T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2

BTW would add that in the US an APFSDS round is called a Sabot round... they do not really distinguish between the dart and the sabot...

And how could the soviets have possibly known the structure of the abrams and leopard 2 composite armor for them to make this assumption? Also the M1(1980) hull armor array is far mor adavnced than the T-72A or T-64B. It has reflective plate design filled with ceramics which are classified to this day , while the T-72A and T-64Bs just had 2 RHA plates primitively sandwiching textolite.

Nuclear bomb design at the end of WWII was super super secret too... but the managed to find out quite a lot about that too.

Holly shit, it is some kind of joke or something?

M1 armor layout was made with steel - STEEL SHEETS isolated by rubber shock absorbers - steel.
It is what was called "Burlington", and this is what was used by all the western tanks emerged from the common projects carried since the 60s. Applies to Ch2, L2 and M1.

Secret my ass                  filled with ceramic farted from Murican arses          

A very primitive NERA layout that worked only against the APDS.

The whole thing granted some 350 RHAe level of protection for the turret and hull front.
The upper hull plate of M1 was a joke being a whole 2 INCHES (<51mm).

From the perspective, Soviet BDD is a rocket science, as the polymers used there had a quite fine effect against HEAT.
M1 was outmatched by T-64, T-72A and T-64A in terms of armor protection and we talk about the tanks older by a decade or more.
Vanilla T-64 has a turret armor package with MORE THAN 600 ! mm LOS consisting of steel with aluminum inserts in cavities, while the hull was filled with glass textolite making the same LOS of almost 600mm.



This layout was accepted only because the Soviet chemical industry had some issues with providing the dedicated solution, which was called "superporclain". It was a ceramic balls filled cast turret with increased ballistic protection - steel had an increased hardness as well.



The thing pushed the level up to some 500mm against cumulative ammunition, that was on the edge of existing at the moment solutions. And well above the 30 years later finally inspected TOW penetration of a whole 400-420 mm...
And here we are in the 70s!

And keep in mind that T-64 was ready to go with ERA already in 1968, as the Soviets pioneered the ERA scientific projects.
Only put those into a drawer as "not needed" and were quite surprised the Israelis (Russian Jews who emigrated ) had another perspective and used ERA in 1967 conflict.



Edit : for the folks who are not much into tanks but still would like to get a clue :

After the Iran-Iraq war started, the Soviets had a rare chance to grab in hands a Chieftain Mk 5. The tank went a whole cycle of tests, the same as the Soviets carried with their own tanks. A full evaluation, including the quality and chemical composition of a steel used.

Chieftain Mk5 was a tank rolled out in 1970, and the tank represented an exact equivalent of the Soviet T-64.



Soviets figured, that the maximal LOS thickness of the armor does not exceed ... 250 mm.
A whole tank was made of cast steel of ... medium hardness, with hull plates rolled. Overall the steel quality didn't change since the Centurion tank, and represented an end of WWII quality. Light years behind the Soviets.

Overall, Chieftain turned out to be vulnerable to penetration with ALL tested HEAT rounds at ANY place and ANY distance.
For armor piercing ammunition, the thickest parts of the tank could have been penetrated by the D-10 100 mm up to 500m, the 115 mm 2A20 gun up to 1600 mm, and 2A26/D-81 gun ... up to 3000m.
The latest is more than the shooting charts in the 70s were made and taught the gunners of direct fire      

Chieftain was made in 1974 ...

And I will just remind you, that it was the best the West had at the moment, with Murica still making the M60, and Leo2 to be revealed only few years after ...

Oh yeah, the upper western tank building school at it's bests      

Don't think i mentioned anything about panic buying.

So when you said Russia needed Chinese APFSDS rounds you meant they could buy them in five or ten years time... but couldn't they develop better products by then... I mean development has not stopped in Russia... they likely already have the next generation ammo already in testing if not already in production and perhaps even use for all we know.

That's the dumbest possible take for this line of discussion. I'm not sure why having the most efficient product is such a bad thing for you.

You think the Russian military is a consumer and needs to buy from other countries everything it needs?

When it sees something it likes it buys it... has been doing that for a very long time, though recently western sanctions mean illegal copies are their only option now, but where they can they buy legal licences for production and produce... case in point those Iranian drone.

They don't farm out production of things they can make for themselves like the west does, which means when western or any sanctions hit them they can be endured and components they don't make for themselves can be sourced or made from scratch by local suppliers.

Yes, it's actually a good thing to have a round that has the highest possible probability of destroying your target with the least amount of money spent changing your vehicles to accommodate it. It's called efficiency. Not sure why it eludes you. Then again, if this was a Russian product you'd go on and on about how perfect it was.

Seems it is your thing to go on about Chinese stuff then... Russia already has plenty of anti armour options and will do just fine without this Chinese item.

