T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2

And yet NATO M1A2s, L2A4s, C2s, and Mk4s all burn just fine on the battlefield.

Which should you trust - controlled experiments by the manufacturer or real-world performance?

Just in this one slide alone I can already see questionable experiment design:

The pic you showed shows impressive resistance to detonation and deflagration. How is that proof that modern NATO tank propellants and he arent less sensitive to ignition or detonation by being hit by molten metal shards, HEAT jets, spalling, etc?

What a nice way to call someone who is impregnated against intellect

*show nato study*
"y-youre dumb, hahaha, owned"
So this is what happens when a circlejerk of mentally 14yo men is broken

In the study, germany developed a propellant that wouldnt start burning even after having a HEAT molten metal jet went through it. You havent proven that it actually burns.

You could make an argument that russia doesnt have propellants insensitive to being hit by molten metal because "theyre too expensive" or the success rate is too low.
But so far none of you have provided actual patents and studies showing that:
1. Russians actually developed propellants and warheads that are less sensitive to burning and detination when hit by molten HEAT jets/molten metal shards
2. NATO modern shell propellants in service are as sensitive as russian ones to cooking off
3. Its actually bad to have insenstive propellants or warheads.

Ah yes, because theres unequivocal proof turks had the most modern german propellants and warheads on their 1985 unupgraded leopards.
Give me proof that turkey bought and used en masse german insensitive propellants developed in the 2010s.

Are you really continuing to chit-chat this thing?

Those "1985 unupgraded leopards"

These tanks were destroyed by ATGM´s from the 70´s. Imagine what Khrizantema or Vikhr can do to them. Or Krasnopol. Or...

Hole wrote:These tanks were destroyed by ATGM´s from the 70´s. Imagine what Khrizantema or Vikhr can do to them. Or Krasnopol. Or..

Well, "destroyed" is an ultimate condition. I think it won't get "destroyeder" as it is.

Those "1985 unupgraded leopards" are pretty much the same old crap that NATO will be sending to the Ukraine with the crappy old propellants and warheads, so what's your point exactly?

My point is that  if the germans successfully produced propellants and explosives that are insesnitive to burning or detonating when in contact with molten metal, the Russians should absolutely adopt analogous propellant tech in order to make their tanks even safer. If russia has ammo that very resistant to cookoffs, it can go back to storing ammo all around the crew compartment without a care about cookoffs. Having insensitive ammo would be the holy grail of tank gun tech, since it wouldnt require designing tanks with any sort of ammo storage compartment leading to design tradeoffs

Insensitive does not mean inert lmao. The charge still has to be ignited by the primer which supplies the minimum amount of energy needed to start the reaction of the propellant. A direct impact by an anti-tank weapon orders of magnitude more powerful would provide more than an impetus for ignition.

Btw BASF is shutting down operations in Germany and moving to China. I'd love to see how Germany can convince the Chinese to export the chemicals for propellants and ezplosives it needs in a war against Russia

Why do you believe theres a binary dichotomy between "inert" and "reactive" chemicals? Propellants have been designed with lower volatility and higher energy density since the time of the 30 years war. Same with explosives. White powder ignites much harder than black powder but carries more energy. TNT, if hit by molten shrapnel, has a lower chance of exploding than picric acid.

You can see this with warship gun propellants. They started with highly volatile picric acid, nitroglycerine, cordite, etc and ended with white powder and TNT. The loss of british battlcruisers in the battle of jutland is
partly the result of cordite being prone to igniting from molten shrapnel. The same applies to tank gun propellants.

You still havent proven that that the modern german tank gun propellant is as volatile as the older one from the 80s, and that russian propellants shouldnt be made less sensitive to ignition.

I still absolutely believe that russian tanks need safer propellants. Thats just the march of technological progress, which russian technology must catch up with. "BBBBut US doesnt have these" doesnt matter. If its possible and would bring benefits, russia should mass produce them.

Your typical armchair expert: No ERA on the barrel. Weak! 

Your typical armchair expert: No ERA on the barrel. Weak! lol1

Sucks on reverse, sucks on reverse, sucks on reverse, and finally sucks on reverse.

Those parts were targeted by the Chechen AT teams back in the 1st Chechen War. Some 90% of hits were made right there. So there is nothing strange that finally, those parts get some attention.
This beast will be really hard to kill. The boxes on the side, I suppose can deal with most of the light AT infantry weapons all on their own.

The resistance of Russian tanks takes on new dimensions, 03.15.2023.

The experience of the military operation has shown the need to provide the Russian Armed Forces with additional dynamic protection for tanks. It is already carried out by the national military-industrial complex industries according to developed and tested armor schemes for specific types of these weapons, a source told Sputnik.

"This allows the repair battalions, guided by the corresponding operationally developed instructions, to mount additional anti-tank ammunition protection, making it practically integral," the source detailed.

Among the advantages of the new type of additional protection are the increased resistance of the tank, the quality of its protection and the survivability. He stressed that such modifications in Russian combat vehicles contributes to the fact that the resistance of the armor in the lateral projection becomes almost comparable to that of the strongest frontal projection.

The need for additional protection is due to the current course of the military operation. The peculiarities of the use of tanks are included here, as well as the tactical situation at the front, where the availability of new anti-tank weapons is noted, the source explained. The use of unmanned aircraft is also considered as an anti-tank weapon.

He added that these additional protective sections are installed on various modifications of the T-72B, T-72B3 and T-80 tanks, as well as on the latest T-90M Proriv.

Yandex Translate from Spanish

https://sputniknews.lat/20230315/la-resistencia-de-los-tanques-rusos-adquiere-nuevas-dimensiones-1136875521.html

The T-72B which was paraded in Berlin ended up in a museum in Groesbeek (Netherlands). It is loaned to the museum for a couple of months. After that is will be moved to another location not known by the museum staff member behind the counter.

Just for info I made some photos. There was a hole of approx 1,5 square meter in front of the commanders position at around tweo hr clock position of were the autloader used to be. It was, according to sign next to the tank, hit by a French made AT-mine.

Correct my if I'am wrong but according to the hull number it should be a August 1988 Nizhny Tagil built T-72B

https://i.servimg.com/u/f32/20/33/25/17/20230410.jpg
https://i.servimg.com/u/f32/20/33/25/17/20230411.jpg
https://i.servimg.com/u/f32/20/33/25/17/20230412.jpg

Last pic is a abbreviation which was painted on several locations (all the same). Has it something to with sanitizing the tank of human remains, ammunition, ERA explosive blocks?

https://i.servimg.com/u/f32/20/33/25/17/20230413.jpg
https://i.servimg.com/u/f32/20/33/25/17/20230416.jpg

Sorry Kiko I see I pressed the dislike button accidentally