T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2

Post lyle6 Today at 11:23 am

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 ...

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.

... which makes me even wonder, if those won't be produced in Egipt rather than in the US.

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.

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).

That is because Russian citizen is insured.
Not like the Murican.

marcellogo wrote:Result was however that tank increased its weight considerably w/o changing its external aspect.

True! Uranium is 4 times heavier than iron and 15 % heavier than lead. Modern ceramics are much better than any uranium alloy.

Now that Germany has said yes there are a lot fewer tanks being forthcoming... almost as if it was just a ploy to force Germany to commit...

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.)

"Now that Germany has said yes there are a lot fewer tanks being forthcoming... almost as if it was just a ploy to force Germany to commit...

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.

The best is the comment section

They can print fake money but they can't print a tank.

Try to stop a russian tank with a Credit Default Swap.

AAA+ credit rating works best against an armed army

I wouldn't ride in a leo 1. Very weak armor. Any russian anti tank weapon will destroy it. Even 30mm guns will do the work. And the worse is it doesn't even have modern thermal cameras to be used from defensive positions or ambushes. It will be seen first in every engagement. Shells stored worse than on t-72.

Lancet will eat it alive.

Suprised Poland still had t-72s.

Hundreds of them actually.

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.

Good thread on the limitations of blowout panels. They dont provide safety all the time, but with insensitive munitions, theyre very safe.

"Good thread on the limitations of blowout panels. They dont provide safety all the time, but with insensitive munitions, theyre very safe."

The comments are murder.
Blowout panels work, when you have around 25 rounds, not the full complament 44 rounds.

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...

Post  marcellogo Thu Feb 09, 2023 12:03 pm

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.