Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+56
George1
0nillie0
KiloGolf
miketheterrible
Ives
SeigSoloyvov
Interlinked
The-thing-next-door
VladimirSahin
sepheronx
PapaDragon
wilhelm
Cyrus the great
x_54_u43
KoTeMoRe
Elbows
Isos
Ranxerox71
Walther von Oldenburg
LaVictoireEstLaVie
OminousSpudd
par far
Vann7
max steel
Cyberspec
Mike E
jhelb
cracker
TR1
higurashihougi
kvs
Zivo
magnumcromagnon
macedonian
Regular
collegeboy16
Werewolf
RTN
Viktor
SWAT Pointman
flamming_python
Sujoy
KomissarBojanchev
Russian Patriot
militarysta
Damian
Mindstorm
Stealthflanker
runaway
freemanist
medo
ahmedfire
Austin
GarryB
Admin
IronsightSniper
60 posters

    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 31443
    Points : 31973
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour - Page 10 Empty Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  GarryB Fri Nov 04, 2011 12:14 am

    Yes, but Militarysta said that these are only estimations based on what one of T-90MS designers said, he also said that he can be wrong with them, this is not hard statement, only estimation to show some things.

    The T-90MS is the export version of the T-90AM.

    I rather think that "leaking" the information on an export tank is not a matter for the FSB.

    I have read transcripts that talk about the figures being ranges rather than hard figures... in other words the protection levels being at least xxxmm.

    Not all combat is on level ground and not all rounds come in at perfectly horizontal angles... and of course many tanks have a few weak points in their frontal armour which appears to be one of the things they tried to work on in the T-90 upgrade.

    I'am also against such statements, however as far as I know, in Soviet Union, it was also belived that T-72B composite armor was simpler thus less effective than for examle one mounted in T-80U.

    If the T-72 was fitted with the best stuff they could manage they wouldn't have produced anywhere near as many as they did.
    The purpose of the tank was "good enough" and mass production.

    Indeed, however ERA have shotcomings in design. First is fact that there is explosive filler, I will not talk about infantry near vehicle, explosion of RPG itself can hurt them, but ERA itself have very small multihit capability, it is one time armor in fact, a bit of problem in a battles when vehicle can be hit multiple times, and sometimes it happens that vehicle is hit in the same spot or near it.

    Quite true, but ERA can be replaced as easily as the ammo reloaded right near the front line... you can't say the same for the base armour of a tank.

    Besides this, all data about NERA/NxRA effectiveness vs ERA are old, from the 90's, we do not know how advanced are currently used NERA/NxRA armors. Besides this it seems that all data is based on tests of one single block of NERA against one single ERA cassette, it is a bit unfair because NERA should work in layers, this of course means that NERA will be bulkier and heavier than ERA but still effective and will have greater multihit capability.

    Why are you talking about the two armour types as exclusive? Even the T-64 had bulging armour that is a form of NERA... there is no reason to settle on one protection type.

    Use NERA, and ERA, and APS, and if you stop your vehicle for more than a couple of hours set up a chain link fence 3-4 metres away too.

    The result might only be the equivalent of some super Western tank armour set up, but it is probably going to be 30 tons lighter.


    Last edited by GarryB on Fri Nov 04, 2011 1:07 am; edited 1 time in total
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 31443
    Points : 31973
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour - Page 10 Empty Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  GarryB Fri Nov 04, 2011 12:27 am

    People keep in mind the old internet saying:

    There is no point in arguing with a fool.
    He will drag you down to his level and then beat you with experience.

    Be careful to remember that opinions and facts are not the same thing and what is obvious to you might actually need explaining to be obvious to someone else.

    Just because you have explained something doesn't mean it is true or even understood, nor does it become an irrefutable fact.

    Also even if you win and everyone agrees that this or that tank is invincible don't expect it to actually become invincible in real life... real life has little to do with internet forums most of the time Twisted Evil
    avatar
    Damian


    Posts : 17
    Points : 19
    Join date : 2011-11-02

    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour - Page 10 Empty Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Damian Fri Nov 04, 2011 12:29 am

    The T-90MS is the export version of the T-90AM.

    I rather think that "leaking" the information on an export tank is a matter for the FSB.

    I have read transcripts that talk about the figures being ranges rather than hard figures... in other words the protection levels being at least xxxmm.

    Not all combat is on level ground and not all rounds come in at perfectly horizontal angles... and of course many tanks have a few weak points in their frontal armour which appears to be one of the things they tried to work on in the T-90 upgrade.

    Of course, however basic side, rear, top and belly protection of all modern MBT's is more or less same.

    If the T-72 was fitted with the best stuff they could manage they wouldn't have produced anywhere near as many as they did.
    The purpose of the tank was "good enough" and mass production.

    Not exactly, the whole development history of T-64, T-72 and T-80 is very interesting, I read about this history from sources conected to all sides and it seems that T-72 was not there to be good enough but to be alternative, let's be honest Kartsev had his ambitions and he probably didn't liked Morozov, and vice versa. I see T-72 as rather a alternative for T-64 that had at this time problems with quality control (that is normal for completely new vehicle).

    But what is surprising is that both sides are not talking bad about Leningrad bureau and T-80, we actually see only a silent "war" between Kharkiv and Nizhny Tagil, but on the other hand they intentionally or not are providing many interesting informations.

    Quite true, but ERA can be replaced as easily as the ammo reloaded right near the front line... you can't say the same for the base armour of a tank.

    True, it is something for something.

    Why are you talking about the two armour types as exclusive? Even the T-64 had bulging armour that is a form of NERA... there is no reason to settle on one protection type.

    Use NERA, and ERA, and APS, and if you stop your vehicle for more than a couple of hours set up a chain link fence 3-4 metres away too.

    The result might only be the equivalent of some super Western tank armour set up, but it is probably going to be 30 tons lighter.

    T-64 not used NERA, it was a cavity with alluminium alloy filler with probably corundum balls/spheres, preatty interesting design I must say, but definetly not NERA, Combination K was more passive design.

    And of course You are right, we should use all availabale solutions, the problem is that no such design is availabale for anyone yet, there were attempts but all failed unfortunetly.

    I have my own concept of new vehicle, based on such concepts like US ASM or Russian Armata.

    So first thing we should as ourselfs, what we want? A dedicated platform or universal one?

    In any case even dedicated platform should be unified on components level with all other tracked combat platforms used in formation.

    And protection, it should not be seen as armor or APS separatly, but as one system, modular system.

    I was thinking about something like, 4 classes of modular composite armor.

    Class 1 in 40-45 tons level, against RPG's older ATGM's and high calliber guns munitions for assymetrhic warfare.
    Class 2 in 45-50 tons level as a standard armor package with good protection over frontal arc and anti RPG over sides, rear.
    Class 3 in 50-55 tons level with the same frontal but increased rear, side, maybe even top protection.
    Class 4 in 55-60 tons level with higher than good protection over front and good over sides.

    This modular armor packages can be interchangabale, so I can put class 2 over front and class 1 over sides and rear, etc.

    All of these suplemented with heavy modular ERA similiar to 4S23 (Relikt), 4S24 or ChSCzKW (Knife).

    Of course vehicle should be designed to fit APS, and other active protection solutions + proper camouflage.

    As for lighter weight of Soviet, Russian and Ukrainian tanks, it was achieved by using some briliant tricks, but on the other hand there are also shortcommings of using these tricks.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 31443
    Points : 31973
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour - Page 10 Empty Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  GarryB Fri Nov 04, 2011 12:54 am

    BTW if you look at the toolbar above the area you type when posting a message you will see one icon with an image with a floppy disk in front of it.

    Click on this icon and use the browse button to find a photo to upload.
    Eventually a panel with three links appears, if you select and copy the middle link and then paste that manually on your message and the click the upload link when the panel to enter a new photo appears just click the icon again to make the panel disappear.

    While typing the link will look like a link but when posted it will appear as an image that is hosted safely so there are no hot linking issues.

    It is simple and straight forward, but if you have problems contact me and I will explain it better, or help you with any problems.

    The icon with the movie strip is for embedding video from Youtube or Dailymotion sources. Just put the video link copied from the address bar of the video into the text strip that appears when you click on the video icon and click ok.
    avatar
    Damian


    Posts : 17
    Points : 19
    Join date : 2011-11-02

    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour - Page 10 Empty Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Damian Fri Nov 04, 2011 12:59 am

    I tried to do this, but there was a message that I cant post images, don't know why, but I will try again.

    Nope it didn't work, get such message.

    New members are not allowed to post external links or emails for 7 days. Please contact the forum administrator for more information.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 31443
    Points : 31973
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour - Page 10 Empty Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  GarryB Fri Nov 04, 2011 1:27 am

    I see T-72 as rather a alternative for T-64 that had at this time problems with quality control (that is normal for completely new vehicle).

    I am sure the makers of the T-72 didn't want to make their tank second best, but it wasn't till the end of the cold war when the budget only allowed for one MBT instead of two that they started putting things in the T-72 that were the best they could manage. Before that it was the best on a budget.
    It wasn't the case they wanted to make a cheap tank, but they did want to make it affordable.

    But what is surprising is that both sides are not talking bad about Leningrad bureau and T-80, we actually see only a silent "war" between Kharkiv and Nizhny Tagil, but on the other hand they intentionally or not are providing many interesting informations.

    The T-80s fate is sealed... there is no need to flog a dead horse.

    T-80s in Russian service will be maintained and used till they are worn out and then they will be discarded or disposed of. No upgrades for them.

    Their Autoloaders are too dangerous and leave the propellent stubs exposed to flame or sparks in the crew compartment which has proven lethal in combat.

    They are also considered Ukrainian tanks as production facilities are now in the Ukraine, which is another mark against them.

    The T-90 adopts all the sophisticated and expensive bits the T-80 had over the T-72 so it has lost all its advantages but retains its problems.

    True, it is something for something.

    Plus it is easier to upgrade.

    Also the late model versions actually are using less and less explosive and are becoming more and more NERA like.
    If you have a look there is a thread where an article is posted that mentions their work on ERA for light armoured vehicles and how the development has been from ERA to NERA in external blocks fitted like ERA.

    The potential is very interesting because in theory a NERA block could be fitted in layers of several blocks as the activation of one block does not prevent the activation of a block underneath... and a good old ERA block could be fitted on the top to further improve performance without even changing the base armour of the vehicle.

    T-64 not used NERA, it was a cavity with alluminium alloy filler with probably corundum balls/spheres, preatty interesting design I must say, but definetly not NERA, Combination K was more passive design.

    Are you suggesting that the T-64 was the only tank that never changed its composite armour composition?

    As for lighter weight of Soviet, Russian and Ukrainian tanks, it was achieved by using some briliant tricks, but on the other hand there are also shortcommings of using these tricks.

    Glad to hear you are not one of those people who think they made their tanks lighter because they didn't care about the lives of their men...

    I tried to do this, but there was a message that I cant post images, don't know why, but I will try again.

    Nope it didn't work, get such message.

    Sorry about that.

    We had a few new "members" that posted lots of pics of things for sale that were likely spam bots... I guess Vlad took this action to prevent a repeat.

    When you can post images you will find it easy and straight forward.

    I thought it was strange at first but it sure does make posting easier and eliminates the problem of hot linking without the cost or expense of locally hosting blobs.
    avatar
    Mindstorm


    Posts : 1124
    Points : 1291
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour - Page 10 Empty Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Mindstorm Fri Nov 04, 2011 2:11 am

    In my opinnion late cold war NATO Tanks (Leopard2A4, CR1, M1A1HA) was simply immune against Sowiet ATGMs and RPGs with HEAT warhead. Of course im talking about turets for +/-30. for longitudinal axis of turret.



    In late Cold War (up to the very end of '80 years) was universally accepted even in NATO top rooms that Soviet enjoyed a significative edge both in Armour and in antiarmour technology and that this gap was even quickly widening ; for effect of Soviet disinformation ,the scant cycle of intelligence data on new Soviet weapon system and scarce attitude to react quickly to them ,you had that the "staple" Soviet ATGM menace considered in US Army requirement and evaluation procedures was .... AT-3 !!!


    Even Konet and Chrizantiema seem to be too weak to perforate frontal turret armour Leo2A5 or M1A2...

    The world is beatiful because variegated : Konstantin Sivkov at example don't agree absolutely with you ,and ,no offence, but something lead me to give more credit to him; anyway it is the same world where Viktor Murakhovskiy assert that from several tests domestic version of 3BM42 "Mango" APFSDS was capable to defeat the contemporary fromt armour projection of M1A1 Abrams.

