Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

Hello. Can somebody help me with finding information about Challenger 2 bottom frontal armor panel? I find more info where it is said that Challenger 2 has very small thickness of armor - smthk nearby 100mm with out Chobham. is it true? I will very glad to see any documents, pictures or layouts

sorry for my English. I can make mistakes, because this is not my native language:wacko: chalenger-2_9.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Karamazov said:

Hello. Can somebody help me with finding information about Challenger 2 bottom frontal armor panel? I find more info where it is said that Challenger 2 has very small thickness of armor - smthk nearby 100mm with out Chobham. is it true? I will very glad to see any documents, pictures or layouts

sorry for my English. I can make mistakes, because this is not my native language:wacko:

 

Ed5JzTj4TIo.jpg

 

You can see the armor thickness in the photo above. This is the Challenger 2 tank located at the Bovington Tank Museum.

 

52 minutes ago, Waffentrager said:

 

I dont see where 430 comes from for the turret block. The 360 estimate was closer. Mitsubishi Heavies Industries and the Self-Defense Force rate the 2's turret protection at 380KE, and Hull at 300KE. Numbers shared when comparing armour values of the two countries.

 

U1cVhQd.png

 

 

 

Does it specify how the armor protection was measured? I.e. what type of ammunition was used to establish the protection level? Is this the minimum/average/maximum protection along the frontal arc or when direclty hit at the front? Is the value "50%" related to this (e.g. is this the protection achieved on 50% of the tank's surface)?

 

The Swedish documents suggest that the Leopard 2 with the original armor package has at least 300 mm steel equivalent protection vs KE at ~63% of its surface, at least 340 mm steel equivalent protection vs KE at 50% and at least 400 mm steel equivalent protection vs KE at 20% of the surface. The Japanese data seems to confirm this, but there still should be some places with at least 400 mm vs KE.

 



qNOwNaJ.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Waffentrager said:

 

I dont see where 430 comes from for the turret block. The 360 estimate was closer. Mitsubishi Heavies Industries and the Self-Defense Force rate the 2's turret protection at 380KE, and Hull at 300KE. Numbers shared when comparing armour values of the two countries.

 

U1cVhQd.png

 

 

 

Sure but it's not consist whit values from Lindstorm and FMV:

Leopard 2A0-A4 ( till 1988) for +/- 30. from longitiudal axis:

20% front area more then 400mm RHA

30% front area circa 380mm RHA

ca 50% 300-350mm RHA

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should be just a 76mm steel plate. It didnt need protection according to the Brits (which makes sense) so they just made it strong enough to carry the weight of things like dozers and mine plows. Theres also a driver's manual I've seen a long while ago that shows it, but I dont have it anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

 

Does it specify how the armor protection was measured? I.e. what type of ammunition was used to establish the protection level?

 

Japan uses JM33 as the standard to compare. However it seems in this case they used the DM33 number given by Germany to compare its protection against Japanese armour (in files full context). Since DM33 is the lacking of the two, this seems to work out in this case. As Mitsubishi even clarified under the numbers the protection level was “pitiful”.

 

15 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

Is this the minimum/average/maximum protection along the frontal arc or when direclty hit at the front? Is the value "50%" related to this (e.g. is this the protection achieved on 50% of the tank's surface)?

 

Without disclosing the the full document yes. That’s the layout (the thicknesses at least). However in context this page is using existing standards to compare NATO and Japans prototype defense to the Type90. I excluded the maxmimum protection of the tank as that’s not a public figure and cannot be disclosed.

 

Unless the diagram edited means the maximum protection, its incorrect. The majority general front is 380. The maximum protection is not the presumed edited figure. It’s a bit off in fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Andrei_bt said:

 

any link? Will be funny to look )

yDVErMHC1Sw.jpg

plrM6jzb7fQ.jpg

 

something nearby true from latest swedish tank tender's report. but I think you saw it. It is necessary to clarify which M1 model

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Waffentrager said:

 

I dont see where 430 comes from for the turret block. The 360 estimate was closer. Mitsubishi Heavies Industries and the Self-Defense Force rate the 2's turret protection at 380KE, and Hull at 300KE. Numbers shared when comparing armour values of the two countries.

