Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[hest]

Ok I will start by parts.

Comparison, modernised T-72B from 2011 (T-72BA) and Leopard 2A4.

Modernised T-72B features new FCS based on developement of Rogatka-1 upgrade programme, featuring modern elements, ballistic calculator, account of variables, etc, common with FCS Kalina, featuring advanced sight Sosna-U of OAO Peleng:

Multichannel Sosna-U features a modern second genreation thermal sight, full stabilisation, laser range finder, automatic target tracking system allowing among possibilities, automatic engagement of targets by guided missile.

Leopard 2A4 has a capable FCS with good sights, panoramic commander's sight PERI with thermal channel.

Panoramic sight PERI was aqquired and tested by USSR in 1990 and served for modern Soviet developements.

Howewer, Leopard 2A4 FCS, based on 80s element base, it's components (ballistic computer, processing, etc) are not in level of modern systems in terms of performance.

Leopard's thermal sights are also on outdated level, first generation thermals have significantly lower image resolution (and contrast), therefore it's ability to aquire targets in night or bad weather conditions is worse and more limited in comparison with modern tanks, and with T-72B with Sosna-U.

 

[Damian]

Modernised T-72B features new FCS based on developement of Rogatka-1 upgrade programme, featuring modern elements, ballistic calculator, account of variables, etc, common with FCS Kalina, featuring advanced sight Sosna-U of OAO Peleng:

1A40-1 is hardly new FCS, just old one with upgrades.

You accused other people for advertisement, but the only person manipulating here is You.

Leopard 2A4 has a capable FCS with good sights, panoramic commander's sight PERI with thermal channel.

Another lack of knowledge from Your side. PERI in Leopard 2 from variants A0/A1 to A4 do not have thermal channel.

Panoramic sight PERI was aqquired and tested by USSR in 1990 and served for modern Soviet developements.

This definetly not shows optoelectronics industry in Soviet Union in good light. Especially that they were basing on rather simple device.

Howewer, Leopard 2A4 FCS, based on 80s element base, it's components (ballistic computer, processing, etc) are not in level of modern systems in terms of performance.

Oh really, and how is that, do You have any hard data? Maybe You used both tanks FCS and compared it on firing range?

Leopard's thermal sights are also on outdated level, first generation thermals have significantly lower image resolution (and contrast), therefore it's ability to aquire targets in night or bad weather conditions is worse and more limited in comparison with modern tanks, and with T-72B with Sosna-U.

This is truth, but does not make T-72BA in variant with Sosna-U sight a better tank, as You like to... advertise it.

 

[hest]

Firepower comparison:

T-72B received modernisation, for use of modern rounds Svinets-1 and Svinets-2. It features a new gun 2A46-M5 with improved accuracy, supporting higher pressure of new rounds, modernised autoloader allowing use of rounds with increased penetrator lenght comparable to DM-63 Leopard round in dimensions.

Gun 2A46-M5 common with T-90:

Modernised autoloader for T-72BA:

(You can see article)

For new rounds Svinets-1 (DU) and Svinets-2 (Tungsten) was developed new higher efficiency propellant giving more pressure and higher performance.

It is known fact that potential of gun is proportional to pressure, quadratic product of caliber and lenght.
Having that in account, analogue in characteristics to DM-63 (penetrator dimensions and assuming similar pressure) Svinets-2 due to 2A46-M5 gun increased caliber (125mm) and lenght (6m) will achieve an increase in performance as high as...20% over round DM-63 fired from old RH L/44 gun of Leopard 2A4. In case of use of Svinets-1 it will be even higher (DU).

T-72BA also due to FCS (and automatic tracking system) is able to fire guided rounds with ranges up to 5km. In Leopard 2 this ability is not present.

 

[Damian]

T-72BA also due to FCS (and automatic tracking system) is able to fire guided rounds with ranges up to 5km.

Not automatic tracking system, but semi-automatic tracking system... nice manipulation.

Here translated part.

http://translate.google.pl/translat...od.ru/ALL_OUT/TiVOut0809/T-72BA/T-72BA004.htm



Besides this You advertise useless ability to fire guided rounds only to 5 km's and only in LOS mode. In Europe 90% of combat ranges is well below ~1,500-2,000m, there is no need for outdated technology. BLOS guided munitions with range from ~8,000m to ~10,000+ m are future, far more usefull.

Leopard 2 can be retroffited with LAHAT GLATGM.

Photo from testes.

On the other hand I'am very curious, why all the suddent we have here advertisement action for T-72BA, anyone have some ideas?

 

[Bhadra]

Depends on used ammunition.

The FFV751 tandem-warhead HEAT round with an ability to penetrate more than 500mm of armour, while PG-7VR can penetrate 600mm of RHA behind ERA, and 750mm RHA without ERA protection.

Make Your own conclusion.

There is a vast difference between the ranges of the two and also the fact that Carl Gustav is a versatile multi ammunition weapon..

 

[Damian]

There is a vast difference between the ranges of the two and also the fact that Calr Gustav is a versatile multi ammunition weapon..

There are also many variants of munitions for RPG-7, like HE OG-7, Thermobaric TBG-7 etc.

 

[militarysta]

Here lies big manipulation. You obviously did not wanted to represent big weak zone around EMES sight armour gap, because it would not play in favour, so you compared it with old T-72B without having in account Kontakt-V ERA. You want comparison with T-72BA, but when time comes, you just avoid it.

Buahahah

Again, and slowly:

1) Area behind EMES-15 mirrors have 650mm LOS - yes? Thickness part with EMES-15 sight gap is the same like on left turret part - 840mm LOS without EMES-15 gap, yes? It's rather obiovus, I have even photos Leopard-2A4 armour with mesurmend on it.

2) in your mind it's big weak zone around EMES sight armour gap becouse what? Becouse armour behind EMEs-15 mirrors have "only" 650mm LOS?

3) If only argument is LOS thicknes and it's "small" value -650mm how about general LOS thickness in soviet tanks in lat 1980.?
T-80U:

In T-80U it is for 0.740mm but for 30. it's only 540mm (maybe up to 600mm in some parts - I doubt).

T-72B:

It T-72B it is for 0. - 600mm to 750mm LOS and for 30. 600 and 660mm LOS.

4. How to hell 650mm LOS behind EMES-15 gap is "big weak zone" when in T-72B LOS is between 600mm LOS (what is lower value then area behind EMES in Leopard-2A4) and 750mm. What is the most funny - LOS for 30. from the longitudinal axis of the turret is in T-80U 540mm (maybe to 600mm) and in T-72B is between 600 and 600mm. In Leopard 2 this value is 660mm in thinest part protected by special armour for 30. from the longitudinal axis of the turret.
What is the bigger value? 660mm in Leopard-2A4 or 540-600mm in T-80U, or 600-660mm in T-72B? Hmmm?
Would You be so kind and asnewer about that, very simple, question?

What is bigger value 650-660mm or 600-660mm

1- Between them there is big difference in protection with mounting of Kontakt-V universal ERA.

if You are writing about two T-72BA - Indeed - T-72BA whit Kontak-1 are better protected against single SC warhead then tanks with Kontakt-5 - for reason better coveredges by ERA. Tanks with Kontak-5 have very leaking / inaccurate coverage by ERA. And both Chechenia war show it painfully - T-72B with Kontakt-1 was better protected then T-72B(M) with Kontakt-5.
But if You are talking about Kontak-5 vs APFSDS munition. Well now, when the standard is up to 600mm in NATO counries (for APFSDS) protection level offer by Kontakt-5 is to low.

In Fact T-72B with Kontakt-5 is no better armoured then leopard-2A4.

Yes, armour cavity is on technological level of past decades and same applies to Leopard 2A4.