    Moreover i image that to you is not unfamiliar (like for the typical interlocutor recycling over and over low level platitudes and mantra spreaded as rooted like weed in public imaginary ) with the typical CONOPS for gun launched ATGM in Soviet doctrine dictating the capitalization of the wide stand-off range advantage (in particular in majority of aeras of the Great european plain) for double "crossing" employement of AT-8/11 for combined inception angle superior to 40 degrees in a fully mobile engagement with very reduced time of tactical transition so well described,among others, by Gen. Valentin Larionov in "Voennaia Strategiia" , in substance for the target would have been impossible to avoid that one of the two missiles would have hit at least the side of hull/turret (is important to note as the obsessive stress in "not linear" tactical mobility in Soviet litterature of the time was a clear attempt to capitalize at maximum the wide advantage offered by the significatively smaller and lower silhouette of soviet MBT design over western counterparts in long range engagements with unguided gun fired HEAT/APFSDS , an advantage of course present still today ....at least until someone manage to develop a future-reading FCS or speed of ammunitions will reach some threshold levels ).

    Relikt give 1.5 more protection.
    Kontakt-5 1.2 more protection.
    Od course working hevy ERA depends on meny factors.
    It's looks funny when we realize that this values are for LOS thickest value (~840mm).
    If T-90S with Relikt have 850mm vs KE then the T-90A with Kontakt-5 should have about 720-750mm RHA, and "nacked" T-90A turret should have about 600-650mm RHA.


    It seem that the same strange "disease" with the incompatible figures for armor LOS has also a variation affecting ERA protection value...T-90A with a basis front turret armour of 600-650 mm RHA equivalent against APFSDS should have a protection level against APFSDS when fitted with Relikt (export version) of ...900 - 975 mm RHA , moreover we could also add that T-72B (littarally 3 turrett armour configurations before the MBT turret just mentioned ) had a protection level equivalent to 550 mm RHA against KE and 750 mm RHA with domestic K-5 - with Relikt it should reach a protection level of 825 ,even a prehistoric T-55 with frontal turret protection of 200 mm against KE with Soviet domestic version of K-5 had reached a protection level of....480 mm RHA !!
    Little question : how is possible to let those figures stand together without being forced to attribute,in the frontal projection ,to the 10 layered welded turret armour of T-90A/S with inbulit NERA a protection level equal or inferior to that of immensely inferior and older specimens ?
    It is not rocket science.....

    Little note : I at least can only hope that you is aware that effciency level of heavy ERA employing the flying oblique plates defeating mechanism like 4S22/23 modules is significatively increased against penetrators with greater L/D ratio .


    About NERA it is interesting to point out that NII Stali not only pioonered the technology and is still today one of the most active researcher in the field, but some forms of NERA fillers was present in Soviet domestic MBT since end of '60 years and widely present in almost any Russian MBT armour configurations since this time.
    You can read something on the subject here:

    www.military-informant.com/index.php/news.html?start=10


    This instead an interesting and very informing scientifical article on the subject:

    "Failure of a long-rod projectile perforating a target with a middle elastomer layer" S. A. Zelepugin, V. A. Grigoryan, N. S. Dorokhov and Yu. P. Zhbankov


    avatar
    Damian


    Posts : 17
    Points : 19
    Join date : 2011-11-02

    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour - Page 10 Empty Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Damian Fri Nov 04, 2011 2:29 am

    I am sure the makers of the T-72 didn't want to make their tank second best, but it wasn't till the end of the cold war when the budget only allowed for one MBT instead of two that they started putting things in the T-72 that were the best they could manage. Before that it was the best on a budget.
    It wasn't the case they wanted to make a cheap tank, but they did want to make it affordable.

    Not exactly, we have a week ago a very interesting discussion on our forum (polish language) about history of development of soviet tanks.

    And the whole history is very complex it seems.

    We know that Leonid Kartsev was working for the replacement for T-54, T-55 and T-62, these were Object 166T and Object 167M for example, but Morozov designed an overall better tank, Object 432 known as T-64, but T-64 had it problems, Politbiuro and MoD decided that Kartsev will redesign only a bit T-64 that it can be propelled by simpler Diesel the W-46. This vehicle was called Object 172, but in the end Kartsev and his team designed a completely new tank with new suspension and their own autoloader, this vehicles was Object 172M later designated as T-72 "Ural".

    But there were some problems, the factory was prepared for months to manufacture Object 172 not 172M, there were delays, more problems with quality, of course factory and designers solved them and they got overall rahter reliabale vehicle.

    The T-80s fate is sealed... there is no need to flog a dead horse.

    T-80s in Russian service will be maintained and used till they are worn out and then they will be discarded or disposed of. No upgrades for them.

    Their Autoloaders are too dangerous and leave the propellent stubs exposed to flame or sparks in the crew compartment which has proven lethal in combat.

    They are also considered Ukrainian tanks as production facilities are now in the Ukraine, which is another mark against them.

    The T-90 adopts all the sophisticated and expensive bits the T-80 had over the T-72 so it has lost all its advantages but retains its problems.

    I know I know, afterall I have a big interest in history of Soviet and know Russian and Ukrainian tanks. Wink

    Plus it is easier to upgrade.

    Also the late model versions actually are using less and less explosive and are becoming more and more NERA like.
    If you have a look there is a thread where an article is posted that mentions their work on ERA for light armoured vehicles and how the development has been from ERA to NERA in external blocks fitted like ERA.

    The potential is very interesting because in theory a NERA block could be fitted in layers of several blocks as the activation of one block does not prevent the activation of a block underneath... and a good old ERA block could be fitted on the top to further improve performance without even changing the base armour of the vehicle.

    Yes I know that NII Stali is looking after new materials. Hmmm, it can be very interesting You know, both west (NATO) and Russia are actually taking the same root. It is actually not widely known fact but NII Stali allready worked with GDLS and Raphael on US M19 ARAT ERA, I have a photo of ARAT internal structure (after detonation) and it seems to be very similiar to the heavier layered version of 4S24 ERA.

    Are you suggesting that the T-64 was the only tank that never changed its composite armour composition?

    No, they probably used better materials but IMHO the overall design was same in T-64A (Object 434) and T-64B (Object 447), also it seems that T-80 and T-80B used exactly the same or very similiar armor, even turrets of T-64B and T-80B are very similiar.

    Glad to hear you are not one of those people who think they made their tanks lighter because they didn't care about the lives of their men...

    I had some good mentors when I was kid, so as they teached me I seek knowledge and maybe even some sort of illumination. Wink

    But indeed, Soviet designers perfored briliantly to design a rather lightweight vehicles with comparabale (and in some period even better) protection than heavy ones over frontal arc.

    But there are several shortcomings.

    1) less internal volume = smaller survivability in case of armor perforation, unfortunetly, however these days, we all can solve this problem.
    2) design is, well less universal, this is because vehicle, on turret have some armor sacrifice, to explain this further.

    Soviet designers angled thin side armor (~70-80mm CHA or RHA in newer design) that within safe manouvering angles it is completely covered behind frontal armor, briliant when we consider demands of Soviet Armed Forces for very light and well protected vehicles.

    NATO had not such extreme demans on vehicle low weight, so designers just put ~200-300/380mm thick commposite armor over turret sides. This have shortcomings in form of bigger and heavier turret, on the other hand within safe manouvering angles, these for example ~300mm armor at hit angle of 30 degrees from turret longitudinal axis will give around ~600mm, preatty good protection I would say.

    It have also such benefit that in angles close to 90 degrees from turret longitudinal axis, protection is higher than in Soviet and current Russian/Ukrainian design, and even if armor will be perforated, the after armor perforation effects will be limited and crew survivability will be higher.

    I seen many photos of M1 tanks hit in Iraq, and it seems that indeed if HEAT jet did not strike crew member directly, they were only wounded more or less. Also tanks have rather high survivability until there were case of secondary effects, for example fire, Iraqi civilians vandalism on abandoned vehicles, friendly forces destroying disabled vehicles, in fact the only big threat were IED's, but enough big IED will destroy anything.

    Surprisingly there very small casualties (KIA) in tank crews, it is rather good evidence that american idea of full ammo isolation in magazines with blow off panels was right choice.

    But also T-72/90 series can have high survivability if crew will take ammunition only in autoloader cassettes, 2nd Chechenya prooved that.

    It also seems that UVZ designers tried to in some way adapt western ideology of composite armor over turret sides, there were plans to put such armor but much thinner on T-90A turret, and T-90AM/MS had ERA protecting turret sides, effective but lighter solution, unfortunetly also not miltiple hit capabale, as we know, shortcoming of ERA.

    In Iraq also surprisingly frontal armor of M1 tanks was immune to even RPG-29 hits, I know what I'm talking about, I had a good source that had connections to soldiers over there, and this source is reliabale.

    Well my opinion is that both design solutions were good, comparabale, made for different demands and views, but for the future we need new designs, well we allready had prototypes of such vehicles like Object 195, EGS or TTB (and ASMO connected to TTB), pitty that they never fielded any of these beasts.

    Sorry about that.

    We had a few new "members" that posted lots of pics of things for sale that were likely spam bots... I guess Vlad took this action to prevent a repeat.

    When you can post images you will find it easy and straight forward.

    I thought it was strange at first but it sure does make posting easier and eliminates the problem of hot linking without the cost or expense of locally hosting blobs.

    Ah, don't worry, I will wait. Smile
    avatar
    Damian


    Posts : 17
    Points : 19
    Join date : 2011-11-02

    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour - Page 10 Empty Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Damian Fri Nov 04, 2011 2:42 am

    anyway it is the same world where Viktor Murakhovskiy assert that from several tests domestic version of 3BM42 "Mango" APFSDS was capable to defeat the contemporary fromt armour projection of M1A1 Abrams.

    M1A1, perhaps, not M1A1HA. But I also suspect here one document from US tests that was probably wrongly translated, or there were problems with context understanding. Where Americans were just firign in to armor package on a tank to the point where there was not much left from this armor and they just messured how much DU left outside and inside vehicle. Some people started to do wilde claims that this is a proof of low protection where nowhere in the text, there was anything about offered protection by this armor, and the subject of tests was to see and messure what will happen after complete destroy of armor package.

    About NERA it is interesting to point out that NII Stali not only pioonered the technology and is still today one of the most active researcher in the field, but some forms of NERA fillers was present in Soviet domestic MBT since end of '60 years and widely present in almost any Russian MBT armour configurations since this time.
    You can read something on the subject here:

    If You meand BDD armor it is not NERA directly, there is no space for moving plates, it is working more on a different density of resin and metal plates placed in this resin. On the other hand, T-72B armor is indeed NERA but it still looks very simple a rubber like material between two plates, it seems that NERA evolved greatly from that time. Maybe just reactive filler made from rubber like material was changed to something more reactive and energetic, who knows.

    Little note : I at least can only hope that you is aware that effciency level of heavy ERA employing the flying oblique plates defeating mechanism like 4S22/23 modules is significatively increased against penetrators with greater L/D ratio .

    It seems that Americans overcome this problem at least to some level. The first step was M829A2, but this was interim design, long term solution was M829A3 that was designed after tests on 4S22 Kontakt-5 and ChSCzKW Knie ERA, of course it will not be 100% effective, but at least they tried, and it seems they have their small success, a very long rod (~800mm) and with very big diameter as for such long rod (~25mm) also rather slow but from what I know, the propelant charge is very powerfull, there were some informations on TankNet posted some time ago about pressure this propelant charge generates.

    Preatty impressive ammunition. We will see what will bring new M829A4, it should be ready for fielding in the end of this year or in 2012.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 31443
    Points : 31973
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour - Page 10 Empty Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  GarryB Fri Nov 04, 2011 7:26 am

    <Snip>,you had that the "staple" Soviet ATGM menace considered in US Army requirement and evaluation procedures was .... AT-3 !!!

    Yes, and yet the greatest threat to NATO armour on the western front in a conflict with the Warsaw Pact came not from the ATGM, but from the SMERCH battery with MMW radar guided top attack submunitions punching holes in that thin top armour.

    Tanks can't fight on their own so even if the WP ATGMs couldn't penetrate MBTs from the frontal arc they could wipe out all the support vehicles leaving the tanks vulnerable.

    No, they probably used better materials but IMHO the overall design was same in T-64A (Object 434) and T-64B (Object 447), also it seems that T-80 and T-80B used exactly the same or very similiar armor, even turrets of T-64B and T-80B are very similiar.

    Would you not agree that an armour structure that includes metal balls gets its effectiveness against long rod penetrators because the penetrators push aside the balls while at the same time offering an angled face to the penetrator tip... the reaction of the armour inducing bending forces on the penetrator tip and sides to reduce its energy and penetration.

    ...doesn't that make them active armour, like bulging plates or other forms of NERA?

    1) less internal volume = smaller survivability in case of armor perforation, unfortunetly, however these days, we all can solve this problem.

    It is just basic common sense that if you only armour that which needs protecting that penetration of that armour will lead to a hit of something important. Is that really a flaw or a case of looking at it in the wrong way. The fact that the important stuff is protected by armour and the entire vehicle is made as small a target to hit as possible is perfectly normal to me.

    This have shortcomings in form of bigger and heavier turret, on the other hand within safe manouvering angles, these for example ~300mm armor at hit angle of 30 degrees from turret longitudinal axis will give around ~600mm, preatty good protection I would say.

