at an angle of 20° give or take, If i have to trust this :



    It hit dead in the overlap between the front capsule and the mainstay of the hull. Basically in both cases it did something It should have not been possible to do. But it did.

    Now we have, omg the initial description is crap.


    Many Iraqi Abrams tanks were knocked out, and I can't really visualize what happened from your description. You need to give a link so we can see it.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    Sources? Which ones?


    I gave you four. The study penned by Manfred Held is the most important one.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    Let me tell you one thing that you might fucking get through you ears.

    Tank fire in WW2 killed less than 17% of the other armored vehicles. For the US tanks it was 7.5%. Which means that 83% of the the vehicles put out of combat were probably engaged elsewhere than in their frontal 70°, by something else than tanks.


    This has absolutely nothing to do with the distribution of hits on tanks, and the sources I listed also included hits from ATGMs and other weapons. You would know if you bothered to check them, so you clearly didn't. Why should I even talk to someone who is as stubborn as you?

    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    The round turrets of the T-series were made to cover flanks when showing front (skirting) but see how the hull wasn't made in a round shape, guess why? Oh I know stupid, incapable Soviet engineers. And they also tried to have an ovoidal hull as well, no need to tell me. However that skirting used on the turret, was done so to save both weight and material, by having the maximum amount of coverage WHILE SHOWING FRONT. However SHOWING FRONT is not a god given right.


    Wow, you are so very rude. I'm pretty sure that you are breaking some forum rule right now, actually. But moving on:

    1. Hull shapes other than regular rectangles are difficult to pull off.
    2. What is "skirting"? Tank turrets don't have skirts.
    3. T-64 came with "gill" armour that flipped out and provided shaped charge protection for the hull for a 60-degree frontal arc.
    4. Soviets technical documents show that they quantified armour protection at a side angle of 30 degrees, and that one of the most important criteria for tank turrets was to be able to survive hits from a 30 degree side angle.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    Now as for AT immobilization hits, the US found out of their sample, that most of the hits by AT guns (i stress out this) were on rear and tracks. Most in this case being 69%. So 69% were hit on weaker spots and Flanks/rear.


    I don't know if you realize this, but you should should be informed that the information I shared did not contradict this at all. I said that the frontal arc of 70 degrees of the tank received the majority of hits, but it seems that you saw the word "front" and lost your shit thinking that I said that the majority of hits landed on the front of the tank. The frontal arc includes the sides of the tank, but side shots do not necessarily mean hitting the side of the tank at a perpendicular angle. Most shots impact at an angle to the side, and the distribution of hits at different angles is what I am referring to.


    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    So which is this source that shows that you are going to get hit frontally on 70% of the time. The idea of head on attack works if you have a careful situational awareness and positional skill. However it is VERY rare that you get to lead an assault through head on. The actual very idea of conventional mechanized warfare is one of pivot and covering your damn flanks. WHY? Because at some point you are going to have three things happening to your damn attack.

    1. Break through & Focus on exploitation. This causes you to have the brunt of the enemy on your back. Yes a kettle will open the way for enemy reinforcements to hit you on your back.
    2. Wood and icing. Your attack hits hard wood and it starts to stall, you get pinned and the enemy WILL ABSOLUTELY try to go around.
    3. Transition period after break through that will see you and the enemy in limbo. Looking for each other.


    In a nutshell, you will be able to get the enemy in front of your sights if you manage other areas of combat that do not need your tank have super duper Sabot rounds. Those areas will allow you to maintain a high percentage of advantage and initiative (ergo showing the strongest part of the armor to the enemy). There's a causality there, but it is not automatic.


    I never asked for your opinion on head on attacks, nor did I say that head on attacks are where tanks are going to get hit frontally. I also didn't say that tanks get hit from the front 70% of the time. I said that the 70-degree frontal arc of a tank receives the majority of hits. You are utterly confused, you poor, poor man.

    I already listed the sources that I referred to. Your eyesight must be absolutely terrible...

    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 War, 2000


    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    With the new portable threats, the very strength of the armored vehicle is being challenged, especially in an exploitation movement. A light vehicle, with an ATGM provides, more mobility, less footprint and detectability than the said tank. There is no sense to bringing tank to tank combat idiocy when we are talking about how the Marder M1A3 is ill suited into a discussion as a far superior APC/IFV than the BMP2. If you are going to box the BMP to front only then you are indeed cherry picking.


    It's pretty clear that you are confused, because you think that I said "70% of hits land on the front of a tank", and that the BMP is going to be hit from the front only. I'm really surprised, because you definitely acknowledged that I said "70 degree arc" in an earlier comment, as you can see:

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    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.


    Come back to talk once you are sober, or just PM me. This is getting a little off topic, especially if you continue to ramble on like you did.

    Mindstorm

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

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ: Μodernisation and Variants

    Post  Mindstorm on Mon Nov 27, 2017 12:34 pm

    Interlinked wrote: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

    The most correct sentence would be: " T-90 represent at today the most technically/cost efficient mass produced MBT at world conceived for large scale conflicts"
    But you would never get so much intellectual honesty Smile

    You are too busy using half-facts , constructed cases, false inferences while contemporaneously attempting to focus other’s attention on some details of vehicle's design or weapon suits, in your opinion, "favouring" western-built types ,- like your debate here around KE ammunitions for IFV - to ever notice that domestic samples show very often features and capabilities ,immeasurably more decisive in actual large scale conflict against a peer/near-peer opponent, not having ANY western counterpart to even render possible to execute a comparison
    Only to remain in the above mentioned debate about IFVs :

    - Where is the western IFV equivalent of the domestic amphibious capability of БМП/БМД family allowing them to pass and attack from : rivers, lakes, canals and even sea ? This capability singlehandedly allow to achieve force concentration overmatch both on the offensivee than in the defensive operations against enemy forces self-channeled around bridges ,engineering companies or elevated coast sectors and complicate enormously placement of defensive area defense assets -such as minefields-.

    - Where is the western IFV equivalent of the domestic БМП-3/БМД-4 capability to shoot 100 mm ammunition (both in direct and indirect fire ) while retaining capability to shot medium caliber 30 mm autocannon ?
    This capability allow to destroy enemy installations, radars, bunkers, FOB, or infantry ATGM fire positions stationing safely from well outside their engagement footprint  - including any version of BGM-71 or FGM-114 - while retaining full mobility to evade artillery fire barrage.

    - Where is the western IFV counterpart of the domestic БМП-3/БМД-4 capability to shoot long range GLMs ,at any extend immune to know ECM systems, on the move ?  

    - Where is the western IFV counterpart of the domestic БМП-3/БМД-4 capability to allow transported soldiers to shoot MANPADS directly from the moving ?
    A capability always most important in modern UAV-rich battlefield.

    -Where is an enemy IFV offering a similar so small target area to enemy LOS fire like БМП-3/БМД-4 ?
    A defensive feature truly decisive in maneuvering battlles against enemy MBT/IFV/APC.

    -Where is western-built IFV that can be air-dropped directly behind enemy defensive lines with the crew within like БМД-4 ?
    -Where is a western-buit IFV with the same strategic mobility БМП-3/БМД-4?  (mostly thanks to theirs very low volume and weight)

    - Where is a western-buit IFV with a medium-caliber cannon with similar rate of fire of domestic 2A42/2A72 ?

    This feature allow not only a reliable engagement ,at vastly greater range in comparison with cannons with lower RoF, of helicopters and UAVs but also of enemy IFV/APC (that obviously never maintain a constant speed and direction in actual battles.  
    And so on……

    Said that is important to remember that any choice in military systems design is a compromise (for example employing the same materials you cannot reach the same level of ballistic protection of a Puma IFV with a vehicle within the weight class of БМП-3/БМД-4); but is clearly evident that any western designer would have rushed to integrate in theirs IFV design the previously mentioned features ,producing immeasurably greater impact on battle efficiency  (instead of enormously increase internal volume and weight to obtain in return only a middle increase of ballistic protection or invest in costly ammunitions only for partially off-set the lower caliber/rate of fire of theirs IFV autocannons in comparison with those standard of theirs likely enemies) owning the technological and engineering base to do that.


    But i image that for an enthusiast with a “weakness” for western-built military systems is better to focus the attention on the characteristics of M791 or M919 round (conceived clearly to offset the hard limitations produced by projectile mass/muzzle energy/rate of fire of theirs 25 mm cannon against the standard gun 30 mm of the OPFOR) against 3УБР-6 sustaining that 3УБР-8 (domestic version) is not produced for Federation forces Razz

    Just for the chronicle that is what offer today for export Rosoboronexport (export version)







    Interlinked wrote:"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?



