T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2
lyle6- Posts : 2565
Points : 2559
Join date : 2020-09-14
Location : Philippines
- Post n°126
Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2
GarryB, kvs, jon_deluxe and Belisarius like this post
Arrow- Posts : 3439
Points : 3429
Join date : 2012-02-13
- Post n°127
Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2
ALAMO- Posts : 7459
Points : 7549
Join date : 2014-11-26
- Post n°128
Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2
Even the oldest Soviet training ammo would punch right through the paper machier L1 has for an armor. Razz
I wouldn't disregard the training ammo ... Last time they scored a kill of M1A2 in 2km with it, so you know ...
GarryB, kvs, Hole, Belisarius and Podlodka77 like this post
GarryB- Posts : 40487
Points : 40987
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
- Post n°129
Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2
Over 180 old Leopard 1
Frontal armour probably less impressive than that fitted to Sprut and probably less than the armour fitted to BMPs already supplied, do they even count as tanks?
The question is how much will Leo A4, A5, A6 send? and which version of M1 Abrams. If the Abrams are not going to have uranium armor then they will be early versions of the Abrams. The question is what do the Americans see so wonderful in the uranium armor if they do not want to transfer it in the M1 to Ukraine? Very Happy
LIKE
At least one Russian official has said DU material in armour or ammo will create a cleanup issue and will be considered equivalent to Kiev using a dirty nuke.
The Abrams tanks being built are export monkey models from the 70s.
Big_Gazza likes this post
ALAMO- Posts : 7459
Points : 7549
Join date : 2014-11-26
- Post n°130
Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2
Egyptians have a running low rate of production of a monkey model M1A1 without heavy armor package and with old FCS.
So it looks like M1A1, but is an M1 with 120 mm gun in reality.
That would make much more sense rather than creating an alternative production at Lima.
The question is if the Egyptians would be interested ... but hey, why not? It's only the money.
Arrow- Posts : 3439
Points : 3429
Join date : 2012-02-13
- Post n°131
Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2
At least one Russian official has said DU material in armour or ammo will create a cleanup issue and will be considered equivalent to Kiev using a dirty nuke. The Abrams tanks being built are export monkey models from the 70s. wrote:
It's stupid because Russia also uses DU ammo.
The question is, does DU armor have any advantage over other materials? It's probably only used by the US in the M1?
marcellogo- Posts : 679
Points : 685
Join date : 2012-08-02
Age : 55
Location : Italy
- Post n°132
Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2
Result was however that tank increased its weight considerably w/o changing its external aspect.
Leo 2 armor was a different type, oriented from the beginning against AT rounds (it's similar to the one on the T-62M insert) AFAIK some of its inner layers have been substituted with tungsten carbide ones.
In this case the added protection weight is made by added parts so it also increase the overall width of the armor itself (and this is an overall advantage even in case of a theoretically equal RHA equivalent value).
GarryB and xeno like this post
lyle6- Posts : 2565
Points : 2559
Join date : 2020-09-14
Location : Philippines
- Post n°133
Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2
GarryB, kvs, Hole and Broski like this post
ALAMO- Posts : 7459
Points : 7549
Join date : 2014-11-26
- Post n°134
Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2
Not like the Murican.
Azi- Posts : 803
Points : 793
Join date : 2016-04-05
- Post n°135
Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2
True! Uranium is 4 times heavier than iron and 15 % heavier than lead. Modern ceramics are much better than any uranium alloy.marcellogo wrote:Result was however that tank increased its weight considerably w/o changing its external aspect.
GarryB likes this post
lyle6- Posts : 2565
Points : 2559
Join date : 2020-09-14
Location : Philippines
- Post n°136
Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2
GarryB likes this post
GarryB- Posts : 40487
Points : 40987
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
- Post n°137
Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2
And this is from the Wall Street Journal....
https://www.rt.com/news/571237-nato-tanks-ukraine-shortage/
(via RT do you don't give WSJ any traffic.)
AlfaT8 and Belisarius like this post
AlfaT8- Posts : 2488
Points : 2479
Join date : 2013-02-02
- Post n°138
Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2
And this is from the Wall Street Journal...."
Bhahaha......
I knew it, they didn't have the balls to send Nato tanks.
Its all a Larp.
Suprised Poland still had t-72s.
Last edited by AlfaT8 on Fri Feb 10, 2023 2:00 pm; edited 1 time in total
GarryB likes this post
ALAMO- Posts : 7459
Points : 7549
Join date : 2014-11-26
- Post n°139
Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2
They can print fake money but they can't print a tank.
GarryB, franco, AlfaT8, zepia, The-thing-next-door, Hole, Broski and like this post
Hole- Posts : 11108
Points : 11086
Join date : 2018-03-24
Age : 48
Location : Scholzistan
- Post n°140
Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2
GarryB, flamming_python, Big_Gazza, kvs, ALAMO, zepia, The-thing-next-door and Scorpius like this post
ALAMO- Posts : 7459
Points : 7549
Join date : 2014-11-26
- Post n°141
Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2
GarryB, kvs, Hole and Scorpius like this post
Isos- Posts : 11592
Points : 11560
Join date : 2015-11-07
- Post n°142
Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2
Lancet will eat it alive.