    Lots of extra weight to improve protection to the sides of the turret that Russian designers protected by making them impossible to hit at 30 degrees. I would say only adequate... because most hits from that angle will not be aimed at the turret side, they will much more likely be nearer the centre of the turret where most tanks get hit most often.

    It have also such benefit that in angles close to 90 degrees from turret longitudinal axis, protection is higher than in Soviet and current Russian/Ukrainian design, and even if armor will be perforated, the after armor perforation effects will be limited and crew survivability will be higher.

    But for the extra cost in weight and size is it really worth it?
    The extra protection levels over ex-Soviet tanks is meaningless as a weapon powerful enough to easily penetrate one will easily penetrate the other. Comparing armour in that way is like comparing main guns with main guns... it makes no sense to compare a gun with a gun, because guns aren't used against guns... they are used against Armour.
    If the tanks with the biggest guns won then the French and British would have pushed the Germans to Poland in the early 1940s.

    I seen many photos of M1 tanks hit in Iraq, and it seems that indeed if HEAT jet did not strike crew member directly, they were only wounded more or less.

    Whereas Russian tanks instantly explode the instant a HMG round bounces off the glasis?

    HEAT rounds like Kinetic rounds are not APHE rounds and they do what they are designed to do... punch relatively small holes in very thick pieces of armour. Now a DU round will certainly shower the inside of a tank with burning fragments of radioactive waste, and both will cause splash damage, but unless it directly hits a crewman or starts a fire or hits fuel or ammo actual vehicle survivability is generally pretty good.

    The T-72 with spare ammo in the crew compartment and the T-80 achieved bad reps because of the way the spare ammo was stored or in the case of the T-80 the problem was the way the ammo was stored in the autoloader with the propellent stubs exposed was pretty normal for tanks of the 1970s including the M60.
    The T-90 has all its ready to use ammo protected in an armoured underfloor autoloader and when spare loose ammo is not carried is just as safe for the crew in terms of a penetration as an Abrams.

    Surprisingly there very small casualties (KIA) in tank crews, it is rather good evidence that american idea of full ammo isolation in magazines with blow off panels was right choice.

    Soviet experience during WWII showed that ammo stored in an overhanging turret bustle was very vulnerable to a satchel charge that will burn out the whole tank.

    Even with the small bustle in the T-90SM only a small amount of ammo is stored in the bustle to meet the requirements to carry x number of rounds on the vehicle. If UVZ had its way they would drop that ammo.

    It also seems that UVZ designers tried to in some way adapt western ideology of composite armor over turret sides, there were plans to put such armor but much thinner on T-90A turret, and T-90AM/MS had ERA protecting turret sides, effective but lighter solution, unfortunetly also not miltiple hit capabale, as we know, shortcoming of ERA.

    Hardly a shortcoming... I have seen tanks used for penetration testing simulating hits in normal combat and I have yet to see two impact points within a metre or so of each other... I think you are rather overstating this so called shortcoming of ERA.

    You mention T-90 performance in Dagestan, well that had over 9 hits... I would suggest the fact that it survived and remained fully operational means its ERA was useful more than once.

    The normal tactics by the forces they were up against (ie battle hardened Chechens) most of which had excellent RPG models and the conscript training to handle the weapons and use effective tactics against armour, would be to attack the sides and rear of armour to maximise lethality... the fact that there were 9 hits and it remained operational suggests the ERA on the sides and rear of the vehicles worked against multiple hits rather than just the first.

    In Iraq also surprisingly frontal armor of M1 tanks was immune to even RPG-29 hits, I know what I'm talking about, I had a good source that had connections to soldiers over there, and this source is reliabale.

    Why is that surprising? The RPG-29 is from the 1980s and is limited to 105mm in calibre.
    A modern tank that receives proper upgrades should be resistant over its frontal arc against 20 year old weapons.
    How would it fare with an RPG-28 with a 125mm charge?

    Besides most shoulder fired unguided weapons are used as close in defence for larger systems or as ambush weapons from the sides or rear anyway.

    Well my opinion is that both design solutions were good, comparabale, made for different demands and views, but for the future we need new designs, well we allready had prototypes of such vehicles like Object 195, EGS or TTB (and ASMO connected to TTB), pitty that they never fielded any of these beasts.

    And Armata...

    Maybe just reactive filler made from rubber like material was changed to something more reactive and energetic, who knows.

    On their old site that had a fully working english section they talked about bulging armour that actively resisted penetrators. It wasn't sliding plates or rubber etc.

    Preatty impressive ammunition. We will see what will bring new M829A4, it should be ready for fielding in the end of this year or in 2012.

    To be brutally honest, I am more interested in the new ammo developed for the new gun fitted to the T-90AM... is there a successor or production version of the triple charge HEAT round, and the mention of the new alloy DU round is intriguing too.
    avatar
    Mindstorm


    Posts : 1124
    Points : 1291
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour - Page 10 Empty Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Mindstorm Fri Nov 04, 2011 11:08 am

    It seems that Americans overcome this problem at least to some level. The first step was M829A2, but this was interim design, long term solution was M829A3


    Truly ? Mhhh...Very interesting ,taking into account that in those type of hyper flow stress mechanical interactions the main influencing factor in establishing the residual penetration potential of a KE round is almost exclusively time of interaction between the penetrator rod and the yaw inducing ERA's plates, this assertion appear truly revolutionalry.

    -On a side note we could also add that employement of material as DU's alloy with strong tendency at iso-volumetric grain structure failure at those regime of energy -commonly refered to as adiabatic shear banding - and greater aptitude at tangential deformation, representing advantageous qualities against majority of armor's passive composite fillers and laminates ,represent obviously in interaction with those type of ERA significantly disadvantageous characteristics.

    At now increasing L/D ratio is the only weighty variable at disposition of KE penetrator's designers to increase overall penetration potential (an element almost fatally also leading to reduced overall speed of round ,another element increasing time of interaction with the ERA plates...) but in doing that them are also forced to accept an increased "tax" in term of residual penetration potential demanded by the increased efficiency of dynamic protection against it, the design solutions are ,simply, mutually exclusives.


    But for M829A2 and M829A3 it is ,of course, all different ....it must be a completely new Physical principle ...very,very interesting.

    Now i must go at work, i hope that at return i can become finally aware of the ....perfectly hidden...revolutionary measures present in M829A2/A3 design capable to pension Rototaev's fracturing models, Johnson–Cook equations and M. Held (and several others) experimentaions .
    avatar
    militarysta


    Posts : 10
    Points : 12
    Join date : 2011-11-02

    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour - Page 10 Empty Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  militarysta Fri Nov 04, 2011 12:16 pm

    To Admins - this bellow it's not "flame ware" - it's just about the truth Smile


    @Mindstorm

    for luck of your nation and its military insider service security protocols also Leopard-2,obviously, has NOT any type of armour's LOS live measurement maked on a real Leopard-2A4 and circulating without any problem in internet in the hands of a pair of guys with definitely too much time at theirs disposition.
    This type of information is one of the most stricly surveiled information among any Army Ground Forces worldwide, not differently than aircraft radar operating frequency in Air Forces,or crushing deep threshold of a particular submarine in Navy etc..etc... their total absence , in public accessible sources for any of those systems operative worldwide is a clear proof of that.


    Laughing Laughing Laughing

    Soory, It's your problem to understand this. There is no "magic OPSPEC" here. We have masured normal Leo2A4 for 1986. And sorry you - it's most hard evidence ever- real photo, real Leopard2A4 made in real TkBde, it's give use real LOS thickness.
    And stupid LOS thickness is no OPSPEC.

    I realizes that this may be a shock because the nonsense printed/posted about LOS leo2 on AndriejBT blog, or btvt, on others.
    But talking about 65cm LOS in Leo2A4 is BS and nonsens. Sorry wy have evidences -what have you? Hmm Andriej's BS and...nothing else?

    BTW: In 2006r Paul Lakowsk on TankNet wrote Andriej the same - 830mm LOS frontal thickness. So, where is big deal?
    It's so hard to understand that Sowiet tanks LOS is much thinner then in Leopar2 and M1A1 and M1A2?
    Of course LOS is not armour protection.


    The problem is that what is, in this drawing, is indicated as A2 is ,obviously and unescapably ,almost equal to the armour block section area indicated as A1 .
    Naturally the attempt to claim figures so different ,over the self evident incongreuncy between the measure of the two segments, force the designer to other "adjustements" ( only to name one : attempt to reduce the wideness of the turret ,reducing the wideness of the armour of right side turrett section -that meanly not identified by a letter- in resepct to the left side) ,obviously nothing work.

    The almost perfect capability to overlap of the two LOS segments (A1 adn A2 ) like its ratio with the inescapable physical limits of the LEO-2A4's structure itself, and total inconsistenmcy of the 84 cm figure result absolutely clear in pratically any pics of real LEO-2A4.
    Even in one of the same pic used just some months ago just by you mylitarista (note : seem that your figures have change very quickly lately ,in particular after this funny photo hoax ..... even worse than the tons of worthless words produced after the equally funny staged pics of PAKFA'sduct with exposed compressor face Laughing Laughing ).

    Anyone can note in this image from top as a LOS segment in the area named here G and that in the area named E would be almost equal ,moreover is equally clear as a figure of 84 cm for E's LOS would create a turrett more than 3 meters wide !!!


    buahahahahahahah
    You can't even re-scale smiple image Laughing

    http: //imageshack. us/photo/my-images/600/bitchplease. jpg/

    ps."real tank" should be of course -my mistake.

    And this ~60 and ~20mm to little is obvious mistake on draw. Some yers ago I have the same problem - so tehere are still on net my drawnings with incorrect values ~750-780mm LOS. But after that I'll takes mesurment on real tank Smile


    BTW: Simillar story about M1A1 and M1A2 - for rescale we have ~960mm LOS, but some guy working in US-Army masured it - and again - real tank have more then 900mm LOS.


    I end of my tea. It's yours probelms with understand simple mesurment and pohotos made on real Leo2A4 tank, and obvious imperfection of stupid drawnings.

    avatar
    militarysta


    Posts : 10
    Points : 12
    Join date : 2011-11-02

    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour - Page 10 Empty Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  militarysta Fri Nov 04, 2011 12:53 pm

    Next:

    @Mindstorm
    In late Cold War (up to the very end of '80 years) was universally accepted even in NATO top rooms that Soviet enjoyed a significative edge both in Armour and in antiarmour technology and that this gap was even quickly widening ; for effect of Soviet disinformation ,the scant cycle of intelligence data on new Soviet weapon system and scarce attitude to react quickly to them ,you had that the "staple" Soviet ATGM menace considered in US Army requirement and evaluation procedures was .... AT-3 !!!


    Again - any proff? Laughing Becouse, You know CIA in 1984 have this estimates soviet tank protection level:

    http: //imageshack. us/photo/my-images/21/ciaoczogachdaneodppanc. jpg/



    Moreover i image that to you is not unfamiliar (like for the typical interlocutor recycling over and over low level platitudes and mantra spreaded as rooted like weed in public imaginary ) with the typical CONOPS for gun launched ATGM in Soviet doctrine dictating the capitalization of the wide stand-off range advantage (in particular in majority of aeras of the Great european plain) for double "crossing" employement of AT-8/11 for combined inception angle superior to 40 degrees in a fully mobile engagement with very reduced time of tactical transition so well described,among others, by Gen. Valentin Larionov in "Voennaia Strategiia" , in substance for the target would have been impossible to avoid that one of the two missiles would have hit at least the side of hull/turret

    Oh, I was waiting for this - next russian-tanks lovers fetish: "bla bla bla we have GLATGM (Gun Launched Anti Tank Guided Missile) and you not so our tanks are better".

    Another myth Smile

    In Poland in 95% max fire range is 1500m. On Fulda gap - 1300m
    And Yes - mirrcle GLATGM gives big suprior on 1300-1500m distance Laughing Laughing
    Sabot is faster. In NATO doctrine for that reson (it's stupid to use slow GLATGM on 1300-1500m distance when we have good FCS and sabot) GLATGM was rejected.

    in substance for the target would have been impossible to avoid that one of the two missiles would have hit at least the side of hull/turret (is important to note as the obsessive stress in "not linear" tactical mobility in Soviet litterature of the time was a clear attempt to capitalize at maximum the wide advantage offered by the significatively smaller and lower silhouette of soviet MBT design over western counterparts in long range engagements with unguided gun fired

    Sorry but T-72A, T-72M1, T-72B, T-64 etc. have incomparably worse mobility on the field. It's mobility sucks. Leo2 and M1 was far far superior about monility. In each case. Thinking that NATO tanks would not have maneuvered on the battlefield is a very naive.

    BTW: In Poland we have comparison between T-72M1 and Leo2A4 mobility. And T-72M1 is theriblle. Even with 1000HP engine. And transmission is T-72 familiy is more then worse...