    Obviously this photo represent a simulation with domestic APFSDS  Very Happy  (tests employing actual foreign samples of any kind, collected from both from theatre of conflicts of foreign Armies or by operatives of the illegal spy network, are obviously covered by strict State secrets to prevent potential opponents to get any hint on the level of our knowledge about the specifics of theirs sytems. The same is true aboard).

    But ,as you well know, the point in question was, from the beginning, the size of those KE penetrator's holes in MBT targets im ,in mine thesis some times bigger (from 2 to 4 times) than its diameter with a variance dependant on distance of fire, yaw, residual or parassitic spin (for very long distance shots) and material composition of, it in your thesis equal to its phisical diameter.



    Interlinked wrote: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...




    1) You should learn to read what other write (that is also true for the documents you cite supposedly at support of your thesis  Rolling Eyes )  ....and possibly also understand...... Razz



    Mindstorm wrote: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.......you will obserbe small APDSFS holes"


    Obviously, as your standard, you have failed also to take into account difference in size of the target (the APFSDS target is almost 3 times bigger)
    Facts also on those kind of not dense/viscous target, physical holes of APFSDS is always bigger than diameter of the KE penetrator.
    If your theory would hold some water on each side of those 1 square meter your could put side-to-side 40-50 APFSDS holes (2/2,5 cm diameter), instead those are 3 -4 times bigger.
    Thanks to have proved mine point   Cool

       

    To be continued about the study of M. Held on hit distribution in pasted conflicts used by Interlinked to prove its thesis" in exact opposition to its finding.......


    Last edited by Mindstorm on Tue Nov 28, 2017 9:14 am; edited 1 time 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 Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:47 pm

    Mindstorm wrote:

    The most correct sentence would be: " T-90 represent at today the most technically/cost efficient mass produced MBT at world conceived for large scale conflicts"
    But you would never get so much intellectual honesty Smile


    How can I contradict you if you worded it that way?  Wink  This is, of course, a completely different can of worms that I do not want to open in a thread about the T-72, which has already been derailed by silly stuff about autocannon ammunition. We can continue this particular topic in the T-90 thread if you wish.

    Mindstorm wrote:

    You are too busy using half-facts , constructed cases, false inferences while contemporaneously attempting to focus other’s attention on some details of vehicle's design or weapon suits, in your opinion, "favouring" western-built types ,- like your debate here around KE ammunitions for IFV - to ever notice that domestic samples show very often features and capabilities ,immeasurably more decisive in actual large scale conflict against a peer/near-peer opponent, not having ANY western counterpart to even render possible to execute a comparison
    Only to remain in the above mentioned debate about IFVs :

    - Where is the western IFV equivalent of the domestic amphibious capability of БМП/БМД family allowing them to pass and attack from : rivers, lakes, canals and even sea ? This capability singlehandedly allow to achieve force concentration overmatch both on the offensivee than in the defensive operations against enemy forces self-channeled around bridges ,engineering companies or elevated coast sectors and complicate enormously placement of defensive area defense assets -such as minefields-.

    - Where is the western IFV equivalent of the domestic БМП-3/БМД-4 capability to shoot 100 mm ammunition (both in direct and indirect fire ) while retaining capability to shot medium caliber 30 mm autocannon ?
    This capability allow to destroy enemy installations, radars, bunkers, FOB, or infantry ATGM fire positions stationing safely from well outside their engagement footprint  - including any version of BGM-71 or FGM-114 - while retaining full mobility to evade artillery fire barrage.

    - Where is the western IFV counterpart of the domestic БМП-3/БМД-4 capability to shoot long range GLMs ,at any extend immune to know ECM systems, on the move ?  

    - Where is the western IFV counterpart of the domestic БМП-3/БМД-4 capability to allow transported soldiers to shoot MANPADS directly from the moving ?
    A capability always most important in modern UAV-rich battlefield.

    -Where is an enemy IFV offering a similar so small target area to enemy LOS fire like БМП-3/БМД-4 ?
    A defensive feature truly decisive in maneuvering battlles against enemy MBT/IFV/APC.

    -Where is western-built IFV that can be air-dropped directly behind enemy defensive lines with the crew within like БМД-4 ?
    -Where is a western-buit IFV with the same strategic mobility БМП-3/БМД-4?  (mostly thanks to theirs very low volume and weight)

    - Where is a western-buit IFV with a medium-caliber cannon with similar rate of fire of domestic 2A42/2A72 ?

    This feature allow not only a reliable engagement ,at vastly greater range in comparison with cannons with lower RoF, of helicopters and UAVs but also of enemy IFV/APC (that obviously never maintain a constant speed and direction in actual battles.  
    And so on……




    Just because I think that modern Russian IFVs require a decent APDS (or APFSDS) round doesn't mean that I despise Russian IFVs. My position was never to degrade Soviet or Russian arms and armoured vehicles; I provide constructive criticism where it is necessary. Does the 2A42 have a high rate of fire? Yes. All the better for the crew to choke on gunpowder fumes. They tried to solve this issue by installing the cannon in an external mount like the Marder 1, but couldn't because the turret could not maintain a seal good enough to work in a contaminated environment. I would know. I wrote a fairly extensive piece on the BMP-2.



    Speaking of the Marder 1, it has an Rh202 20mm cannon that fires at 800-1000 RPM and can fire DM63 APDS rounds that have slightly more penetration than M791 rounds for the Bradley's M242. Also, the faster 20mm and 25mm APDS rounds make it much easier to hit moving targets at long range, so saturation fire isn't the most optimal solution. It's a viable solution, but it comes with a bunch of disadvantages. Is the 2A42 really that special? It's a good, dependable and effective weapon, but it's not like it's a miracle or anything, as you were implying.

    Having a 100mm low pressure gun isn't necessarily the bee's knees. The new "Epoch" turret doesn't have one, and there have been no further developments in this direction for a long time. The current trend is larger caliber autocannons; 40mm, 57mm, etc. Indirect fire is left to hardware designed for indirect fire, and keeping a 100mm gun just to be able to conduct direct fire may not be the wisest choice if it is incompatible with other, more promising concepts, such as unmanned turrets. We can appreciate the BMP-3 and BMD-4 (and I do), but don't go around praising it like it's the second coming of Christ.

    Practically all Western IFV allows its passengers to pop out of a roof hatch to fire MANPADS at air targets while the vehicle is moving. How will BMDs parachute behind enemy lines? Wouldn't a great big cargo plane be seen from hundreds of miles away? The BMD series are good for rapid response situations, but parachuting behind enemy lines is just implausible, and has been for many years. I'm sure I missed one or two of your other points, but you have to remember that this is a thread about the T-72. If you want to talk about BMPs and BMDs, take it to the appropriate thread.



    Mindstorm wrote:

    Said that is important to remember that any choice in military systems design is a compromise (for example employing the same materials you cannot reach the same level of ballistic protection of a Puma IFV with a vehicle within the weight class of БМП-3/БМД-4); but is clearly evident that any western designer would have rushed to integrate in theirs IFV design the previously mentioned features ,producing immeasurably greater impact on battle efficiency  (instead of enormously increase internal volume and weight to obtain in return only a middle increase of ballistic protection or invest in costly ammunitions only for partially off-set the lower caliber/rate of fire of theirs IFV autocannons in comparison with those standard of theirs likely enemies) owning the technological and engineering base to do that.



    I won't bother talking about what you think about Western IFVs vs Soviet/Russian IFVs or what fantasies you have in general, but it is factually incorrect that Western autocannons lacked the technological and engineering base to produce quick-firing autocannons. Having smaller calibers and generally lower rates of fire does not indicate that there was a technological hurdle that they failed to cross. It was a question of accuracy and first round hit probabilities. That was actually one of the reasons why APDS was chosen for the M242 from the beginning. The high rate of fire of the 2A42 badly affects its accuracy, even in bursts. If you want to have a laugh, go watch a video of BMP-2 gunners trying to score even one hit at the firing range:





    Why use APDS? Because the chances of scoring a hit and doing some damage are higher than if they used AP-T. That's basically it. It's mentioned somewhere in here: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a262492.pdf

    Funnily enough, the document also says this (take note GarryB):

    "The M792 HEI-T round will not be considered. The round-to-round random dispersion of the HEI-T is significantly greater than that of APDS-T which would presumably lead to significantly different results"

    So a full caliber round has greater dispersion than an APDS round. Well, how about that...


