Flavettes

Member
  • Content count

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About Flavettes

  • Rank
    Aircraftman
  1. That's the problem. It isn't the best! T-55A might have better mobility compared to the T-62, but not by much. The T-62 is only heavier by 1 ton. Yeah, it has APHE, but having only APFSDS wouldn't matter if they did something about the post-pen fragmentation modelling and increased the fire rate for T-62 and decreased it for the T-55 by a bit. T-62 has a better stabilizer that turns 1 °/s faster, and better gun depression by 1 degree. The vertical guidance speed is the same for both tanks. Plus they had to get an APFSDS from 1978 for the T-55A just so that it has APFSDS, and 3BM25 is worse than 3BM3 for the T-62, and 3BM3 is from 1961! It's just stupid. The T-55 does not deserve to be higher up than the T-62.
  2. The round that is most important to us right now is 105mm DM23. Did the range personnel tell you that the DM23 was in fact the 105mm version of DM23, or was it 120mm DM23? That is the crucial part. Was only 105mm DM23 used, or was 120mm DM23 used also? Which ones penetrated, and which ones didn't? Where? The burden of proof is on you to legitimize your claim that: "During the firing tests against T-72M1,(with an max. armour thickness of 440mm at the turret checks) the DM23 proved to be sufficent...nah, lets say "Ok". Penetrating the turret front at the thickest point from 1000m away. Which is impressive, but still 1000m is awfully close ;-)" So was it 120mm DM23 or 105mm DM23 that did this? Of course you aim at center mass - that was not what I was trying to say. I was trying to say that if turret and UFP are totally different creatures, then it is very difficult to create a specific figure where you have some confidence that your shot will be "effective" at a certain range. Take the Chieftain for example. The turret is very tough, but the front of the hull is paper thin. A statistical analysis of firing trials would be weighed up by the thinness of the hull, so the "effective range" that they come up with may be 2 km, because the hull can be penetrated at 3 km and the turret can be penetrated at 1 km. Assuming that your chances of hitting the turret and hull is 50-50. Does this mean that if you open fire at the "effective range", you have a 50-50 chance of penetrating and not penetrating? This is a gross simplification, but you get the idea. In reality, the distribution of shots landing on the tank is not 50-50, and that should also have some weight in the overall calculation. In WW2 the majority of hits on tanks were sustained on the hull, but the 1973 Arab-Israeli war showed that the majority of hits in modern tank battles were sustained on the turret and not the hull. No doubt that gunners on all sides were taught to aim at center mass, but real life shows that the shot distribution is not 50-50 for turret and hull. How do you quantify this into "effective range"? When your shot is more likely to hit the tough turret of the T-72M1 at 1 km (hypothetically) and not penetrate, even though it can penetrate the UFP at 1 km (hypothetically), how do you adjust? Your "effective range" should be shorter, so that both the turret and UFP can hopefully be penetrated. Is that the case here? You claim that 105mm DM23 can penetrate the thickest part of the T-72M1 from 1 km, and we know for a fact that the UFP is significantly weaker than the thickest part of the turret, so a hit ANYWHERE on the tank will probably penetrate, and therefore the "effective range" should be >1 km... but it isn't. In the end: the "effective range" figure is not useful. The primary usage of HEAT may have been different back in the day. I do not know. I am not an expert on the Bundeswehr.
  3. I hope that you have something concrete to base your claims on. It seems that you are as involved in conjecture as the rest of us, even though you apparently visited the remnants of the live-fire tests at Meppen. By the way, the story goes that all T-72M1 tanks tested in Meppen were later turned into scrap and melted, so I have some doubts about your story. If it is true that you saw the leftovers of the shooting test some years after it happened, how can you differentiate the holes made by 120mm DM23 and 105mm DM23? Also, DM33 (105) and DM53 (120) were thrown at the tanks as well, so finding out who, what, where, when and why is not a simple task. No conclusions can be drawn from the "effective range" told to Leo 1 gunners, because the protection afforded by the turret and UFP of the T-72M1 is not the same, and