    The same about night vision:
    http: //imageshack. us/photo/my-images/716/celownikinocne222. gif/


    avatar
    militarysta


    Posts : 10
    Points : 12
    Join date : 2011-11-02

    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour - Page 10 Empty Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  militarysta Fri Nov 04, 2011 1:34 pm

    BTW:

    One method of estimating Leopar2 amour protection is to compare Leo2 LOS thickness and Soviet AT- weapons penetration capabilities. It allows you to assess what degree of protection can be expected by AT weapons designers.

    Of course we don't know if this penetration value was enought to perforate Leo2 turret armour -in reality it could be too little -we don't know that 100% sure Smile

    Sorry for the fact that it is in Polish and Russian.


    front wieży Leoparda2:
    840mm LOS wzdłuż osi lufy, ~740mm prostopadle do frontu wieży.

    Leo2A1; 1979- listopad 1984
    380 (I seria) + 450 (II seria) + 300 (III) seria

    APFSDS od 1976 do 1984.
    115mm (dokładnego roku nie znalazłem):
    3БМ28 - 380mm RHA
    ЗБМ21 - 330mm RHA
    125mm:
    3BM22 (1976) - 380mm RHA
    3БМ26 (1982) - 410mm RHA
    3БМ-29(1983) - 430mm RHA

    PPK, oraz czołgowe ppk:
    9М 111-2(Fagot -1975) - 460mm RHA
    Konkurs (1974) - 600mm RHA
    9М111М (Fagot 1983) - 600mm RHA
    9М112М (Kobra czołowy ppk 1976) - 600mm RHA
    9M112M (mod. Kobry z 1985) - do 700mm RHA

    Jak można zauważyć mamy tutaj zarówno APFSDS oraz PPK które weszły do uzbrojenia przez masowym wprowadzeniem wozów z technologią Burlinghton (1979-1983) jak takie które można by traktować jako pierwszą odpowiedź na już wchodzące do linii Leopardy2A1 (840-740mm LOS) oraz pierwsze M1 (~740mm LOS).
    Myślę, że za takie możemy uznać: 3BM26, 3BM29, 9M111M, 9M112M.

    APFDS
    3БМ26 (1982) - 410mm RHA
    3БМ-29(1983) - 430mm RHA
    HEAT:
    9M111M (1983) 600mm RHA
    9M112M (1985) do 700mm RHA


    Teraz załóżmy, że penetracja danego typu ppk/APFSDS miała wystarczyć do pokonania przodu wieży Leo2 i zobaczmy stosunek LOS Leo2 do możliwości penetracji danego rodzaju amunicji.
    Policzę to dla typowego LOS frontu wieży Leo2 - 740mm (owe 840mm to optymalna wartość) wychodzi wtedy dla APFSDS pomiędzy 0.53 a 0.56 zaś dla HEAT pomiędzy 0.81 a 0.95.
    Być może owa relacja możliwości penetracji broni ppanc do grubości sprowadzonej pancerza Leo2A1 miała zapewniać skuteczność zniszczenia tego wozu. A może byłą próbą "dogonienia" i pokonania osłony jaką zapewniał. Środki ppanc które weszły do 1984r powinny być opracowywane od ~1978 miej więcej.
    Przyjmę niekorzystne założenie dla czołgów - mianowicie że "górny zakres" wystarczał do pokonania pancerza (realnie mogło być tak że nie wystarczał -nie wiemy tego). dawało by to dla Leo2A1:


    Leopard2A1:
    410-470mm vs APFSDS (740 a 840mm LOS - proszę brać raczej dolną wartość)
    700-800mm vs HEAT



    teraz Leopardy2A3 oraz 2A4 - czyli wozy z lat 1985 -1992. Należy mieć świadomość że gdzieś w 1986r nagle poprawiono osłonę Leo2A4 tak, że wozy od połowy serii powinny być znacznie lepiej osłonięte.

    Leo2A3;grudzień 1984-grudzień 1985
    300 (IV seria)
    Leo2A4; grudzień 1985-marzec 1992
    370 (1985-1987 marzec; V seria)
    150 (1986-1989maj; VI seria)
    100 (1989-1990kwiecień;VII seria)
    75 (styczeń 1991-marzec 1992; VIII seria)

    APFSDS od 1985 do 1990:
    3BM32 (1985) 500mm RHA
    3BM42 (1986) 450mm RHA
    3BM48 (1990) 600mm RHA

    PPK, oraz czołgowe ppk od 1985 do 1994:
    9M120 (1985) 800-950mm RHA
    Wichr-M (1990) 1000mm RHA
    9M115-2 (1992) 980mm RHA
    9M133-1 (1994) 1200mm RHA

    Przy policzeniu tego na front wieży (niższa wartość 740mm LOS) Leo2A4 wychodzi dla AFSDS zakres: od ~0.60 poprzez 0.65 do 0.78 zaś dla HEAT od 1.25 poprzez 1.31 do 1.57.
    I tutaj jest mały problem - w przypadku 3BM48 (1990) oraz Korneta (1994) można przyjąć że miała to być odpowiedź na wzmocnione Leo2A4 oraz M1A1HA. Dlatego jako skrajne bym je raczej odrzucił przy szacunkach dla wozów młodszych niż 1987 rok. Reszta miała być odpowiedzią na to co pojawiło się jeszcze wcześniej w zachodniej Pancerce czyli: Leo2A3/A4(740-840mm LOS) , M1IP(do 960mm LOS), Chelener-1(?).

    Zostanę przy Leopardach.
    Dla wczesnych Leo2A4 (i A3) byłoby to do 0.65 dla APFSDS oraz 1.25-1.3 dla HEAT co by dawało:


    Leo2A3/A4(wczesny):
    480mm - 550mm vs APFSDS (740 a 840mm LOS - proszę brać raczej dolną wartość)
    950-1050mm vs HEAT


    Leo2A4 (wzmocniony)
    i tutaj nie wiem, ponieważ patrząc na zakładaną penetrację Sowieckich/Rosyjskich środków ppanc było to aż do 0,78 dla APFSDS i aż do 1.57 dla HEAT ale to raczej były Overkille (3BM48 i Kornet) dlatego przyjąłem "zaledwie" 0,75 dla APFSDS i wartość z Metysa-M dla HEAT (1.31) co i tak daje dla Leo2A4 (późnego) aż:


    Leopard2A4 (późny):
    ~560-630mm vs APFSDS oraz 995-1100mm vs HEAT.


    Czy można z przebijalności środków ppanc (APFSDS i PPK) wnioskować coś o odporności danych serii czołgów? Uważam, że tak, jednakże powyższe szacunki są oparte na dość kruchych przesłankach i należy mieć tego świadomość.

    Almoust the same trnaslate to russian:

    В случае с Леопрадами есть небольшая проблема.
    Мы знаем физическую толщину брони:


    но не знаем ни её состава ни прочности. Можно только оценивать.
    Есть много способов. Я сам в последнее время подошел к этому таким способом:

    лоб башни Леопарда 2:
    840мм габарита приведённого к оси ствола, ~740мм по нормали к лбу башни.

    Лео2А1; 1979-ноябрь 1984
    380 (1 серия) + 450 (2 серия) + 300 (3 серия)

    ОБПС с 1976 по 1984
    115мм (точный год не нашёл):
    3БМ28 - 380mm RHA
    ЗБМ21 - 330mm RHA
    125mm:
    3BM22 (1976) - 380mm RHA
    3БМ26 (1982) - 410mm RHA
    3БМ-29(1983) - 430mm RHA

    ПТУР и ТУР:
    9М 111-2(Fagot -1975) - 460mm RHA
    Konkurs (1974) - 600mm RHA
    9М111М (Fagot 1983) - 600mm RHA
    9М112М (Kobra ТУР 1976) - 600mm RHA
    9M112M (модификация Кобры с 1985) - до 700mm RHA

    Как видно, у насть есть ОБПС и ПТУР, которые были приняты на вооружение до массового появления машин с технологией Burlinghton (1979-1983) а так же те, которые можно считать первым ответом на ранние серии Леопрда 2А1 (840-740mm габарита) и первые М1 (~740mm габарита).
    Я думаю что к таковым можно отнести: 3BM26, 3BM29, 9M111M, 9M112M.

    ОБПС
    3БМ26 (1982) - 410mm RHA
    3БМ-29(1983) - 430mm RHA
    ПТУР:
    9M111M (1983) 600mm RHA
    9M112M (1985) до 700mm RHA

    Теперь допустим что пробивная способность данного типа ПТУР/ОБПС должна была быть достаточной для поражения лба башни Лео2 и посмотрим соотношение габарита брони Лео2 к пробивной способности данных боеприпасов.
    Я рассчитаю его для габарита лба башни Лео2 по нормали - 740мм (и приведённого 840мм) в таком случае получается что для ОБПС соотношение составит от 0.53 до 0.56 а для куммулятивных от 0.81 до 0.95.
    Возможно это соотношение пробивной способности к габариту брони Лео2А1 должно было обеспечить эффективное поражение данного танка. А может было попыткой "догнать" и превзойти защиту танка. Противотанковые средства принятые на вооружение до 1984г должны быть разработаны где-то около 1978. Буду исходить из наименее выгодных предпосылок для танка, а именно - максимальна пробивная способность была достаточна для пробития брони (в реальности её могло быть не достаточно - нам это не известно). для Лео2А1 это даёт следующее:

    Leopard2A1:
    410-470mm vs APFSDS (740 и 840mm габарит - будем брать нижнее значение)
    700-800mm vs HEAT

    теперь Лео2А3 и 2А4 - то-есть машины 1985-1992 годов. Не стоит забывать что где-то в 1986г защита Лео2А4 была резко усилена так, что танки начиная с половины серии должны быть значительно лучше забронированы.

    Leo2A3;декабрь 1984-декабрь 1985
    300 (IV серия)
    Leo2A4; декабрь 1985-март 1992
    370 (1985-1987 март; V серия)
    150 (1986-1989 май; VI серия)
    100 (1989-1990 апрель;VII серия)
    75 (январь 1991-март 1992; VIII серия)

    APFSDS от 1985 до 1990:
    3BM32 (1985) 500mm RHA
    3BM42 (1986) 450mm RHA
    3BM48 (1990) 600mm RHA

    ПТУР и ТУР от 1985 до 1994:
    9M120 (1985) 800-950mm RHA
    Wichr-M (1990) 1000mm RHA
    9M115-2 (1992) 980mm RHA
    9M133-1 (1994) 1200mm RHA

    При перерасчёте этого на лоб башни (нижнее значение 740мм) Лео2А4 получается для ОБПС диапазон: от ~0.60 через 0.65 до 0.78 а для куммулятивных от 1.25 через 1.31 до 1.57.
    И тут возникает небольшая проблема - в случае 3BM48 (1990) а также Корнета (1994) можно предположить что это должен был быть ответ на усиление Лео2А4 а также М1А1НА. Поэтому я бы их исключил из расчётов для танков ране 1987г. Остальные должны были быть ответом на то что появилось ещё раньше в зпадных танковый войсках, то-есть: Лео2А3/А4(740-840мм габарит), M1IP(до 960mm габарит), Chelener-1(?).

    Остановимся на Леопардах.
    Для ранних Лео2А4 (и А3) получаем 0.65 для ОБПС и 1.25-1.3 для кумы из чего следует:

    Leo2A3/A4(ранний):
    480mm - 550mm vs APFSDS (740 и 840mm габарит - берём нижнее)
    950-1050mm vs HEAT

    Leo2A4 (усиленный)
    и тут я не знаю, поскольку взглянув на предполагаемую пробивную способность советских/российских противотанковых средств получается аж до 0.78 для ОБПС и аж до 1.57 для кумы, но это скорее перебор (3BM48 i Kornet), поэтому я остановился "всего лишь" на 0.75 для ОБПС и значение с Metysa-M для кумы (1.31) что и так даёт для Лео2А4 (позднего) аж:

    Leopard2A4 (поздний):
    ~560-630mm vs APFSDS и 995-1100mm vs HEAT.

    Можно ли на основании пробивной способности противотанковых средств делать какой либо вывод о защищённости данных танков? Я считаю что да, однако следует помнить что приведённая оценка основана не на совершенно достоверных исходных данных.


    Damian -for 6 beers can You translate it to english? respekt
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 31443
    Points : 31973
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour - Page 10 Empty Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  GarryB Fri Nov 04, 2011 2:43 pm

    Another myth Smile

    In Poland in 95% max fire range is 1500m. On Fulda gap - 1300m
    And Yes - mirrcle GLATGM gives big suprior on 1300-1500m distance Laughing Laughing
    Sabot is faster. In NATO doctrine for that reson (it's stupid to use slow GLATGM on 1300-1500m distance when we have good FCS and sabot) GLATGM was rejected.