    Mindstorm wrote:

    But i image that for an enthusiast with a “weakness” for western-built military systems is better to focus the attention on the characteristics of M791 or M919 round (conceived clearly to offset the hard limitations produced by projectile mass/muzzle energy/rate of fire of theirs 25 mm cannon against the standard gun 30 mm of the OPFOR) against 3УБР-6 sustaining that 3УБР-8 (domestic version) is not produced for Federation forces Razz

    Just for the chronicle that is what offer today for export Rosoboronexport (export version)





    Unfortunately, the facts do not entirely line up in your favour. The chamber pressure of the M242 ranges from 360-410 MPa, depending on the ammunition it fires. M919 would be at the high end, of course. Chamber pressure of the 2A42 when firing 3UBR-6 is only 353 MPa. Let's not even bother comparing the 2A42 to a 30x173mm chain gun, eh?

    Oh sure, they offer 30mm APFSDS in the 30x165mm caliber. Too bad the Russian Army doesn't get any of it.



    Mindstorm wrote:

    Obviously this photo represent a simulation with domestic APFSDS  Very Happy  (tests employing actual foreign samples of any kind, collected from both from theatre of conflicts of foreign Armies or by operatives of the illegal spy network, are obviously covered by strict State secrets to prevent potential opponents to get any hint on the level of our knowledge about the specifics of theirs sytems. The same is true aboard).

    But ,as you well know, the point in question was, from the beginning, the size of those KE penetrator's holes in MBT targets im ,in mine thesis some times bigger (from 2 to 4 times) than its diameter with a variance dependant on distance of fire, yaw, residual or parassitic spin (for very long distance shots) and material composition of, it in your thesis equal to its phisical diameter.



    The relatively large diameter of the cavity you see is - as I have patiently explained - due to the presence of a jacket. I have given you multiple examples of the types of holes created by unjacketed monoblock rounds like DM33.



    Mindstorm wrote:

    1) You should learn to read what other write (that is also true for the documents you cite supposedly at support of your thesis  Rolling Eyes )  ....and possibly also understand...... Razz

    Mindstorm wrote:
    Mindstorm wrote: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.......you will obserbe small APDSFS holes"


    Obviously, as your standard, you have failed also to take into account difference in size of the target (the APFSDS target is almost 3 times bigger)
    Facts also on those kind of not dense/viscous target, physical holes of APFSDS is always bigger than diameter of the KE penetrator.
    If your theory would hold some water on each side of those 1 square meter your could put side-to-side 40-50 APFSDS holes (2/2,5 cm diameter), instead those are 3 -4 times bigger.
    Thanks to have proved mine point   Cool



    Where did I misread you? You said that small APFSDS holes are created at very short range, but the photos I show are for ranges of 1.7 km, and those targets aren't exactly dense. BTW, all of the squares in all of the targets are 1 m^2. They didn't triple the size of the squares to shoot APFSDS at... How do you keep on inventing these fantasies? dunno  I am really tired of this. Here it is, all in one picture. MPAT on the left, APFSDS on the right. Take out a ruler or something and slap it on your screen, and I'm pretty sure that those holes will come out at 80mm and 24mm (give or take a few millimeters), MPAT and APFSDS respectively. EDIT: Actually I did it for you using MS Paint and comparing pixels. Size of the MPAT holes comes out to 76mm and APFSDS holes is 26mm. Close enough.



    I do not need or want to say any more.
       
    Mindstorm wrote:

    To be continued about the study of M. Held on hit distribution in pasted conflicts used by Interlinked to prove its thesis" in exact opposition to its finding.......


    To be continued indeed. I hope your theory about quantum tunneling or whatever it is isn't based on that photo of the T-54 turret hit by 100mm APCBC... If you want to rant, just PM me. Do not force these good people to suffer. No
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

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

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ: Μodernisation and Variants

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:14 pm

    Interlinked wrote:
    Mindstorm wrote:

    The most correct sentence would be: " T-90 represent at today the most technically/cost efficient mass produced MBT at world conceived for large scale conflicts"
    But you would never get so much intellectual honesty Smile


    How can I contradict you if you worded it that way?  Wink  This is, of course, a completely different can of worms that I do not want to open in a thread about the T-72, which has already been derailed by silly stuff about autocannon ammunition. We can continue this particular topic in the T-90 thread if you wish.

    Mindstorm wrote:

    You are too busy using half-facts , constructed cases, false inferences while contemporaneously attempting to focus other’s attention on some details of vehicle's design or weapon suits, in your opinion, "favouring" western-built types ,- like your debate here around KE ammunitions for IFV - to ever notice that domestic samples show very often features and capabilities ,immeasurably more decisive in actual large scale conflict against a peer/near-peer opponent, not having ANY western counterpart to even render possible to execute a comparison
    Only to remain in the above mentioned debate about IFVs :

    - Where is the western IFV equivalent of the domestic amphibious capability of БМП/БМД family allowing them to pass and attack from : rivers, lakes, canals and even sea ? This capability singlehandedly allow to achieve force concentration overmatch both on the offensivee than in the defensive operations against enemy forces self-channeled around bridges ,engineering companies or elevated coast sectors and complicate enormously placement of defensive area defense assets -such as minefields-.

    - Where is the western IFV equivalent of the domestic БМП-3/БМД-4 capability to shoot 100 mm ammunition (both in direct and indirect fire ) while retaining capability to shot medium caliber 30 mm autocannon ?
    This capability allow to destroy enemy installations, radars, bunkers, FOB, or infantry ATGM fire positions stationing safely from well outside their engagement footprint  - including any version of BGM-71 or FGM-114 - while retaining full mobility to evade artillery fire barrage.

    - Where is the western IFV counterpart of the domestic БМП-3/БМД-4 capability to shoot long range GLMs ,at any extend immune to know ECM systems, on the move ?  

    - Where is the western IFV counterpart of the domestic БМП-3/БМД-4 capability to allow transported soldiers to shoot MANPADS directly from the moving ?
    A capability always most important in modern UAV-rich battlefield.

    -Where is an enemy IFV offering a similar so small target area to enemy LOS fire like БМП-3/БМД-4 ?
    A defensive feature truly decisive in maneuvering battlles against enemy MBT/IFV/APC.

    -Where is western-built IFV that can be air-dropped directly behind enemy defensive lines with the crew within like БМД-4 ?
    -Where is a western-buit IFV with the same strategic mobility БМП-3/БМД-4?  (mostly thanks to theirs very low volume and weight)

    - Where is a western-buit IFV with a medium-caliber cannon with similar rate of fire of domestic 2A42/2A72 ?

    This feature allow not only a reliable engagement ,at vastly greater range in comparison with cannons with lower RoF, of helicopters and UAVs but also of enemy IFV/APC (that obviously never maintain a constant speed and direction in actual battles.  
    And so on……




    Just because I think that modern Russian IFVs require a decent APDS (or APFSDS) round doesn't mean that I despise Russian IFVs. My position was never to degrade Soviet or Russian arms and armoured vehicles; I provide constructive criticism where it is necessary. Does the 2A42 have a high rate of fire? Yes. All the better for the crew to choke on gunpowder fumes. They tried to solve this issue by installing the cannon in an external mount like the Marder 1, but couldn't because the turret could not maintain a seal good enough to work in a contaminated environment. I would know. I wrote a fairly extensive piece on the BMP-2.



    Speaking of the Marder 1, it has an Rh202 20mm cannon that fires at 800-1000 RPM and can fire DM63 APDS rounds that have slightly more penetration than M791 rounds for the Bradley's M242. Also, the faster 20mm and 25mm APDS rounds make it much easier to hit moving targets at long range, so saturation fire isn't the most optimal solution. It's a viable solution, but it comes with a bunch of disadvantages. Is the 2A42 really that special? It's a good, dependable and effective weapon, but it's not like it's a miracle or anything, as you were implying.

    Having a 100mm low pressure gun isn't necessarily the bee's knees. The new "Epoch" turret doesn't have one, and there have been no further developments in this direction for a long time. The current trend is larger caliber autocannons; 40mm, 57mm, etc. Indirect fire is left to hardware designed for indirect fire, and keeping a 100mm gun just to be able to conduct direct fire may not be the wisest choice if it is incompatible with other, more promising concepts, such as unmanned turrets. We can appreciate the BMP-3 and BMD-4 (and I do), but don't go around praising it like it's the second coming of Christ.