But protection level ofered by leopard-2A4 is higer then in Ob.184 (T-72B). T-72B armour array was described many times. And turret armour in Ob.184 (without ERA) have protection:
vs APFSDS:
470-540mm RHA
vs HEAT:
530-600mm RHA

In Leopard-2A4 - as I posted already - for erly Leopard-2A3/A4 it was:
vs.APFSDS
480-550mm RHA
vs.HEAT*
670-770mm RHA

and in Leopard-2A4 since 1986 it was about:
560-630mm RHA
vs.HEAT*
780-880mm RHA

(*values for HEAT are the lowest as it's possible - for other estimatous ( a different method of calculation) it's look near 850-1054mm vs HEAT)

When we consider Leopard-2A3 (or very erly leopard-2A4) protection against APFSDS is simmilar, but against HEAT is mucht better for Leopard-2.

And coveradges by ERA is not briliant in T-72B and clones:

3- Yes, here we are discussing current T-72B modernised for which contract was signed on march 2011 for more than 300 tanks in next 3 years. Now about 50-100 tanks have been modernised. Was it hard to understand from beggining ?

LOL, yes we shoudn't count this all ~300-350 T-72BA in Russian Army service becouse even for You it's obvious that thiose tanks are bellow 25 yers old Leopard-2A4 level. So You offer is not to count them - but only takes future Т-72БА2, and of course you event don't mind that till now only 80 tanks have Sosna-U.

 

[Damian]

There is also one more problem with Soviet tanks. The front hull protection.

Let's compare on some examples.

T-80 is a good example, I have a cutdrawing showing the glacis plate internal structure.



As we can see there are 4 layers of armor, from which only two layers are composite armor. Design did not change signficantly over the years, but yes it was improved however. This is another example of a fact that too much pursut on small size and weight of vehicle is not nececary a good idea, when it is sacrificing protection.

To compare.



Look at hull, much more space is used for composite armor.

As a support similiar drawing from Russian source.


(Take a note that hull side armor representation is inaccurate, armor is thinner than in reality)

As for Glacis plate, it is ~50mm thick armor plate angled at 8 degrees from horizontal, this means it is allmost flat and... let's use armor calculator shall we?

Relative armour thickness calculator

Let's type 50mm and 8 degrees, what is the result? ~359.264826716386 which means that glacis plate hit from the front will represent a ~359mm thick armor plate.

What is more important, glacis plate is very small target.



As we can see glacis plate of M1 and Leopard 2 is a very small target, difficult to hit.

I think that hull armor calculations for Leopard 2 can be provided by Militarysta.

But as we can see, where composite armor is palced, western tanks have significant advantage, while their weaker glacis plate is very small target, extremely inclined.

What is more important, even Soviet designers seemed to agree with that, let's take a look on Object 187, isn't it very similiar when it comes to hull front protection to the western 3rd generation MBT's?

 

[militarysta]

Firepower comparison:

1) Why arfe You so shy, and don't wrote about 2Э42-2 «Жасмин»? Firepower is directly dependent on the accuracy - and this is depends on stabilization mechanisms. Values are known for 2Э42-2 «Жасмин» and for WNA-H22 are known:
T-72BA 2Э42-4 «Жасмин»
X axis - 0,6
Y axis - 0,4

Leopad-2A4 WNA
X axis - 0,3-0,4
Y axis - 0,15-0,2

Do You understand? Modernisated 2Э42-4 in 2010 have whorse values (twice worse...) then "old" WNA-H22 from Leopard-2A4.

Even for this one reson (two times more accurate stabilization mechanisms in Leopard-2 then in T-72BA) accuracy will be bigger in Leopard-2 then in T-72BA...

In fact accuracy in T-72Ba will be ----ed up like in polish PT-91 when FCS Drawa was placed but nobody changes stabilization mechanisms And the result was better FCS which did not affect of the accuracy becouse stabilization mechanisms was not enough accurate and can't use beter dates from new FCS.

2) FCS in both tanks:
What have "new" FCS in T-72BA and didn't have FCS from Leopard-2? In Leopard-2A4 FCS RPP-1-8 have all this function (but 25 yers elyier...)
All from that:

Установка этого комплекса повышает эффективность стрельбы за счет поправок на следующие параметры:
- боковую составляющую ветра;
- температуру воздуха;
- атмосферное давление;
- износ канала ствола;
- относительную скорость перемещения цели;
- учета индивидуальных углов вылета и баллистики всех типов и индексов снарядов.