    First of all it was the west... both France and the US that tried to make missile armed super tanks that failed. The Soviets experimented with AT-3 Missile firing tanks like the IT-1, but settled for GLATGMs as a choice of ammo. 6 missiles being carried on those vehicles that were equipped to fire them. So the Soviets could just as easily have fired Sabot rounds at close range targets just like their NATO counterparts... the difference would have been a Cobra popping up from behind cover to guide a TOW missile from 3.5km could have been swatted from the sky because TOW, being a wire dragger is very slow and GLATGMs are quite fast, though not as fast as a Sabot round of course.

    BTW please change your tone when addressing forum members, specifically Mindstorm... you are not a teacher and he is not your pupil.

    Respect the fact that he does not agree with you.

    A less negative tone and he might listen to what you have to say.

    Sorry but T-72A, T-72M1, T-72B, T-64 etc. have incomparably worse mobility on the field. It's mobility sucks. Leo2 and M1 was far far superior about monility. In each case. Thinking that NATO tanks would not have maneuvered on the battlefield is a very naive.

    During testing in Saudi Arabia and Asia has shown the T-90, which the T-72 is the basis for, has very good mobility and is able to not only travel over rough/harsh terrain, but actually fight when it arrives.

    I remember reading of a test during the Soviet period of a tank where the official arrived at the last minute to watch a shooting demonstration and ordered that the fuel tanks were to be topped up because the unit doing the firing test was going to drive 500km to another testing ground to do the shooting.

    Nothing checks a tanks shooting performance like a 10 hour drive beforehand eh?


    BTW: In Poland we have comparison between T-72M1 and Leo2A4 mobility. And T-72M1 is theriblle. Even with 1000HP engine. And transmission is T-72 familiy is more then worse...

    There you go again... the mobility of the T-72M1 is terrible?

    I accept that English is probably not your first language, but I think you will find while there are often plenty of different words that might seem to mean the same thing that each specific word often has a very specific meaning and connotation.

    I have chatted to people who have driven T-72s and they never mentioned mobility problems. In fact they seemed to think they were pretty good in terms of that sort of thing.

    One method of estimating Leopar2 amour protection is to compare Leo2 LOS thickness and Soviet AT- weapons penetration capabilities.

    Penetration figures are given in LOS thickness of RHA, which the Leo2 obviously does not use.
    The LOS thickness might be 2 metres, but 1.5m of that thickness might be empty cavities or rubber... or plasticine, so LOS thicknesses is not a good indicator of armour protection.

    The fact that western tanks weigh about 20 to 30 tons more than the equivalent Russian tank suggests weight is not a good gauge either.

    Damian -for 6 beers can You translate it to english?

    Perhaps you can start a new thread about leopard tanks?

    This thread is about the T-90AM and T-95 tanks and discussing Leopards from the 1980s is not hugely relevant.
    avatar
    Damian


    Posts : 17
    Points : 19
    Join date : 2011-11-02

    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour - Page 10 Empty Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Damian Fri Nov 04, 2011 3:48 pm

    @Mindstorm

    First thing is that we do not know what DU alloy is used in M829A2 and M829A3, we only know that this is DU alloy, but what characteristics it have, how it was made (what materials besides DU were used), we do not know this. You should accept that maybe Yanks find out something and know something that other do not know.

    Besides this as I said, Americans tested both 4S22 and ChSCzKW ERA, from this tests they designed interim A2 variant, and long term A3 variant.

    A3 have 800mm long rod and is 25mm in diameter, penetrator is also very heavy, 10kg or more if I remember correctly.

    On TankNet forums there were also some data posted about it's propelant charge.

    On Polish forums we speculated that A4 variant maybe will introduce segmented penetrator, but there are no specific informations about this penetrator yet.

    On TankNet or some other forums, some people that are deep digging in tank armor technology and anti armor ammunition, were speculating also that all these principles, are preatty old, so all of them may not be suited to calculate protection offered by today armor technology and penetration values of modern ammunition.

    @GarryB

    Would you not agree that an armour structure that includes metal balls gets its effectiveness against long rod penetrators because the penetrators push aside the balls while at the same time offering an angled face to the penetrator tip... the reaction of the armour inducing bending forces on the penetrator tip and sides to reduce its energy and penetration.

    ...doesn't that make them active armour, like bulging plates or other forms of NERA?

    I do not think so, it seems that these corundum spheres were not abale to move, I seen a cut out of this armor after penetration and these spheres were still in one place, nothing strange in that, they are not in resin but in alluminium alloy that is rather less elastic... normal metal filler with these spheres in it.

    It is just basic common sense that if you only armour that which needs protecting that penetration of that armour will lead to a hit of something important. Is that really a flaw or a case of looking at it in the wrong way. The fact that the important stuff is protected by armour and the entire vehicle is made as small a target to hit as possible is perfectly normal to me.

    I agree, however it will not probably work very well in a tank with manned turret and where is plenty of modern ammunition, maybe in vehicles with unmanned turret, crew in hull, yeah in such configuration it should work better.

    Lots of extra weight to improve protection to the sides of the turret that Russian designers protected by making them impossible to hit at 30 degrees. I would say only adequate... because most hits from that angle will not be aimed at the turret side, they will much more likely be nearer the centre of the turret where most tanks get hit most often.

    Well it is a different philosophy, and both solutions are good and succesfull, I think it maybe comes to personal preferences.

    But for the extra cost in weight and size is it really worth it?
    The extra protection levels over ex-Soviet tanks is meaningless as a weapon powerful enough to easily penetrate one will easily penetrate the other. Comparing armour in that way is like comparing main guns with main guns... it makes no sense to compare a gun with a gun, because guns aren't used against guns... they are used against Armour.
    If the tanks with the biggest guns won then the French and British would have pushed the Germans to Poland in the early 1940s.

    I can only say that when I was looking at photos of different vehicles hit by anti tank weapons, this extra protection with extra weight was worth it. But this is only my personall view and preference.

    Whereas Russian tanks instantly explode the instant a HMG round bounces off the glasis?

    Sorry I don't get it, can You wrote this clearer? Smile

    HEAT rounds like Kinetic rounds are not APHE rounds and they do what they are designed to do... punch relatively small holes in very thick pieces of armour. Now a DU round will certainly shower the inside of a tank with burning fragments of radioactive waste, and both will cause splash damage, but unless it directly hits a crewman or starts a fire or hits fuel or ammo actual vehicle survivability is generally pretty good.

    Of course, but the less space inside the bigger probability is that crew will be hit.

    Also DU is not radioactive, radioactivity is very small, but as many heavy metals DU is toxic just like... lead for example.

    The T-72 with spare ammo in the crew compartment and the T-80 achieved bad reps because of the way the spare ammo was stored or in the case of the T-80 the problem was the way the ammo was stored in the autoloader with the propellent stubs exposed was pretty normal for tanks of the 1970s including the M60.
    The T-90 has all its ready to use ammo protected in an armoured underfloor autoloader and when spare loose ammo is not carried is just as safe for the crew in terms of a penetration as an Abrams.

    With the first part I will agree.

    With the part that T-90 is as safe as M1, sorry it is just immposible without isolating ammunition in magazines with blow off panels. I actually seen what happend in designs where designers claimed that armored magazine will help... well it ended just like in these photos with old T-72's with flying turrets, and I'am saying here about western tanks with ammunition stored in armored bins.

    It is just outdated technology, look at Burlak turret design or Object 640, it was similiar concept to that used in M1.

    Soviet experience during WWII showed that ammo stored in an overhanging turret bustle was very vulnerable to a satchel charge that will burn out the whole tank.

    Yes in normal bustle, they did not tested isolated bustle with blow off panels. Actually no single M1 suffered seriously from ammo explosion, burned off tanks are after engine and fuel fire, also not even signle crew member died because of ammo cook-off in M1.

    Even with the small bustle in the T-90SM only a small amount of ammo is stored in the bustle to meet the requirements to carry x number of rounds on the vehicle. If UVZ had its way they would drop that ammo.

    I know, but on their place I would use detachabale ammunition autoloader and ammo magazine module, something like on Object 640.

    Hardly a shortcoming... I have seen tanks used for penetration testing simulating hits in normal combat and I have yet to see two impact points within a metre or so of each other... I think you are rather overstating this so called shortcoming of ERA.

    You mention T-90 performance in Dagestan, well that had over 9 hits... I would suggest the fact that it survived and remained fully operational means its ERA was useful more than once.

    The normal tactics by the forces they were up against (ie battle hardened Chechens) most of which had excellent RPG models and the conscript training to handle the weapons and use effective tactics against armour, would be to attack the sides and rear of armour to maximise lethality... the fact that there were 9 hits and it remained operational suggests the ERA on the sides and rear of the vehicles worked against multiple hits rather than just the first.

    As far as I know no T-90 in Dagestan, only T-72B Obr.1985 and T-72B Obr.1989.

    And there is no full ERA coverage in T-90 and T-72B Obr.1989 over side full lenght and in all tanks over the rear.

    Besides this there were some incident in Iraq where M1 and CR2 recived ~20-50 hits from RPG's and were still operational.

    Why is that surprising? The RPG-29 is from the 1980s and is limited to 105mm in calibre.
    A modern tank that receives proper upgrades should be resistant over its frontal arc against 20 year old weapons.
    How would it fare with an RPG-28 with a 125mm charge?

    It was surprising that M1A1's probably HA, HA+, HC or SA variants did that, especially the first 3 ones that are from 1988-1991/92 production years.

    I think that RPG-28 would not do it much better, maybe at hull front but not turret front.

    I would reply more later.
    avatar
    militarysta


    Posts : 10
    Points : 12
    Join date : 2011-11-02

    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour - Page 10 Empty Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  militarysta Fri Nov 04, 2011 3:49 pm

    First of all it was the west... both France and the US that tried to make missile armed super tanks that failed

    But, You can note that it was not problem do develope on west GLATGMs - the problem was to develop new IIIgen tank.
    We can't say that on west can't produce GLATGMs.

    o the Soviets could just as easily have fired Sabot rounds at close range targets just like their NATO counterparts... the difference would have been a Cobra popping up from behind cover to guide a TOW missile from 3.5km could have been swatted from the sky because TOW, being a wire dragger is very slow and GLATGMs are quite fast, though not as fast as a Sabot round of course.


    Well soviet GLATGMs in west Europe area propably was attempt to do something with not the best soviet tanks FCS and gun fire.

    The image shows only the stabilization errors, and affects the accuracy only during motion:

    http: //imageshack. us/photo/my-images/257/beznazwy1qg5. jpg/
    To this must be added:
    -FCS error
    -deflection of the barrel
    -effectiveness of the suspension tank
    -ammunition errors
    etc.
    When we combine these factors, we can realize that util T-72B(~1985) and T-80U Soviet tanks have not very good accuracy during movement.
    So yes - GLATGMs could be very good for them.

    here you go again... the mobility of the T-72M1 is terrible?
    During testing in Saudi Arabia and Asia has shown the T-90, which the T-72 is the basis for, has very good mobility and is able to not only travel over rough/harsh terrain, but actually fight when it arrives.

    I have chatted to people who have driven T-72s and they never mentioned mobility problems. In fact they seemed to think they were pretty good in terms of that sort of thing.



    So, maybe pure dates can show how not good is T-72-T-90S:

    0-32km/h

    T-72: 36s.
    Leo2A4: 6s.

    average speed in the field:
    Leopard-2A4: 52km/h
    T-72M1: 35-40km/h

    maximum speed to the rear:
    Leopard2A4: 31km/h
    T-72M1: 4km/h

    Power to weight ratio:

    Leo2A4: 27HP/t.
    T-72M1: 18,7 HP/t.

    suspension "travel"(deflection):
    Leo2A4:
    normal: 350mm
    maximum: 504mm

    T-72M1:
    normal: 285mm
    maximum: ~350mm

    fuel combustion:
    Leo2A4 (1500HP):
    road: 270L/100km
    terrein: 500L/100km
    T-72M1: (780HP):
    road: 430L/100km
    terrein: 600L/100km

    time to engine replacement:
    Leo2A4: 25min (power-pack)
    T-72M1: 22-24h(!) (engine)

    I will not write about the transfer of power (transmission).

    enetration figures are given in LOS thickness of RHA, which the Leo2 obviously does not use.
    The LOS thickness might be 2 metres, but 1.5m of that thickness might be empty cavities or rubber... or plasticine, so LOS thicknesses is not a good indicator of armour protection.

    Problem with my written english - Damian explain that propably (AT penetration to LOS ratio).


    Perhaps you can start a new thread about leopard tanks?


    If You want... Smile


    PS.
    BTW please change your tone when addressing forum members, specifically Mindstorm... you are not a teacher and he is not your pupil.

    First: my written english is very bad. Please keep that in mind.
    Second: Mindstorm accused me lying and manipulation -why I should be polite for him then?
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 31443
    Points : 31973
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour - Page 10 Empty Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  GarryB Fri Nov 04, 2011 4:54 pm

    You should accept that maybe Yanks find out something and know something that other do not know.

