T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

lyle6 wrote:

limb wrote:

Implying separate ammo compartments with blowout panels don't work, when there is 0 evidence from both russians and westerners that they don't.

And you're arguing from ignorance. I'm no physicist, but I'm pretty sure that a vessel designed to divert building internal pressure via alternate pathways would not properly work if there are holes aside from those said pathways. Instead the gases would leave through those holes as well, and if they lead to the crew compartment filled with exposed crewmembers and flammable hydraulic lines its game over. What part of this is so difficult to wrap your head around that you require explicit examples?

Anyway I find it hilarious that Abrams fans always always mention that the blowout panels are the path of least resistance for the gas when it comes to explaining if and how they work, but ignore that in the case of a battle damage a gaping hole in the ammo doors would be that path of least resistance instead. Double-think much?

I dont see you showing your mathematical and materials science evidence here.The claim that a tiny 1cm hole caused by an APFSDS will cause the destruction of the ammo compartment sounds like BS. Also the main killer is exploding HE rounds not burning propellant, and blowout panels are proven to work against them comparfed to a carousel full of HE rounds. Also your point is kind of moot since if an APFSDS penetrates the crew compartment from the front, it will shatter after penetrating and bounce around the compartment, killig the crew plus incinerating them if its DU. Blowout panels absolutely work for shots from the side and the crew of a western MBT are much better protected from dying from a cookoff if hit from the side.

limb wrote:

I dont see you showing your mathematical and materials science  evidence here.The claim that a tiny 1cm  hole caused by an APFSDS will cause the destruction of the ammo compartment sounds like BS. Also the main killer is exploding HE rounds not burning propellant, and blowout panels are proven to work against  them comparfed to a carousel full of HE rounds. Also your point is kind of moot since if an APFSDS penetrates the crew compartment from the front, it will shatter after penetrating and bounce around the compartment, killig the crew plus incinerating them if its DU. Blowout panels absolutely work for shots from the side and the crew of a western MBT are much better protected from dying from a cookoff if hit from the side.

Its only patently obvious to anyone who hasn't slept through high school physics. Will not explain further.

Also the main killer is exploding HE rounds not burning propellant, and blowout panels are proven to work against them comparfed to a carousel full of HE rounds.

There are lots of variations on what happens when a tank is hit and penetrated and it largely depends on a lot of things... where it hits and what is in the tank and where.

The T-72 and other T series tanks got a bad reputation for exploding with their turrets blowing off when penetrated, and that was obviously because such vehicles only have half their ammo in their autoloader and the rest is inside the crew compartment in the turret and next to the driver.

I would add that the Abrams and also most western tanks also have ammo in the crew compartments and when they were penetrated were just as vulnerable to being destroyed too.

When there is no ammo outside the autoloader in a T-72 or T-90 then they didn't explode normally even when the turret or hull were penetrated.

For the Soviet ammo it was worse because the propellent does not have a full length brass case, so hot sparks or flame or hot fragments landing on the rounds in the tank immediately set off the propellent, but turrets could be blown off the T-54 and T-55 and T-62, all of which used brass propellent cases.

HE round generally only explode if hit directly... which is easier against the Abrams because the rounds are exposed in the turret bustle.

Otherwise it takes a few minutes of the tank burning for the HE and HEAT rounds to cook off and explode... the crew would normally have already bailed before that happened.

Also your point is kind of moot since if an APFSDS penetrates the crew compartment from the front, it will shatter after penetrating and bounce around the compartment, killig the crew plus incinerating them if its DU.

Not really... APFSDS cores are design not to shatter... because shattering means they are no longer able to penetrate any useful amount of armour, so most of the time it will exit the other side of the vehicle spraying small fragments and pieces of armour but most tanks have an inner anti spall liner made of kevlar and nomex and similar materials and will also be wearing body armour also to protect them from fragments and hot material.

Most of the time the incinerated crews were the ones that couldn't get out as the propellent burned...

Blowout panels absolutely work for shots from the side and the crew of a western MBT are much better protected from dying from a cookoff if hit from the side.

They are a catch 22 type situation... they essentially require that the ammo is in the turret rear exposed to enemy fire, which makes it vulnerable to being hit.

As long as it remains a propellent fire it would allow the crew to escape the vehicle before the HE and HEAT rounds start exploding, but whether they save the crew or not that tank is going to burn out so tank down.

T-72B3 with an experienced canopy protecting the tank from ammunition attacking from above.

Device for remote opening of the Sosna-U sight armor plate on the T-72B3 tank. Apparently installed artisanal. It is clearly visible that the rod is attached to the drive of the wiper of the 1A40-4 sight, and the other end holds the flap. When triggered, the flap rotates 90 degrees to the left and opens the sight lens.