Have RPP-1-8 -of course without some details.

But T-72BA havent one very important modern FCS component - where is panoramic commander's sight : wide, moving 360 degrees, stabilized?
In fact T-72BA is not able to fighting whit Hunter-Killer mod, what now is absolutely a key determinant of tanks FCS. In fact the comander in T-72BA is just blind if he dosn't use hatches becouse he havn't panoramic commander's sight. And he can forgot about Hunter-Killer mode.
And this is modern FCS and better then RPP-1-8? Poor joke.

T-72BA also due to FCS is able to fire guided rounds with ranges up to 5km.

And what? It's not useful in typical Europe terrain. Maybe on some flat desert in Asia. But not in Poland, Belarus, Germany, etc.
In Germany max. fire range is 2000m.
In Poland 96% direct fire range is 1500m
Thats reson why is lack of GLATGM's in western tanks. It's just stupid when max fire range is 2000m!
Using this all Cobra, Swir and other in Soviet tanks was an attempt to ensure guite good accuracy during moving - becouse whole stabilization mechanisms in soviet tanks not allwed to accuracy fire beyond 1000-1200m during moved.
(btw: penetration level this all Kobra and Swir in under armour protection vs HEAT provided by Leopard-2 armour. )

It is known fact that potential of gun is proportional to pressure, quadratic product of caliber and lenght.

And this is dum as shit sentenses becouse L-44 in M1A2 Abrams using DU M829A3 have better perforations value then most (or even all...) longer guns using other APFSDS round. How You will explain this? Mirracle?

modernised autoloader allowing use of rounds with increased penetrator lenght comparable to DM-63 Leopard round in dimensions.

It's not comparable.
whole 740mm lengt mean shorter penetrator - under 700mm (accoding to otvaga.2000 forum members). As I remember Frontanov had wrote about 680mm penetrator lenght.

Older DM-42 have ~670mm penetrator lenght whit whole 691mm lenght Dm63 is longer


ps. about autoloader:
Бронетехника из Нижнего Тагила 12
Ghur Khan post (the last) - so only since 2011 T-72Ba will be have longer casette in autoloader

 

[hest]

Not automatic tracking system, but semi-automatic tracking system... nice manipulation.

Here translated part.

TBumacz Google

This relates to earlier modernisation, not to new with Sosna-U. Limited capability of understanding.

Leopard 2 can be retroffited with LAHAT GLATGM.

T-72A also can :thumb:.
We are discussing what there is, not what could be. Leopard FCS cannot guide missile, it needs modifications, Israeli system, and so far it does not existnin practice.

On the other hand I'am very curious, why all the suddent we have here advertisement action for T-72BA, anyone have some ideas?

I am not the one who started discussion by putting down Russian tank force with made up combat value, and being emotional and trying to prove that old Leopard is so much better than T-72B.

 

[Damian]

This relates to earlier modernisation, not to new with Sosna-U. Limited capability of understanding.

The only person with limited capability of understainding is You. And no teenager will be accusing me of limited capability of understanding. You have a luck we are not discussing this in personall, I would slap You in a face long time ago.

Not to mention that it is written black on white that there is only semi-auto tracker.

What do You want to prove more? That You are simple lier?

T-72A also can .
We are discussing what there is, not what could be. Leopard FCS cannot guide missile, it needs modifications, Israeli system, and so far it does not existnin practice.

I think You still do not understand. GLATGM's like LAHAT are usefull in all conditions, classic Soviet GLATGM's are usefull only in flat terrain with good visibility. They are obsolete type of ammunition.

I am not the one who started discussion by putting down Russian tank force with made up combat value, and being emotional and trying to prove that old Leopard is so much better than T-72B.

Oh, so here we have a reason, You are just butthurt with this silly pseudo patriotism of Yours. It is even more amusing, You are claiming that You are Bellarusssian, but You are defending Russian armed forces... what is this? Another butthurt and inferiority complex about fall of soviet union?

