Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

The-thing-next-door wrote:

Interlinked wrote:
Who said anything about supertanks? You were the one who was proposing to get 80+ ton heavy tanks in another thread.

If they could field 5000 vehicles on the Armata platform, they would, but you must understand something first and foremost: Russia does not have infinite wealth. Even so, that doesn't mean that the military should be disbanded because it's not the best in the world and better than everybody else's 10x over. They must make do with the flawed tank fleet that they have at the moment, and that also means that we have to make do with it as well.

I am suggesting a more rapid retirement for everything based on the T-64 platform since Russia needs vastly superior tanks.

The T-14 Armata is a supertank in the MBT realm it has all the wunderwaffe and Soveit super weapon requirements (new and innovative design ,superior firepower,designed to destroy freedom and democracy wherever it goes)

Did I say "freedom and democracy" sorry I meant fiendom and demonocracy.

A super tank is not necessarily a heavy or superheavy tank it is an advanced or exceedingly powerful tank.

And where will that money come from? Cut pensions? Scrap Admiral Kuznetsov? Stop construction of the Kerch Strait bridges?

How to fix the T-72Bs armor
The thing on the turret is a T-62M style armor upgrade.

The-thing-next-door wrote:How to fix the T-72Bs armor
The thing on the turret is a T-62M style armor upgrade.

Armor is irrelevant these days.

In-tank warfare it's more about who sees who first and can get the opening shot off.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Armor is irrelevant these days.

In-tank warfare it's more about who sees who first and can get the opening shot off.

Then why not just mount the 2A82/2A83 on a truck and dispence with tanks entireley?

Armor is called armor for a reason the purpose of a tank is to be a mobile heavily armef bunker.

The-thing-next-door wrote:How to fix the T-72Bs armor

Well, you've demonstrated some ignorance on the topic already, and now you've given more evidence that you simply do not know what you are talking about. Firstly, the armour of the most common T-72B variant uses spaced steel plates, not a steel-glass textolite-steel sandwich. Secondly, the lower glacis plate does not go down all the way to the hull floor. The hull belly plate is made from relatively soft armour steel and is bent upward to meet the lower glacis. There is also a depressed section of the belly where the driver sits, to give him more vertical room. If you were to extend the lower glacis plate to the floor, you'd have to cut off the old glacis plate, make some cuts into the belly plate and install a completely new armour plate/array. That takes a lot of man-hours to do correctly because the idler wheel supports are attached to the glacis nose and the thickness of the plates is very big, and the materials themselves would cost a lot.


But okay, let's say this idea is implemented. All you have to do is all of the above, and then relocate the driving pedals further into the hull (thus cramping the driver's legs), relocate the pressurized air bottles and the valve system for starting the engine and for cleaning the periscopes, redesign the front hull fuel tanks, and somehow find a way to put the torsion bars for the No. 1 roadwheels inside or on top of the new armour. Sounds simple eh? BTW, all that steel in your drawings is going to put an incredible amount of strain on the No. 1 and No. 2 roadwheels, so you need stronger torsion bars and you need bigger shocks, not to mention the strain to the engine, so you're going to need a more powerful engine to deal with that. The add-on "Brow" armour on the T-62M weighs 3.3 tons, you know. The T-72B weighs around 44.5 tons. Add on 3.3 tons, and you have a 47.8 ton tank. Add on Relikt, which is 2.3 tons, and you have a 50.1 ton tank.

Congratulations, your "upgraded T-72B" is heavier than a T-14.

And your lower glacis still isn't enough to resist any serious anti-tank weapon. Sure, it can now stop an RPG, but you don't need to go through all this trouble for that. Just bolt on some Kontakt-1 and you're good to go.

The-thing-next-door wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Armor is irrelevant these days.

In-tank warfare it's more about who sees who first and can get the opening shot off.

Then why not just mount the 2A82/2A83 on a truck and dispence with tanks entireley?

Armor is called armor for a reason the purpose of a tank is to be a mobile heavily armef bunker.

Tanks have a place but you don't seem to understand the point.

No matter how good armor is it will not help against other tanks generally, tank armor does help against RPG's and things like that which is the point.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Tanks have a place but you don't seem to understand the point.

