T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2

From Ekaterinburg

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.

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Only the later model 2A6 and above Lolpards dva got the L/55, the majority are still sporting the outdated L/44.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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ...
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

Even better comparison to "Brimstone": Izd. 85
Range launched from the ground: 20km
Range launched from a heli: 40km

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.

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

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.