GarryB and 11E like this post
ALAMO- Posts : 7459
Points : 7549
Join date : 2014-11-26
- Post n°143
Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2
Hundreds of them actually.
limb- Posts : 1550
Points : 1576
Join date : 2020-09-17
- Post n°144
Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2
limb- Posts : 1550
Points : 1576
Join date : 2020-09-17
- Post n°145
Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2
JPJ likes this post
lyle6- Posts : 2565
Points : 2559
Join date : 2020-09-14
Location : Philippines
- Post n°146
Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2
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:
a) The whole thing is not in a hermetically sealed container simulating an actual ammo rack
b) The location of the hit is not realistic at all; a projectile would pass through multiple rounds with a flank shot or the entire length of the round with a hit from the front and back
GarryB, kvs, ALAMO, zepia, Hole, lancelot, Broski and like this post
AlfaT8- Posts : 2488
Points : 2479
Join date : 2013-02-02
- Post n°147
Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2
The comments are murder.
Blowout panels work, when you have around 25 rounds, not the full complament 44 rounds.
GarryB likes this post
lyle6- Posts : 2565
Points : 2559
Join date : 2020-09-14
Location : Philippines
- Post n°148
Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2
ALAMO, Hole and Belisarius like this post
GarryB- Posts : 40487
Points : 40987
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
- Post n°149
Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2
Why do russian tank gun propellants and HE charges still burn and explode when hit? Didnt russia start making insensitive propellants and charges that are extremely difficult to set on fire? Most western tabk shells feature insensitive propellants and explosives.
By definition propellent is designed to burn rapidly, though HE is already insensitive... you need an explosion to set off explosives... a detonator, or very high temperatures.
If western propellent and ammo is so wonderful why do western tanks burn too?
Blow out panels are not a good solution when you put your ammo in the turret rear where any enemy can hit them even with the lightest cheapest RPGs available... even an RPG-18 or LAW-72 would penetrate the turret and set off the ammo... whether it kills the crew or not does not matter because the tank will burn and no longer be operational... the crew wont be pushing the repair button... they will be bailing out of the vehicle... so if you did what the Chechens did, have teams with RPG-22s and SVDs and PKMs... shoot the vulnerable spots and get the crew to bail and shoot them as they get out...
The tank will continue to burn but the fire will set off the fire suppression systems which, in western tanks blows poisonous gas into the crew compartment so they have to get out immediately even if their lives are not threatened.
The vehicle will burn out especially if the turret bustle is over the engine compartment and sets the engine on fire too.
Or if you don't carry HE shells, like, at all.
Which of course makes the tanks rather less useful in supporting infantry...
zardof, lyle6, Broski, jon_deluxe and Belisarius like this post
ALAMO- Posts : 7459
Points : 7549
Join date : 2014-11-26
- Post n°150
Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2
Not enormous: Abrams were equipped with Cobham armour that was very effective against Heat charges but not so much against APFSDS rounds so they added some DU panels to the armor to increment protection against such type of projectiles, actual one got also ceramic insert.
Result was however that tank increased its weight considerably w/o changing its external aspect.
Leo 2 armor was a different type, oriented from the beginning against AT rounds (it's similar to the one on the T-62M insert) AFAIK some of its inner layers have been substituted with tungsten carbide ones.
In this case the added protection weight is made by added parts so it also increase the overall width of the armor itself (and this is an overall advantage even in case of a theoretically equal RHA equivalent value).
You are mixing the things.
Chobham in the British equivalent, but no, M1 was not accepted for duty with it.
All NATO tanks of the era, that is Leopard 2, M1 and Challenger 2 has armor based on the same principles, as all were constructed with the same patents and studies. They all shared them.
Brits called it Burlington, for M1 it was called "special armor", while Germans didn't gave it a name at all.
It is a primitive type of NERA armor package consisting of steel plates separated by compressed rubber shock absorbers, and it's operation principle is to return part of the projectile energy and inflict a maximal damage to its integrity. By vibrations and moving of the plates.
This armor layout practically doesn't work against cumulative ammo much, as consists mostly of air.
The thickness is very impressive if someone has no idea how does it look like inside ...
Just a few steel plates on shock absorbers spaced from the hull ...
When all that tanks appeared on the battlefield, all were armored weaker than the Soviet tanks.
Muricans realized that fact quite fast, and very soon uparmored version of M1 appeared - M1IP - "improved protection" or 'performance".
"Improvement" was executed by adding non-metalic layer to the original NERA package, to improve anticumulative protection slightly, and increasing the LOS of the turret front with thicker NERA section. .
The point is, that people are mixing things altogether, and applying the solutions that appeared on M1 only in the 90s while talking about early models.
Heavy armor package including DU elements - it was a DU made dense net making one (?) of the NERA package layers appeared only in M1A1HA variant - Heavy Armor. Its production was only started in 1988.
Some further improvements appeared in M1A1HC variant of the 1991, and M1A2 retained the same protection level further. The composite armor package was made of non-steel metal layers like titanium and aluminum, ceramic, and DU plate. It is sometimes referred as "IIIrd generation".
That applies to M1A2SEP, too.
Now, if someone is familiar with the Soviet designs, the M1 evolution won't impress him much. A "combination K" appeared in the 60s with T-64, along with the non-metalic ceramic elements for T-64A and T-72A in the late 70s made of Al2O3 or "kvarz".
When M1A1 appeared on the scene, T-80U was already mass-produced. When M1A2 appeared, it was assisted by the T-90.
The only existing gap, if ever, would apply to a narrow moment just after the dissolution of the SU, but was catched up very fast.
And now we are again on the regular tracks, when Russkie are a decade ahead of the opponents, and in 2035 some nafo wankers will masturbate to just another Wunderwaffe. Forgetting that for the last decade Russkie T-14 could pierce every single NATO tank while being much immune.
GarryB, JPJ, Big_Gazza, zepia, Hole, lyle6, lancelot and like this post