And yes, Leopard 2 is much better than T-72B, this is a fact, not accepted only by stupid fanboys, unable to agree with reality.

And You know why I react in such way? Because I hate idiots, this is why, now go away and stop wasting our time. You can try advertise Your beloved toy in sandbox with Your buddies from school.

 

[hest]

1) Why arfe You so shy, and don't wrote about 2Э42-2 «Жасмин»? Firepower is directly dependent on the accuracy - and this is depends on stabilization mechanisms. Values are known for 2Э42-2 «Жасмин» and for WNA-H22 are known:
T-72BA 2Э42-4 «Жасмин»
X axis - 0,6
Y axis - 0,4

Leopad-2A4 WNA
X axis - 0,3-0,4
Y axis - 0,15-0,2

Do You understand? Modernisated 2Э42-4 in 2010 have whorse values (twice worse...) then "old" WNA-H22 from Leopard-2A4.

Even for this one reson (two times more accurate stabilization mechanisms in Leopard-2 then in T-72BA) accuracy will be bigger in Leopard-2 then in T-72BA...

In fact accuracy in T-72Ba will be ----ed up like in polish PT-91 when FCS Drawa was placed but nobody changes stabilization mechanisms And the result was better FCS which did not affect of the accuracy becouse stabilization mechanisms was not enough accurate and can't use beter dates from new FCS.

Жасмин is stabilisator of T-72B. In fact there are different in operation (T-90). I did not write because of two issues
- It is not known if that is the model used on current modernisation, or something newer.
- From this alone it cannot be deduced something will be more accurate. FCS of modernised T-72B is more modern ballistic computer and processes more variables than that of Leopard which is based on 80s element base. Also very important thing, T-72B has a newer and more accurate gun which gives less dispersion to projectiles (of course you do not have all these facts in account and much older 120mm gun, and made of very specific aspect a general and wrong conclusion).

2) FCS in both tanks:
What have "new" FCS in T-72BA and didn't have FCS from Leopard-2? In Leopard-2A4 FCS RPP-1-8 have all this function (but 25 yers elyier...)
All from that:

Have RPP-1-8 -of course without some details.

Exactly, but T-72BA computer and etc is of modern element base while in Leopard it is now outdated.
And as you showed, T-72BA FCS gives more detailed and accurate calculations.

So on this aspect T-72BA modernisation is better, but that was obvious thing, that modernisation will be better than something belonging to past decades.

But T-72BA havent one very important modern FCS component - where is panoramic commander's sight : wide, moving 360 degrees, stabilized?
In fact T-72BA is not able to fighting whit Hunter-Killer mod, what now is absolutely a key determinant of tanks FCS. In fact the comander in T-72BA is just blind if he dosn't use hatches becouse he havn't panoramic commander's sight. And he can forgot about Hunter-Killer mode.
And this is modern FCS and better then RPP-1-8? Poor joke.

Ha ha, I want to see this "Killer" in bad weather or at night with outdated thermal sight of low resolution.
Ability to perform in all weather and day-night operations is a very important aspect. T-72BA is capable in day and night with modern sight Sosna-U, Leopard with outdated first generation sight is well behind of modern level.

Leopard 2A4 is good only on day, but in day all tanks with FCS are good even those with no thermal sights.

And what? It's not useful in typical Europe terrain. Maybe on some flat desert in Asia. But not in Poland, Belarus, Germany, etc.
In Germany max. fire range is 2000m.
In Poland 96% direct fire range is 1500m
Thats reson why is lack of GLATGM's in western tanks. It's just stupid when max fire range is 2000m!
Using this all Cobra, Swir and other in Soviet tanks was an attempt to ensure guite good accuracy during moving - becouse whole stabilization mechanisms in soviet tanks not allwed to accuracy fire beyond 1000-1200m during moved.
(btw: penetration level this all Kobra and Swir in under armour protection vs HEAT provided by Leopard-2 armour. )

This is only your childish theory. You have no understanding of combat manouvers, tactical possibilities as stated by Soviet army. Besides, do not expect anyone to believe your inventions and focus instead on technical comparison.