ammunition is not the same all the time as well. Is the "effective range" applicable for HEAT? Or just KE? And what specific model of KE round is this "effective range" based on? You must tell us these things. We must also take into consideration the fact that not all T-72s are equal. T-72M1 is widely considered to be the equivalent of T-72A, but this is not true in many ways. East-German T-72M1 was the so-called Object 172M-1-E5. This was a T-72M with a T-72A turret, which means that the old 80+105+20 UFP array is retained, even though the T-72A had already changed to the better 60+105+50 array in 1979. So it's clear that T-72M1 is not the same as T-72A, and even if the T-72M1 has a layer of 16mm appliqué armor slapped on, it is a 16+80+105+20 array, which is inferior to the 16+60+105+50 array used in the T-72A. So even if M111/DM23 may pen the T-72M1 UFP at 1 km (hypothetical), it might not pen T-72A UFP at 1 km.
  4. 105mm DM23 came in 1978, and it will be used against a tank from 1967. It took that long just to be able to penetrate the UFP, but not the turret? That says quite a lot. Besides, the margin of penetration of the UFP of the T-64A is rather small. We know for a fact that they added a 16mm appliqué armor plate on the UFP after testing M111 Hetz, which is functionally identical to DM23. 16mm is not a lot, even when sloped at 68 degrees. The turret roof is far too thick and far too steep to pen reliably. You forget to mention that the DM23 involved was 120mm DM23, not 105mm DM23. "Korzina" autoloader for the T-64 is faster but less reliable, because it is a hydroelectric type rather than electric, as in the AZ autoloader for the T-72. The hydraulic components in the "Korzina" system present more maintenance difficulties, and also requires more maintenance overall. There is no doubt that Leopard 1 can pump out 3 shots in 8 seconds (one shot already in the tube). 4 second reload speed is perfectly believable. T-64 reload speed is 5 seconds, so it's not far off. By this metric, T-64 can pump out 3 shots in 10 seconds. Not bad, eh? Problem is that you can only do such thing when aiming at the same target, without doing any corrections or re-laying the gun. There is no possibility that the Leopard 1 crew you saw was engaging 3 different and unidentified targets, at 3 different distances, at 3 different attitudes (static, moving, hull-down, for example). If you are firing at the same target over and over again, then yes Reverse speed of T-72 is 4 km/h. The T-72's autoloader is slower and carries fewer rounds (22 vs 28) than the T-64's autoloader. Number of ready rounds is of course higher than number of ready rounds in most manually loaded tanks. Slower top speed and less acceleration, but not by that much. It is the price to pay for armor that can actually withstand serious firepower. In fact, a KPVT could rip apart the lower hull sides of a Leo 1 at 500 meters! The T-72 has dual gearboxes. Steering is wobbly only if you don't know how to handle tillers. If you are used to steering wheel or steering bar, this is completely understandable. For maximum turning smoothness, the tiller should be pulled to a point just before it engages the first notch. That disconnects power to that track and allows you to make small direction changes very relaxingly. If you pull the tiller to the first notch every time you want to adjust the direction of the tank even by a little, then of course you will feel very wobbled. Stabilizer should be put into standby mode when not needed.
  5. You interpreted the photo incorrectly. The bottom part of the turret (the trunnion area and below) is 350mm. The areas under the red triangles are parts of the armour where the armour is thinnest, meaning thinner than 350mm. This is because the sloping on the outside of the turret is not matched by sloping on the inside of the turret, so the armour gets progressively thinner as it goes up the triangle. Imagine a shark fin shape. The bottom of the shark fin is the widest, and it becomes progressively thinner as it goes up to the tip, because the rear of the fin is perpendicular, while the front edge of the fin slopes. See my amazing drawing. The areas above the red triangles are cast (you can see that in the photo, because the texture is bumpy) in such a way that they match the slope of the exterior of the turret, so that part has a LOS thickness of around 350mm. The area of the roof above the mantlet is more than 350mm because of the very steep slope, but that's another story. They had to cast this turret this way in order to accommodate the cannon.