Another pic of the roof rack armor.

And I thought it was a neat gazebo!

No idea that it has some form of armoured protection up there!

Don't believe it to be armour but a camouflage netting and support rack. Someone had posted pictures earlier of them being used during maneuvers. To hid from UAV's.

Ok so then there is some camo netting that can be quickly deployed to cover the vehicle?

Its a spacer roof designed to frustrate smaller calibre shaped charges (like those used in DPICM and the precursors of tandem warhead munitions) and top-attack EFPs. The substantial air gap of more or less a meter would effectively dissipate the precursor jet to the point that all it can do is scratch the paint while the main warhead jet would lose a substantial amount of penetration power as it is stretched beyond the optimal stand-off distance before hitting the actual armor itself. The complex roof armor with ERA/composite roof this should then be plenty enough to absorb this dispersed jet on its own. Against EFPs the sand bag and support bars should severely disrupt the shuttlecock structure of the jet so it should pancake with little effect on the armor as well. Offset tandem charge missiles like Tow-2B would be even more vulnerable since each EFP has to pass through unmolested sections of the spacer to get to the actual armor.

Anti-missile "visor": T-72B3 with new protection seen near Rostov. The T-72B3, equipped with a new anti-tank missile defense system, was demonstrated at the Kadamovsky training ground in the Rostov region.

Tank crews fired at emerging or moving targets at ranges from 300 to 2000 meters. During the combat firing, the generals, according to the press service of the Southern Military District, fired from the T-72B3 cannons with a regular projectile, as well as from a large-caliber anti-aircraft machine gun.

The new protective device installed in the upper part of the tower looks like a canopy, for which it received the unofficial name among tankers - "sun shade".

However, as reported to "RG" in the military department, the design is designed to enhance protection against anti-tank missiles and ammunition of a new generation. As you know, modern anti-tank systems, including the American Javelin, are developed with the expectation that the missile hits the most vulnerable parts of armored vehicles. One of these places is the upper projection of the tank turret.

In addition, loitering drones also tend to hit tanks and other armored vehicles precisely in the upper part of the hull that is least covered by armor.

"In the near future, the rest of the T-72 tanks will receive similar protection elements," the ministry stressed.

Information about the principles of action of "sun canopies" is not reported. Judging by the photographs, one can assume that the devices are designed to provoke an explosion of a rocket or ammunition in front of the main armor. This will weaken the effect of the shaped charge.

https://rg.ru/2021/06/18/reg-ufo/protivoraketnyj-kozyrek-t-72b3-s-novoj-zashchitoj-zamechen-pod-rostovom.html

To what extent will this canopy affect the turning or elevation radius of the AA machine gun up top?

That goes especially for the T-90 models, which have a remote weapons station where it's not possible to see obstructions blocking you from turning or elevating the gun

franco wrote:Don't believe it to be armour but a camouflage netting and support rack. Someone had posted pictures earlier of them being used during maneuvers. To hid from UAV's.

From the top view it keeps the same design so it's hardly a cammo.

In very hot countries it would provide sun protection in the middle of the day and many new suicide drones will dive down and try to hit the top of the turret to damage optics and injure any exposed crew.... in that situation this will be useful, but I would not expect it to be some super shield to stop everything and anything.

Even if it is just used to attach a camouflage screen that sits off the armour and allows the machine guns to be used and for the optics to work without covering all the optical and radar based sensors on the roof of the turret then that will be useful enough.

Hiding the IR view would make Javelin ineffective in its fire and forget mode, which in itself makes a super expensive weapon rather less effective.

I can see that the application here is far more serious but it reminds me of the M-48 in Vietnam complete with sun shade and deck chairs

Absolutely! We had lots of Israeli tech coming into our country during that time and as you say there was some Polish involvement as well in the 90's.
We just gave the stuff "South African" names and pretended that we developed it our self's
We had a fairly well developed industry though that was able and willing to compete in the world market, but I am afraid that is almost all gone now

Examples of direct Israeli tech were Kfirs, Python AAM's, Reshef boats with Gabriel missiles, Jericho nuclear armed missiles, Galil rifle etc. etc.
The Rooivalk was developed from the Puma/Oryx helicopter which was more or less a local development - and a pretty good one at that!

Soon someone will put a few ERA bricks onto it.

They already have ERA on the top of their tanks.

But in terms of protection it should be enough to counter the small missiles carried by drones like MAM-L. That adds 1m of fresh air as protection.

Against a rel atgm it won't protect that much.

Tests of the Arena-M active protection system on the T-72B3 at the 38th Research Institute of Armored Military Equipment.