No matter how good armor is it will not help against other tanks generally, tank armor does help against RPG's and things like that which is the point.

Correction: the armour of the M1A2SEP v2 and Leopard 2A7 will help against the T-72B3. The armour of the T-72B3 will not help against the M1A2SEP v2 and Leopard 2A7.

Just because the majority of Russia's current tanks have insufficient armour doesn't mean that armour doesn't matter. Let us not forget that there was a time when the T-64A and the T-72 were practically undefeatable from the front. You might argue that that was in the past, but armour still matters in modern times. The T-14 is proof.

Interlinked wrote:

The-thing-next-door wrote:How to fix the T-72Bs armor

Well, you've demonstrated some ignorance on the topic already, and now you've given more evidence that you simply do not know what you are talking about. Firstly, the armour of the most common T-72B variant uses spaced steel plates, not a steel-glass textolite-steel sandwich. Secondly, the lower glacis plate does not go down all the way to the hull floor. The hull belly plate is made from relatively soft armour steel and is bent upward to meet the lower glacis. There is also a depressed section of the belly where the driver sits, to give him more vertical room. If you were to extend the lower glacis plate to the floor, you'd have to cut off the old glacis plate, make some cuts into the belly plate and install a completely new armour plate/array. That takes a lot of man-hours to do correctly because the idler wheel supports are attached to the glacis nose and the thickness of the plates is very big, and the materials themselves would cost a lot.


But okay, let's say this idea is implemented. All you have to do is all of the above, and then relocate the driving pedals further into the hull (thus cramping the driver's legs), relocate the pressurized air bottles and the valve system for starting the engine and for cleaning the periscopes, redesign the front hull fuel tanks, and somehow find a way to put the torsion bars for the No. 1 roadwheels inside or on top of the new armour. Sounds simple eh? BTW, all that steel in your drawings is going to put an incredible amount of strain on the No. 1 and No. 2 roadwheels, so you need stronger torsion bars and you need bigger shocks, not to mention the strain to the engine, so you're going to need a more powerful engine to deal with that. The add-on "Brow" armour on the T-62M weighs 3.3 tons, you know. The T-72B weighs around 44.5 tons. Add on 3.3 tons, and you have a 47.8 ton tank. Add on Relikt, which is 2.3 tons, and you have a 50.1 ton tank.

Congratulations, your "upgraded T-72B" is heavier than a T-14.

And your lower glacis still isn't enough to resist any serious anti-tank weapon. Sure, it can now stop an RPG, but you don't need to go through all this trouble for that. Just bolt on some Kontakt-1 and you're good to go.

I did that as a vauge idea of an upgrade and if done with materials from the T-90 whatever thry are the upper glaicis and turret should have 1000mm vs APFSDS all it needs now is afganit and 2a82. Then it will put the abrams to shame and the butthurt amoung western tank fans is reason enough for the upgrade.

interlinked wrote:Just because the majority of Russia's current tanks have insufficient armour doesn't mean that armour doesn't matter. Let us not forget that there was a time when the T-64A and the T-72 were practically undefeatable from the front. You might argue that that was in the past, but armour still matters in modern times. The T-14 is proof.

Wait what you agree that armor is important do you just hate me because I like heavy tanks giant bunkers and superweapons?

Interlinked wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Tanks have a place but you don't seem to understand the point.

No matter how good armor is it will not help against other tanks generally, tank armor does help against RPG's and things like that which is the point.

Correction: the armour of the M1A2SEP v2 and Leopard 2A7 will help against the T-72B3. The armour of the T-72B3 will not help against the M1A2SEP v2 and Leopard 2A7.

Just because the majority of Russia's current tanks have insufficient armour doesn't mean that armour doesn't matter. Let us not forget that there was a time when the T-64A and the T-72 were practically undefeatable from the front. You might argue that that was in the past, but armour still matters in modern times. The T-14 is proof.

T-14 is about stopping the round before it hits, there isn't a once of data to support that front is immune from hits. When the T-14 starts taking tank shots from the front we shall see.

Also your words depend on what round is used and at the distance, both those tanks have a much lower range then the T-72's gun they will have to close in to effectively hit the B3 and at that distance their armor is useless.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

T-14 is about stopping the round before it hits, there isn't a once of data to support that front is immune from hits. When the T-14 starts taking tank shots from the front we shall see.

