Nope

Odd equilibrium: M60A3 and T-72 Ural

Recommended Posts

Actually, this,

 

"The T-72 however has a full steel turret, despite having the same composite glacis as the T-64A. Max thickness is not 280mm as you said, it's false. Max thickness is around 350-380mm on the turret "bulges" and that's only if you mesure it perpendicular, pure real thickness. From the face it's equivalent to 450-500mm RHA with angles. So suddenly, it's much stronger than you said. The area around the gun however, yes, it's weak at 300-250mm or so, but good luck hitting that area that's less than 30% of the frontal turret aspect."

 

 

is even better than i thought: it's 350mm at the gun (seems thinner at 280-300 really just around the gun on left side of turret) and more than 400 everywhere else.... Raw thickness. LOS should be 320-360 around gun to 500-600, on most of the turret face.

1451427730-t-72-ural-turret-thicknesss-c

 

It makes the L7 APDS unable to penetrate the T-72 base model, full steel turret (also obviously T-64A, probably all T-80 and even early T-64 too, as well as T-64B and all other T-72 variants) AT ALL even at point blank range! And the M735 will struggle to penetrate that at 500m... omg.

 

You clearly vastly underestimated T-72 armor.

 

I did indeed. It seems I talked about the area closest to the gun mantlet, which is definitely 280mm (actual mantlet is more like 250mm). The difference between a T-72 Ural and a T-64A at this point is that the T-72 Ural can be penetrated with M456A1 HEAT shells, while the T-64A is clearly immune frontally to this round as per its design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In regards to the Chieftain in this comparison (circa 1978-1980), the Chieftain was still firing APDS of course. However, L15A3 APDS was still capable of penetrating 150mm/60 degrees at 1600 meters, and 120mm/65 degrees at 2000 meters. Considering the protection of the T-64A/T-72 Ural is about 110-120mm/68 degrees (it's 80+105+20 in a bigass armour sandwich, the fibreglass middle isn't much use against KE), I'd have a guess that the L15A3 APDS could penetrate a T-64A/T-72 out to 1000-1500 meters. Chieftain Mk.5 also had the FCS advantage at that period, with LRS and IFCS giving it a pretty good first hit probability out to 3km in comparison to contemporaries.

From 1978 onwards the Chieftain's engine started seeing serious improvement as well. As part of 'Operation Sundance' the Chieftain's engine saw a series of upgrades that made the engine quite acceptable, along with previous Chieftain models being upgraded through the 'Totem Pole' program, Mk.2, Mk.3 and Mk.5 Chieftain's by that stage were basically all getting more reliable engines producing 720-750bhp, giving 48km/h on road and 30-35km/h, as well as fire control upgrades with LRS (Laser Rangefinding System) and Marconi IFCS (Improved Fire Control System).

So basically, by 1978-1980 the Chieftain was a serious adversary to the T-72's and T-64's, the availability rate was about 80 percent by 1980, with less underpowered engines and FCS giving the Chieftain a good first hit probability for that time. It's armour however wasn't a big factor, 125mm APFSDS could penetrate it out to range, especially BM-15 or even worse (for the Chieftain) BM-22 'Hairpin'. HEAT might fail to fuze on the glacis but the turret is certainly vulnerable, overall it doesn't have effectively better armour than the M60A3 by this stage but it had better crew survivability, with the ammunition layout and wet stowage.

The key time period of Soviet dominance was from around 1971 (when the T-64/64A started to actually get deployed to Germany, and with the T-72) to about 1978, the L7 guns only had APDS which was ineffective and only really the Chieftain could penetrate a T-64A/T-72 with any reliability, but had horrid availability rates. After this 105mm APFSDS appeared, 3rd gen MBT's like the Abrams and Leopard appeared which were superior to Soviet vehicles, and generally they run off from there especially after 1985 where even Soviet technical performance comparisons give the T-72B a value of 1.0, the T-64B a value of 1.1, and the T-80U a value of 1.3, while the Challenger gets a value of like 1.7 and the M1A1 Abrams significantly higher.

