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


+25
The-thing-next-door
Regular
11E
Kiko
Werewolf
Broski
AlfaT8
marcellogo
Mir
Hole
xeno
galicije83
TMA1
Arrow
Mig-31BM2 Super Irbis-E
ALAMO
Isos
flamming_python
Azi
diabetus
Belisarius
caveat emptor
GarryB
lyle6
limb
29 posters

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2

    Hole
    Hole


    Posts : 10684
    Points : 10662
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 47
    Location : Scholzistan

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2

    Post  Hole Thu Apr 13, 2023 4:45 pm

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2 - Page 8 Ftlujp10
    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2 - Page 8 Ftlujp11
    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2 - Page 8 Ftlujp12
    From Ekaterinburg

    GarryB, franco, psg, Big_Gazza, JohninMK, zardof, lancelot and like this post

    Hole
    Hole


    Posts : 10684
    Points : 10662
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 47
    Location : Scholzistan

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2

    Post  Hole Thu Apr 13, 2023 4:45 pm

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2 - Page 8 Ftlujp13

    GarryB, franco, psg, Big_Gazza, ALAMO, JohninMK, zardof and like this post

    avatar
    ALAMO


    Posts : 6667
    Points : 6757
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2

    Post  ALAMO Fri Apr 14, 2023 9:25 am



    Short about T-72B becoming B3.

    Interesting part at 0:27 - where he is welding, is a turret rotation systems, a key place for new autoloader with elonged projectiles.

    GarryB, franco, George1, flamming_python, Big_Gazza, zardof, Hole and like this post

    Regular
    Regular


    Posts : 3868
    Points : 3842
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Ukrolovestan

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2

    Post  Regular Mon Apr 17, 2023 9:35 pm

    Some interesting videos about T-72 from Ukrainian side. Actually, I like this guy, he doesn’t talk crap nor politics.. there are english autogenerated subs as well



    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 2178
    Points : 2172
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2

    Post  lyle6 Tue Apr 18, 2023 9:30 am

    ALAMO wrote:
    Interesting part at 0:27 - where he is welding, is a turret rotation systems, a key place for new autoloader with elonged projectiles.
    Which also implies that even the basic bitch T-72B3 will receive the more modern 2A46M-5 guns that can handle the equally more modern ammo of much higher pressure - so 3BM-59/60.

    3BM-59/60 also underperforms against steel for what its outside parameters suggest. Which in turn suggests that its shaft is of a segmented construction designed to bypass complex armor arrays. It won't surprise me if the 600-650 mm RHA Svinets-1/2 actually ends up piercing the 820 mm RHAe Leopard 2A5/6 turret cheeks clean through.

    Only the later model 2A6 and above Lolpards dva got the L/55, the majority are still sporting the outdated L/44. Even worse, the Aybrapps never received an upgrade to its main gun since the original M1. The incoming Aybrapps ShetV3/4 LGBtQ+ edition is still going to use L/44.


    GarryB, Hole, TMA1, Broski and Belisarius like this post

    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door


    Posts : 1278
    Points : 1334
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Uranus

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2

    Post  The-thing-next-door Tue Apr 18, 2023 2:28 pm

    Where does the 600-650mm penetration claim for the Svinets1/2 come from? I was under the impression that they penetrated 750-780mm.
    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 11297
    Points : 11267
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2

    Post  Isos Tue Apr 18, 2023 2:31 pm

    Pentration values are useless. Bexause of materials used, you can have very bad penetration against RHA but very good against composite armor or the other way round.

    GarryB and zardof like this post

    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door


    Posts : 1278
    Points : 1334
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Uranus

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2

    Post  The-thing-next-door Tue Apr 18, 2023 2:33 pm

    They still give a vague idea how powerful a round is though. Hence why they are still tested for and used.

    GarryB likes this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38931
    Points : 39427
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2

    Post  GarryB Wed Apr 19, 2023 4:48 am

    Pentration values are useless.

    They are not useless, but are only a guide and not hard data that you can base a lot of assumptions on.

    Composite armour uses layers to reduce penetration performance... things like sliding layers that grab or pinch or even slice through penetrators to reduce their performance, but then some penetrators have complex designs like an outer sleeve of soft metal to allow the inner harder material slide through gripping layers, or segmented penetrators whose penetrator tips are repeated in each segment so an APS or ERA removing the penetrator tip of the nose does not massively reduce penetration because the next section also has a penetrating tip too.

    At the end of the day you need a standard medium to give an indication of performance even if a single hardened plate and an air gap might effect the penetrator more than the similar thickness of armour plate would... like the makers of the Leopard pretend.

    jon_deluxe likes this post

    avatar
    ALAMO


    Posts : 6667
    Points : 6757
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2

    Post  ALAMO Wed Apr 19, 2023 10:00 am

    They are not useless, but are only a guide and not hard data that you can base a lot of assumptions on.

    ... and you need some background to make a proper interpretation of what is being presented.
    A while ago I had a nice conversation with a lieutenant colonel of the Big Red One.
    He is really, really proud of his M1A2SEP2.
    As an example of how superb the tank is, he even offered an anecdote of how the Hellfire missile could not penetrate the frontal armor of a tank.
    While I am a good chap, never undermined his happiness by fact check, that it is not a big achievement.
    Considering that Hellfire penetrates some 800mm.
    Which makes both missile and the tank of questionable reputation Laughing

    GarryB and Hole like this post

    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door


    Posts : 1278
    Points : 1334
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Uranus

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2

    Post  The-thing-next-door Wed Apr 19, 2023 11:44 am

    So that is where the 800mm of armour myth comes from. It was ofcourse later changed to 800mm of armour vs KE.
    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 2178
    Points : 2172
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2

    Post  lyle6 Wed Apr 19, 2023 12:04 pm

    Russia doesn't test do anti-armor tests against steel.

    They shoot shafts at representations of NATO armor because modern complex armor arrays have highly optimized penetrator defeat mechanisms that are difficult to model as sheer RHA equivalency. Any combination of range, impact angle, and penetrator design can produce wildly different results just from one type of armor alone.

    That's why modern APFSDS shots typically underperform in RHA - piercing thick steel armor was just not considered at all when it came to optimizing the round against a specific armor. Design traits that would favor performance against complex targets might even be maladaptive against steel targets.

    Segmented penetrators in particular would always have poorer performance against RHA. But where a monobloc shaft would snap against a target protected by Heavy ERA the segmented design would only lose the first segment or two and still retain enough penetrator mass to attack the main armor itself, which is typically not designed to take on a fresh penetrator undegraded by the initial layer.

    Of course its not always possible to just optimize for one specific armor or round - you always have to defend or attack against multiple threats or targets. The attacker still has the advantage though, because there are usually more attack options than defence, on top of the first move advantage.

    Which brings us to heavy AT missiles and rockets.

    Namely, Russia has them, NATO doesn't, except for obsolete TOW and Hellfire. Hellfire, as a missile launched from a platform with a height and therefore angle advantage might be dangerous but thanks to Russian organic AAA, it won't pose that much of a threat. TOWs are just crap - the last TOW meant to take on tank armor directly was designed back in the 80s, so its woefully inadequate.

    Russia has Kornet, Vikhr, Ataka, Khrizanthema, RPG-28...

    All are in use in great numbers and heavily exported. And very, very capable - shaped charge weapons were Russia's main answer to NATO tanks. NATO tanks therefore have no choice but to defend against both a KE and shaped charge threat. These are two very different types of threat with their own defeat mechanisms so whatever armor design NATO chooses, it will always be underoptimized for either.

    Russia does not have the same problem. They can choose a highly differentiated protection scheme with frontal armor optimized againsy KE and side and top optimized for HEAT. And since they have an entirely different category of anti-tank weaponry to work with they can easily string up NATO's armor development by fielding mutually supporting designs for KE and HEAT munitions.

    GarryB, Big_Gazza, Hole and Broski like this post

    lancelot
    lancelot


    Posts : 2690
    Points : 2688
    Join date : 2020-10-17

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2

    Post  lancelot Wed Apr 19, 2023 1:30 pm

    NATO has the Brimstone missile which is more recent than the Hellfire. It has a tandem heat warhead and outranges the Ataka. It has roughly the same range as the Vikhr.
    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 11297
    Points : 11267
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2

    Post  Isos Wed Apr 19, 2023 2:41 pm

    Pantsir has a longer range than brimestone and hellfire.

    Meawhile nato doesn't have such SHORADS to pose a threat to russian choppers.