Also your words depend on what round is used and at the distance, both those tanks have a much lower range then the T-72's gun they will have to close in to effectively hit the B3 and at that distance their armor is useless.

T-14 has more than 900mm effective armor vs APFSDS no western round can pen it without ERA.

The-thing-next-door wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

T-14 is about stopping the round before it hits, there isn't a once of data to support that front is immune from hits. When the T-14 starts taking tank shots from the front we shall see.

Also your words depend on what round is used and at the distance, both those tanks have a much lower range then the T-72's gun they will have to close in to effectively hit the B3 and at that distance their armor is useless.

T-14 has more than 900mm effective armor vs APFSDS no western round can pen it without ERA.

Actually, 1000-1100mm vs KE.

Sent from Topic'it App

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Interlinked wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Tanks have a place but you don't seem to understand the point.

No matter how good armor is it will not help against other tanks generally, tank armor does help against RPG's and things like that which is the point.

Correction: the armour of the M1A2SEP v2 and Leopard 2A7 will help against the T-72B3. The armour of the T-72B3 will not help against the M1A2SEP v2 and Leopard 2A7.

Just because the majority of Russia's current tanks have insufficient armour doesn't mean that armour doesn't matter. Let us not forget that there was a time when the T-64A and the T-72 were practically undefeatable from the front. You might argue that that was in the past, but armour still matters in modern times. The T-14 is proof.

T-14 is about stopping the round before it hits, there isn't a once of data to support that front is immune from hits. When the T-14 starts taking tank shots from the front we shall see.

Also your words depend on what round is used and at the distance, both those tanks have a much lower range then the T-72's gun they will have to close in to effectively hit the B3 and at that distance their armor is useless.

As I understand, T-72B3 is an attempt to put T-72 on more or less decent level. The majority of tanks in Europe are Leo2A4 and, I think T-72B3 is basically on par with it.

Sent from Topic'it App

Man, were is mindstorm to put this stupid debate to rest?

The-thing-next-door wrote:
I did that as a vauge idea of an upgrade and if done with materials from the T-90 whatever thry are the upper glaicis and turret should have 1000mm vs APFSDS all it needs now is afganit and 2a82. Then it will put the abrams to shame and the butthurt amoung western tank fans is reason enough for the upgrade.

Yeah, and replace the NERA armour in the turret with solid depleted uranium, and add two layers of Relikt so that it's twice as effective, and also put a 30mm AA gun on the commander's cupola so that the tank can shoot down Apaches, and also put one inch of steel around the autoloader and put blowoff panels on the bottom of the hull so that the tank can't blow up, and maybe put wings on the sides of the tank so when it's going forward really fast the tank gets lifted up slightly so the ground pressure is low.

The-thing-next-door wrote: Wait what you agree that armor is important do you just hate me because I like heavy tanks giant bunkers and superweapons?

When did I say that armour is not important? Have you already forgotten posts no.415, no.417 and no.419 where I lamented how the T-72B3 did not receive Relikt and how Relikt would have reduced the number of weak points on the tank? I need you to explain what exactly it was that I said that gave you the impression that I don't think that armour is important.

The-thing-next-door wrote:T-14 has more than 900mm effective armor vs APFSDS no western round can pen it without ERA.

Don't believe everything you read on the internet.

Roflmao xDxDxD

Sent from Topic'it App

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

T-14 is about stopping the round before it hits, there isn't a once of data to support that front is immune from hits.

The point of Afghanit is to degrade the shell before it impacts the armour, so that when it impacts the armour, the reactive armour can degrade it even further, so that it can be stopped by the base armour. There isn't an ounce of data to support that the front is immune from hits, but there is also no evidence to the contrary. It's not a North Korean tank. We can be pretty sure that it is practically immune to all current generation shells, and I emphasize on the "current generation".

SeigSoloyvov wrote:
When the T-14 starts taking tank shots from the front we shall see.

Nobody has shot Svinets at the M1A2SEP v3 yet, but does that mean that there is a chance that it may go through? Probably no.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:
Also your words depend on what round is used and at the distance, both those tanks have a much lower range then the T-72's gun they will have to close in to effectively hit the B3 and at that distance their armor is useless.