Yes, Leopard has no such ability, so it is behind in another aspect.

And this is dum as shit sentenses becouse L-44 in M1A2 Abrams using DU M829A3 have better perforations value then most (or even all...) longer guns using other APFSDS round. How You will explain this? Mirracle?

First, there is gun potential. Second, you want to believe me this bullshit with no explanation ??

Is it lie that RH L/44 was seen as outdated by Germans and they replaced it ? Leopard 2A4 with outdated gun falls behind of tanks with modern 2A46-M5 gun.

It's not comparable.
whole 740mm lengt mean shorter penetrator - under 700mm (accoding to otvaga.2000 forum members). As I remember Frontanov had wrote about 680mm penetrator lenght.

Older DM-42 have ~670mm penetrator lenght whit whole 691mm lenght Dm63 is longer

Ha ha, again, you read Russian forum with translator and believe you understand perfectly ? Because what you said is not correct.

Old autoloader was limited to 680mm lenght max. Modernised autoloader holds longer rounds with lenght as DM-63. For example T-72-120mm can hold DM-63 round in autoloader. Svinets are analogues to DM-63, but with higher pressure, caliber and gun lenght they will give 20% higher performance, similar or more than DM-63 from L/55. For DU Svinets it is even better.

ps. about autoloader:
Бронетехника из Нижнего Тагила 12
Ghur Khan post (the last) - so only since 2011 T-72Ba will be have longer casette in autoloader

And that is what I was comparing all this time. Don't know where you was.

Modernised autoloader, T-90A and T-72 2011 modernisation (more than 300 tanks). Also T-72B2 upgrade going on.

 

[Damian]

Жасмин is stabilisator of T-72B. In fact there are different in operation (T-90). I did not write because of two issues
- It is not known if that is the model used on current modernisation, or something newer.
- From this alone it cannot be deduced something will be more accurate. FCS of modernised T-72B is more modern ballistic computer and processes more variables than that of Leopard which is based on 80s element base. Also very important thing, T-72B has a newer and more accurate gun which gives less dispersion to projectiles (of course you do not have all these facts in account and much older 120mm gun, and made of very specific aspect a general and wrong conclusion).

How do You know that Leopard 2 FCS calculate less variables? Because it is from 1980's?

I ask once again, did You used both tanks on firing range? Did You made proper tests? Do You have complete documentation for both tanks and their components?

No? So shut up.

Exactly, but T-72BA computer and etc is of modern element base while in Leopard it is now outdated.
And as you showed, T-72BA FCS gives more detailed and accurate calculations.

So on this aspect T-72BA modernisation is better, but that was obvious thing, that modernisation will be better than something belonging to past decades.

What?!

Maybe read what Militarysta wrote once more. It seems that You live in your fantasy so deep, that You are unable to understand what other people say to You.

Ha ha, I want to see this "Killer" in bad weather or at night with outdated thermal sight of low resolution.
Ability to perform in all weather and day-night operations is a very important aspect. T-72BA is capable in day and night with modern sight Sosna-U, Leopard with outdated first generation sight is well behind of modern level.

Leopard 2A4 is good only on day, but in day all tanks with FCS are good even those with no thermal sights.

As above, did You used both tanks on firing range to make such conclusions? This is simple question, simple answer should not be a problem... not for sentient form of life... but we are not nececary discussing with such form of life...

This is only your childish theory. You have no understanding of combat manouvers, tactical possibilities as stated by Soviet army. Besides, do not expect anyone to believe your inventions and focus instead on technical comparison.

Yes, Leopard has no such ability, so it is behind in another aspect.

And can You understand that we give no shit for what Soviet Army invented? Soviet Army was not infallible, neither had better understanding on how to fight than other armies.

It is obvious that You are biased!

First, there is gun potential. Second, you want to believe me this bullshit with no explanation ??

You think that we belive in Your bullshit? Or that Your bullshit is better than other bullshit?