    Practically all Western IFV allows its passengers to pop out of a roof hatch to fire MANPADS at air targets while the vehicle is moving. How will BMDs parachute behind enemy lines? Wouldn't a great big cargo plane be seen from hundreds of miles away? The BMD series are good for rapid response situations, but parachuting behind enemy lines is just implausible, and has been for many years. I'm sure I missed one or two of your other points, but you have to remember that this is a thread about the T-72. If you want to talk about BMPs and BMDs, take it to the appropriate thread.



    Mindstorm wrote:

    Said that is important to remember that any choice in military systems design is a compromise (for example employing the same materials you cannot reach the same level of ballistic protection of a Puma IFV with a vehicle within the weight class of БМП-3/БМД-4); but is clearly evident that any western designer would have rushed to integrate in theirs IFV design the previously mentioned features ,producing immeasurably greater impact on battle efficiency  (instead of enormously increase internal volume and weight to obtain in return only a middle increase of ballistic protection or invest in costly ammunitions only for partially off-set the lower caliber/rate of fire of theirs IFV autocannons in comparison with those standard of theirs likely enemies) owning the technological and engineering base to do that.



    I won't bother talking about what you think about Western IFVs vs Soviet/Russian IFVs or what fantasies you have in general, but it is factually incorrect that Western autocannons lacked the technological and engineering base to produce quick-firing autocannons. Having smaller calibers and generally lower rates of fire does not indicate that there was a technological hurdle that they failed to cross. It was a question of accuracy and first round hit probabilities. That was actually one of the reasons why APDS was chosen for the M242 from the beginning. The high rate of fire of the 2A42 badly affects its accuracy, even in bursts. If you want to have a laugh, go watch a video of BMP-2 gunners trying to score even one hit at the firing range:





    Why use APDS? Because the chances of scoring a hit and doing some damage are higher than if they used AP-T. That's basically it. It's mentioned somewhere in here: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a262492.pdf

    Funnily enough, the document also says this (take note GarryB):

    "The M792 HEI-T round will not be considered. The round-to-round random dispersion of the HEI-T is significantly greater than that of APDS-T which would presumably lead to significantly different results"

    So a full caliber round has greater dispersion than an APDS round. Well, how about that...


    Mindstorm wrote:

    But i image that for an enthusiast with a “weakness” for western-built military systems is better to focus the attention on the characteristics of M791 or M919 round (conceived clearly to offset the hard limitations produced by projectile mass/muzzle energy/rate of fire of theirs 25 mm cannon against the standard gun 30 mm of the OPFOR) against 3УБР-6 sustaining that 3УБР-8 (domestic version) is not produced for Federation forces Razz

    Just for the chronicle that is what offer today for export Rosoboronexport (export version)





    Unfortunately, the facts do not entirely line up in your favour. The chamber pressure of the M242 ranges from 360-410 MPa, depending on the ammunition it fires. M919 would be at the high end, of course. Chamber pressure of the 2A42 when firing 3UBR-6 is only 353 MPa. Let's not even bother comparing the 2A42 to a 30x173mm chain gun, eh?

    Oh sure, they offer 30mm APFSDS in the 30x165mm caliber. Too bad the Russian Army doesn't get any of it.



    Mindstorm wrote:

    Obviously this photo represent a simulation with domestic APFSDS  Very Happy  (tests employing actual foreign samples of any kind, collected from both from theatre of conflicts of foreign Armies or by operatives of the illegal spy network, are obviously covered by strict State secrets to prevent potential opponents to get any hint on the level of our knowledge about the specifics of theirs sytems. The same is true aboard).

    But ,as you well know, the point in question was, from the beginning, the size of those KE penetrator's holes in MBT targets im ,in mine thesis some times bigger (from 2 to 4 times) than its diameter with a variance dependant on distance of fire, yaw, residual or parassitic spin (for very long distance shots) and material composition of, it in your thesis equal to its phisical diameter.



    The relatively large diameter of the cavity you see is - as I have patiently explained - due to the presence of a jacket. I have given you multiple examples of the types of holes created by unjacketed monoblock rounds like DM33.



    Mindstorm wrote:

    1) You should learn to read what other write (that is also true for the documents you cite supposedly at support of your thesis  Rolling Eyes )  ....and possibly also understand...... Razz

    Mindstorm wrote:
    Mindstorm wrote: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.......you will obserbe small APDSFS holes"


    Obviously, as your standard, you have failed also to take into account difference in size of the target (the APFSDS target is almost 3 times bigger)
    Facts also on those kind of not dense/viscous target, physical holes of APFSDS is always bigger than diameter of the KE penetrator.
    If your theory would hold some water on each side of those 1 square meter your could put side-to-side 40-50 APFSDS holes (2/2,5 cm diameter), instead those are 3 -4 times bigger.
    Thanks to have proved mine point   Cool



    Where did I misread you? You said that small APFSDS holes are created at very short range, but the photos I show are for ranges of 1.7 km, and those targets aren't exactly dense. BTW, all of the squares in all of the targets are 1 m^2. They didn't triple the size of the squares to shoot APFSDS at... How do you keep on inventing these fantasies? dunno  I am really tired of this. Here it is, all in one picture. MPAT on the left, APFSDS on the right. Take out a ruler or something and slap it on your screen, and I'm pretty sure that those holes will come out at 80mm and 24mm (give or take a few millimeters), MPAT and APFSDS respectively. EDIT: Actually I did it for you using MS Paint and comparing pixels. Size of the MPAT holes comes out to 76mm and APFSDS holes is 26mm. Close enough.



    I do not need or want to say any more.
       
    Mindstorm wrote:

    To be continued about the study of M. Held on hit distribution in pasted conflicts used by Interlinked to prove its thesis" in exact opposition to its finding.......


    To be continued indeed. I hope your theory about quantum tunneling or whatever it is isn't based on that photo of the T-54 turret hit by 100mm APCBC... If you want to rant, just PM me. Do not force these good people to suffer. No

    that's cute coming from you.....Real dam cute and how utterly ignorant.
    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

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

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ: Μodernisation and Variants

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Tue Nov 28, 2017 2:13 pm

    Interlinked wrote:
    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    Hum Which real world scenario stacks up the odds of a face off head on at 70%?

    Base scenario of the three last world wars I know has been that armored threats have always been targeted on their weakest points.


    I didn't say that 70% of shots landed on the front of tanks and IFVs. I politely said that the majority of shots landed on a 70 degree frontal arc.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    The fact the defending or attacking force would like to show their strongest side, means literally nothing. While the Frontal glacis may have a relevance in a mechanized push along a front (hint check why there are arcs of fire to cover when moving), in any other scenario (especially indirect fire support, especially against an asymmetrical force) that is garbage.


    You clearly ignored the part where I said this:

    Interlinked wrote:
    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.

    If you aren't actually reading what I write, then I won't bother writing. Seems like you are only focused on boosting your own ego by trying to be right, talking about how I "don't get war" and that I "do not have real time with warfare", as if you are some super-duper strategic genius or something.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    Do you happen to know about Frag kits or are you REALLY that dense? Have you actually even sat into an uparmoured vehicle or is this another one of, i am willing to show as little as possible blabla?

    B-kits on the M1151 and Frag Kits (5/6/7) on the M1114 were not "composite" armor but bolt on armor with slots for anti EFP charges. without the Slots (that looked like huge radios) the bolt-on armor was 45mm RHA. It added between 1 and 1.5 tons to the M1114 and proved crappy. Mostly because the vehicles were already struggling with the power and also because bolt on is not always a safe bet.

    Here what a bolt on FRAG kit looks like on previous variants (M1165 Frag 3)




    What does this have to do with anything? Was I talking about Frag kits? Take a long, hard look at what I wrote before trying to respond.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    The JRVV's they have a baseline 65mm on RHA that should not be penetrated by 23mm, but still, shit happens.

    The insulation foil for the B-kit that is also applied to the MATV/LATV/JRVV depends on requirements but it is never under the 15mm.


    Once again, I would like to remind you that nobody actually expresses protection level in RHA. If you actually measured the thickness of the base armour to be 65mm of pure steel, then please share your evidence with us. I am very interested in your findings.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    The point however still stands, the 2A42 and 2A72 will have no issue whatsoever with the main threats they will be facing, infantry carrying vehicles, heavy APCS (with AP-T/ATGM/LATW carried on board) and trucks.