M256 and Rh120/44 are both equal to or better than the 2A46M-5, and the Rh120/55 is clearly superior. The stabilization system and the sighting system on both the M1A2SEP v2 and the Leo 2A7 tanks are more comprehensive and more precise than the one on the T-72B3 obr. 2016, without a doubt. Their armour is very probably able to stop any Russian 125mm APFSDS shell currently in service even at very short ranges.


The photo below shows the results of a firing exercise by a Polish Leopard 2A4, firing on targets at a distance of 1.6 km or 1.8 km while on the move at a speed of 20 km/h.



Five direct hits. So if we take the target to be a representative of the T-72B3: Two hits on the driver's periscope; no chance of survival. Two hits on the turret ring. No composite armour and no reactive armour there; no chance of survival. One hit on the gun mantlet. Again, no composite armour and no reactive armour; no chance of survival. BTW, those holes are made by full caliber shells like HEAT, not APFSDS. APFSDS would be even more accurate.

Like it or not, this is the truth. The guns for the M1A2SEP v2 and Leo 2A7 dont have "a much lower range then the T-72's gun" and they do not have to "close in to effectively hit the B3". They can hit the T-72B3 just fine, and they can do it while pirouetting through the air and drinking champagne from 1.6-1.8 km away.

Alright number one 1.6km isn't even a mile. If a modern day tank cannot hit accurately under a mile moving then that tank is a pile of crap. so using this to justify yourself? that's what they can move forfward so clearly they are amazing. This is something a tank is expected to do in this day and age, like your expected to walk and breath. That is nothing impressive.

Fact

Rheinmetall 120 mm gun L/55 wich the L2A4 uses

The longest effective range of the gun is 1.500M and if can maybe shoot at 5000k but it becomes horribly inaccurate at that range anything past 2k (2K if you use good ammo and those tanks aren't hitting jack at long range). ARe you going to try and give me that 10K BS range now? the tanks FCS maybe capable of that but the gun isn't.

I have spent MUCH time around Nato Tanks, so do not try and feed me the BS you are selling I know better.

Where has for the T72B3 the effective range is 3K and 4K basically double that of it's NATO enemies oh ait the T-72...can also fire AGTM's from its barrel which gives it an insane range.

The L45/55 guns are worse.

I've heard your argument before you wanna know where? Pro US military youtube channels.

So enjoy preaching this BS because it ain't going to work on me.

Only area the L45/55 Guns are similar in is dispersion rates that's it.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Rheinmetall 120 mm gun L/55 wich the L2A4 uses

Minor detail, I think you mean L/44 here.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Alright number one 1.6km isn't even a mile. If a modern day tank cannot hit accurately under a mile moving then that tank is a pile of crap. so using this to justify yourself? that's what they can move forfward so clearly they are amazing. This is something a tank is expected to do in this day and age, like your expected to walk and breath. That is nothing impressive.

Fact

Rheinmetall 120 mm gun L/55 wich the L2A4 uses

The longest effective range of the gun is 1.500M and if can maybe shoot at 5000k but it becomes horribly inaccurate at that range anything past 2k (2K if you use good ammo and those tanks aren't hitting jack at long range). ARe you going to try and give me that 10K BS range now? the tanks FCS maybe capable of that but the gun isn't.

I have spent MUCH time around Nato Tanks, so do not try and feed me the BS you are selling I know better.

Where has for the T72B3 the effective range is 3K and 4K basically double that of it's NATO enemies oh ait the T-72...can also fire AGTM's from its barrel which gives it an insane range.

The L45/55 guns are worse.

I've heard your argument before you wanna know where? Pro US military youtube channels.

So enjoy preaching this BS because it ain't going to work on me.

Only area the L45/55 Guns are similar in is dispersion rates that's it.

Leave this dude, fam. The guy is not even worth challenging, it's pretty obvious. Just leave him.