Militarysta is providing sources, Methos in other topic (http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/land-forces/39363-tank-guns-ammunition-6.html) explained You, why, how and what... You obviously do not accept this because You are biased, and because of this idiotic psuedo "soviet-ish" patriotism You can accept that others were capable to do things better. Simple as that.

Is it lie that RH L/44 was seen as outdated by Germans and they replaced it ? Leopard 2A4 with outdated gun falls behind of tanks with modern 2A46-M5 gun.

It is a lie that gun was seen as outdated. Longer gun was only part of modernization, to achieve demanded penetration levels of new ammunition. In the same times Americans designing different ammunition were able to achieve similiar penetration levels, but still using the same gun.

Older DM-42 have ~670mm penetrator lenght whit whole 691mm lenght Dm63 is longer

The best thing, is that DM-42 is a non existing ammunition.

I wan't 2x more weed than You smoke, sometimes such fantasies are funny it seems.

Ha ha, again, you read Russian forum with translator and believe you understand perfectly ? Because what you said is not correct.

Understanding is good enough.

I can laugh from You, because it seems that You need translator to understand english.

Old autoloader was limited to 680mm lenght max. Modernised autoloader holds longer rounds with lenght as DM-63. For example T-72-120mm can hold DM-63 round in autoloader. Svinets are analogues to DM-63, but with higher pressure, caliber and gun lenght they will give 20% higher performance, similar or more than DM-63 from L/55. For DU Svinets it is even better.

T-72-120 was only proposition with autoloader based on French technology. It was one of many attempts to incorporate in to T-xx design, safe ammunition storage.

As for Svinets-1 and Svinets-2, it is interesting that You are claiming something, without any source, without any data.

What is this, You really belive that we belive a little propagandist?

 

[hest]

The only person with limited capability of understainding is You. And no teenager will be accusing me of limited capability of understanding. You have a luck we are not discussing this in personall, I would slap You in a face long time ago.

Not to mention that it is written black on white that there is only semi-auto tracker.

What do You want to prove more? That You are simple lier?

You again prove you are not able to understand that it may have no relation and make stupid comments. May I do the search for you and show you characteristic to definitely stop your nosense ?

I think You still do not understand. GLATGM's like LAHAT are usefull in all conditions, classic Soviet GLATGM's are usefull only in flat terrain with good visibility. They are obsolete type of ammunition.

You did not even know what LAHAT is judging by your comment. Do not expect ,e to believe you after all exoerience with stupid comments and ignorance.

Oh, so here we have a reason, You are just butthurt with this silly pseudo patriotism of Yours. It is even more amusing, You are claiming that You are Bellarusssian, but You are defending Russian armed forces... what is this? Another butthurt and inferiority complex about fall of soviet union?

And yes, Leopard 2 is much better than T-72B, this is a fact, not accepted only by stupid fanboys, unable to agree with reality.

And You know why I react in such way? Because I hate idiots, this is why, now go away and stop wasting our time. You can try advertise Your beloved toy in sandbox with Your buddies from school.

In fact my home country was USSR. I live and work in Moscow and I personally do not see why there should be any difference or problems. But you little pole will not be capable to understand.

With such inmature comments I now doubt if you are a grown up person. So I will no longer spend time replying to such.

 

[Bhadra]

There are also many variants of munitions for RPG-7, like HE OG-7, Thermobaric TBG-7 etc.

OK thanks but very less range.. for certain munitions Carl Gustav can fire upto and beyong 1000m, has HE is DA and airburst, has smoke and illuminating .....

Can be used as squad / platoon weapon very effectively....

RPG is only like a CQB weapon..

 

[hest]

Correction: On my post, with T-72-120 I meant T-72 with M-395 120mm gun, it's atutoloader, same as modernised in T-72BA and T-90A, holds DM-63 rounds. I did not meant Ukrainian upgrade with bustle autoloader.

 

[Damian]

You again prove you are not able to understand that it may have no relation and make stupid comments. May I do the search for you and show you characteristic to definitely stop your nosense ?