    It would have a big issue with an M2A2/A3 Bradley at any range worth mentioning, even if a BMP-2/BMP-3 manages to take up better positions and score multiple side hits. Sure, old M113s and Ferret scout cars aren't a challenge, or even other BMP-2s for that matter, but that's not exactly a high bar to pass.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    500mm against CE? That's the minimum value if I take the angle. You can search for the Video which was posted during the battle for Mosul Hospital by Daesh. The Tandem Bulgarian warhead used went through the tank's front right hull at an angle of 20° give or take, If i have to trust this :



    It hit dead in the overlap between the front capsule and the mainstay of the hull. Basically in both cases it did something It should have not been possible to do. But it did.

    Now we have, omg the initial description is crap.


    Many Iraqi Abrams tanks were knocked out, and I can't really visualize what happened from your description. You need to give a link so we can see it.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    Sources? Which ones?


    I gave you four. The study penned by Manfred Held is the most important one.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    Let me tell you one thing that you might fucking get through you ears.

    Tank fire in WW2 killed less than 17% of the other armored vehicles. For the US tanks it was 7.5%. Which means that 83% of the the vehicles put out of combat were probably engaged elsewhere than in their frontal 70°, by something else than tanks.


    This has absolutely nothing to do with the distribution of hits on tanks, and the sources I listed also included hits from ATGMs and other weapons. You would know if you bothered to check them, so you clearly didn't. Why should I even talk to someone who is as stubborn as you?

    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    The round turrets of the T-series were made to cover flanks when showing front (skirting) but see how the hull wasn't made in a round shape, guess why? Oh I know stupid, incapable Soviet engineers. And they also tried to have an ovoidal hull as well, no need to tell me. However that skirting used on the turret, was done so to save both weight and material, by having the maximum amount of coverage WHILE SHOWING FRONT. However SHOWING FRONT is not a god given right.


    Wow, you are so very rude. I'm pretty sure that you are breaking some forum rule right now, actually. But moving on:

    1. Hull shapes other than regular rectangles are difficult to pull off.
    2. What is "skirting"? Tank turrets don't have skirts.
    3. T-64 came with "gill" armour that flipped out and provided shaped charge protection for the hull for a 60-degree frontal arc.
    4. Soviets technical documents show that they quantified armour protection at a side angle of 30 degrees, and that one of the most important criteria for tank turrets was to be able to survive hits from a 30 degree side angle.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    Now as for AT immobilization hits, the US found out of their sample, that most of the hits by AT guns (i stress out this) were on rear and tracks. Most in this case being 69%. So 69% were hit on weaker spots and Flanks/rear.


    I don't know if you realize this, but you should should be informed that the information I shared did not contradict this at all. I said that the frontal arc of 70 degrees of the tank received the majority of hits, but it seems that you saw the word "front" and lost your shit thinking that I said that the majority of hits landed on the front of the tank. The frontal arc includes the sides of the tank, but side shots do not necessarily mean hitting the side of the tank at a perpendicular angle. Most shots impact at an angle to the side, and the distribution of hits at different angles is what I am referring to.


    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    So which is this source that shows that you are going to get hit frontally on 70% of the time. The idea of head on attack works if you have a careful situational awareness and positional skill. However it is VERY rare that you get to lead an assault through head on. The actual very idea of conventional mechanized warfare is one of pivot and covering your damn flanks. WHY? Because at some point you are going to have three things happening to your damn attack.

    1. Break through & Focus on exploitation. This causes you to have the brunt of the enemy on your back. Yes a kettle will open the way for enemy reinforcements to hit you on your back.
    2. Wood and icing. Your attack hits hard wood and it starts to stall, you get pinned and the enemy WILL ABSOLUTELY try to go around.
    3. Transition period after break through that will see you and the enemy in limbo. Looking for each other.


    In a nutshell, you will be able to get the enemy in front of your sights if you manage other areas of combat that do not need your tank have super duper Sabot rounds. Those areas will allow you to maintain a high percentage of advantage and initiative (ergo showing the strongest part of the armor to the enemy). There's a causality there, but it is not automatic.


    I never asked for your opinion on head on attacks, nor did I say that head on attacks are where tanks are going to get hit frontally. I also didn't say that tanks get hit from the front 70% of the time. I said that the 70-degree frontal arc of a tank receives the majority of hits. You are utterly confused, you poor, poor man.

    I already listed the sources that I referred to. Your eyesight must be absolutely terrible...

    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 War, 2000


    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    With the new portable threats, the very strength of the armored vehicle is being challenged, especially in an exploitation movement. A light vehicle, with an ATGM provides, more mobility, less footprint and detectability than the said tank. There is no sense to bringing tank to tank combat idiocy when we are talking about how the Marder M1A3 is ill suited into a discussion as a far superior APC/IFV than the BMP2. If you are going to box the BMP to front only then you are indeed cherry picking.


    It's pretty clear that you are confused, because you think that I said "70% of hits land on the front of a tank", and that the BMP is going to be hit from the front only. I'm really surprised, because you definitely acknowledged that I said "70 degree arc" in an earlier comment, as you can see:

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    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.


    Come back to talk once you are sober, or just PM me. This is getting a little off topic, especially if you continue to ramble on like you did.


    No I will not get back when I am sober.

    For a couple of reasons.

    1. You are cherrypicking. Mindlessly. In Ukraine when both sides had the same kind of armor, tank to tank combat was so freaking rare, that if you know about it, you wouldn't brink tank to tank combat into a scenario that was looking at the Marder survivability in a hot war.
    2. There are a lot of current detailed studies, that are critically evaluating the role of armor today. Lost armour has a complete list of lost mechanized assets, with debates about their fate. You will see that in most cases the tanks lost were due to hits out of the 70° arc.

    3. The BMP2 30mm gun now has to have an issue with the Bradley? Oh wow which one? Not being able to out gun it? Not being able to take out most of its most valuable assets? Namely the Engine, the TOW launcher, the Driver post?

    Actually you start with a foregone conclusion and base yourself on wars that were as distant and different from one another.

    Kuwait and the Gulf war saw 90% of the Iraqi armor decimated by anything else but tanks. It saw the US having total intelligence superiority and the Iraqis being unable to mount any kind of resistance. Ironically, the Saudis using better tanks that the US, but employing them like crap in a damn arid desert, get rear ended each and overtime by weapons that were allegedly unable to kill them and out of the 70° arc. Allegedly. So you tell me.

    You are taking completely lopsided confrontations and producing them as examples on how things are going to go.

    Well If i put mike tyson on his prime against a toddler, there's little chance the toddler will win. But that is not a real comparison of strength.

    Now let's get to the "you don't read me" argument. You said the 30mm would have big issues to get out anything but jeeps. Well Iraqi M1114's with Frag kit 5's seemed to disagree. Mosul Hospital was such a shit show that uparmored "jeeps" couldn't even withstand basic KPV fire and other ZSU-23's mounted on Hiluxes and L300's. Yemenis seemed to have no issue whatsoever with their Iranian 23mm SR's in immobilizing, penetrating and disabling MATV's. But the 30mm, even with AP-T, that seemed to be a mystery to you, would be useless against other threats...

    Listen, as I said, you read to much numbers in your internet pages, while I am looking to the aftermath of obsolescent weapons applied into indestructible Western Machines.

    I am not drunk, I am waking you up to the fact that real life comes at you fast. And more than often numbers don't add up.
    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

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

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ: Μodernisation and Variants

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Tue Nov 28, 2017 2:24 pm

    Also you don't know the term skirting? Oh Jesus?

    Check when a woman with a skirt turns around. The skirt forms a perfect circular shape with hides what's on her back side. Same for the turrets of the later T-series. The front when pointed properly, covers fully the unevenly armored rear of turret, that's what skirting is.

    Ironically the M60 was still based on that idea, albeit being higher and narrower, made the whole skirting affair more complex.
    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 29, 2017 4:26 am

    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    No I will not get back when I am sober.

    For a couple of reasons.

    1. You are cherrypicking. Mindlessly. In Ukraine when both sides had the same kind of armor, tank to tank combat was so freaking rare,   that if you know about it, you wouldn't brink tank to tank combat into a scenario that was looking at the Marder survivability in a hot war.