Blame Ustinov, he kept the T-64 going which proved a great investment, but then he got all obsessed with gas turbines which proved to not be the best idea.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 31.12.2015 at 11:16 AM, Nope said:
 much stronger than you said. The area around the gun however, yes, it's weak at 300-250mm or so, but good luck hitting that area that's less than 30% of the frontal turret aspect."

 

Actually hard to call this weakm as 300-250 mm is maximal armor availible on CHieftai's turret )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Andrei_bt said:

Well, it's fare from correct. Here is a comparison of T-64 (T-64A) which is basicly same as on T-72 with M60A1 and Chieftain Mk5

http://btvt.info/3attackdefensemobility/432armor.htm

Based on soviet tests of M60A1 from Israel and Chieftain from Iran

 

img008.jpg

 

13 minutes ago, Andrei_bt said:

 

Actually hard to call this weakm as 300-250 mm is maximal armor availible on CHieftai's turret )

 

I certainly hope this isn't the actual owner of narod.ru here, because that post I made was seriously embarrassing. Didn't take into account various factors I didn't know back then such as different APFSDS types having different coefficients of their own (M735 behaves differently compared to monobloc). Was hoping it would be buried, but perhaps I should clean it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Andrei_bt said:

Now it is not  narod.ru but http://btvt.info/

Just ran over reports on test of M60s and Chieftain in USSR and was rather amazed as they had not that good armor. Specially Chieftain

 

Ah, forgot the exact link. But it is you at least.

 

For the Chieftain, I'm pretty sure it had something to do with the turret being quite vulnerable. For the M60, I'm guessing it's HEAT-FS. Angle's not good enough to result in fuse issues and export T-72s don't seem to use HEAT-FS more than APFSDS I heard. HEAT would also be the same reason why the Chieftain was vulnerable too. This is yet something else I did not take into account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/14/2016 at 3:02 AM, Militant said:

-snip- :)

At this time didn't the US already develop the APDSFS round for the 105mm L7?

 

T'was already mentioned That the US had the APDSFS (or is it APFSDS?) in the 70s.  

 

On a side note since we are talking about composite armor, wouldn't the principle of additive plates (Layered armor) being somewhat less than it's gross total thickness still be at some level still true with regard to kinetic projectiles?

Edited by Sakuzhi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/26/2015 at 1:35 PM, Max__Damage said:

Dammit, I write too much about armor that I mix m and mm. Fixed it.

 

- I don't need to mention SC protection. The M60A3 does not have any angles steep enough to cause fuse issues like the Chieftain can. It is obviously inferior in HEAT protection and the T-72 Ural is immune to the M456 series except on the turret. I already talked about this in the OP.

 

- They did that on the T-72A and on a certain modernization of the Ural. I talk about the base Ural here.

 

- I haven't thought of that honestly. Maybe I should add it.

 

- That's pretty damn conditional if you ask me.

 

- Yeah, that's the typical Russian MBT layout. The turret rear sides are cast steel, the front side is composite.

 

 

The Chieftain is possibly on the same level as the T-72A when using L23 APFSDS. Lower mobility it may have, but it has TOGS and probably a less smoky engine as well as a ballistic computer (1980). Also gives a lot of HEAT shells some fuse issues, so it's pretty good there as well. It isn't so bad. That's mostly it for competition that can directly go toe to toe with the T-72 Ural for now. Maybe the Centurion may be able to do it, but only if there's APFSDS.

I will read but honestly Chieftain vs T72? no way even the armor and the weapon are both muh better for t72. Also chieftain's hatch mentions bad engine for the chief.

Are you serious? the T-72 fought the Chieftain in the Iran-Irak war and it ate it for breakfast.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Tzalafim said:

Are you serious? the T-72 fought the Chieftain in the Iran-Irak war and it ate it for breakfast.

 

No, they didn't - mud and incompetence were the main problems for Chieftans in that war - more were CAPTURED at Nasr than KO'ed!!