 

U1cVhQd.png

 

 

Waffentrager YOU FAKE BULLSXXT and FXXK OFF

110648oys6w2zbs3i65s8r.png

In case you guys here cannot read Japanese:

It says "Height of lens assembly is about 380 mm"

May be taken from a manual of digital camera or sth. else. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Waffentrager said:

Without disclosing the the full document yes. That’s the layout (the thicknesses at least). However in context this page is using existing standards to compare NATO and Japans prototype defense to the Type90. I excluded the maxmimum protection of the tank as that’s not a public figure and cannot be disclosed.

 

Unless the diagram edited means the maximum protection, its incorrect. The majority general front is 380. The maximum protection is not the presumed edited figure. It’s a bit off in fact.

 

3 hours ago, Waffentrager said:

 

 Do you have the full page? It seems the given snap was not what it was said to be..

 

So which one is it, do you have the full document or not?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Bronezhilet said:

 

 

So which one is it, do you have the full document or not?

 

 

Mitsubishi has a few collections of the TK-X project from the Type90 to planned Type10 projection. This snipbit wasnt with the ones I have, but was found online. It's clear the style is from the same source. Just the one posting seems to have used similar numbers of armour to their advantage and tried censoring the rest to prevent reading in-context, or just failed to get what it said. It's clear at least one more is around that's public. Just not about the protection but built in tech instead. It'd be very welcomed. Especially when they seem to love comparing it to the T-90. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Monochromelody said:

Waffentrager YOU FAKE BULLSXXT and FXXK OFF

110648oys6w2zbs3i65s8r.png

In case you guys here cannot read Japanese:

It says "Height of lens assembly is about 380 mm"

May be taken from a manual of digital camera or sth. else.

Considering this was posted by someone new, I had it checked with a translator I know. And yes, this is about cameras, not tanks.

 

Also you can say bullshit and fuck on this forum, welcome to the club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Bronezhilet said:

Considering this was posted by someone new, I had it checked with a translator I know. And yes, this is about cameras, not tanks.

 

 

Aye, did some digging, this is the chart's header. The original piece specifically labels it as the tanks sighting comparison. Lists 3 alternate options and which was better fit. Just the normal dont trust what you find online at face value. Just coincidentally has identical numbers mentioned about armour elsewhere.

 

MI2pE8N.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Waffentrager said:

 

Japan uses JM33 as the standard to compare. However it seems in this case they used the DM33 number given by Germany to compare its protection against Japanese armour (in files full context). Since DM33 is the lacking of the two, this seems to work out in this case. As Mitsubishi even clarified under the numbers the protection level was “pitiful”.

 

 

Without disclosing the the full document yes. That’s the layout (the thicknesses at least). However in context this page is using existing standards to compare NATO and Japans prototype defense to the Type90. I excluded the maxmimum protection of the tank as that’s not a public figure and cannot be disclosed.

 

Unless the diagram edited means the maximum protection, its incorrect. The majority general front is 380. The maximum protection is not the presumed edited figure. It’s a bit off in fact.

 

So we don't really know if these values are actually representing the Leopard 2's turret armor or are from some other file (camera instruction manual)?

 

If these protection values would be representing the actual Leopard 2 and if these were actually based on tests with the 120 mm DM33/JM33 ammunition, then it most likely would mean that the Leopard 2 would reach a (slightly) higher protection level against older types of APFSDS ammunition. The 120 mm DM33 APFSDS was specifically optimized to defeat multi-layered armor, against which older designs of APFSDS were found to be rather insufficient. According to a patent from Rheinmetall, a special tip design developed in the mid-1980s allows to increase the penetration against multi-layered armor, specifically such armor designs with "bouncy"/elastically mounted steel plates. The NERA arrays used on the Leopard 2 could be described as such armor - the German text speaks of "komplizierten Mehrschichtpanzerungen" ("complicated multi-layered armor arrays") and "federnd aufgehängten Panzerplatten" ("resiliently mounted armor plates"). The moving metal plate(s) of a NERA sandwich can be described as "Federblech" or "Beulblech" in German, with the armor of the Leopard 2 being called "Beulblechpanzerung" (bulging-plates armor) and "Lamellenpanzerung" (the latter term is used by the Austrian Bundesheer).

 

BWMti0D.png13_53.jpg

Japanese_APFSDS.jpg



9E8VT5h.png

D0aRI9Z.png

 

According to conservative estimations during the development of this new tip design, the penetration performance of the APFSDS ammunition could be increased by more than 10% against certain special armor arrays. So a measured protection value of 380 mm RHAe - if this reflected the Leopard 2's claimed protection against the 120 mm DM33 APFSDS - could very well be 400-440 mm steel-eqivalent protection against older rounds such as 120 mm DM23, Zakolka, Vant, Mango, etc.

 

However I don't think it is very likely, that the 120 mm DM33 ammunition was used for the data delivered to Japan. The 120 mm DM33 entered service in 1987 with the West-German Bundeswehr, which would be the last stage of the Type 90 development. I suppose the performance data of the Leopard 2 tank was requested before spending several million USD (or an equivalent sum of Yen) on the development of a new tank. Do you know when the data for the Leopard 2 was requested by Japan?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

 

So we don't really know if these values are actually representing the Leopard 2's turret armor or are from some other file (camera instruction manual)?

 

 

 

It's clear the text hidden has nothing to do with armour. Blatant out of context shot taking numbers similar to armour and censoring the text.

 

8 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

 

However I don't think it is very likely, that the 120 mm DM33 ammunition was used for the data delivered to Japan. The 120 mm DM33 entered service in 1987 with the West-German Bundeswehr, which would be the last stage of the Type 90 development. I suppose the performance data of the Leopard 2 tank was requested before spending several million USD (or an equivalent sum of Yen) on the development of a new tank. Do you know when the data for the Leopard 2 was requested by Japan?

 

 

The use of the Rheinmetall gun choice for the Type90's development didnt happen untiil 1988, after the first trial tanks were built. It was a late swap from their own 120 to using a cheaper Rheinmetall. Likely right after was their own round based on the DM33 was conducted leading to the introduction of the tank.

 

I don't know when. Japan does bring up the topic of western comparisons, and even including numbers matching that of the western contemporaries. It would either be clear intel sharing - or just random accurate presumptions. But based on the data they mention on the T-90 project, it seems it could be either or. 

 

guoGSH0.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13.03.2018 at 5:52 PM, Waffentrager said:

 

I dont see where 430 comes from for the turret block. The 360 estimate was closer. Mitsubishi Heavies Industries and the Self-Defense Force rate the 2's turret protection at 380KE, and Hull at 300KE. Numbers shared when comparing armour values of the two countries.

 

U1cVhQd.png

 

 

You are unlucky - in Wroclaw city where I live there is big LG corp factory whit many Korean Managers. And preatty close there is TAKATA and Toyota big factories.

Funny I know people who know both - Korean and Japaneese language. And I had ask them about this whit kindly ask for translate.

It cost me a lunch. 

 

And it's not about tank but indeed lenses. 

 

You are fucked in the ass misarable piece of shit who misinforms peoples here. Honestly - go to fuck yourself, and as many as it's possible dicks in to ass of you, your family and dog or other pet you have.

GTFO!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Militarysta said:

You are fucked in the ass misarable piece of shit who misinforms peoples here. Honestly - go to fuck yourself, and as many as it's possible dicks in to ass of you, your family and dog or other pet you have.

 

GTFO!!!

ZL4GX.gif
sry it was too tempting...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Belesarius said:

Why don't you tell us how you really feel? :P

 

Well - I did jump to conclusions without doing the proper looking into before sharing what's found online just because at first glance it matches with other material. So albeit harsh words, I did sort of earn the needed-backlash. :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • By Collimatrix
      Sturgeon's House started with a community of people who played tank games.  At the time, most of us were playing World of Tanks, but I think there were a few Warthunder and even Steel Beasts players mixed in there too.  After nearly five years, we must be doing something right because we're still here, and because we've somehow picked up a number of members who work with, or have worked with tanks in real life.

      I know that @AssaultPlazma served as an Abrams loader, @Merc 321 and @Meplat have helped maintain and restore privately-owned armor, and @Xlucine has volunteered in a tank museum.  I'm sure I'm missing several more!

      So, what are your favorite personal tank stories?
    • By N-L-M
      Restricted: for Operating Thetan Eyes Only

      By order of Her Gracious and Serene Majesty Queen Diane Feinstein the VIII

      The Dianetic People’s Republic of California

      Anno Domini 2250

      SUBJ: RFP for new battle tank

      1.      Background.
      As part of the War of 2248 against the Perfidious Cascadians, great deficiencies were discovered in the Heavy tank DF-1. As detailed in report [REDACTED], the DF-1 was quite simply no match for the advanced weaponry developed in secret by the Cascadian entity. Likewise, the DF-1 has fared poorly in the fighting against the heretical Mormonhideen, who have developed many improvised weapons capable of defeating the armor on this vehicle, as detailed in report [REDACTED]. The Extended War on the Eastern Front has stalled for want of sufficient survivable firepower to push back the Mormon menace beyond the Colorado River south of the Vegas Crater.
      The design team responsible for the abject failure that was the DF-1 have been liquidated, which however has not solved the deficiencies of the existing vehicle in service. Therefore, a new vehicle is required, to meet the requirements of the People’s Auditory Forces to keep the dream of our lord and prophet alive.


       
      Over the past decade, the following threats have presented themselves:

      A.      The Cascadian M-2239 “Norman” MBT and M-8 light tank

      Despite being approximately the same size, these 2 vehicles seem to share no common components, not even the primary armament! Curiously, it appears that the lone 120mm SPG specimen recovered shares design features with the M-8, despite being made out of steel and not aluminum like the light tank. (based on captured specimens from the battle of Crater Lake, detailed in report [REDACTED]).
      Both tanks are armed with high velocity guns.

      B.      The Cascadian BGM-1A/1B/1C/1D ATGM

      Fitted on a limited number of tank destroyers, several attack helicopters, and (to an extent) man-portable, this missile system is the primary Cascadian anti-armor weapon other than their armored forces. Intelligence suggests that a SACLOS version (BGM-1C) is in LRIP, with rumors of a beam-riding version (BGM-1D) being developed.

      Both warheads penetrate approximately 6 cone diameters.

      C.      Deseret tandem ATR-4 series
      Inspired by the Soviet 60/105mm tandem warhead system from the late 80s, the Mormon nation has manufactured a family of 2”/4” tandem HEAT warheads, launched from expendable short-range tube launchers, dedicated AT RRs, and even used as the payload of the JS-1 MCLOS vehicle/man-portable ATGM.
      Both warheads penetrate approximately 5 cone diameters.

      D.      Cascadian HEDP 90mm rocket
      While not a particularly impressive AT weapon, being of only middling diameter and a single shaped charge, the sheer proliferation of this device has rendered it a major threat to tanks, as well as lighter vehicles. This weapon is available in large numbers in Cascadian infantry squads as “pocket artillery”, and there are reports of captured stocks being used by the Mormonhideen.
      Warhead penetrates approximately 4 cone diameters.

      E.      Deseret 40mm AC/ Cascadian 35mm AC
      These autocannon share broadly similar AP performance, and are considered a likely threat for the foreseeable future, on Deseret armored cars, Cascadian tank destroyers, and likely also future IFVs.

      F.      IEDs

      In light of the known resistance of tanks to standard 10kg anti-tank mines, both the Perfidious Cascadians and the Mormonhideen have taken to burying larger anti-tank A2AD weaponry. The Cascadians have doubled up some mines, and the Mormons have regularly buried AT mines 3, 4, and even 5 deep.

      2.      General guidelines:

      A.      Solicitation outline:
      In light of the differing requirements for the 2 theaters of war in which the new vehicle is expected to operate, proposals in the form of a field-replaceable A-kit/B-kit solution will be accepted.

      B.      Requirements definitions:
      The requirements in each field are given in 3 levels- Threshold, Objective, and Ideal.
      Threshold is the minimum requirement to be met; failure to reach this standard may greatly disadvantage any proposal.

      Objective is the threshold to be aspired to; it reflects the desires of the People’s Auditory Forces Armored Branch, which would prefer to see all of them met. At least 70% must be met, with bonus points for any more beyond that.

      Ideal specifications are the maximum of which the armored forces dare not even dream. Bonus points will be given to any design meeting or exceeding these specifications.

      C.      All proposals must accommodate the average 1.7m high Californian recruit.

      D.      The order of priorities for the DPRC is as follows:

      a.      Vehicle recoverability.

      b.      Continued fightability.

      c.       Crew survival.

      E.      Permissible weights:

      a.      No individual field-level removable or installable component may exceed 5 tons.

      b.      Despite the best efforts of the Agriculture Command, Californian recruits cannot be expected to lift weights in excess of 25 kg at any time.

      c.       Total vehicle weight must remain within MLC 120 all-up for transport.

      F.      Overall dimensions:

      a.      Length- essentially unrestricted.

      b.      Width- 4m transport width.

                                                                    i.     No more than 4 components requiring a crane may be removed to meet this requirement.