The design of APFSDS rounds is not just aerodynamics, but material design and metalurgy... things the Russians know quite a bit about... for goodness sake they make cruise missiles with a higher top flight speed than most tank fired APFSDS rounds... their Zircon missile flys at about 3,000m/s... that is 50% faster than their 125mm APFSDS rounds... but they need this Chinese round do they?

The world will end without it.

Fanboy.

Holly shit, it is some kind of joke or something?

Western spies are focussed on western secrets... the US can't control or manipulate western governments if they don't know all their dirty little secrets... they are the centre of the universe and Russia is just a gas station mascarading as a country... what secrets could they possibly have?

To day is same shit as it was in 60-70s by Russians..Their tanks have great frontal protection with less volume (its smaller tanks with less weight) and with ERA they are slightly ahead of protection then modern NATO tanks.

The trick is that they had comparable or better armour protection, yet were 20 tons lighter...

They never relied on one thing to protect their tanks and applied all sorts of things like APS and ERA and composite armour and SHTORA EW equipment and Nakidka, and those thick rubber panels etc etc.

Western spies are focussed on western secrets... the US can't control or manipulate western governments if they don't know all their dirty little secrets... they are the centre of the universe and Russia is just a gas station mascarading as a country... what secrets could they possibly have?

I was addressing the upper part, as I haven't seen it before.
Probably an intellectual masterclass of some of the chimps in my zoo.
The westerners were frauding the reality for decades now, and probably for ages to be precise.
Only tools have changed with time, so the power of influence expanded along with them.
Nobody who has a single clue about armor won't spread this kind of shit, as Soviet supremacy was clear for the last 100 years.
"The secret composition"  holly fukin shit
This kind of rubbish can be only explained by a total lack of clue and being soaked into western propaganda only.

That made my day indeed!

The trick is that they had comparable or better armour protection, yet were 20 tons lighter...

They never relied on one thing to protect their tanks and applied all sorts of things like APS and ERA and composite armour and SHTORA EW equipment and Nakidka, and those thick rubber panels etc etc.

Those rubber panels are actually much more than it seems at first.
Not sure if you are talking about rubber screens now, but all the Soviet tanks had two applications that made them even better protected.
That is the internal lining of the hull and turret made of the special material that was used to eliminate the radiation effect. At the same time, it very much affected the HESH effect. After Raegan called for intensification of the work on neutron weapons, Soviets added one more protection layer, that was a special elastomeric cover applied on the outer surface.

day is same shit as it was in 60-70s by Russians..Their tanks have great frontal protection with less volume (its smaller tanks with less weight) and with ERA they are slightly ahead of protection then modern NATO tanks. wrote:

Russia's advantage is even greater. They already have a new generation tank, the T-14, which is significantly different from previous generations. The Armata tank will make Russia leave the West far behind.

we only can say that now they stuck with T-90M


"Stuck" with a tank that eats alive all the competition, with next gen on the production lines?
Made out of thousands of tanks in storage or already modified, but at a lower cost?
Capable of being produced at dozens rate per month?
Yeah, that is what I would call an understatement...

Why would Russia license an inferior Chinese subcaliber round when the domestic one is a lot more effective and more importantly in serial production? Not only that, the Russians have even more powerful rounds for the T-14 in development, what are they even going to gain from the Chinese?

Svinets-1/2 massively outperforms your Alibaba shells and fits all modern Russian tanks. Your point being?

That is the internal lining of the hull and turret made of the special material that was used to eliminate the radiation effect. At the same time, it very much affected the HESH effect. After Raegan called for intensification of the work on neutron weapons, Soviets added one more protection layer, that was a special elastomeric cover applied on the outer surface.

So the internal layer was anti radiation and anti spall, while the outer layer just added more anti radiation protection.

I always thought at the time the west kept going on about their amazing thermal imagers that they might also reduce the IR signature of the vehicles too with the outside layer.

Garry at this point I'm not sure if you can properly comprehend English. Here's what I said once again:

"Maybe Russia should license the DTC10-125 sabot from China. It outperforms svinets and fits in regular autoloaders..."

You interpreted that as me calling for Russia to panic buy Chinese rounds.

Maybe you are slow on the uptake... Russia already has better rounds and probably new rounds in development that are even better, but more importantly the current rounds they are using are getting the job done... why spend money on things they already have and don't even need?

That is why Russia spends 65 billion a year compared with western countries spending rather more with seemingly less return.

But the key hint here is that they have already taken the time to upgrade their tank mounted autoloaders to allow longer rounds to be used... why then would they licence produce a foreign round that doesn't need such modifications?

Upgrading the autoloaders to take longer ammo is more useful because it offers even further growth potential in the ammo.

This is the first Chinese piece of equipment that I've ever mentioned here, ever. I've been here nearly 10 years. Not sure what's going on with you but your posts in this thread are not in line with reality.

You are correct, despite you sales level marketing for this Chinese round in this thread, but it did make me check your post history and you really are the king of the one line posts. Just going back to before I removed the Quote button you constantly broke the rule on repeating entire conversations for a single comment reply... you are very lucky to still be here.

Until they made serial production for T-14 in large quantities we only can say that now they stuck with T-90M as their best tank and one of the best in world...T-14 for now is to exotic and unfortunately they will not made it right now because of SMO in large numbers.

Yes T-14 is light year ahead of anything west have it right now....

I suspect their heavy divisions will not be the majority of their armoured forces... more like 20-30% will be Armata divisions, meaning their Kurganets and Boomerang divisions with T-14 turrets will be their most widespread tanks... the wheeled Boomerang models being rather cheaper to operate and more mobile in places with good road networks, while the Kurganets models having T-90 like protection with the addition of better APS performance and net centric integration.

...got to agree with Alamo here... Russia is stuck in the best position regarding tanks in terms of production and options.

If you can read, you'll see your questions have been answered already.

Not satisfactory answers that don't make sense.

So the internal layer was anti radiation and anti spall, while the outer layer just added more anti radiation protection.

I always thought at the time the west kept going on about their amazing thermal imagers that they might also reduce the IR signature of the vehicles too with the outside layer.

Internal lining was antiradiation and anti splitter.
External was specialized for antineutron. Added in the 80s in a peak of an arms race, when Raegan was in a glory mode.
An interesting fact is, that only Challenger 2 has a similar layout.

Only the DU svinets outperforms it. If you could read or process information on an adult level you'd know that. Don't think you can do much save for act like a child continuously.

Where to Svinets details come from and which numbers can be trusted and which not?

Different penetrator designs are optimised for different armour structures, which is why the west tends to have longer thinner penetrators, while the Soviets and Russians preferred shorter thicker projectiles.

A Chinese penetrator could be optimised for penetrating Russian or Western tanks... if it is the former then it is rather less useful for Russia to buy...

This Chinese round is intended for export for users of Russian tanks for customers who can't afford or choose not to afford the autoloader upgrades to take longer rounds... a large market, but does not include Russia.

It must be some other chimp from a zoo or a same one?

Maybe we should start with the fact that there are three rounds with the name.
The first one is 3BM46 of late Soviet origins.
It was a 635mm round with 550 mm penetrator with 25:1 elongation, made of DU.
It penetrates about 650mm at 0deg/2000m, and fits each single Soviet tank autoloader.
There is one more round of the early Russian era, called Lekalo - tested in mid 90s and finally ordered in serial.
By the end of August 2020, 2000 rounds were to be delivered to the armed forces under the signed contract.
Lekalo is 3BM44 round with 740mm length and 640 mm long penetrator made to fit both AZ-172 and AZ-184 carousels, at least if Khlopotov knows what he is saying.
And not only he, but it was also stated at multiple exhibitions, as Russkie advertise the round for export to the regular users of T-72s.
Penetration is stated at about the same level as the early Svinets, and the core is made of tungsten.

So we have some catch here. Two rounds of the more or less the same generation, with claimed similar parameters, yet having a whole different dimensions. If you ask me, the clue is less energetic charger suitable to be used in older guns, while with a fully potent charge used for new guns it will vastly outperform the early Svinets, and will be close to 3BM59.
So much, much more than 650mm

The first thing we must realize is that people are mixing different sizes, that s the size of a round and a size of the penetrator itself.
The fact that a carousel can hold and load a 740mm long round does not mean the penetrator is 740 mm. That is a core of most misunderstandings.
On the other hand, it is not the autoloader size that blocks the round size, but a gun chamber parameters. Old guns can't handle the high pressure and temperature of new charges/rounds. It will erode at an increased rate.

Honestly bro, I am not much into Chinese tanks, so hardly can comment on the matter

@Garry, take a look here :



We are talking a standard, 80s layout of up armoring the T-62 that consists of BDD, but what is more important - the elastomeric antineutrinium cover screwed all around.
Couldn't find a better photo of 72s we talked, but it is the same.

At the back of the turret.

We are talking a standard, 80s layout of up armoring the T-62 that consists of BDD, but what is more important - the elastomeric antineutrinium cover screwed all around.
Couldn't find a better photo of 72s we talked, but it is the same.

Yeah, that is the stuff... they also put it on BMPs as well, which obviously makes sense if it is anti radiation.

I remember at the time there was lots of speculation about whether it would improve armour protection... as if it was a kevlar like material but for the outside, but if it acts as an antispall liner then it must be splinter resistent.

The photos I saw it was cut to shape to fill neatly the armour surface of the vehicles around optics and other things like hatches or weapon ports which made me think if it was rubberised then it likely would not heat up like metal does so it would reduce IR signatures as well as anything else it does...

Many of those one line posts were attached to entire conversations and consisted mainly of flamebaiting... but being a bit of a troll I can understand you have pride with such a history.

The forum has not worn me down... relentless idiots on it have probably done some damage though, but that is OK... the future is old age and deterioration for everyone and everything... there is no cure or treatment.