 

with better trained crews, Kuwaiti Chieftain 5/2's were more than a match for the Iraqi Republican Guard T-72's - Battle of the Bridges - page 26

 

Training is a lot more important than equipment if the equipment is not totally overmatched.

Edited by Josephs_Piano

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Josephs_Piano said:

 

No, they didn't - mud and incompetence were the main problems for Chieftans in that war - more were CAPTURED at Nasr than KO'ed!!

 

with better trained crews, Kuwaiti Chieftain 5/2's were more than a match for the Iraqi Republican Guard T-72's - Battle of the Bridges - page 26

 

Training is a lot more important than equipment if the equipment is not totally overmatched.

 

The fun part is that the Republican Guard used T-72M1s, which are barely any different from proper T-72As.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Nope said:

 

The fun part is that the Republican Guard used T-72M1s, which are barely any different from proper T-72As.

There were definitely some other things that separated them from proper T-72As. The most major thing would be the terrible accuracy of the BM-9 steel rounds that the Iraqis were supplied with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Josephs_Piano said:

 

No, they didn't - mud and incompetence were the main problems for Chieftans in that war - more were CAPTURED at Nasr than KO'ed!!

 

with better trained crews, Kuwaiti Chieftain 5/2's were more than a match for the Iraqi Republican Guard T-72's - Battle of the Bridges - page 26

 

Training is a lot more important than equipment if the equipment is not totally overmatched.

Still doesn't change the fact that the L23 will have no problem penning the T-72, as it does already in game with the T-64A to which it has superior frontal armor to the T-72.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Flavettes said:

There were definitely some other things that separated them from proper T-72As. The most major thing would be the terrible accuracy of the BM-9 steel rounds that the Iraqis were supplied with.

 

3BM-9 could be used by any T-72 variant, but yes the Iraqis used that most of the time.

 

4 hours ago, *SquidToaster said:

Still doesn't change the fact that the L23 will have no problem penning the T-72, as it does already in game with the T-64A to which it has superior frontal armor to the T-72.

 

The T-72 Ural's turret is the only part that's weaker, and only against SC.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017/9/19 at 8:22 AM, Tzalafim said:

Are you serious? the T-72 fought the Chieftain in the Iran-Irak war and it ate it for breakfast.

I think only the worst of Slavaboo would be serious about this.

 

The Chieftain was a respected tank by both the NATO and Soviets, they were placed at the most tensed zone of Cold War (Berlin) to clash directly with T-64.

And they continued doing so until 1990s, when 3rd-gen MBTs were already available in number.

 

Edited by Loongsheep

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, *SquidToaster said:

Still doesn't change the fact that the L23 will have no problem penning the T-72, as it does already in game with the T-64A to which it has superior frontal armor to the T-72.

 

Perhaps it's not entirely fair to compare base model T-72's (which I assume you're referring to) against L23 equipped Chieftains, which to my knowledge, is an early/mid '80s round, making the T-72B Obr. 1983 a far more applicable comparison, that tank would certainly give L23 quite a lot of trouble.

 

The T-72B Obr. 1983 featured a new turret, equipped with bulging armour inserts with Kontakt-1 ERA placed across the frontal arc, the revised hull armour is also far more effective due to the substatial spaced armour array it was equipped with, the Sovjets also started fielding DU monobloc shells (3BM-33) around about this time period, though I'm not certain if T-72's would be at the receiving end of such shells, considering it usually had to await it's turn after the T-80's and T-64's got theirs first.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Necrons31467 said:

 

Perhaps it's not entirely fair to compare base model T-72's (which I assume you're referring to) against L23 equipped Chieftains, which to my knowledge, is an early/mid '80s round, making the T-72B Obr. 1983 a far more applicable comparison, that tank would certainly give L23 quite a lot of trouble.

 

The T-72B Obr. 1983 featured a new turret, equipped with bulging armour inserts with Kontakt-1 ERA placed across the frontal arc, the revised hull armour is also far more effective due to the substatial spaced armour array it was equipped with, the Sovjets also started fielding DU monobloc shells (3BM-33) around about this time period, though I'm not certain if T-72's would be at the receiving end of such shells, considering it usually had to await it's turn after the T-80's and T-64's got theirs first.