No, this is You that have no ability to comprehend anything that is different than Your own way of thinking.

You did not even know what LAHAT is judging by your comment. Do not expect ,e to believe you after all exoerience with stupid comments and ignorance.

It seems that You do not know what LAHAT is.

LAHAT was designed as GLATGM with limited BLOS capability and top attack capability. It can be guided by own firing platform, other platform or a recce party with proper guidance device.

This means that firing platform do not need to have contact with enemy, do not need to place itself in a danger of being hit by enemy.

This means that it can be fired from behind obstacles and guided by 3rd party. Thus it is far more usefull than outdated LOS GLATGM's. Simple as that.

Add to this range.

LAHAT - ~8,000m
9M119 - ~5,000m.

LAHAT is clearly superior, and with top attack mode it does not need huge calliber, because it is attacking vehicle where it's armor is weakest.

In fact my home country was USSR. I live and work in Moscow and I personally do not see why there should be any difference or problems. But you little pole will not be capable to understand.

USSR was abomination, a tragedy to Russians, Ukrainians, Bellarussian and many other nations. Only someone stupid or sick can feel something positive to a state, that was a tool to murder milions of people.

With such inmature comments I now doubt if you are a grown up person. Perhaps you should stop with your inmature emotions and get a decent behaviour.

Immature? Look at Your own posts, tons of BS, spread because we have here a Soviet Union lover, who still sees "evil imperialists from NATO â„¢" and who is unable to accept simple facts.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

LAHAT is clearly superior, and with top attack mode it does not need huge calliber, because it is attacking vehicle where it's armor is weakest.

Adding to this Indian CLGM based on Lahat is more lethal with bigger Warhead..

But at reduced range, from 8 to 5kms..

LAHAT was designed as GLATGM with limited BLOS capability and top attack capability. It can be guided by own firing platform, other platform or a recce party with proper guidance device.

UAV which further increase capability of CLGM / GLATGM

 

[Damian]

Adding to this Indian CLGM based on Lahat is more lethal with bigger Warhead..

Of course. If CLGM will be a success, then India will gain important asset in it's armament.

This is obvious for most armies that within LOS engagement ranges, classic ammunition is cheaper and just better in cost effectiveness relation. While for longer engagement ranges, only BLOS guided munitions have future.

Wasting money, time and other resources on LOS guided munitions is just pointless.

And there is other pointless waste of resources. GLATGM's and ATGM's are reaching their limits of size and weight to successfully penetrate frontal armor of modern MBT's. Why waste so much and not be certain with expensive guided munitions penetration capabilities?

BLOS guided munitions with top attack mode are just better solution.

In this NATO (USA), Israel, even India through cooperation with Israel, have much greater experience.

South Korea also want to use BLOS munitions, but in for of a subprojectiles with EFP warheads, interesting concept I must say.

However none of modern armies plans to use LOS guided munitions, why to, if there are better solutions.

@Kunal, reduced range of CLGM might come from bigger weight, maybe a better engine could be a solution.

 

[hest]

I continue:

T-72B during modernisation, was not just simple refurbishement, but it adopted elements common with T-90A

T-72B (tracks) before and after modernisation:

Detailed in article

So after modernisation it receives properties in level of modern tanks, since it features recent developements.

Leopard 2A4 in current service has not received any upgrade, no more than repairs, therefore in technical level it is behind T-72BA, and also in worse condition due to advanced age.

In protection, Leopard 2A4 has notable weak zone due to EMES sight placement. Germans tried to solve the problem by changing it's position in Leopard 2A5-A6 versions, also insufficient for modern times frontal protection was improved, among other ways, with addition of NERA wedges in turret and increased protection in front hull and top (on some versions).

Modernised T-72BA stays with protection level of T-72B model 1989 with Kontakt-V ERA. On it's time it was protected against all available weapons, howewer now it is outdated level and vulnerable. T-72B also features top protection with ERA elements, unlike Leopard 2A4, howewer, neither of those tanks has decent protection against today's threats, So saying that one is better than the other, is not correct, and anyway, would have no relevance today.