Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[militarysta]

For the other hand - ERA was short-term solution vs APFSDS. Modern non-monoblock penetrator can deal very good against ERA. In Germany both - DM53 and DM63 have comfirmed anty double-ERA efectivness. The same M829A3, and israeli M338. Even simple M829A2 can deal whit older ones (erly Kontalt-5).

France and German tank industry had many test and deals whit Ukrainian industry and the had tested T-80U, T-72B and T-72B model 1989 taken from free Ukraina. The result was rejected DM43 and deveoped DM53 LKEII. On Ukraina result whas rejected ERA working on Kontakt-5 or Relikt mehanism and placed on front T-84 huge modules whit three new ERA cassete -working on many SC mehanism -as only option against modern APFSDS penetrator.

And when I really don't like Andriej Tarasenko, (and IMHO most of hist article about western tanks are bullshit), then in that post about ERA:
Andrei-bt - Ситуация с защитой лобовой проекции танков Т-72/Т-90
he wrote harsh truth about ERA efectivness against modern APFSDS -apart part about mehanism used in modern APFSDS against ERA, becouse new balistic cap is not the only one solution.

 

[hest]

The old discussion. Very incorrect interpretation and for the other part made up figures, what to tell... I will comment about history of development.

 

[Damian]

You will not comment anything Lidsky. Me and Militarysta seen photographs from tests of T-80U turret armor in Germany. This "super armor" barely stopped older penetrator (supposely DM33 or DM43), and DM53 perforated it without a problem. This is a fact that we know, and we do not need a commentary from a fanboy who base his knowledge on some silly official propaganda, not any hard evidence from real ballistic tests.

You should stop even writing here or anywhere else, as you are making from yourself only a silly propagandist, not someone who actually is capable to obtain any real knowledge.

BTW. Don't even ask me to prove this. As neither I was allowed to keep such things, neither I am allowed to talk more about them. And neither I need to discuss this further, as I seen reality, and this is enough for me, so no need to discuss with someones delusion.

 

[hest]

Well, it is good of you to think you can reach understanding, or funny how you pretend to know looking at pictures or generalities (your "interpretation") Really, there are enought like you and I am tired.

You actually cannot tell anything new, but you can reconsider your ideas. Cease with unmature "propaganda or super" talk and adopt a truly corresponding attitude, instead of "little expert" to assume you do not know and learn.
–-----
It realy represents the situation of late Cold War, when only with Dm-53 it was possible to defeat tank deployed in 1985 :thumb:

As I said I will comment later...

 

[Damian]

Well, it is good of you to think you can reach understanding, or funny how you pretend to know looking at pictures or generalities (your "interpretation") Really, there are enought like you and I am tired.

I do not pretend like you to know everything, because I actually have from time to time access to such informations as well as Militarysta. And contrary to you I do not suppose something, I know and this is the difference.

You actually cannot tell anything new, but you can reconsider your ideas. Cease with unmature "propaganda or super" talk and adopt a truly corresponding attitude, instead of "little expert" to assume you do not know and learn.

As I said, contrary to you, I know, and I seen.

It realy represents the situation of late Cold War, when only with Dm-53 it was possible to defeat tank deployed in 1985

Ohohoho a really great result when obsolete ammunition was capable to penetrate T-80U front turret armor protected by Kontakt-5 from a standard distance in which such tests are performed (approx ~2,000m) so only 80mm of that armor left between projectile and crew compartment. This means that M829 would have similiar result, and M829A1 would probably perforate such armor. Not to mention that it is not know what would be result if the round would be fired at typical engagement distance in Germany of approx ~800m.

As I said I will comment later...

No, you will shut up, and go home, to people like you believing in fairy tales.

 

[hest]

"Mr", stop pretending, what you say to me is the opposite, applies to you here. You will not tell me anything new I assure ) But funnier are your interpretations which I comment. You can attempt to find relation to what Militarysta writes and that is what I answer.

Try to follow politely. )

 

[Damian]

Oh laugh, laugh little boy. I am above this, as I said, contrary to you I know and I seen.

Now GTFO, as you do not deserve to be politely treated by me.

 

[hest]

Oh, please. You have not seen neither know anything which you could tell me I assure )) besides the fact that from your generation you are just a computer boy making an argument. Now you only try to convince yourself.

And now I will proceed with topic.

 

[Damian]

Oh, please. You have not seen neither know anything which you could tell me I assure )) besides the fact that from your generation you are just a computer boy making an argument. Now you only try to convince yourself.

Oh, you definetly didn't know that Kontakt-5 have very low efficency even against obsolete NATO 120mm APFSDS ammunition from the second half of 1980's.

Neither you know anything about me, and my or Militarysta contacts.

As for your silly generation argument... well hopefully such "old" pricks and blockheads with old communist mentality, will die sooner or later, which will benefit humanity. :cool2:

And I sincerely hope it will be sooner, or very soon.

And now I will proceed with topic.

No you won't, as noone is interested in a propaganda babble talk from the "good old" soviet times.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

No you won't, as noone is interested in a propaganda babble talk from the "good old" soviet times.

Lidsky M.D can chat with hello_10 quietly between themselves.

 

[Known_Unknown]

We need more Russian members on this forum. Always tough to get members from Eastern Europe due to language issues.

 

[Akim]

@Known_Unknown
Believe, the same specular situation on the Russian forum with foreign respondents, so you should try to keep the «golden mean».

 

[militarysta]

Taking back to the cold war and Soviet Tank protection.

In opinion western inteligens the most danger and powerfull soviet tank was T-80U - FCS, mobility and armour protection was (in some aspects) close the western tanks. For the other hand western APFSDS ammo wasn't hopless against soviet tank -even with ERA.

Those values:
T-80U:
630-490mm RHA vs KE included Kontakt-5 ERA (without: 500-360mm RHA)
T-72B:
540-470mm RHA vs KE
T-72B model 1989 and erly T-90 (Ob.188):
670 -600mm RHA included Kontakt-5 ERA, but due to very poor coverated by ERA casette most turret have still this 470-540mm RAH vs KE.

should be compare with ammo values. And here is funny becouse we have two options:
Western norm taken from instrucktion:
DM33 -P0:600 P2500:490
M829A1 -P0:700 P2500:560
Or for example WITU "estern" norm:
DM33A1 470mm RHA for 2000m (guaranteed) to ~520mm RHA for 2000m (achivable).
M829 540mm RHA for 2000m (G) to ~ ?? (achivable)

In fact western ammk haven't problem against T-72A, T-72M1, T-64A/B, T-80B, T-72B/BW, The only tak slighty beyond that ammo was T-80U whit Kontakt-5 (630-490mm RHA). Produced from 1987. From the other hand -value for turret for 30. degree from the longitiudal axis (490mm RHA) was able to achive by M829, DM33A1, M829A1, and of course DM43.
(Rejected DM43 had about 560mm RHA for 2000m (guaranteed) to ~610mm RHA for 2000m (achivable).)

Russian T-72B model 1989 had basic armour like T-72B (Ob.184) -te only advantage was improved hull protection. ERA turret coverage was far away from perfect (teh sam like on erly T-90):

In fact Kontakt-5 ERA on T-72B model 1989 was not to improve whole armour protection (like in T-80U), but to improve protection only for turret at 30. degree from longitiudal axis. So K-5 was "gap filter" here..
so in fact it's not suprise that western inteligence don't treated T-72B model 1989 as serious threat - like T-80U was.

 

[hest]

According to to the Jefremov T-80U have ~620mm RHA including Kontakt-5 on front of the turret. According to NII Stali page Kontakt-5 adds 130 mm of RHA against APFSDS in general.

So we have 620mm RHA -130mm RHA = 490mm RHA which is for the main armor:
T-80U main armour:

You did not actually read his book, these figures are beyond understanding as they are not even interpreted correctly, let's see...

Leaving apart the fact they are not too much reliable, it is supposed to be medium for frontal arc, so we have 2 times incorrect interpretation.

Of course whole main armour LOS is depend on angle - for 0. degree from longitiudal axis it is 740mm LOS, for 30. degree from longitiudal axis it is only 540mm LOS. And it's make diffrense in armour protection:

Those 740mm LOS for 0. degree is is spread over 490mm RHA vs KE. (lets sey 500mm for some error argin and better counting) and those value is spread over some layers:
-120mm LOS cast steel
-340mm LOS "special armour cavity"
-280mm LOS cast steel .
So we have (for 0 degree.) 400mm LOS cast steel and 340mm LOS special armour cavity.
Cast steel is in mm RHA like 0.85 (example - 1000mm good quality cast steel is like about typical 850mm RHA plate), so we have:
400mm LOS cast steel is like 340mm RHA. so last 340mm LOS special armour cavity is like only 160mm RHA vs KE (500-340mm RHA = 160mm RHA ).

This argument about cast steel was repeated hundreds of times and in deeper discussions, it is easy to make statements but without giving figures it is empty.

So generally we have (in armour protection) for 0. from longitiudal axis:
1. Kontak-5 ( act like 130mm RHA)
2. 120mm cast steel ( act like102mm RHA)
3. 340mm "special armour" (act like 160mm RHA)
4. 280mm cast steel (act like 238mm RHA)
T-80U vs KE for 0. degree:
~500mm RHA main armour + 130mm RHA Kontakt-5 protection.
whole: ~630mm RHA

Leaving the rest, the evaluation of composite armour equivalence is made up and contradictory, well, how to refute something which was made up ?)