    There are other reasons for this, one of them being the type of war being waged there. Broadly speaking, there was very little use of air power, and there were few territorial gains on both sides after months of fighting. Tanks could hardly be used in their intended role in such circumstances, and artillery was so much more useful. If you think that all the wars involving Russia in the future will unconventional or semi-conventional like in Ukraine, then sure, I don't disagree with you. I am talking about conventional warfare, as I have repeatedly mentioned in my previous comments. Even in Ukraine, you'll probably find that even if most of the lost tanks were due to hits on their weaker sides or rear (if they weren't knocked out by artillery), the distribution of hits should probably be quite balanced across the entire tank. When fighting in urban areas, there will be more hits on the sides and rear than in the front.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    2. There are a lot of current detailed studies, that are critically evaluating the role of armor today. Lost armour has a complete list of lost mechanized assets, with debates about their fate. You will see that in most cases the tanks lost were due to hits out of the 70° arc.


    There is a logical disconnect here. There is this story about armouring certain locations of B-29 bombers that you should read. Sure, in most cases the tanks were lost due to hits outside of a 70 degree frontal arc, because the 70 degree frontal was the best-armoured part of the tank. Hitting a tank in that location would have a much lower chance of knocking it out of action. It's irrelevant that most tanks were lost from hitting their weak flanks or rear, what's relevant is the proportion of hits across the entire tank. That's what Manfred Held's study was investigating. They were taking all hits into account as data, not just the ones that went through, and the histogram of the data shows that the majority of hits are on the frontal arc. The exact size of the arc changed over the years, and the histogram was almost flat for the Gulf War, and there were reasons for that as well (very fast advance of Coalition forces allowed them to outflank Iraqi armour).

    I would like to see such studies, if you are willing to oblige.


    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    3. The BMP2 30mm gun now has to have an issue with the Bradley? Oh wow which one? Not being able to out gun it? Not being able to take out most of its most valuable assets? Namely the Engine, the TOW launcher, the Driver post?


    Well, yes, actually. The engine and driver are in front, and the frontal armour of the M2A2/A3 Bradley is very thick and rather well sloped. AP-T rounds would do very poorly. The TOW launcher is an extremely small target, and is not near the center mass of the vehicle, so hitting that is unlikely. Except for the luckiest hits, 3BR-6 isn't going to cut it.


    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    Actually you start with a foregone conclusion and base yourself on wars that were as distant and different from one another.

    Kuwait and the Gulf war saw 90% of the Iraqi armor decimated by anything else but tanks. It saw the US having total intelligence superiority and the Iraqis being unable to mount any kind of resistance. Ironically, the Saudis using better tanks that the US, but employing them like crap in a damn arid desert, get rear ended each and overtime by weapons that were allegedly unable to kill them and out of the 70° arc. Allegedly. So you tell me.

    You are taking completely lopsided confrontations and producing them as examples on how things are going to go.


    Was I talking about the primary causes of tank losses? No. I was talking about the distribution of hits.

    Is Russia going to use their tanks like Iraq? Is Russia going to use their tanks like the Saudis? No. You've flown out of the discussion and into your own world. Do you even remember the point of the original discussion? I was talking about how the majority of hits land in a 70 degree frontal arc for both tanks and IFVs, so you can't reliably knock out a Marder 1A3 with a BMP-2 by targeting the side armour.


    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    Well If i put mike tyson on his prime against a toddler, there's little chance the toddler will win. But that is not a real comparison of strength.

    Now let's get to the "you don't read me" argument. You said the 30mm would have big issues to get out anything but jeeps. Well Iraqi M1114's with Frag kit 5's seemed to disagree. Mosul Hospital was such a shit show that uparmored "jeeps" couldn't even withstand basic KPV fire and other ZSU-23's mounted on Hiluxes and L300's. Yemenis seemed to have no issue whatsoever with their Iranian 23mm SR's in immobilizing, penetrating and disabling MATV's. But the 30mm,  even with AP-T, that seemed to be a mystery to you, would be useless against other threats...


    And where is the evidence for any of that? How many were lost? Was Frag kit 5 even rated for 14.5mm fire? Were those vehicles simply immobilized and later destroyed with other weapons or were they actually penetrated by bullets? What were those M-ATVs rated for? Level 2? You can give as many examples as you want, but as far as anyone knows, all of these vehicles were only rated to take small arms fire, and that includes Frag kit 5.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    Listen, as I said, you read to much numbers in your internet pages, while I am looking to the aftermath of obsolescent weapons applied into indestructible Western Machines.  

    I am not drunk, I am waking you up to the fact that real life comes at you fast. And more than often numbers don't add up.

    I wasn't the one handing out unverifiable numbers regarding the armour of MRAPs; numbers that have not been substantiated by any source or evidence. With the numbers that you gave... of course they don't add up.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    Also you don't know the term skirting? Oh Jesus?

    Check when a woman with a skirt turns around. The skirt forms a perfect circular shape with hides what's on her back side. Same for the turrets of the later T-series. The front when pointed properly, covers fully the unevenly armored rear of turret, that's what skirting is.

    Ironically the M60 was still based on that idea, albeit being higher and narrower, made the whole skirting affair more complex.

    Skirting usually refers to the skirts on cars and tanks, because those actually resemble skirts. They're thin, light, and they cover the lower part of the vehicle. Think about it. Why would a skirt be on the turret? The parts of the turret on either side of the gun are referred to as the "turret cheeks". The area around the gun barrel is called the "mantlet".
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10752
    Points : 11231
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ: Μodernisation and Variants

    Post  George1 on Wed Nov 29, 2017 12:25 pm

    Guys discussion has gone off-topic


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    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 29, 2017 3:40 pm

    I'm not telling my background to you, just as I'm not telling my age, because you are clearly a very hostile individual.

    Your age is 18 years old... it says so below your avatar.

    Funnily enough, the document also says this (take note GarryB):

    "The M792 HEI-T round will not be considered. The round-to-round random dispersion of the HEI-T is significantly greater than that of APDS-T which would presumably lead to significantly different results"

    So a full caliber round has greater dispersion than an APDS round. Well, how about that...

    All that proves is that the HEIT round was a copy of a soviet round obviously.

    And shooting at aircraft is largely pointless with AP rounds... few have enough armour to warrant AP rounds and punching little holes in them wont do enough damage to bring them down efficiently.

    Guys discussion has gone off-topic

    It definitely has.



    _________________
    “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
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1228
    Points : 1385
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ: Μodernisation and Variants

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Wed Nov 29, 2017 9:58 pm

    Well, yes, actually. The engine and driver are in front, and the frontal armour of the M2A2/A3 Bradley is very thick and rather well sloped. AP-T rounds would do very poorly. The TOW launcher is an extremely small target, and is not near the center mass of the vehicle, so hitting that is unlikely. Except for the luckiest hits, 3BR-6 isn't going to cut it.

    Actually the bradley's frontal is extremely poor due to being only 25mm of aluminum.



    Also the bushmaster has a very poor ROF, no HE, and is so poorly designed that poisonous exhaust gases seep into the crew compartment from it.
    Its definitely inferior to the 2A42. Even with APCBC, the 2A42 can destroy most IFVs and other AFVs that it would encounter, including bradleys, VBCLs, Patria AMVs, definitely the POS known as the stryker, Warrior, and marders. The only AFVs that it needs APDS to destroy are the Puma and CV90. Currently there is no info on the AFSDS 2A42-72 russian made ammo, but a belgian company produced some. I'm sure that the MOD would easily procure such ammo if the need arised, effectively making the 2A42 very powerful.

    Also by your logic the RARDEN and the 30mm gun on the CV90 are worthless because they have an even lower ROF than the 2A42-72.
    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 29, 2017 10:29 pm

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:
    Actually the bradley's frontal is extremely poor due to being only 25mm of aluminum.



    Also the bushmaster has a very poor ROF, no HE, and is so poorly designed that poisonous exhaust gases seep into the crew compartment from it.
    Its definitely inferior to the 2A42. Even with APCBC, the 2A42 can destroy most IFVs and other AFVs that it would encounter, including bradleys, VBCLs, Patria AMVs, definitely the POS known as the stryker, Warrior, and marders. The only AFVs that it needs APDS to destroy are the Puma and CV90. Currently there is no info on the AFSDS 2A42-72 russian made ammo, but a belgian company produced some. I'm sure that the MOD would easily procure such ammo if the need arised, effectively making the 2A42 very powerful.

    Also by your logic the RARDEN and the 30mm gun on the CV90 are worthless because they have an even lower ROF than the 2A42-72.

    Blacktaildefence Laughing

    I know that we are still off-topic, but I think that you should know that a 32mm steel plate was added on top of the 1-inch thick aluminium frontal armour in the M2A2 upgrade in 1988. Also, that video is 98% garbage. 100%, maybe, since the presentation is so smug and arrogant.