                                                                   ii.     Any removed components must be stowable on top of the vehicle.

      c.       Height- The vehicle must not exceed 3.5m in height overall.

      G.     Technology available:

      a.      Armor:
      The following armor materials are in full production and available for use. Use of a non-standard armor material requires permission from a SEA ORG judge.
      Structural materials:

                                                                    i.     RHA/CHA

      Basic steel armor, 250 BHN. The reference for all weapon penetration figures, good impact properties, fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 150mm (RHA) or 300mm (CHA).
      Density- 7.8 g/cm^3.

                                                                   ii.     Aluminum 5083

      More expensive to work with than RHA per weight, middling impact properties, low thermal limits. Excellent stiffness.

       Fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 100mm.
      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1 vs CE, 0.9 vs KE.
      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.33 vs CE, 0.3 vs KE.
      Density- 2.7 g/cm^3 (approx. 1/3 of steel).

      For structural integrity, the following guidelines are recommended:

      For light vehicles (less than 40 tons), not less than 25mm RHA/45mm Aluminum base structure

      For heavy vehicles (70 tons and above), not less than 45mm RHA/80mm Aluminum base structure.
      Intermediate values for intermediate vehicles may be chosen as seen fit.
      Non-structural passive materials:

                                                                  iii.     HHA

      Steel, approximately 500 BHN through-hardened. Approximately twice as effective as RHA against KE and HEAT on a per-weight basis. Not weldable, middling shock properties. Available in thicknesses up to 25mm.
      Density- 7.8g/cm^3.

                                                                  iv.     Glass textolite

      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 2.2 vs CE, 1.64 vs KE.

      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.52 vs CE, 0.39 vs KE.
      Density- 1.85 g/cm^3 (approximately ¼ of steel).
      Non-structural.

                                                                   v.     Fused silica

      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 3.5 vs CE, 1 vs KE.

      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 1 vs CE, 0.28 vs KE.
      Density-2.2g/cm^3 (approximately 1/3.5 of steel).
      Non-structural, requires confinement (being in a metal box) to work.

                                                                  vi.     Fuel

      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1.3 vs CE, 1 vs KE.

      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.14 vs CE, 0.1 vs KE.

      Density-0.82g/cm^3.

                                                                vii.     Assorted stowage/systems

      Mass efficiency vs RHA- 1 vs CE, 0.8 vs KE.

                                                               viii.     Spaced armor

      Requires a face of at least 25mm LOS vs CE, and at least 50mm LOS vs KE.

      Reduces penetration by a factor of 1.1 vs CE or 1.05 vs KE for every 10 cm air gap.
      Spaced armor rules only apply after any standoff surplus to the requirements of a reactive cassette.

      Reactive armor materials:

                                                                  ix.     ERA-light

      A sandwich of 3mm/3mm/3mm steel-explodium-steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.

      Must be spaced at least 3 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).

                                                                   x.     ERA-heavy

      A sandwich of 15mm steel/3mm explodium/9mm steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 3 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).

                                                                  xi.     NERA-light

      A sandwich of 6mm steel/6mm rubber/ 6mm steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 1 sandwich thickness away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 95% coverage.

                                                                 xii.     NERA-heavy

      A sandwich of 30mm steel/6m rubber/18mm steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 1 sandwich thickness away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 95% coverage.

      The details of how to calculate armor effectiveness will be detailed in Appendix 1.

      b.      Firepower

                                                                    i.     2A46 equivalent tech- pressure limits, semi-combustible cases, recoil mechanisms and so on are at an equivalent level to that of the USSR in the year 1960.

                                                                   ii.     Limited APFSDS (L:D 15:1)- Spindle sabots or bourelleted sabots, see for example the Soviet BM-20 100mm APFSDS.

                                                                  iii.     Limited tungsten (no more than 100g per shot)

                                                                  iv.     Californian shaped charge technology- 5 CD penetration for high-pressure resistant HEAT, 6 CD for low pressure/ precision formed HEAT.

                                                                   v.     The general issue GPMG for the People’s Auditory Forces is the PKM. The standard HMG is the DShK.

      c.       Mobility

                                                                    i.     Engines tech level:

      1.      MB 838 (830 HP)

      2.      AVDS-1790-5A (908 HP)

      3.      Kharkov 5TD (600 HP)

                                                                   ii.     Power density should be based on the above engines. Dimensions are available online, pay attention to cooling of 1 and 3 (water cooled).