But, as I said - it;s for the biggest LOS for 0. degree. For 30. degree situation is diffrent:
1. Kontak-5 ( act like 130mm RHA)
2. 90mm cast steel (act like 76mm RHA)
3. 260mm special armour (act like 122mm RHA)
4. 190mm cast steel (act like 161mm RHA)
T-80U vs KE for 30. degree:
~360mm RHA main armour + 130mm RHA Kontakt-5 protection
whole: 490mm RHA.

And this funny value reflects all the error ))) Nothing really to discuss, it is like T-72A ))

So in fact main turret T-80U armour is depend on angle (degree) for 0. to 30. degree armour LOS is between 740 and 540mm LOS.
Main armour protection is between 500 and 360mm RHA ( for 0. and 30. degree). Whit Kontakt-5 it's give (depend on LOS and angle):
630-490mm RHA vs KE. turret protection for T-80U.

In fact in Cold War models T-72B T-80U/UD were resilient to NATO ammunition even without ERA (M829, Dm-33) both hull and turret, same does not apply to NATO tanks and Soviet ammunition, about that I will write later.

pakistani T-80UD have sligty improved special armour, so whole armour protection will be better so, not 490-630mm RHA but rather ~520-660mm RHA vs KE whit Kontakt-5

Argument made from air ...

the diffrent story is T-72B (Ob.184) and erly T-90 (Ob.188) armour:

Same errors but I will leave for later and post about developement history

For compare:
protection for Leopard2A3 and 2A4 (erly) can be as ~430-480-540mm vs KE and 850-954-1084mm vs HEAT (turret sides at 30. and hull front - turret front at 30. - turret front at 0.)

For Leopard-2A4 since 1986 IMHO it will be slighty bigger:
500-550-630mm vs KE and -1000-1150-1300mm vs CE ((turret sides at 30. and hull front - turret front ad 30. - turret front at 0.)

[/QUOTE]
Oh, funny invention )) in reality it was under under post 1985 apfsds and ce under 120mm warhead of late 80s.

About ERA

 

[hest]

For the other hand - ERA was short-term solution vs APFSDS. Modern non-monoblock penetrator can deal very good against ERA. In Germany both - DM53 and DM63 have comfirmed anty double-ERA efectivness. The same M829A3, and israeli M338. Even simple M829A2 can deal whit older ones (erly Kontalt-5).

France and German tank industry had many test and deals whit Ukrainian industry and the had tested T-80U, T-72B and T-72B model 1989 taken from free Ukraina. The result was rejected DM43 and deveoped DM53 LKEII. On Ukraina result whas rejected ERA working on Kontakt-5 or Relikt mehanism and placed on front T-84 huge modules whit three new ERA cassete -working on many SC mehanism -as only option against modern APFSDS penetrator.

These features you talk about (M829A2, Dm-53), tip, segmented construction were known back during USSR times.

Improved tip which did not cause initiation, this was later implemented in rounds from Dm-43. All problems from numerous tests were gathered and used for developement programme under designation Relikt , which sunny thing is that rounds which exploit Kontakt vulnerability are much opposed to it.

 

[Damian]

In fact in Cold War models T-72B T-80U/UD were resilient to NATO ammunition even without ERA (M829, Dm-33) both hull and turret, same does not apply to NATO tanks and Soviet ammunition, about that I will write later.

During ballistic tests, DM33 penetrated T-80U front turret armor protected by Kontakt-5, leaving only 80mm of armor in front of it. Without Kontakt-5 Soviet tanks like T-80U were completely vurnable to the NATO ammunition of the second half of 1980's.

Some NATO tanks were immune to the Soviet ammunition of that period, some (the older ones) were not.

And you can't provide anything usefull because Soviet Union never tested any modern NATO tank, while NATO to the contrary, tested many variants, also used by Soviet Army exclusively.

Argument made from air ...

Only because idiot from Bellarus who lives in Moscow and believe he is Russian, try's to be more Russian than Russians have different believes, and only believes.

Same errors but I will leave for later and post about developement history

Development history have nothing to do with facts from ballistic tests. Soviet tanks were obtained by NATO, tested, and results are not impressive for Soviet tanks.

Oh, funny invention )) in reality it was under under post 1985 apfsds and ce under 120mm warhead of late 80s.

And what is reality? The "reality" invented in Soviet Union (oh they were masters in inventing so called "reality", or reality from tests, where Leopard 2 armor without any additional protection survived much more capabale types of ammunition than the Soviets had.

As I said, contrary to you, me and Militarysta seen results of such tests, so we do not believe, we know.

And to give a good kick on to our little propagandist Lidsky's balls. Here are scans from official article from one of the official magazines of the Soviet Ground forces with estimated protection of some of more modern NATO tanks.



This article was for most time classified and intended only for use of the higher rank officers. It shows much higher values than mostly cited by propagandists like Lidsky.

And definetly it is far more credible source than some Bellarusian fanboy.

 

[hest]

Oh, you definetly didn't know that Kontakt-5 have very low efficency even against obsolete NATO 120mm APFSDS ammunition from the second half of 1980's.

As said, when tank is inmunne to contemporary rounds in Cold War ( even even if we talk about test where there was no initiation of ERA, and main armour was resilient) and when owhen aim of Dm-53 developement was to defeat armour of 1985, well, you can be proud.

 

[hest]

And to give a good kick on to our little propagandist Lidsky's balls. Here are scans from official article from one of the official magazines of the Soviet Ground forces with estimated protection of some of more modern NATO tanks.



This article was for most time classified and intended only for use of the higher rank officers. It shows much higher values than mostly cited by propagandists like Lidsky.

And definetly it is far more credible source than some Bellarusian fanboy.

Of course, how will someone completely foreign to this will understand what is written...

It is not any official dear)) but work of single author with collection of foreign sources (but you did not even bother) . There are also another estimations written in journal (which you call official, but they are authors) about "weak" protection which you tried to refute... But in reality now tanks of Cold War are known (specifically Leo 2a4 purchase by USSR) and given by organisations, KBP, Nii Stali...

About history it is clear, but does it serve for today ?

 

[Damian]

As said, when tank is inmunne to contemporary rounds in Cold War ( even even if we talk about test where there was no initiation of ERA, and main armour was resilient) and when owhen aim of Dm-53 developement was to defeat armour of 1985, well, you can be proud.

You seems to not understand (this is standard in your case blockhead). So once again. DM33 was capable to penetrate T-80U front turret armor protected by Kontakt-5 to such level, that only 80mm of armor were left. Which means that without Kontakt-5, T-80U was vurnable to DM33 and more capable M829A1 was probably dangerous to it even if Kontakt-5 was installed.

Of course, how will someone completely foreign to this will understand what is written...

Because he learns russian, and knows people who knows russian.

It is not any official dear)) but work of single author with collection of foreign sources (but you did not even bother) . There are also another estimations written in journal (which you call official, but they are authors) about "weak" protection which you tried to refute...

You see, but official documents are allways written by authors, oh wait, people listen, Lidsky thinks that documents are writing theirselfs, or maybe documents are written by gremlins?

But in reality now tanks of Cold War are known (specifically Leo 2a4 purchase by USSR) and given by organisations, KBP, Nii Stali...

Ah, one of these stories like the famous Polish "super agent" who stole M1 in a container from Turkey, despite a fact that no MBT would fit in to container and none M1 at that time was tested in Turkey.

So show us photos, I am sure you would be damn proud to show a stolen Leopard 2 tested in Kubinka. BTW purchased by Soviet Union? From whom? It's enemies?

You are more stupid than i thought.

About history it is clear, but does it serve for today ?

Of course it serve, it shows the lies you and many other people were feed, by this criminal regime.

 

[hest]

You seems to not understand (this is standard in your case blockhead). So once again. DM33 was capable to penetrate T-80U front turret armor protected by Kontakt-5 to such level, that only 80mm of armor were left. Which means that without Kontakt-5, T-80U was vurnable to DM33 and more capable M829A1 was probably dangerous to it even if Kontakt-5 was installed.

You have no understanding about this subject and only got enthusiastic with one picture, little believes he knows ))

When main armour provides protection in anachronistic scenario, without ERA being initiated, and Dm-53 developement was against 1985 armour, it is fail for NATO in Cold War.

Because he learns russian, and knows people who knows russian.

You do not even know what that journal was about))

You see, but official documents are allways written by authors, oh wait, people listen, Lidsky thinks that documents are writing theirselfs, or maybe documents are written by gremlins?

Because I actually know such people and many times they write for self recognition using what they have and their thoughts, and it has nothing to do with research and estimation methodic performed by institute at official level.

For example some authors of that journal (I will show which) used few results of extensive tests which suited them. This article in particular bases estimation method on information from foreign sources (Janes, German...) and it's thought.
----
You know, you will not get far with such questions, but I will just say now that there is nothing misterious in Leopard 2, also you can see entire parts of FCS, sights, 120mm gun and ammunition...

You only want to believe in mistery which does not exist, or attempt something with history and old models, but nothing about today.

Also it is ridicolous and shameful to hear criticism from computer guy which was not even born at that time and has not any idea about what USSR or Cold War was.