    Of course because the laws of physics are different in the US of A...

    And the Soviets and Russians have never even thought about getting rid of nuclear waste by firing it at their enemies...

    You'd be surprised how few real secrets the west actually has managed to keep... Soviet and Russian intel is rather effective.

    Besides this as I said, Americans tested both 4S22 and ChSCzKW ERA, from this tests they designed interim A2 variant, and long term A3 variant.

    And so the game continues... do you think it is the last ERA block the Russians will design?


    I do not think so, it seems that these corundum spheres were not abale to move, I seen a cut out of this armor after penetration and these spheres were still in one place, nothing strange in that, they are not in resin but in alluminium alloy that is rather less elastic... normal metal filler with these spheres in it.

    The R in NERA is reactive, so even stationary balls within an Al matrix would have the effect of offering angled hard materials for the penetrator to either penetrate or push aside. Sounds like you are using too strict a definition of the term reactive.

    I agree, however it will not probably work very well in a tank with manned turret and where is plenty of modern ammunition, maybe in vehicles with unmanned turret, crew in hull, yeah in such configuration it should work better.

    The T-90AM design shows that a T-72 sized vehicle can safely operate with no ammo in the crew compartment.

    Well it is a different philosophy, and both solutions are good and succesfull, I think it maybe comes to personal preferences.

    Extra weight on a vehicle is not some sort of hidden advantage. It is extra mass that needs to be hauled around the battlefield. It puts limitations on what bridges the vehicle can cross. It limits the types of aircraft that can transport the vehicle quickly.

    The US has the best global transportation capability of any country in the world yet desert storm had to wait 8 months for the tanks and ground equipment to be delivered. If Saddam had decided to immediately follow up his invasion of Kuwaite with an invasion of Saudi Arabia the 82nd Airborne would have faced him down with their mighty Sheridans... Rolling Eyes

    Of course, but the less space inside the bigger probability is that crew will be hit.

    No it doesn't. If you take an armoured 2ltr coke bottle and shoot it with a rifle, and then take a 500ml coke bottle with an equivalent level of protection the probability of the crew being hit is the same because the lines of penetration and angles are the same... it is the chance of hitting the tank that is reduced...

    Also DU is not radioactive, radioactivity is very small, but as many heavy metals DU is toxic just like... lead for example.

    So which is it? Not or very small?
    DU is genotoxic and is an incendiary. During an intense impact... which is what armour is there for, Du burns and turns to a very fine dust that is very easily inhaled or ingested. Just being near vehicles penetrated with DU rounds or that use DU armour is dangerous.

    Lead is dangerous too, and if it builds up in your system can certainly do a lot of damage or even kill you, but DU is radioactive and while in bar or armour form is quite safe to handle, ingested in powder form there is no skin barrier between your cells and the radiation, which as I said is genotoxic... in other words it destroys genes within cells.
    You have to put up with problems due to radiation exposure, but your children conceived after exposure get the real roller coaster ride.

    It is just outdated technology, look at Burlak turret design or Object 640, it was similiar concept to that used in M1.

    The Burlak design was rejected on the grounds that the ammo is too exposed and when hit tends to burn out the vehicle.

    Combat experience with tanks in Chechnia and Dagestan proved that the exploding turret problem is no longer a problem...

    If the enemy could reliably hit the stored ammo then they could also hit the rear turret. The reality is that rounds fired at tanks never hit specific weak points on purpose, and the probability of hitting the ammo under the floor is low enough to ignore... just as the chance of hitting an Abrams in the turret ring from the front to bypass the heavy turret front armour.

    Yes in normal bustle, they did not tested isolated bustle with blow off panels. Actually no single M1 suffered seriously from ammo explosion, burned off tanks are after engine and fuel fire, also not even signle crew member died because of ammo cook-off in M1.

    M1 experience is amusing but it was not really comparable to Russian experience facing much sterner opposition that were rather better equipped and trained in the use of the stuff both sides were using.

    I know, but on their place I would use detachabale ammunition autoloader and ammo magazine module, something like on Object 640.

    I think you need to read this thread from the start.

    As far as I know no T-90 in Dagestan, only T-72B Obr.1985 and T-72B Obr.1989.

    It has been reported as the only known operational use of a T-90.

    Besides this there were some incident in Iraq where M1 and CR2 recived ~20-50 hits from RPG's and were still operational.

    Yeah, those Iraqis were really good at fighting the Iranians too... NOT.

    We can't say that on west can't produce GLATGMs.

    We can say they were totally crap at it and it took Soviet ingenuity and design sensibility to make it work and make the west (Israel) take notice.

    Well soviet GLATGMs in west Europe area propably was attempt to do something with not the best soviet tanks FCS and gun fire.

    Well that doesn't make sense as the vehicles fitted with missiles intially were T-64s and T-80s which already had good guns and fire control systems. The first weapon developed was for the 125mm gun, but if they were trying to "keep up" with the west wouldn't it make sense to start with the 100mm gun versions for the older tanks.

    When we combine these factors, we can realize that util T-72B(~1985) and T-80U Soviet tanks have not very good accuracy during movement.

    The Tiger couldn't even fire its main gun while moving otherwise it would damage the turret ring. Stopping to fire is not a big deal... they are hardly going to just roll down the roads towards their objectives. They will move from cover to cover, so shooting while stationary will hardly be an issue.

    So yes - GLATGMs could be very good for them.

    If their stabilisers are crap and they can't shoot on the move how could they possibly maintain the sight on a target for a period of up to 20 seconds?

    So, maybe pure dates can show how not good is T-72-T-90S:

    Source please. The acceleration and reversing figures sound ridiculous enough to be wrong... unless it is 0-32km/h in first gear only.

    Second: Mindstorm accused me lying and manipulation -why I should be polite for him then?

    Not asking you to be friends and go for holidays together.
    Being civil is expected behaviour on this forum and I don't think that is unreasonable.
    avatar
    Damian


    Posts : 17
    Points : 19
    Join date : 2011-11-02

    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour - Page 10 Empty Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Damian Fri Nov 04, 2011 9:20 pm

    Of course because the laws of physics are different in the US of A...

    Are we serious or we will go in to another absurd and myth about "stupid americans" that is just in the same low level as the same myth about "stupid russians".

    I do not like such discussions.

    As it is possible that Russians designed something that others do not have a slightest idea how it is working, on what principles etc. the same could be done by Americans.

    And the Soviets and Russians have never even thought about getting rid of nuclear waste by firing it at their enemies...

    Please, I'am not idiot and do not treat me this way, I also have a knowledge about Soviet, Russian and Ukrainian weapon systems.

    You'd be surprised how few real secrets the west actually has managed to keep... Soviet and Russian intel is rather effective.

    Yup... Americans also bought T-80U's, T-80UD's, some of them modernized to T-84 standard, they tested 4S22 Kontakt-5, ChSCzKW Knife ERA's, they get their hands even on Tor AA system bluprints and other data so they managed to build their own vehicles for training purpose. Who knows on what else they put their hands.

    But I see that contrary to You, they do not underestimate Russians and Americans that I know have deep respect for Soviet, Russian and Ukrainian military technology... it seem that similiar respect is non existant for western weapon system on the other side, I do not like this and it is really sad.

    And so the game continues... do you think it is the last ERA block the Russians will design?

    Do You think I'am idiot without a knowledge? That I do not know about 4S23, 4S24? Even if I mentioned these here earlier?

    The R in NERA is reactive, so even stationary balls within an Al matrix would have the effect of offering angled hard materials for the penetrator to either penetrate or push aside. Sounds like you are using too strict a definition of the term reactive.

    Combination K was not NERA as other composite armor of that time did not use NERA in their structure, they were passive armors, NERA started to be fielded in the 1980's.

    The T-90AM design shows that a T-72 sized vehicle can safely operate with no ammo in the crew compartment.

    There is still ammo in crew compartment, in autoloader cassettes.

    Extra weight on a vehicle is not some sort of hidden advantage. It is extra mass that needs to be hauled around the battlefield. It puts limitations on what bridges the vehicle can cross. It limits the types of aircraft that can transport the vehicle quickly.

    The US has the best global transportation capability of any country in the world yet desert storm had to wait 8 months for the tanks and ground equipment to be delivered. If Saddam had decided to immediately follow up his invasion of Kuwaite with an invasion of Saudi Arabia the 82nd Airborne would have faced him down with their mighty Sheridans... Rolling Eyes

    There is no extra weight in case of western MBT's, they are from start designed with such weight in mind, this is why engine or tranmission or suspension do not have any problems with this weight. Besides this 10 or 20 tons less do not make difference, Americans calculated that vehicle to be easier transported need be to lighter than 40 tons, You think why MGV's were weighting 20 tons when program was still under R&D phase before it's cancellation.

    No it doesn't. If you take an armoured 2ltr coke bottle and shoot it with a rifle, and then take a 500ml coke bottle with an equivalent level of protection the probability of the crew being hit is the same because the lines of penetration and angles are the same... it is the chance of hitting the tank that is reduced...

    There is a difference in internal volume and crew survivability. And smaller size of vehicle in age of modern FCS is no more advantage, as we seen smaller T-72's were not harder to hit for coalition tanks in 1991 and 2003.

    The Burlak design was rejected on the grounds that the ammo is too exposed and when hit tends to burn out the vehicle.

    If ammunition is placed in isolated magazine with blow off panels it will not burn out vehicle... are You sure You know what I am talking about?

    Combat experience with tanks in Chechnia and Dagestan proved that the exploding turret problem is no longer a problem...

    Because there was no ammo stored outside autoloader...

    If the enemy could reliably hit the stored ammo then they could also hit the rear turret. The reality is that rounds fired at tanks never hit specific weak points on purpose, and the probability of hitting the ammo under the floor is low enough to ignore... just as the chance of hitting an Abrams in the turret ring from the front to bypass the heavy turret front armour.

    But the whole idea is to place ammunition as far from crew in magazine with blow off panels that will vent explosion out side vehicle to prevent further damage, and design is sucessfull, I have photo of M1 after magazine cook off, besides some burning marks in blow off panels area, rest of turret looks ok.

    There is even a video on YT from tests, design is 100% sucessfull.

    M1 experience is amusing but it was not really comparable to Russian experience facing much sterner opposition that were rather better equipped and trained in the use of the stuff both sides were using.

    Why US expieriences with using their tanks is amusing? Because they are americans and from political reason they are inferior to russians? Not to mention that they did not have such comfort like russians in form of having ERA to protect areas where is no composite armor or armor is weaker. So what is so amusing? Especially that insurgents were not idiots, and besides IED's they also had more modern RPG's like RPG-29.

    I think you need to read this thread from the start.

    No, I do not need to.

    It has been reported as the only known operational use of a T-90.

    I highly doubt that these was T-90.

    Yeah, those Iraqis were really good at fighting the Iranians too... NOT.

    Who cares about strategic level of fightings, on tactical level they were dangerous.

    We can say they were totally crap at it and it took Soviet ingenuity and design sensibility to make it work and make the west (Israel) take notice.

    But MGM-51 Shillelagh was not a failed design, it had it problems yes, nobody says that not, but it was not that bad, especially for a time when it was designed.


    To be understanded correctly, I do not like if some person from west europe or north america says that russians were unabale to design anything good, but I also do not like when some person that is russian is talking about western military technology in the same way. This is not professional but is probably based on political inspired sympathys and antypathys.
    Russian Patriot
    Russian Patriot


    Posts : 1161
    Points : 2049
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 30
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour - Page 10 Empty Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Russian Patriot Fri Nov 04, 2011 9:39 pm

    Damian wrote:
    Of course because the laws of physics are different in the US of A...

    Are we serious or we will go in to another absurd and myth about "stupid americans" that is just in the same low level as the same myth about "stupid russians".

    I do not like such discussions.

    As it is possible that Russians designed something that others do not have a slightest idea how it is working, on what principles etc. the same could be done by Americans.

    And the Soviets and Russians have never even thought about getting rid of nuclear waste by firing it at their enemies...

    Please, I'am not idiot and do not treat me this way, I also have a knowledge about Soviet, Russian and Ukrainian weapon systems.

    You'd be surprised how few real secrets the west actually has managed to keep... Soviet and Russian intel is rather effective.

    Yup... Americans also bought T-80U's, T-80UD's, some of them modernized to T-84 standard, they tested 4S22 Kontakt-5, ChSCzKW Knife ERA's, they get their hands even on Tor AA system bluprints and other data so they managed to build their own vehicles for training purpose. Who knows on what else they put their hands.

    But I see that contrary to You, they do not underestimate Russians and Americans that I know have deep respect for Soviet, Russian and Ukrainian military technology... it seem that similiar respect is non existant for western weapon system on the other side, I do not like this and it is really sad.

    And so the game continues... do you think it is the last ERA block the Russians will design?

    Do You think I'am idiot without a knowledge? That I do not know about 4S23, 4S24? Even if I mentioned these here earlier?