    Brimestone are using expensive tracking systems when ataka and vikhr are way cheaper laser guided missiles.
    avatar
    ALAMO


    Posts : 6667
    Points : 6757
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2

    Post  ALAMO Wed Apr 19, 2023 2:46 pm

    Hellfire has a tandem warhead either, still, it is at a level of a Konkurs missile, only longer ranged as designed for a different platform.
    Its penetration matches much smaller Metis-M, which makes the whole thing laughable.
    The newest Russian missiles achieve almost double the penetration, and again we must watch the case from a perspective only to believe in that.

    GarryB and Big_Gazza like this post

    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 2178
    Points : 2172
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2

    Post  lyle6 Wed Apr 19, 2023 3:03 pm

    Brimstone (and Hellfire in extension) suffers from the usual disease of missiles with a heavy onboard active guidance system - a weak warhead of 6.3 kg (Kornet has 10 kg). They are not designed to punch through the frontal armor head-on, but at an angle to strike at the thinly protected turret and hull roof. Can't do that if you get shot down by Tor or Pantsir if you attempt to leave the safety of low level flight.

    GarryB, ALAMO, Hole and Broski like this post

    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 11297
    Points : 11267
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2

    Post  Isos Wed Apr 19, 2023 4:55 pm

    They are coming from an helicopter so their trajectory is more optimized than a kornet launched horizontally. There is no need for 1.5m pen if the missile attack from an upper position and impacts at an angle where protection is not optimal.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38931
    Points : 39427
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2

    Post  GarryB Thu Apr 20, 2023 4:52 am

    While I am a good chap, never undermined his happiness by fact check, that it is not a big achievement.
    Considering that Hellfire penetrates some 800mm.
    Which makes both missile and the tank of questionable reputation

    Funny you mention that....

    I remember during Desert Storm a British Challenger tank accidentally fired on a British Warrior BMP, but the external add on armour stopped the round and this led to claims that British BMPs are so well armoured that they can just shrug off tank rounds.

    What they didn't say was that the tank round fired at the British Warrior was a HESH round which is like a lump of HE that flattens out on the target armour and then explodes the shockwaves it generates pass through the armour plate of the target tank and flakes of armour peel off the inner surface of the tank armour and kill the crew. It does not penetrate but causes the inner surface of the armour to become a fragmentation threat to the crew.

    It obviously is completely useless against tanks with composite armour or layered armour and so no surprise that external boxes of add on armour on the Warrior stopped it... an ERA block would stop it from functioning properly.

    HESH rounds were the primary reason the British stuck to rifled main guns as HEAT and APFSDS don't benefit from rifled barrels.

    So the Warrior wasn't some super BMP, the round fired at it was just rubbish.

    Would be very effective against a BTR or log bunkers ... but not BMPs with add on armour and certainly not tanks.

    NATO has the Brimstone missile which is more recent than the Hellfire. It has a tandem heat warhead and outranges the Ataka. It has roughly the same range as the Vikhr.

    Brimstone is a British version of Hellfire... externally they are the same... with the warhead reduced to add more fuel and more electronics.

    Brimestone are using expensive tracking systems when ataka and vikhr are way cheaper laser guided missiles.

    AFAIK the Brimstone was supposed to use an active radar MMW seeker that scans the ground in front of the missile as it flys looking for targets... as such it should be able to be detected and theoretically engaged, or decoyed or fooled electronically.

    They will be studying captured examples and monitoring them in combat to learn how to defeat them.

    They are coming from an helicopter so their trajectory is more optimized than a kornet launched horizontally. There is no need for 1.5m pen if the missile attack from an upper position and impacts at an angle where protection is not optimal.

    Hellfires are over half a million dollars each depending on the model... and Kornet sells on the international market at about 5K per missile.

    Hellfires reach about 8km at best, and Kornet does the same at about 8.5km for the HEAT equipped EM model, but for anti air use it can reach 10km.

    Big_Gazza, ALAMO, Hole and Belisarius like this post

    avatar
    ALAMO


    Posts : 6667
    Points : 6757
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2

    Post  ALAMO Thu Apr 20, 2023 7:09 am

    I remember during Desert Storm a British Challenger tank accidentally fired on a British Warrior BMP, but the external add on armour stopped the round and this led to claims that British BMPs are so well armoured that they can just shrug off tank rounds.