    GarryB wrote:
    Your age is 18 years old... it says so below your avatar.

    I can be as old or as young as I wish, unlike in real life, sadly. The forum rules do not require anyone to disclose any personal information of any kind, and I did not. That said, maybe some people would be less belligerent if I claimed that I was 40 years old or something.

    GarryB wrote:
    All that proves is that the HEIT round was a copy of a soviet round obviously.

    Another straw man argument... This has nothing with Soviet tank shells, other than the fact that they must also obey the same laws of physics as everyone else.

    GarryB wrote:
    And shooting at aircraft is largely pointless with AP rounds... few have enough armour to warrant AP rounds and punching little holes in them wont do enough damage to bring them down efficiently.

    The discussion is already far enough off-topic without you saying more stuff that has nothing to do with anything at all.
    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1228
    Points : 1385
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ: Μodernisation and Variants

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:52 pm

    Interlinked wrote:
    KomissarBojanchev wrote:
    Actually the bradley's frontal is extremely poor due to being only 25mm of aluminum.



    Also the bushmaster has a very poor ROF, no HE, and is so poorly designed that poisonous exhaust gases seep into the crew compartment from it.
    Its definitely inferior to the 2A42. Even with APCBC, the 2A42 can destroy most IFVs and other AFVs that it would encounter, including bradleys, VBCLs, Patria AMVs, definitely the POS known as the stryker, Warrior, and marders. The only AFVs that it needs APDS to destroy are the Puma and CV90. Currently there is no info on the AFSDS 2A42-72 russian made ammo, but a belgian company produced some. I'm sure that the MOD would easily procure such ammo if the need arised, effectively making the 2A42 very powerful.

    Also by your logic the RARDEN and the 30mm gun on the CV90 are worthless because they have an even lower ROF than the 2A42-72.

    Blacktaildefence Laughing

    I know that we are still off-topic, but I think that you should know that a 32mm steel plate was added on top of the 1-inch thick aluminium frontal armour in the M2A2 upgrade in 1988.




    The discussion is already far enough off-topic without you saying more stuff that has nothing to do with anything at all.

    Like all western fanboys, you can only make ad hominems on Blacktail's videos.

    Also, do you have a source that specifically states that spaced armor was added to the bradley's front hull armor?

    I couldn't find anything. The closest I got to was this sight: http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m2bradley.html#M2A2

    But it only mentions that spaced armor was added to the turret front and doesn't mention any upgrade to the hull front protection.

    Sorry for offtopic, but BS about the supposed greatness of the Crapley needs to stop.

    BTW, you failed to refute my other points.
    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 30, 2017 12:14 am



    There are other reasons for this, one of them being the type of war being waged there. Broadly speaking, there was very little use of air power, and there were few territorial gains on both sides after months of fighting. Tanks could hardly be used in their intended role in such circumstances, and artillery was so much more useful. If you think that all the wars involving Russia in the future will unconventional or semi-conventional like in Ukraine, then sure, I don't disagree with you. I am talking about conventional warfare, as I have repeatedly mentioned in my previous comments. Even in Ukraine, you'll probably find that even if most of the lost tanks were due to hits on their weaker sides or rear (if they weren't knocked out by artillery), the distribution of hits should probably be quite balanced across the entire tank. When fighting in urban areas, there will be more hits on the sides and rear than in the front.

    Bullshit. The actual reason was very poor intelligence gathering from both parties at war, small forces involved and huge fronts to cover.

    The territorial gains made by one side were actually abysmally big. The losses suffered by the UA side were absurd. They had lost 65% of their active force in theatre. The political calculus of one side, isn't the military result of that war. Icing of the conflict was decided in Moscow, not in Donbass.

    Conventionnal warfare isn't always a full spectrum affair. There has been, is and will be a conventional war between less gifted parties that will wage war in bigger settings and that will give way to a shattering of "war treatises".

    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    2. There are a lot of current detailed studies, that are critically evaluating the role of armor today. Lost armour has a complete list of lost mechanized assets, with debates about their fate. You will see that in most cases the tanks lost were due to hits out of the 70° arc.


    There is a logical disconnect here. There is this story about armouring certain locations of B-29 bombers that you should read. Sure, in most cases the tanks were lost due to hits outside of a 70 degree frontal arc, because the 70 degree frontal was the best-armoured part of the tank. Hitting a tank in that location would have a much lower chance of knocking it out of action. It's irrelevant that most tanks were lost from hitting their weak flanks or rear, what's relevant is the proportion of hits across the entire tank. That's what Manfred Held's study was investigating. They were taking all hits into account as data, not just the ones that went through, and the histogram of the data shows that the majority of hits are on the frontal arc. The exact size of the arc changed over the years, and the histogram was almost flat for the Gulf War, and there were reasons for that as well (very fast advance of Coalition forces allowed them to outflank Iraqi armour).

    Proportions of hits? What? There is no way in hell to count how many hits were scored on the tank before it got knocked out. There's also the very specific point of suppressing or luring the tank to show the weakest part. But again, i would enjoin you to check the Paste-it files of Syrian Terrorist attacks on Syrian Army armor. It encompasses all kinds of weaponry use. From ATGM's to B-10's. A twitter source detailed it as followed. 61% of the hits were on sides, 15% were upfront, rest was on rear or roof.

    Another source in Arabic has all the Yemeni hits on Saudi and auxiliary forces. Over 73% of hits were on sides. None of these were within built in areas, but well outside.

    3. The BMP2 30mm gun now has to have an issue with the Bradley? Oh wow which one? Not being able to out gun it? Not being able to take out most of its most valuable assets? Namely the Engine, the TOW launcher, the Driver post?


    Well, yes, actually. The engine and driver are in front, and the frontal armour of the M2A2/A3 Bradley is very thick and rather well sloped. AP-T rounds would do very poorly. The TOW launcher is an extremely small target, and is not near the center mass of the vehicle, so hitting that is unlikely. Except for the luckiest hits, 3BR-6 isn't going to cut it.
    [/quote]

    Ok i know that you have never seen a Brdley driver hatch, in your life. EVER. It is already listed as a weak spot in the damn IOC papers, and as such it was quickly up-armoured with ERA. The Driver hatch is uplifted so as to provide direct sight. Instead of episcopes as in the BMP, the driver's face is net on the ballistic glass.




    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    Actually you start with a foregone conclusion and base yourself on wars that were as distant and different from one another.

    Kuwait and the Gulf war saw 90% of the Iraqi armor decimated by anything else but tanks. It saw the US having total intelligence superiority and the Iraqis being unable to mount any kind of resistance. Ironically, the Saudis using better tanks that the US, but employing them like crap in a damn arid desert, get rear ended each and overtime by weapons that were allegedly unable to kill them and out of the 70° arc. Allegedly. So you tell me.

    You are taking completely lopsided confrontations and producing them as examples on how things are going to go.


    Was I talking about the primary causes of tank losses? No. I was talking about the distribution of hits.

    Is Russia going to use their tanks like Iraq? Is Russia going to use their tanks like the Saudis? No. You've flown out of the discussion and into your own world. Do you even remember the point of the original discussion? I was talking about how the majority of hits land in a 70 degree frontal arc for both tanks and IFVs, so you can't reliably knock out a Marder 1A3 with a BMP-2 by targeting the side armour.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    Russia is not going to use their tanks like Iraq, but there's is little sense that a peer contestant is going to use their assets like the Iraqis either. In a draw game situational combat will change the way the combat flows.

    The pain the initial discussion caused me is that most hits on a tank will be on its 70° frontal arc.

    Israelis that were no idiots, got scored by Syrian ATGM teams mostly on the move, mostly on the sides, mostly on ambushes in peri-urban areas. Ironically the US instructors that taught the Syrian terrorists these last 6 years, taught to aim for weak points. So how does this click? The major purveyor of know how, teaches to avoid frontal areas?

    But they don't. There is no possibility to predict that you are going to get hit mostly on a 70° arc. It doesn't work like that.


    Well If i put mike tyson on his prime against a toddler, there's little chance the toddler will win. But that is not a real comparison of strength.

    Now let's get to the "you don't read me" argument. You said the 30mm would have big issues to get out anything but jeeps. Well Iraqi M1114's with Frag kit 5's seemed to disagree. Mosul Hospital was such a shit show that uparmored "jeeps" couldn't even withstand basic KPV fire and other ZSU-23's mounted on Hiluxes and L300's. Yemenis seemed to have no issue whatsoever with their Iranian 23mm SR's in immobilizing, penetrating and disabling MATV's. But the 30mm,  even with AP-T, that seemed to be a mystery to you, would be useless against other threats...