    The R in NERA is reactive, so even stationary balls within an Al matrix would have the effect of offering angled hard materials for the penetrator to either penetrate or push aside. Sounds like you are using too strict a definition of the term reactive.

    Combination K was not NERA as other composite armor of that time did not use NERA in their structure, they were passive armors, NERA started to be fielded in the 1980's.

    The T-90AM design shows that a T-72 sized vehicle can safely operate with no ammo in the crew compartment.

    There is still ammo in crew compartment, in autoloader cassettes.

    Extra weight on a vehicle is not some sort of hidden advantage. It is extra mass that needs to be hauled around the battlefield. It puts limitations on what bridges the vehicle can cross. It limits the types of aircraft that can transport the vehicle quickly.

    The US has the best global transportation capability of any country in the world yet desert storm had to wait 8 months for the tanks and ground equipment to be delivered. If Saddam had decided to immediately follow up his invasion of Kuwaite with an invasion of Saudi Arabia the 82nd Airborne would have faced him down with their mighty Sheridans... Rolling Eyes

    There is no extra weight in case of western MBT's, they are from start designed with such weight in mind, this is why engine or tranmission or suspension do not have any problems with this weight. Besides this 10 or 20 tons less do not make difference, Americans calculated that vehicle to be easier transported need be to lighter than 40 tons, You think why MGV's were weighting 20 tons when program was still under R&D phase before it's cancellation.

    No it doesn't. If you take an armoured 2ltr coke bottle and shoot it with a rifle, and then take a 500ml coke bottle with an equivalent level of protection the probability of the crew being hit is the same because the lines of penetration and angles are the same... it is the chance of hitting the tank that is reduced...

    There is a difference in internal volume and crew survivability. And smaller size of vehicle in age of modern FCS is no more advantage, as we seen smaller T-72's were not harder to hit for coalition tanks in 1991 and 2003.

    The Burlak design was rejected on the grounds that the ammo is too exposed and when hit tends to burn out the vehicle.

    If ammunition is placed in isolated magazine with blow off panels it will not burn out vehicle... are You sure You know what I am talking about?

    Combat experience with tanks in Chechnia and Dagestan proved that the exploding turret problem is no longer a problem...

    Because there was no ammo stored outside autoloader...

    If the enemy could reliably hit the stored ammo then they could also hit the rear turret. The reality is that rounds fired at tanks never hit specific weak points on purpose, and the probability of hitting the ammo under the floor is low enough to ignore... just as the chance of hitting an Abrams in the turret ring from the front to bypass the heavy turret front armour.

    But the whole idea is to place ammunition as far from crew in magazine with blow off panels that will vent explosion out side vehicle to prevent further damage, and design is sucessfull, I have photo of M1 after magazine cook off, besides some burning marks in blow off panels area, rest of turret looks ok.

    There is even a video on YT from tests, design is 100% sucessfull.

    M1 experience is amusing but it was not really comparable to Russian experience facing much sterner opposition that were rather better equipped and trained in the use of the stuff both sides were using.

    Why US expieriences with using their tanks is amusing? Because they are americans and from political reason they are inferior to russians? Not to mention that they did not have such comfort like russians in form of having ERA to protect areas where is no composite armor or armor is weaker. So what is so amusing? Especially that insurgents were not idiots, and besides IED's they also had more modern RPG's like RPG-29.

    I think you need to read this thread from the start.

    No, I do not need to.

    It has been reported as the only known operational use of a T-90.

    I highly doubt that these was T-90.

    Yeah, those Iraqis were really good at fighting the Iranians too... NOT.

    Who cares about strategic level of fightings, on tactical level they were dangerous.

    We can say they were totally crap at it and it took Soviet ingenuity and design sensibility to make it work and make the west (Israel) take notice.

    But MGM-51 Shillelagh was not a failed design, it had it problems yes, nobody says that not, but it was not that bad, especially for a time when it was designed.


    To be understanded correctly, I do not like if some person from west europe or north america says that russians were unabale to design anything good, but I also do not like when some person that is russian is talking about western military technology in the same way. This is not professional but is probably based on political inspired sympathys and antypathys.


    I think you need to read this thread from the start.



    No, I do not need to.

    Damian: I highly recommend you do!

    @ Milltarysta: I can ban both you and Mindstorm if that would make you guys happy! No? Then respect each other or be gone...


    avatar
    Mindstorm


    Posts : 1124
    Points : 1291
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour - Page 10 Empty Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Mindstorm Fri Nov 04, 2011 9:48 pm

    Soory, It's your problem to understand this. There is no "magic OPSPEC" here. We have masured normal Leo2A4 for 1986. And sorry you - it's most hard evidence ever- real photo, real Leopard2A4 made in real TkBde, it's give use real LOS thickness.
    And stupid LOS thickness is no OPSPEC.


    Laughing Laughing No surprise : naturally you have not even the most pale idea of what you talk about.
    I would truly enjoy to bring you in front of a real military engineer of any Army around the world only to record the reaction in the exact moment you ask to him to measure exactly and take pictures of the LOS and arrangement of various armor block sections on a real MBT still operative in its Forces , i would litterally pay for that .
    Proof of that is that in the whole planet nobody own simialr pics of any MBT still operative worldwide...... nobody except,of course, our great militarysta that, like a child believing to be rich having in its hands Monopoly's money ,spread them happily on the net . Laughing Laughing
    A little suggestion : at the next Russian Arms Expo go to Uralvagonzavod's stand, close the Company's technical representative and say to him that you can can show pictures with precise measurements of turret's armor block LOS of operative Polish Leopard-2A4 ,show to him them and see on your clock how much seconds it employ before it throw them to you and say :" Ok, ok , good joke , now show to me those pics or don't waste my time.


    I realizes that this may be a shock because the nonsense printed/posted about LOS leo2 on AndriejBT blog, or btvt, on others.


    I am not precisely sure if you simply joke or truly have taked me for the typical ,amateurish, naive guy at which you can quietly sell that type of garbage.

    Just to let you realize how much i am shocked....i will guide to you to a quick experiment :

    1) Open the first of your supposed "measurement" pics,ok ?
    2) Take a rectangural - clear ? rectangular object...- (a book with an hard cover ,the box of Office program is alredy sufficient) and put it on a rigid ,flat surface.
    3) Orientate one of its side for collimate with that of the picture
    4) Take a flash camera , mantain it oriented , directly in front of you (the same of the picture) ,now lower your azimuth near the level of the object surface
    5) Take a photo and observe.

    That truly amateurish attempt to give some sort of prospectic illusion of a parallelogram (likely the funny chap author of this low level hoax, has obviously not even expended too much resources or time for it, not even the effort to find a parallelogram piece !! ....photos of faked compressor faces on PAK-FA duct ,which i debunked some time ago, was much, much better made) has naturally a great limit : exactly like in the original photo,in fact,being the pictured object a rectangular one, any line perpendicular to one of its sides (like the gun mask line in this instance) would result fatally parallel to the other side Laughing Laughing

    It is exactly that one the motivation for the comical arrangement of the "virtual" gun musk line on the background in this picture ; at least in this way it is not immediately evident to amateurish or, worse ,blindly biased eyes.


    Shocked ?..... Oh yes ,i am shocked ,but for motivations exactly opposite to what you think.....


    Side note : For me you can continue for the eternity your childish Don Quixote's crusade against Andrey Tarasenko ,who obviously not even consider you (for no other reason that it is perfectly aware that anyone in the field at world know that if both of you would be closed in a room with a working recording camera and a series of technical question on MBT technology you would collect a galactic poor showing after the other against him ), but don't even attempt even only for one istant to "sell" similar trash to me ; i am an adult and a respected professional in my field , clear ?


    Again - any proff? Becouse, You know CIA in 1984 have this estimates soviet tank protection level:

    1) Your link don't work (i hope only that, at least, this supposed "CIA document" will be reliable...)

    2) "any prof ?" Incredible ; say to me , what part of : " .. Soviets have so increased theirs lead over the US in armour/antiarmour technology that the situation today is critical" and..." [name] attributed the consistent "overmatching" of US armour /antiarmour technology by the Soviets to the US's tendency to react only to "hard evidence" of Soviet technological advance....but negatively to intelligence community projections of what is likely in the "bathtub" at a given time" is not clear to you ?


    If you don't inform yourself only on internet, you should immediately identify who and when has pronunced those words (them are very famous and reported in several books on ther subject) and be totally aware that here we talk of a person some hundred of times more authorative -probably the maximum US authority in the field at the time !! - than some intelligence operatives, for no other reasons that all theirs dossiers was directed and analyzed just by him .

    In any case i am very curious to read this "supposed" CIA dispatch ,even more knowing what was the position of the authority that ,also on the basis and results of all the intelligence surveys of the time, has pronunced those assertions.


    avatar
    Mindstorm


    Posts : 1124
    Points : 1291
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour - Page 10 Empty Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Mindstorm Fri Nov 04, 2011 10:50 pm

    Second: Mindstorm accused me lying and manipulation -why I should be polite for him then?


    Before respond i want clarify some thing : i have often read your intervention in other sites, Damian, and i have always appreciated your strong equilibrium ,one of the most important cognitive qualities , characteristic of a ductile ,acute intelligence capable to discern and comprehend the infinites differences in an immensely variegated Reality instead to remain entraped among the self-evident ,gross extremes of it.

    I don't accuse you to "lying and manipulation " ,i have simply attempted to warn you (with probably an excess of energy,caused by a reaction to an initial,irrational attack against me...-i have never called someone moron, you can check in any mine post anywhere-.....and consequently don't accept a similar behaviour against me) that you was likely risking ,like in the recent past some persons and whole theories founded on pics of PAKFA with staged compressor face exposed in the duct, your reputations on the basis of photos not only clearly inconsistents but created only in the attempt to sustain LOS figures obviously incompatible with the ratio of fixed and known structural elements or the same phisical limits of LEO-2A4 turrett/hull.

    If you, at example, would have read mine interventions on the topic on Meteor /AIM-120/ RVV-SD , you would have discovered that mine attention was mostly concentrated in this instance at disperse other figures totally out of lines (range figures of AIM-120B of 70 km , AIM-120C 105 km ,AIM-120 C7 140 km etc...) circulating freely in internet and public accessible media founded on the basis of ridiculous low level article -at designation-system- ,when obviously all the most authorative sources and names at world ,among which R. Hewson, R. Fisher (of which i have posted an explicative article), J. Lake etc..., give much much lower figures , naturally also compatible with the fuel fraction,type of propulsion, aerodynamic layout etc.. of the missiles involved.
    Mine is a sort of "cleaning campaign" in public accessible media .


    First thing is that we do not know what DU alloy is used in M829A2 and M829A3, we only know that this is DU alloy, but what characteristics it have, how it was made (what materials besides DU were used), we do not know this. You should accept that maybe Yanks find out something and know something that other do not know.

    Damian you know that in DU alloys the percentange of primary and secondary binder materials can be not only very slim but theirs effect on the resultant mechanical characteristic of the final alloy is even less dosable than what theirs percentage would let presume ,simple like that .
    That is one of the motivations for which tugsten alloys research is seen as that with the greater potential in perspective (also in reason of the fact that at very high speed regimes adn longer range than those linked to actual APFSDS ,foreseen in future KE weapons, DU has the tendency to lose part of its mass and destabilize in the projective and in-flight phase).



    Last edited by Mindstorm on Fri Nov 04, 2011 11:56 pm; edited 3 times in total
    runaway
    runaway


    Posts : 404
    Points : 419
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour - Page 10 Empty Mobility

    Post  runaway Fri Nov 04, 2011 11:29 pm

    [quote="militarysta"]

    So, maybe pure dates can show how not good is T-72-T-90S:

    0-32km/h

    T-72: 36s.
    Leo2A4: 6s.

    average speed in the field:
    Leopard-2A4: 52km/h
    T-72M1: 35-40km/h

    maximum speed to the rear:
    Leopard2A4: 31km/h
    T-72M1: 4km/h

    Power to weight ratio:

    Leo2A4: 27HP/t.
    T-72M1: 18,7 HP/t.

    suspension "travel"(deflection):
    Leo2A4:
    normal: 350mm
    maximum: 504mm

    T-72M1:
    normal: 285mm
    maximum: ~350mm

    fuel combustion:
    Leo2A4 (1500HP):
    road: 270L/100km
    terrein: 500L/100km
    T-72M1: (780HP):
    road: 430L/100km
    terrein: 600L/100km

    time to engine replacement:
    Leo2A4: 25min (power-pack)
    T-72M1: 22-24h(!) (engine)

    I will not write about the transfer of power (transmission).



    LoL, You cant be serious! First, i dont belive these figures, Second, when you talk about mobility you must think practical, not theoretical.
    The Leo2 and M1`s weigh 65-70 tons. The T-72-T-80-T-90 weighs 42-48 tons.
    Also the ground pressure is important T-90: 0.87 kg/cm2 M1A2: 1.09 kg/cm2
    but not all desicive.