 

 

 

I suspect that a T-72A with the 16mm add-on armor would be enough against L23 at 2 km and above, and the turret would still be a tough target even at closer ranges simply because of how physically thick it is. BTW where did you get that info about the T-72B Obr. 1983?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Flavettes said:

 

I suspect that a T-72A with the 16mm add-on armor would be enough against L23 at 2 km and above, and the turret would still be a tough target even at closer ranges simply because of how physically thick it is. BTW where did you get that info about the T-72B Obr. 1983?

 

I highly doubt that the T-72A with 16mm HHS will stop L23 at that range considering it has 100mm more penetration than M111.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nope said:

 

I highly doubt that the T-72A with 16mm HHS will stop L23 at that range considering it has 100mm more penetration than M111.

 

It's purely based on the assumption that the add-on 16mm plate made the UFP immune to M111 at very short ranges of around 500-600m. The chances of the L23 penetrating it at 2 km+ wouldn't be so high, then.

Share this post


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

 

It's purely based on the assumption that the add-on 16mm plate made the UFP immune to M111 at very short ranges of around 500-600m. The chances of the L23 penetrating it at 2 km+ wouldn't be so high, then.

 

However, penetration loss is not so stupid high as to lose 100mm penetration even at 3 km. A T-64BV on the other hand might stop L23 at a decent range.

Share this post


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

 

However, penetration loss is not so stupid high as to lose 100mm penetration even at 3 km. A T-64BV on the other hand might stop L23 at a decent range.

It's not that L23 has to lose 100mm of penetration. A piece of armor doesn't have to be completely immune to still have some chance of surviving.

But regarding the armor of the T-72A: The penetration table for the L23 against the imitation T-64/72/80 UFP armor uses a single homogeneous 130mm plate, but the armor in a T-72A is stronger than that. First you have the 16mm HHS plate, which is stronger than typical RHA and has the function of fracturing the tip of the rod, and then 60mm of RHA, and then 105mm of glass textolite and then 50mm of RHA. That's 126mm in total steel thickness, so the 130mm RHA target plate is close, but it ignores the higher hardness of the add-on plate and completely ignores the 105mm glass textolite sandwich layer.

If we apply a 0.4 modifier to the glass textolite layer, then the UFP is actually equivalent to upwards of 170mm RHA. Maybe you'll understand why I suspect that the T-72A may have a chance at 2 km and above...

Besides, Wiedzmin from the Tank-Net thread that the penetration figures for the L23 has added new posts and made some new statements: www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=39743&page=3#entry1326871

It is very likely that the 130mm plate they used for the target was sloped at around 75 degrees in order to imitate a T-64/72/80 UFP at a small sideways angle. The higher the slope, the better the performance of long rod APFSDS. The figures for M111 on the internet probably reflects its penetration on a 60 degree target, so the L23 definitely doesn't have 100mm more penetration than the M111.

Edited by Flavettes
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Flavettes said:

I suspect that a T-72A with the 16mm add-on armor would be enough against L23 at 2 km and above, and the turret would still be a tough target even at closer ranges simply because of how physically thick it is. BTW where did you get that info about the T-72B Obr. 1983?

 

From photographic evidence, the following armour compositions from this diagram up to the Obr. 1989 seem to be correct, there's also quite a lot of photographs of the NERA array in the T-72B's turret available.

 

T-72B.thumb.png.ac267e32ce04d7f99ae3b733

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Necrons31467 said:

 

From photographic evidence, the following armour compositions from this diagram up to the Obr. 1989 seem to be correct, there's also quite a lot of photographs of the NERA array in the T-72B's turret available.

 

T-72B.thumb.png.ac267e32ce04d7f99ae3b733

Oh, right, that photo. I always thought that that photo was showing a T-72B Obr. 1985 for some reason, not an Obr. 1983, but in that case, where is the photographic evidence for the Obr. 1985 and 1989?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.