    Phew ... Laughing
    Remember the case that happened some 2-3 years ago, when SEP2 was perfectly penetrated by a training round fired from 2km?
    That would be again something much more than it seems.
    First of all, training round can not carry so much lethal energy to do it. It shall be specially designed to spend all the KE at a relatively short distance, and that is not 2000m for sure.
    Soviet training rounds had a special breaks and profile to slow down the projectile yet retain its basic ballistics.
    So if a US made training round at 2000m distance is capable to penetrate the M1 gunner cupola, tearing it off, and achieving both crew KIA/WIA and vehicle technical kill, it is a crappy round.
    On the other hand, this crappy training round is still not even close to the real ammunition, so again, killing a tank with it proves that there are some serious issues with the tank itself.
    So here comes Marvel to the rescue, and the superheroes Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing

    GarryB, Big_Gazza and Hole like this post

    marcellogo
    marcellogo


    Posts : 636
    Points : 642
    Join date : 2012-08-02
    Age : 55
    Location : Italy

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2

    Post  marcellogo Thu Apr 20, 2023 10:23 am

    Above all Hellfire and brimstone are heavy missiles used only by helicopters (or Coastal Guard defence) weighting about 50kg, while Kornets are missiles that are used for normal infantry role.
    So, you should compare them to LMUR (although it is more a tactical missile than an AT one).
    Tow was a good missile but has its further evolution crippled by its particular propulsion system that accelerate it very fast but burn out quickly so that it have to glide to the target after it.
    Their AT version couldn't exceed 3750 meters i.e. less than the way more portable Konkurs.

    GarryB, xeno, Big_Gazza, ALAMO, Hole and Broski like this post

    Hole
    Hole


    Posts : 10684
    Points : 10662
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 47
    Location : Scholzistan

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2

    Post  Hole Thu Apr 20, 2023 11:28 am

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2 - Page 8 001022
    Even better comparison to "Brimstone": Izd. 85
    Range launched from the ground: 20km
    Range launched from a heli: 40km

    GarryB, Big_Gazza, ALAMO and Broski like this post

    avatar
    ALAMO


    Posts : 6667
    Points : 6757
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2

    Post  ALAMO Thu Apr 20, 2023 3:02 pm

    Tow was a good missile but has its further evolution crippled by its particular propulsion system that accelerate it very fast but burn out quickly so that it have to glide to the target after it.
    Their AT version couldn't exceed 3750 meters i.e. less than the way more portable Konkurs.


    Actually, it was never a good missile, and that became clear after the cold war ended and old GAO reports were unveiled.
    With the penetration of approx. 450 mm, it was pathetic. Especially if we combine that with the weight and the complication & ergonomy of the whole system.
    It turned out, that the Soviet tanks could be in real combat much immune to most of the NATO ATGM arsenal, represented in real numbers by Dragon and TOW in the 70/80.
    European made missiles beat the shit out of TOW at any single moment.

    LMUR eats both Hellfire and Brimestone alive in all categories, there is not much more here to discuss I suppose.

    Big_Gazza, Hole and Broski like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38931
    Points : 39427
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2

    Post  GarryB Fri Apr 21, 2023 5:04 am

    TOW was not great for all its bulk it was vehicle only really... but Dragon III was a real dog...
    avatar
    limb


    Posts : 1550
    Points : 1576
    Join date : 2020-09-17

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2

    Post  limb Mon Apr 24, 2023 8:56 pm

    Russia has no equivalent to the MMP akeron(already given to ukros) or spike NLOS. Both blow the metis and kornet respectively out of the water. Both are like mini versions of the LMUR due to 2 way datalink. Both have very high quality thermals that are more compact than the LMUR. Both are operated by regular infantrymen, while the LMUR can only be operated by less tha 10% of the russian helo fleet. Israelis have been using 2 way datalink missiles en masse since the 2000s, russians still cant figure out how to mass produce them for infantry and ground vehicles. And no, that 3d computer model of an armata chassis with LMUR VLS doesnt count.

    Th e kornet's advantage of very large range and speed cant be taken advantage of because while it has 5-8km range, its thermal imager can only discern targets at 3,5km out.
    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 2178
    Points : 2172
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2

    Post  lyle6 Mon Apr 24, 2023 9:18 pm

    The Russians don't care. They have Lancet. A weapon far more capable than Spike or MMP but at a fraction of the cost - useful for when you actually want to use them in a real war.

    Mir, Broski and Belisarius like this post


    Sponsored content


    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Apr 20, 2024 11:05 am