Sent from Topic'it App

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Alright number one 1.6km isn't even a mile. If a modern day tank cannot hit accurately under a mile moving then that tank is a pile of crap. so using this to justify yourself? that's what they can move forfward so clearly they are amazing. This is something a tank is expected to do in this day and age, like your expected to walk and breath. That is nothing impressive.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:
Fact

Rheinmetall 120 mm gun L/55 wich the L2A4 uses

The longest effective range of the gun is 1.500M

So the maximum effective range of the L/55 is 1.5 km, that's why an L/44 gun could get 5 hits on the center of a tank-sized target at 1.6-1.8 km while moving at 20 km/h. Not only were 5 hits achieved, but all of the hits were located at an area where the T-72B3 lacks reactive armour. According to you, this means that the longest effective range of the L/55 is 1.5 km.

I'm sorry, but I need time to process all of this information...

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

I have spent MUCH time around Nato Tanks, so do not try and feed me the BS you are selling I know better.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:
Where has for the T72B3 the effective range is 3K and 4K basically double that of it's NATO enemies oh ait the T-72...can also fire AGTM's from its barrel which gives it an insane range.

The L45/55 guns are worse.

I've heard your argument before you wanna know where? Pro US military youtube channels.

So enjoy preaching this BS because it ain't going to work on me.

Only area the L45/55 Guns are similar in is dispersion rates that's it.

The marketing for the T-90SM claimed that its APFSDS rounds have an effective range of 2.7 km, and that it was "the best in the world", but here you are saying that its effective range is 3 km to 4 km.... I think you can understand if I don't take you very seriously. Being realistic does not mean that I am pro-U.S. The T-72B3 is nothing special in this day and age, and it is only competitive with NATO tanks that were made in the late 80's. It cannot compete with M1A2 or Leo 2A5+. Believe it or not, that is the truth.

GarryB wrote:

Unless there is something seriously odd about the angles a round hitting there would likely be on a downward and not upward trajectory so it would likely exit the bottom of the chassis without doing that much damage anyway.

The same could be said for the upper glacis, but we always assume that the shot impacts the target at the designed obliquity for simplicity's sake. For all intents and purposes, the shot hits at 0 degrees, so the round won't be coming out via the belly of the tank.

Why would rounds that discard Sabot stubs when they leave a barrel be more accurate than a full bore round that does not?

Both a fin stabilised are they not?

Concerning ballistics; most people focus on the behaviour of the shell after it leaves the barrel, but an equal amount of attention should be paid to the behaviour of the shell before it has left. A gun barrel does not respond the same way to a heavy shell travelling at low velocity as it does with a light shell travelling at a high velocity, because even if both have the same energy, the heavier shell with have more momentum, and this means that the moment of force experienced by the gun will be higher. For example, a 20 kg shell travelling at 900 m/s at the muzzle will have 8.1 MJ of kinetic energy and 18000 kg.m/s of momentum. A 5 kg shell travelling at 1800 m/s will have exactly the same amount of kinetic energy, but only 9000 kg.m/s of momentum (half). Depending on the exact layout of the gun, the moment of force for the heavier but slower shell could be twice higher than the lighter and faster shell. High moment of force causes stronger muzzle oscillations, and that increases the dispersion of the shells.

In real life, this means that the heavier shells like HE-Frag and HEAT have more dispersion than lighter shells like APFSDS. The situation was different in the early days because sabot separation was indeed a big issue, but once that was solved, APFSDS became consistently more accurate than shells like HE-Frag. Right now, sabot separation is a non-issue, and saboted HEAT shells like the M830A1 MPAT are more accurate than regular ones like the M830. It's really a very fascinating topic, but I don't want to write much on a forum post that may get buried later. If you want to ask more, just PM me.

And how fast were the targets moving?

How fast were the targets moving during the 2014-2017 tank biathlons? What kind of grouping did the Russian team get? We have four years of Russia's best tank crews shooting at targets 1.6-1.8 km away to use as data. Perhaps in that context you would agree that the dispersion of shots demonstrated by the Polish Leopard 2A4 trainee crew was quite fine...

How amusing.

A Konkurs missile can destroy an Abrams yet it penetrates only 500mm of armour.... surely something is wrong there...

An 85mm cannon can destroy a T-72 from over a kilometer if you shot at the side of the hull head-on, but it can't do jack shit if you shot it at a 30 degree side angle. A Konkurs missile shouldn't have any problems with the rear armour of the Abrams, but it would have huge issues defeating the armour for a wide range of angles from the front. For some reason, I don't think that the opportunity to shoot tanks from the rear will be available often. Everyone has tactics for tank platoons and companies to minimize the exposure of the sides and rear of the tank, of course, but in the few occasions where a flank or rear hit is scored, then sure, the tank may be defeated by something that its frontal arc could have easily shrugged off. The problem for the T-72 right now is that a Konkurs missile doesn't need to hit it from behind to destroy it. The mantlet of the tank has no composite armour at all, nor does it have any reactive armour. The gun mantlet on Western tanks like the Abrams and Leopard 2 are also weak compared to the turret cheeks, but they at least have composite armour. It wouldn't be possible to go through it with an old PG-7VS grenade like it would be for a T-72B3.

In the real world not every tank can present its heaviest armour to an enemy and if those shots shown on that tank target were given as evidence of precision I would have laughed in your face.

Do all five rounds have to enter the same hole for you to be satisfied? The photo was merely to illustrate what would have happened if the dummy target were a T-72B3.

Assuming the aim point was dead centre those hits are all over the place and do not constitute a grouping of accurate hits on target... they constitute a spray over the target.

You can claim those hits were in places where there is weak protection but that suggests control and if there was real control the rounds would be clustered tightly together around the point of aim... which they are clearly not.

Tank gunners are trained to fire at the center mass of their targets to ensure the best likelihood of achieving a hit. The center mass of all tanks is at the turret ring, and the turret ring area of the T-72B3 is poorly protected, either from a lack of composite armour or a lack of reactive armour. The Leo 2A4 gunner was definitely aiming for center mass, because that is what he is trained to do and those rounds were fired in a training exercise. There's nothing wrong with the dispersion in that cluster.

GarryB wrote:

Why? In the real world the ground is not necessarily flat... A T-72 driving down a slope might not even present any lower glacis for an enemy to even see let alone hit...

And if you shot the lower glacis while the tank is going over a bump in the road the shell will come out the roof of the turret. What were we talking about again? Oh yeah, about how the shell doesn't fly through the lower glacis, through the floor and into the ground, because we always assume that the shell is impacting the armour at 0 degrees for the sake of simplicity.

No it does not respond the same way and that is why fire control systems allow for the trajectory and accuracy specifics of the round loaded read to fire and the characteristings are accounted for.

During the 1970s and 1980s the Soviets produced a lot of very accurate HEAT rounds that were actually rather more accurate than their sabot rounds.

 Trajectory: Of course. Dispersion: No. Dispersion is random. You can't program the dispersion into a ballistic computer...  

Why don't we program the dispersion of artillery shells into ballistic computers? Hey, since we know the dispersion, we can just program that into the computer! That way every shot will be exactly on target! We don't need guided shells at all!

The Soviets were not producing very accurate HEAT rounds, they were just producing not-so-accurate APFSDS rounds. This changed when "bucket" style sabots were introduced.

So?

Muzzle reference systems measure oscillations which can be added to the calculations for accurate targeting.

I'm afraid that you misunderstand how muzzle reference systems work. MRSs detect minute bends in the barrel, not the oscillations at the muzzle during firing. Also, even if the system can measure the oscillations in real time and produce a usable solution, the system can't do anything about it. The stabilization system has no way to counteract the oscillations. The only solutions are to reduce the moment of force on the cannon and to increase the rigidity of the barrel. Shortening the barrel and thickening it will improve the rigidity, but shortening the barrel reduces the muzzle velocity of fired shells, so everyone is just doing their beat to stiffen the barrel some other way. IIRC the Rh120 L/55 could not be introduced in time during the early 2000's alongside the DM53 because of rigidity issues from the longer barrel.

Sniper rifles fire full calibre ammo are you saying they would be more accurate if they used flechette rounds?

Because the ACR used Flechette rounds and were found to be hopelessly inaccurate and less than lethal in the sense that they punched tiny holes in targets.

Says you. Reasonably accurate sabot rounds exist, like SLAP. APDS and APFSDS rounds for autocannons (20mm, 23mm, 25mm, 30mm, 37mm, 40mm and more) are also more accurate than full bore rounds. Furthermore, smaller caliber saboted rounds that are more accurate than full caliber match ammo do exist, and are sometimes used as sniper ammo because they are more accurate at long range. In fact, Sweden uses a saboted 7.62mm round as sniper ammo.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020620020646/http://www.fmv.se:80/index.asp?K=005011004003&L=UK
http://web.archive.org/web/20020620020830/http://www.fmv.se:80/index.asp?K=005011004004&L=UK

If the targets are only 1.6km away and they are stationary then that is only good for exercises and not an indicator of real performance in real combat.

Oh really? And the real performance of the T-72B3 in real combat will be better based on the less precise groupings exhibited during the Tank Biathlon?

Of course not... current missiles like Kornet-EM with a range of 8.5km will only be fired from the front because that is how all ATGM teams train....

Can you even tell if the tank is facing the front of back at 8.5 km? No. Of course not. You can't even tell if you're looking at the front or the side of a tank at 8.5 km, and that's not even the point I was making. Can you at least agree that Iraqi tankers have displayed poor coordination and not much personal skill? Why not just attribute that rear shot to the poor tactics used by that Iraqi Abrams crew? For most situations, the most of the hits to a tank will be on the front 70-degree arc.

More likely to be a PG-7VR or PG-29V... and a little hint... if it is man portable why the heck would you commit suicide by firing at the frontal armour... ever?

Tell that to these guys:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ci-xw-xxl-g

Take a look at the first few seconds, 2:42, 6:57

But really, I'm not just talking about short range man-portable systems. I'm talking about the power of the warhead. The original requirement for the mantlet of the Leopard 2 was to be resistant to the 73mm warhead from SPG-9s and BMP-1s. Why would an SPG-9 crew want to commit suicide by firing at the front of a Leopard 2? Why would a BMP-1? Perhaps because new 73mm HEAT warheads had as much penetration as Malyutka missiles?

Ohh no!!! the upgraded old tanks don't have perfect armour... not really the end of the world.

Just put Arena-2 on it and all of a sudden most RPGs are not effective from any angle...

It doesn't have to have perfect armour, it just doesn't have to have such bad coverage. Again, the area on either side of the driver's periscope are not covered by Kontakt-5, the lower part of the turret is not protected by composite armour nor by Kontakt-5, and the mantlet lacks composite armour as well.

How cheap is Arena? You said it yourself. APS is not cheap. Better to replace the old and outdated Kontakt-5 with Relikt, because that would reduce the size of the weak points at the center mass of the tank, and improve e its chances of survival against all types of threats.

If all five rounds went within half a metre to a metre of each other then it would be clear they had serious control over where the rounds were going.

Do you know the size of that target?

If they can't control where on that target the rounds actually hit then it is more a case of luck in which case gaps in the protection are more justifiable.

Okay, so let me try to get this right... The gunner "had no control over where the rounds were going", so he just aims at center mass and hopes that he hits... And he does hit the target, and all rounds hit the target at center mass. Two of the shots directly impacted the turret ring, represented by the wooden stick. That's pretty fine if you ask me.

The photo you provided shows a lack of hits at the likely point of aim, so where they aim is immaterial.

Real world experience in combat shows the area most hit is the turret front rather than the turret ring hense armour design... in combat in a quick draw situation if the enemy has weak points near the turret would you not aim for the turret?

Real world experience in combat shows that most hits land on the center mass. If your tank is in the open, half the hits will be below the turret ring, half will be above the turret ring. If your tank is hull-down, most of the hits will be on the turret. On average, the turret gets hit more often than the hull because there is never a situation where the hull is exposed but the turret isn't.

How is that related to the Armata MBT with no crew in the turret?

Why is Armata being brought up? Maybe you can't really see the turret of a T-14 through thermal sights because it has a special shell on the turret that has low to no thermal signature and a low RCS? There is a different thread where this can be discussed further if you want. Please don't try to derail the topic.

Wrong?

No it is not wrong.

What it does show however is that in the shortest likely engagement ranges is that specific features cannot be reliably aimed for.... it is just centre of mass and hope for a hit.

You are basing your assumption on another assumption. It's assumption^2.