    I remember waiting for the T-72 in the far north of sweden. We waited between the wetland and marshes, on solid ground. Because we Knew and were Told no tank could traverse these areas.
    Well, in the early 90`s we tried them. And not only could they easily make their way across the "badlands", they could also drive through 1,5-2m of snow. In fact, they seemed to have been made for it!
    Our top modern Leo2A5 cant traverse either of these areas.

    There, is true mobility.

    And i havent even talked about bridges and tactical mobility..


    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 31443
    Points : 31973
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour - Page 10 Empty Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  GarryB Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:59 am

    Are we serious or we will go in to another absurd and myth about "stupid americans" that is just in the same low level as the same myth about "stupid russians".

    I do not like such discussions.

    I don't like such discussions either, but you started it by suggesting that because we don't know for sure that we should give the Americans the benefit of the doubt because they have been working on it for years.

    They worked on GLATGMs for years yet the standard armament of the Sheridan was a 152mm HE shell that only it used. The missile on paper was excellent... in practise the vibration and conditions meant that despite being used in combat situations several times there is no recorded example of a single missile kill or even hit.

    If you drop the assumption that because the US uses DU that it must therefore be the ideal material to penetrate current Russian tanks, I will drop the assumption all American designers are as unsuccessful as the ones tasked with developing GLATGMs all those years ago.

    As it is possible that Russians designed something that others do not have a slightest idea how it is working, on what principles etc. the same could be done by Americans.

    Anything is possible... which makes discussions redundant as it means either side can assume one side or the other has developed a successful countermeasure to the developments of the other... whether they actually have or not.

    Please, I'am not idiot and do not treat me this way, I also have a knowledge about Soviet, Russian and Ukrainian weapon systems.

    SO when you said that the Americans were not idiots and because they were working with DU and had experience with DU they would know how to use it to defeat Russian Armour I guess the connotation is that despite similar long experience with DU as a penetrator material the Russians don't know what they are doing when it comes to armour structures to stop said DU penetrators.

    Yup... Americans also bought T-80U's, T-80UD's, some of them modernized to T-84 standard, they tested 4S22 Kontakt-5, ChSCzKW Knife ERA's,

    How many T-84s in service?
    How many T-90AMs have they tested?

    For the purposes of developing future ammo they need access to Armata too.

    The British also bought a Tunguska system in the 1990s including missiles... do you think British aircraft would be safe operating over a Tunguska battery?

    it seem that similiar respect is non existant for western weapon system on the other side, I do not like this and it is really sad.

    Don't confuse lack of interest for lack of respect.

    I am not some fan boy who fantasises about the US and Russia going to war. Real war is not a game no matter what actions NATO and the US/UK imperial powers are.

    Do You think I'am idiot without a knowledge? That I do not know about 4S23, 4S24? Even if I mentioned these here earlier?

    You seem to think the development of such technology is a fixed race and that when the other develops a countermeasure the race is won.
    Both sides start working on upgrades and new generation replacements as soon as anything enters service... a win is a temporary thing, and quite meaningless till the product that achieved the win enters wide scale service... assuming the thing it has defeated ever entered wide scale service in the first place.

    Combination K was not NERA as other composite armor of that time did not use NERA in their structure, they were passive armors, NERA started to be fielded in the 1980's.

    So you say. In the west if you talk about an assault rifle they talk about a german rifle developed during WWII... does that mean that nothing before that could be considered an assault rifle too? Something that perhaps entered limited service in 1916?

    There is still ammo in crew compartment, in autoloader cassettes.

    Is the rear engine deck in the crew compartment?
    No. There is a firewall separating the crew from the engine.
    The T-90AMs underfloor ammo cassette is armoured and separated from the crew compartment too.

    There is no extra weight in case of western MBT's, they are from start designed with such weight in mind,

    But all Western vehicles gained weight through their lifecycles just like the Russian tanks, in fact British tanks were know to be underpowered and have poor transmissions before the Challenger series paid for by Iran.

    Besides this 10 or 20 tons less do not make difference, Americans calculated that vehicle to be easier transported need be to lighter than 40 tons,

    Here we go again... We are talking about Russian tanks why do you bring up American calculations?

    American calculations will be based on American transport means and support equipment and strategic situation and therefore would be completely meaningless to the Russians.

    The Americans are mostly interested in air or sea transport for material, while the Russians are more interested in rail and air.

    There is a difference in internal volume and crew survivability. And smaller size of vehicle in age of modern FCS is no more advantage, as we seen smaller T-72's were not harder to hit for coalition tanks in 1991 and 2003.

    How do you know they were not harder to hit than larger vehicles would have been?
    They seemed to be able to hit their own tanks pretty well too.
    You said that a penetrations was statistically more likely to cause casualties, yet you do not accept that it would also be statistically harder to hit the smaller target.
    You are very selective in your use of statistics aren't you?

    If ammunition is placed in isolated magazine with blow off panels it will not burn out vehicle... are You sure You know what I am talking about?

    You keep saying not to treat you like an idiot and you know about Russian and Soviet vehicles.
    I assume you know that the turret bustle autoloader on the Black Eagle held 31 rounds of ready to use ammo and that a bustle explosion therefore would include 31 x 13kg propellent stubs of highly flamable material, and that at least half of that ammo will be HE shells weighing 23kgs, and of the remaining half a half of those (quarter of the 31) will be HEAT rounds weighing about 18kgs containing HE as well.

    Look at western recent experience with IEDs and imagine an IED with that sort of explosive power in the rear of the turret separated by the rear turret wall or even a sliding door and tell me the crew will be safe if it all blows up...

    Because there was no ammo stored outside autoloader...

    Not strictly true. It was because there was no ammo loose in the crew compartment.

    The primary problem is the propellent stubs, as the cardboard they are made of is highly flammable... a single spark or hot fragment and they explode. Obviously any explosion inside a closed tank will be orders of magnitude more dangerous than one outside the armour.

    There is even a video on YT from tests, design is 100% sucessfull.

    Well if there is a video then it must be true. Razz

    The west and Russia have different development paths for their tanks, based on their differing experiences and knowledge.

    If you are trying to tell me the Russians are wrong and are idiots have you worked out what I will say in reply yet?

    Hint it will include a comment overweight Americans... Twisted Evil

    I am here to discuss the T-90AM and T-95 and these vehicles have been barely mentioned...

    Let me get this thread back on course by mentioning that the T-99 replacement for the T-90 called Armata is very likely to have an unmanned turret with an underfloor autoloader. The crew will be in the hull front under the heaviest armour on the vehicle... which you would have known if you had actually read this thread because we discussed this all before.

    Why US expieriences with using their tanks is amusing?

    Because I really think Russia will not invade Afghanistan or Iraq any time soon so it is not really relevant... Russia already learnt those lessons.
    That is where the Drodz APS system was developed and the ARENA was eventually created... both greatly improving crew safety without adding 20 tons of armour.

    Because they are americans and from political reason they are inferior to russians?

    Nope. Cause I am not interested in their vehicles and didn't know any of them personally.

    ATM Hoof will be getting ready to go and I wish him the best, but the soon the US "declares victory" and leaves the countries they have military forces in the better.

    The US military has soldiers or bases in well over 100 countries yet not a single foreign base in the US... what if the canadians attack again?

    No, I do not need to.

    Based on your comments about ammo stored in the turret bustle I would say you should.
    As an added bonus it might be good to remind yourself of the subject of this thread.


    I highly doubt that these was T-90.

    I don't care... if it was a previous model with less armour that was hit 9 times and continued operating and that only one (tank) vehicle during the campaign was actually disabled suddenly becomes more impressive.

    Who cares about strategic level of fightings, on tactical level they were dangerous.

    The US military killed as many Brits as the Iraqis did.

    But MGM-51 Shillelagh was not a failed design, it had it problems yes, nobody says that not, but it was not that bad, especially for a time when it was designed.

    It was total rubbish. It cost a fortune and while taken into war zones several times did not record a single hit let alone a kill.

    The vibration caused by driving damaged the electronics and it simply didn't work.

    In comparison an M113 with TOWs on paper is less effective (much lower missile speed and lethality) but actually effective in combat... without introducing a new 152mm calibre weapon into the logistics train that was totally pitiful with conventional ammo.

    A very short range demolition gun on a vehicle that HMG fire could penetrate!

    To be understanded correctly, I do not like if some person from west europe or north america says that russians were unabale to design anything good, but I also do not like when some person that is russian is talking about western military technology in the same way.

    I agree... except where it is true like US and French GLATGMs.
    The Russians first and then the Israelis proved it could be done and perfected into a useful weapon.

    To reinforce what Russian Patriot has said, behave...
    I find it is a good idea to not click that send button at the end of a message... sit and re read what you have typed... are you clear about what you are saying and could the other person take offence.

    Also... like it or not... this is a Russian focused forum and this particular section Russian Military Forum > Russian Armed Forces > Russian Army... should give you a hint about what to expect.

    Discussion in this thread should be about the First photos of the T-95 and T-90AM, though as I tend to wander about topics I will give some leeway.

    That is not to say everything Russian is perfect, but the subject is Russian military equipment... not western military equipment.

    This is not professional but is probably based on political inspired sympathys and antypathys.

    I could care less about politics, I am interested in Russian military equipment and Soviet military equipment, and find discussions of western gear tedious. Get over it.


    Well, in the early 90`s we tried them. And not only could they easily make their way across the "badlands", they could also drive through 1,5-2m of snow. In fact, they seemed to have been made for it!
    Our top modern Leo2A5 cant traverse either of these areas.

    Sounds like their mobility is not linked to their speed in reverse gear or their fuel consumption.
    avatar
    Damian


    Posts : 17
    Points : 19
    Join date : 2011-11-02

    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour - Page 10 Empty Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Damian Mon Nov 07, 2011 2:53 pm

    I don't like such discussions either, but you started it by suggesting that because we don't know for sure that we should give the Americans the benefit of the doubt because they have been working on it for years.

    They worked on GLATGMs for years yet the standard armament of the Sheridan was a 152mm HE shell that only it used. The missile on paper was excellent... in practise the vibration and conditions meant that despite being used in combat situations several times there is no recorded example of a single missile kill or even hit.

    If you drop the assumption that because the US uses DU that it must therefore be the ideal material to penetrate current Russian tanks, I will drop the assumption all American designers are as unsuccessful as the ones tasked with developing GLATGMs all those years ago.

    1) Standard ammunition for M551 was HEAT, not HE.

    2) Americans tested DU also against more modern Soviet (T-80U) and Ukrainian (T-84), this means that they know how to better penetrate them, this not mean that more modern vehicles (T-90A, T-84M) will be as easy to penetrate, but AMericans have overall idea how to more effectively defeat their protection.

    3) Americans developed several types of guided munitions for MBT's, STAFF, X-Rod and finally MRM series that are planned for fielding.


    How many T-84s in service?
    How many T-90AMs have they tested?

    For the purposes of developing future ammo they need access to Armata too.

    How many T-90AM's will be in service, the answer is none, because MoD do not want them. ANd if Americans know how to defeat very modern T-84, they have better and more effective means to effectively defeat much bigger fleet of older vehicles.

    Armata is still only project with uncertain future, we will see what will happen with it, it can be fielded or will end like Object 195. Of course if Armata will be fielded, it will be superior to anything designed up to this day.

    So you say. In the west if you talk about an assault rifle they talk about a german rifle developed during WWII... does that mean that nothing before that could be considered an assault rifle too? Something that perhaps entered limited service in 1916?

    It is simple, Combination K was not NERA because it have no charachteristics of NERA, no space for plates or in this case corundum spheres to move.

    Is the rear engine deck in the crew compartment?
    No. There is a firewall separating the crew from the engine.
    The T-90AMs underfloor ammo cassette is armoured and separated from the crew compartment too.

    I think You still do not understand, You can put there even 100mm RHA plate to separate crew from autoloader, it will not change much, because if ammunition will be ignited, whole that energy need to escape somewhere, and the most easy way is just the classic turret pop up.

    You keep saying not to treat you like an idiot and you know about Russian and Soviet vehicles.
    I assume you know that the turret bustle autoloader on the Black Eagle held 31 rounds of ready to use ammo and that a bustle explosion therefore would include 31 x 13kg propellent stubs of highly flamable material, and that at least half of that ammo will be HE shells weighing 23kgs, and of the remaining half a half of those (quarter of the 31) will be HEAT rounds weighing about 18kgs containing HE as well.

    Look at western recent experience with IEDs and imagine an IED with that sort of explosive power in the rear of the turret separated by the rear turret wall or even a sliding door and tell me the crew will be safe if it all blows up...

    Ehhh, this is why some wise man designed blow off panels...

    Not to mention that ammunition do not explode like IED, it rather burn in very spectacular way.

    Sponsored content


    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour - Page 10 Empty Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Nov 28, 2021 9:23 pm