Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Dazzler]

Maybe because there is no new fire control system or stabilization?


The only really new element is new sight Sosna-U and commander paronamic sight, nothing else.

Pity, that would be sad for a supposedly modernized version. No FCS in an upgrade, a quick google search brought this up.

T-72B3 Main Battle Tank | Military-Today.com

Andrei is however, is silent..

Модернизированный танк Т-72Б (Т-72Б3 с дополнительными опциями).

 

[militarysta]

Maybe because there is no new fire control system or stabilization?

The only really new element is new sight Sosna-U and commander paronamic sight, nothing else.

Well we shoud know very well this problem --> PT-91 whit Drawa FCS. Mucht better FCS then in T-72M1 without FCS in reality and accuracy in move and in stand the same couse not changed gun, stabilisation mehanism and turret elevation mehanism.
Only in PT-91M accuracy is far better couse change ALL "fire system" :gun, stabilisation, elevation and traverse mehanism, FCS (SAVAN-15) new sights, panoramic sight and other.

 

[Dazzler]

Well we shoud know very well this problem --> PT-91 whit Drawa FCS. Mucht better FCS then in T-72M1 without FCS in reality and accuracy in move and in stand the same couse not changed gun, stabilisation mehanism and turret elevation mehanism.
Only in PT-91M accuracy is far better couse change ALL "fire system" :gun, stabilisation, elevation and traverse mehanism, FCS (SAVAN-15) new sights, panoramic sight and other.

Seems like Russians never learn, i fail to understand the purpose of an upgrade without changing basic elements, stabilization and FCS, well, t-72 never really had an FCS, not in early versions till B atleast, still no FCS in a supposedly new upgrade. Also, it is not worthwhile to integrate a panoramic sight without having a proper fire control system.

Compared to it, the t-80UA and UE-1 upgrades have covered much area, while UA is an eleborate upgrade of t-80U, the t-80UE-1, a t-82B hull with a t-80U turret and other improvements to FCS etc.

 

[CCP]

And again Poland - "fresh" crews after basic trening and their first in life shooting.


anybody can compare whit chineese Type-96A "accuracy"...

1. 1600m -1800m (both moving and fixed) vs 1000m (fixed?)

2. Type 96 had total 92.8% (26/28）accuracy at this game ( fixed 100%, moving 90% ) at 1600m ,1700m and 1800m distance. (the missed two are moving positions at 1800m)
Russia had total 60% accuracy at the game.

3. It would to fair to said

anybody can compare whit chineese Type-96A "accuracy"...

only if both tanks tested at same time and place or battle field. ( I hope Poland can send their teams and tanks to the next game)

4. You should proud for your home made tanks but not German or American one.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

As far as i know from personal experience this is no different from T-72M1 accuracy at similar ranges, T-90 has slightly better ..

 

[CCP]

1. this is not fixed position

2.the base is 342X 237 not 137

 

[militarysta]

As far as i know from personal experience this is no different from T-72M1 accuracy at similar ranges, T-90 has slightly better ..

And it's nothing strange looking at stand (fixed) posiiton - in sucht case more is depend on gun and ammo then FCS as whole and stabilisation.
BTW: in the same shooting Indian crew perform extremly good:

 

[CCP]

notice the speed of Type-96 when it is shooting and T-72's

Type 96 got all the targets.

 

[313230]

Used on M1 Abrams 120mm ammo tested on Leopard-2:

This is wrong, if that square is 1 meter, then the group is >0.5m horizontal. 0.5m/1000m = 0.0005, arcsin(0.0005) = 0.02865 degree = 0.5 mils = 1.71 MOA

 

[CCP]

and "brillant" Type-96 hull protection:

More or less - Type-96 is primitive and weak armoured tank. Hull armour is in BEST case only 440mm (maybe 150mm) thick, mostly RHA plates.
Turret is better protected, but still - no expecting mirracle here.

This tank is not protected even on T-72B model 1989 level. Rather something between T-72M1 in hull thema and T-72B in turret (in best case)...

the feedback from battlefield

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-army/53509-russian-tank-biathlon-4.html post #52

 

[militarysta]

1. 1600m -1800m (both moving and fixed) vs 1000m (fixed?)

Yes, in those picture whit polish "tank target" we have example hit's target by moving circa 35-40km/h Leopard-2A4 from distance 1600-1800m. And it's possible to compare accuracy between shoots...

2. Type 96 had total 92.8% (26/28）accuracy at this game ( fixed 100%, moving 90% ) at 1600m ,1700m and 1800m distance. (the missed two are moving positions at 1800m)
Russia had total 60% accuracy at the game.

Greate, but ammo and gum disprension on 1600-1800m sucks.

 

[CCP]

Yes, in those picture whit polish "tank target" we have example hit's target by moving circa 35-40km/h Leopard-2A4 from distance 1600-1800m. And it's possible to compare accuracy between shoots...

LOL, how can you proof that?

Greate, but ammo and gum disprension on 1600-1800m sucks.

well, those "not suck ones" are so scared to compete at a same place and time.