                                                                  iii.     Power output broadly scales with volume, as does weight. Trying to extract more power from the same size may come at the cost of reliability (and in the case of the 5TD, it isn’t all that reliable in the first place).

                                                                  iv.     There is nothing inherently wrong with opposed piston or 2-stroke engines if done right.

      d.      Electronics

                                                                    i.     LRFs- unavailable

                                                                   ii.     Thermals-unavailable

                                                                  iii.     I^2- limited

      3.      Operational Requirements.

      The requirements are detailed in the appended spreadsheet.

      4.      Submission protocols.

      Submission protocols and methods will be established in a follow-on post, nearer to the relevant time.
       
      Appendix 1- armor calculation
      Appendix 2- operational requirements
       
      Good luck, and may Hubbard guide your way to enlightenment!
    • By Collimatrix
      Shortly after Jeeps_Guns_Tanks started his substantial foray into documenting the development and variants of the M4, I joked on teamspeak with Wargaming's The_Warhawk that the next thing he ought to do was a similar post on the T-72.
       
      Haha.  I joke.  I am funny man.
       
      The production history of the T-72 is enormously complicated.  Tens of thousands were produced; it is probably the fourth most produced tank ever after the T-54/55, T-34 and M4 sherman.
       
      For being such an ubiquitous vehicle, it's frustrating to find information in English-language sources on the T-72.  Part of this is residual bad information from the Cold War era when all NATO had to go on were blurry photos from May Day parades:
       

       
      As with Soviet aircraft, NATO could only assign designations to obviously externally different versions of the vehicle.  However, they were not necessarily aware of internal changes, nor were they aware which changes were post-production modifications and which ones were new factory variants of the vehicle.  The NATO designations do not, therefore, necessarily line up with the Soviet designations.  Between different models of T-72 there are large differences in armor protection and fire control systems.  This is why anyone arguing T-72 vs. X has completely missed the point; you need to specify which variant of T-72.  There are large differences between them!
       
      Another issue, and one which remains contentious to this day, is the relation between the T-64, T-72 and T-80 in the Soviet Army lineup.  This article helps explain the political wrangling which led to the logistically bizarre situation of three very similar tanks being in frontline service simultaneously, but the article is extremely biased as it comes from a high-ranking member of the Ural plant that designed and built the T-72.  Soviet tank experts still disagree on this; read this if you have some popcorn handy.  Talking points from the Kharkov side seem to be that T-64 was a more refined, advanced design and that T-72 was cheap filler, while Ural fans tend to hold that T-64 was an unreliable mechanical prima donna and T-72 a mechanically sound, mass-producible design.
       
      So, if anyone would like to help make sense of this vehicle, feel free to post away.  I am particularly interested in:
       
      -What armor arrays the different T-72 variants use.  Diagrams, dates of introduction, and whether the array is factory-produced or a field upgrade of existing armor are pertinent questions.
       
      -Details of the fire control system.  One of the Kharkov talking points is that for most of the time in service, T-64 had a more advanced fire control system than contemporary T-72 variants.  Is this true?  What were the various fire control systems in the T-64 and T-72, and what were there dates of introduction?  I am particularly curious when Soviet tanks got gun-follows-sight FCS.
       
      -Export variants and variants produced outside the Soviet Union.  How do they stack up?  Exactly what variant(s) of T-72 were the Iraqis using in 1991?

      -WTF is up with the T-72's transmission?  How does it steer and why is its reverse speed so pathetically low?
       
       
    • By Proyas
      Hi guys,
       
      I recently read about upgrade packages to old tanks like the M-60 and T-55, but kept seeing comments from people saying they would still be obsolete. Is this because the M-60 and T-55 are made entirely of steel (and not composite) armor?  
       
      I have this theory that thick steel armor is probably totally obsolete, and is just dead weight in the age of lighter weight composite armor. You can bolt on upgrades to an M-60 or T-55, but you're still hamstrung by the fact that either tank will be carrying around tons of useless steel. Am I right? 
       
      Also, if we wanted to upgrade old tanks like that, wouldn't the best idea be to develop a new turret--with lighter, modern composite armor and better technology inside--and just drop it into the old tanks? The hulls would still be made of heavy steel, but that could be helped a bit by adding applique armor. 
       
      Here are some of the upgrades I read about: 
       
      https://youtu.be/NG89Zh9qQrQ
       
      http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product1907.html
×
×
  • Create New...