    And where is the evidence for any of that? How many were lost? Was Frag kit 5 even rated for 14.5mm fire? Were those vehicles simply immobilized and later destroyed with other weapons or were they actually penetrated by bullets? What were those M-ATVs rated for? Level 2? You can give as many examples as you want, but as far as anyone knows, all of these vehicles were only rated to take small arms fire, and that includes Frag kit 5.

    You understand that Frag kits were supposed to be against EFP charges rated up to 300mm with the cases and at least 100mm?



    Listen, as I said, you read to much numbers in your internet pages, while I am looking to the aftermath of obsolescent weapons applied into indestructible Western Machines.  

    I am not drunk, I am waking you up to the fact that real life comes at you fast. And more than often numbers don't add up.

    I wasn't the one handing out unverifiable numbers regarding the armour of MRAPs; numbers that have not been substantiated by any source or evidence. With the numbers that you gave... of course they don't add up.
    [/quote]

    So Frag Kits rated for EFP's they only protect from small arms fire? Wtf?

    KoTeMoRe wrote:



    Skirting usually refers to the skirts on cars and tanks, because those actually resemble skirts. They're thin, light, and they cover the lower part of the vehicle. Think about it. Why would a skirt be on the turret? The parts of the turret on either side of the gun are referred to as the "turret cheeks". The area around the gun barrel is called the "mantlet".

    that's why I say you have no experience with real time tankers or soldiers for that fact.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5604
    Points : 5645
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ: Μodernisation and Variants

    Post  Militarov on Thu Nov 30, 2017 12:56 am

    Interlinked wrote:
    Skirting usually refers to the skirts on cars and tanks, because those actually resemble skirts. They're thin, light, and they cover the lower part of the vehicle. Think about it. Why would a skirt be on the turret? The parts of the turret on either side of the gun are referred to as the "turret cheeks". The area around the gun barrel is called the "mantlet".

    You say what?

    avatar
    GarryB

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

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ: Μodernisation and Variants

    Post  GarryB on Thu Nov 30, 2017 4:20 am

    I can be as old or as young as I wish, unlike in real life, sadly. The forum rules do not require anyone to disclose any personal information of any kind, and I did not. That said, maybe some people would be less belligerent if I claimed that I was 40 years old or something.

    Hahaha... so yesterday it said you were 18 years old, and now it says you are 27 years old.

    Clearly you were either lying or are lying now as you cannot be both. Rolling Eyes


    _________________
    “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
    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 Thu Nov 30, 2017 8:12 am

    Militarov wrote:
    Interlinked wrote:
    Skirting usually refers to the skirts on cars and tanks, because those actually resemble skirts. They're thin, light, and they cover the lower part of the vehicle. Think about it. Why would a skirt be on the turret? The parts of the turret on either side of the gun are referred to as the "turret cheeks". The area around the gun barrel is called the "mantlet".

    You say what?


    If I am correct that was a T-34-85 Serbian used in NATO balkan's war. This is rubber sheets used not only for additional protection but also help to reduce heat signature. The same type of tank was used against uk Royal engineers stationed in a bunker the T-34-85 opened fired destroying bunker a injuring the UK soldiers. The gun of the T-34-85 is still useful in such conflicts like Syria.
    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 30, 2017 9:55 am

    GarryB wrote:
    I can be as old or as young as I wish, unlike in real life, sadly. The forum rules do not require anyone to disclose any personal information of any kind, and I did not. That said, maybe some people would be less belligerent if I claimed that I was 40 years old or something.

    Hahaha... so yesterday it said you were 18 years old, and now it says you are 27 years old.

    Clearly you were either lying or are lying now as you cannot be both. Rolling Eyes

    I explained in another thread why I put 18 as my age. To be brief, it's because some websites and forums require members to be at least 18. You don't like the number 27? I can change it just for you I love you


    Last edited by Interlinked on Thu Nov 30, 2017 10:41 am; edited 1 time 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 30, 2017 10:29 am

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Bullshit. The actual reason was very poor intelligence gathering from both parties at war, small forces involved and huge fronts to cover.

    The territorial gains made by one side were actually abysmally big. The losses suffered by the UA side were absurd. They had lost 65% of their active force in theatre. The political calculus of one side, isn't the military result of that war. Icing of the conflict was decided in Moscow, not in Donbass.

    Conventionnal warfare isn't always a full spectrum affair. There has been, is and will be a conventional war between less gifted parties that will wage war in bigger settings and that will give way to a shattering of "war treatises".

    We can debate the exact reason why tank-on-tank combat was rare in Ukraine, but you have to realize that I gave only one of the reasons. I didn't say that it was the only reason.

    The territorial losses were big at certain points in the war. A big chunk of it was stagnant.

    No, conventional war does not have to involve air power, but the consensus is that the war in Ukraine is unconventional, because it meets the very definition of that term. One side was being externally supplied, sponsored and trained by a neighouring state to wage war against a regime, and due to the smaller scale of that conflict, unconventional tactics were used by the rebels to fight the bigger and more established Ukr forces.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    Proportions of hits? What? There is no way in hell to count how many hits were scored on the tank before it got knocked out. There's also the very specific point of suppressing or luring the tank to show the weakest part. But again, i would enjoin you to check the Paste-it files of Syrian Terrorist attacks on Syrian Army armor. It encompasses all kinds of weaponry use. From ATGM's to B-10's. A twitter source detailed it as followed. 61% of the hits were on sides, 15% were upfront, rest was on rear or roof.


    Where the hell did I say that it was about counting how many hits were scored on a tank before it got knocked out? I said that all hits were counted in the data I cited. Please don't try to twist my words.

    You can talk about tactics all you want, and I don't disagree with you, but the data shows a different picture.


    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    Another source in Arabic has all the Yemeni hits on Saudi and auxiliary forces. Over 73% of hits were on sides. None of these were within built in areas, but well outside.  

    And can we see this source? I don't doubt for a second that Saudi forces used their tanks rather foolishly, so it was easy to use guided missiles to target the weaker sides of the tank. In this case, Saudi tanks were used as artillery in static positions that were rather close to the enemy.


    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    Ok i know that you have never seen a Brdley driver hatch, in your life. EVER. It is already listed as a weak spot in the damn IOC papers, and as such it was quickly up-armoured with ERA. The Driver hatch is uplifted so as to provide direct sight. Instead of episcopes as in the BMP, the driver's face is net on the ballistic glass.


    So a BMP-2 gunner has to pray that he hits the driver's hatch instead of the other 95% of the vehicle? Those aren't very good odds.


    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    Russia is not going to use their tanks like Iraq, but there's is little sense that a peer contestant is going to use their assets like the Iraqis either. In a draw game situational combat will change the way the combat flows.


    I don't think that a conventional war involving military peers will erupt any time soon either. I'm not disputing that. In any realistic situation that would likely arise in the future, the convention that most of the tanks land on a 70 degree frontal arc is not going to be true. However, it was historically true when we look at previous major conventional wars like the Yom Kippur conflict in 1973. No, it was not true in the 2006 war in Lebanon, and I wasn't arguing that it is.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    The pain the initial discussion caused me is that most hits on a tank will be on its 70° frontal arc.

    Israelis that were no idiots, got scored by Syrian ATGM teams mostly on the move, mostly on the sides, mostly on ambushes in peri-urban areas. Ironically the US instructors that taught the Syrian terrorists these last 6 years, taught to aim for weak points. So how does this click? The major purveyor of know how, teaches to avoid frontal areas?

    But they don't. There is no possibility to predict that you are going to get hit mostly on a 70° arc. It doesn't work like that.


    Don't bring this up with me. Bring it up to the people that collected this data.




    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    You understand that Frag kits were supposed to be against EFP charges rated up to 300mm with the cases and at least 100mm?

    So Frag Kits rated for EFP's they only protect from small arms fire? Wtf?

    And a layer of ERA with a thin back plate can stop an RPG rated up to 500mm, but remain insensitive so that it does not react to small arms fire at all. What's your point?

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    that's why I say you have no experience with real time tankers or soldiers for that fact.

    There is different slang among different soldiers for various things. Not everyone refers to the same thing in the same way.

    Sponsored content

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ: Μodernisation and Variants

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:56 pm