 

[militarysta]

the feedback from battlefield

And we don't know axatly in what circumstances those T-72AV was destroyed. African wars are not really relevant -those T-72AV coud be abondend, not funcional, etc. Or just crew where poor trainded and blind, and Type-96 was shooting from sides, etc.


Anyway - protection of the Type-96 sucks. Hull is less protected then in T-72M1, turret is something between T-80B and T-72B. But turret protection is no way better then in T-72B.
And upgrade to Type-96A shows all flaws in orginall Type-96. Even hull front was seriously uparmoured and FCS was significant change - whit copied rusian TKN commander sight and others.

 

[militarysta]

LOL, how can you proof that?

Proof what?
Abilities to hit sucht target by leo-2A4 moving 35km'h from 1600-1800m?
or what?

well, those "not suck ones" are so scared to compete at a same place and time.

Well Russia invaited Ukraina and captured Crimea and start to make "hybrid war" in estern Ukraina, ALL NATO countres cancelled they present on Tank Biathlon.

 

[CCP]

And we don't know axatly in what circumstances those T-72AV was destroyed. African wars are not really relevant -those T-72AV coud be abondend, not funcional, etc. Or just crew where poor trainded and blind, and Type-96 was shooting from sides, etc.

Then, what can make the small hole on the right front?

 

[CCP]

Proof what?
Abilities to hit sucht target by leo-2A4 moving 35km'h from 1600-1800m?
or what?

prove the target in your pic is hitted by a leo at "moving 35km'h from 1600-1800m".

Well Russia invaited Ukraina and captured Crimea and start to make "hybrid war" in estern Ukraina, ALL NATO countres cancelled they present on Tank Biathlon.

Hope we can see those " not suck ones" next year at the game.

 

[militarysta]

Then, what can make the small hole on the right front?

where on such low quality photo you have "small hole"?!

 

[CCP]

whit copied rusian TKN commander sight and others.

any proof ?

 

[CCP]

where on such low quality photo you have "small hole"?!

check your eyes.

 

[militarysta]

prove the target in your pic is hitted by a leo at "moving 35km'h from 1600-1800m".

It's simple:
http://www.rzi.hg.pl/pliki/wozy_bojowe.pdf
here you have polish MoD minimum standards for combat shooting.
on page 86 you have part about leopard-2A4 shooting.

This type tank target (tank front "type.60") is used on shooting during tank moving in olny two cases:

first one - shooting nr.2 for leopard-2A4 tank:

87
Rys. 7.6.1.1. Szkic strzelania szkolnego nr 1
7.6.1.2. Strzelanie szkolne
Nr 2 – strzelanie w ruchu (shooting during moving)
Cele:
nr 1 – czoÅ‚g (figura bojowa nr 60) ukazujÄ…cy siÄ™ dwa razy po 30 sekund z przerwÄ… 10 sekund;
nr 2 – ppk z obsÅ‚ugÄ…(figura bojowa nr 35) ukazujÄ…ca siÄ™ 45 sekund, cel pokazuje siÄ™ po upÅ‚ywie 15 sekund od trafie-nia lub ukrycia siÄ™ celu nr 1;
nr 3 – biegnÄ…cy (figura bojowa nr 40), ukazujÄ…cy siÄ™ dwa razy po 30 sekund z przerwÄ… 15 sekund, cel ukazuje siÄ™ po upÅ‚ywie 20 sekund od trafienia
lub ukrycia celu nr 2.

Odległość: (distance)
do celu;
nr 1 – 1600 - 1800 m;
nr 2 – 800 – 900 m;
nr 3 – 900 – 1000 m.

Liczba nabojów: (nr rounds)
do celu;
nr 1 – 2 x 120 mm; (1-2 120mm trening)

second one:
shooting nr 4 for Leopard-2A4 tank, while shooting on target "tank" is doing using "faliture" mode turret whithout using whole FCS - only using emergency FCS:

7.6.1.4. Strzelanie szkolne Nr 4 – strzelanie różnymi sposobami w różnych trybach i reżimach pracy SKO

Cele:
nr 1 – czoÅ‚g (figura bojowa nr 60) ukazujÄ…cy siÄ™ na 30 sekund;
nr 2 – transporter opancerzony (figura bojowa nr 50) ukazu-jÄ…cy siÄ™ na 35 sekund, cel ukazuje siÄ™ po 10 sekundach od trafienia lub ukrycia siÄ™ celu nr 1;
nr 3 – biegnÄ… cy (figura bojowa nr 40) ukazujÄ…ca siÄ™ na 30 sekund, cel ukazuje siÄ™ po 15 sekundach od trafienia lub ukrycia celu nr 2;
nr 4 – granatnik ciężki (figura bojowa nr 36) ukazujÄ…cy siÄ™ na 30 sekund, cel ukazuje siÄ™ po 15 sekundach od trafienia lub ukrycia celu nr 3.


Odległość: (distnance)
do celu:
nr 1 – 1400-1600 m;
nr 2 – 1600 – 1800 m;
nr 3 – 800 – 1000 m;
nr 4 – 800 – 900 m.

And result is visible: