T-80 and T-90 MBTs

[contedicavour]

Yes author is quite a legend of a man for putting such immense efort and made such database.
By my opinion most extensive database on Russian weapons sistem.

Because of 60 000 tanks rolling down the europe in event of war tactical nuclear warhead had to be produced, AH-64D, Tornado gorund atack plane and Harier.
Im realy impresed how even light tanks like PT-76 can give quite a punch if properly tactis is applied like in Indian-Pakistan wars. And I think PT-76 cant even held out 12.7 machine gun fire. LOL not every tank needs to have 70t.

Since you are Italian guy you might being interest about this. Long before i even started to have interest in military tehnology and weapons I was reading article in our newspaper about some operation Helebrada (dont know did I wrote it correctly - middle age weapon).
So this was Italian operation of pulling out army from Trst in a event of Russian intervention in former Yugoslavia because off unrest and "civil war".
Army suposed to pull out and police to hand over power when Russians arive.
I wonder are you familiar with such operation/plan?

The operation you mention is part of a wider network of NATO "Stay behind" operations also called Gladio. In case of massive offensive operations through the hard-to-defend areas of what we call Friuli Venezia Giulia (Gorizia, Trieste, etc), the army had to retreat to more defendable positions and leave behind civilian police (which would continue to represent authority) in the big cities and significant military/civilian guerrillas in the countryside with all sorts of specific missions : EW, targeting for LGBs, attacks on trains & roads & bridges, mining, all sorts of sabotage, propaganda, information gathering, etc
This was supposed to spare too heavy damage to big cities like Trieste, which would have been impossible to defend anyway.
Glad nothing happened

cheers

 

[extern]

Citation:

At RUSSIAN EXPO ARMS 2006 exhibition held in Nizhniy Tagil on July 11-15 a new multi-purpose ERA package made by NII Stali was demonstrated on an upgraded T-72B tank (“Sling-shot”).


At RUSSIAN EXPO ARMS 2006 exhibition held in Nizhniy Tagil on July 11-15 a new multi-purpose ERA package made by NII Stali was demonstrated on an upgraded T-72B tank (“Sling-shot”).


The new ERA package is almost twice as effective as Contact-V ERA system.

It is called multi-purpose not only because it defeats both HEAT-warhead and KE ammunition, but also because it is made as a number of separate modules, which makes it possible to fit the package to any tank types using standard modules and attachment fittings'. http://www.niistali.ru/index_en.php#

The same new ERA package ('Relikt') is put on the modernised T-80:

 

[Waylander]

Effective against what type of KE-penetrator?
I am not biased against russian equipment but I really doubt it is able to stop the modern rounds fielded by western tanks.
I thought russian manufacturers also thought that ERA is not the best solution against KE and so tend to develop an active protection system (Like ARENA) to counter KE some days.

 

[kams]

Effective against what type of KE-penetrator?
I am not biased against russian equipment but I really doubt it is able to stop the modern rounds fielded by western tanks.
I thought russian manufacturers also thought that ERA is not the best solution against KE and so tend to develop an active protection system (Like ARENA) to counter KE some days.

I thought Relikt mounted T-72's are called T-72MB.
. Here is the link to a article with some details of Relkit. Unfortunately in Russian. Viktor could you translate a summary for us? I don't want to try bablefish might as well read Russian
If you look at the linedrawing of the turret, Relikt looks very different from K-5.

http://btvt.narod.ru/1/situation2/situation2.htm

 

[Waylander]

One of the most complicated things out there is definitely the designation of russian equipment.

 

[Viktor]

Effective against what type of KE-penetrator?
I am not biased against russian equipment but I really doubt it is able to stop the modern rounds fielded by western tanks.
I thought russian manufacturers also thought that ERA is not the best solution against KE and so tend to develop an active protection system (Like ARENA) to counter KE some days.

nfloorl: I it effective
-----------------------
The effectiveness of Kontakt-5 ERA was confirmed by tests run by the German Bundeswehr and the US Army. The Germans confirmed that in tests, the K-5, mounted on older T-72 tanks, 'shattered' their 120mm DM-53 penetrators, and in the US, Jane's IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness confirmed that "When fitted to T-72 tanks, the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU penetrators of M829 APFSDS, fired by the 120 mm guns of the US M1 Abrams tanks, which were among the most formidable tank gun projectiles at the time." This is of course, provided that the round strikes the ERA, which only covers 60% of the frontal aspect of the T-72 series tank mounted with it.
Newer KE penetrators like the US M829A2 and now M829A3, have been improved to defeat the armor design of Kontakt-5. The M829A2 was the immediate response, developed in part to take on the new armor bricks. The M829A3 is a further improvement of this as well and designed to fight future armor protection methods.

Kontakt-5 has been succeeded by the newer Kaktus type, which is currently only seen on prototype tanks such as the Black Eagle tank
----------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kontakt-5

enjoj


I will translate it later!

 

[Waylander]

I never heard of any tests like this of Kontakt 5 against DM53/63.
And Wiki is your best source?

 

[extern]

I never heard of any tests like this of Kontakt 5 against DM53/63.
And Wiki is your best source?

here is an excellent article about ERAs by Robb McLeod http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/EQP/era.html

That happen to APFSDS projectile when it's countered by Kontakt-V

 

[Waylander]

That's a nice article that explains much about how ERA works but I do not see that Kontakt has been tested against DM-53/63.
Another question is where do these guys have the exact specifications (material?) of the KE-Penetrators from to raise their formulas?
I doubt that Rheinmetall is sending them to everyone who asks.
Another question is why does the T-80 failed in the trials in greece if it can nearly not be penetrated by a L/55?

 

[extern]

...
Another question is why does the T-80 failed in the trials in greece if it can nearly not be penetrated by a L/55?

There were not armor tests there. Also the political neutrality of any arm tender is very doubfull.

 

[Waylander]

There defenitely were armor tests there. I'm searching for the source because I don't know if you believe me if I tell you that these tests were part of a training lesson during my service time.

BTW, you did not answer to my question from which source these guys should know the specifications of a DM53/63.

 

[extern]

There defenitely were armor tests there. ..BTW, you did not answer to my question from which source these guys should know the specifications of a DM53/63.

About the former question I answered your in privat messige. The DM53\63 specification - it is classified hovewer, like all things about armor and APFSDS characteristics. However the intelligence exists and works... The information leaks to competitors and from them - to internet. I can bring for you such info from my best russian sources collection:

 

[Waylander]

I did not mean the pure weight of the penetrator or speed. This for sure is public information, I think Rheinmetall even have it on their page.
What I was talking of is the specification of the wolfram composition, how hard it is, how flexible, etc. Without this data you are not able to say when it is going to brake or loose its nose, etc.

BTW, you've got mail.

 

[extern]

I did not mean the pure weight of the penetrator or speed. This for sure is public information, I think Rheinmetall even have it on their page.
What I was talking of is the specification of the wolfram composition, how hard it is, how flexible, etc. Without this data you are not able to say when it is going to brake or loose its nose, etc.

BTW, you've got mail.

Yeah... thanks, I've answered already. Relatively to Rheimetall APFSDSs, I should say, if they were tried on Greek tender only swains might be dont know their capability. Be sure, all those who need it, know it. : And also be sure, if it is known the answer is coming soon...

Second, Those who knew they didnt have a chance to win tender for NATO EU state like Greece, have brought the fake monkey APFSDS there(like Russia and Ukrain). WHy to disclose your best if you dont have a chance?

Look on the tables: there is a long hystory of strugle between sword and shield.

 

[Waylander]

Were do you have these armor facts from?
The Leo 2 for example looks much to thin.

Why should they even participate in the greek trials if they have no chance?
Greece is already fielding russian equipment (Zubr hovercrafts, Kornet ATGMs, etc...).

 

[extern]

Were do you have these armor facts from?
The Leo 2 for example looks much to thin.

Why should they even participate in the greek trials if they have no chance?
Greece is already fielding russian equipment (Zubr hovercrafts, Kornet ATGMs, etc...).

THe source is well know (russian only): http://btvt.narod.ru/1/situation2/situation2.htm
The russian tank factory have participated in the tender because it has economical interest in it. But the goverment has more broad national security concerns. If USA didnt demostrated their best armor and APFSDS why Russia will disclose the same upon the most dangerouse potential enemy? I'm sure the tankmen didnt get permit to show the best russian APFSDSs there. It is very logical IMO.

 

[Waylander]

I understand that they did not want to show the best BM version but practicing ammo?
Common this is not logical. Why did should they have used practicing ammo which performed very bad at more than 2km while they could use real ammo but just not the newest one.

And again. There is no bigger secret than the armor of the Leo in our weapons industry. It is not even known out of what materials it is build. Why should this russian website know the armor strength of a Leopard 2?

 

[extern]

...
And again. There is no bigger secret than the armor of the Leo in our weapons industry. It is not even known out of what materials it is build. Why should this russian website know the armor strength of a Leopard 2?

They know bcoz the people making that site are tank-build professionals. Kinda western sites like Jane's you should'nt ask why they know what they know, should you?

You can see on the comparison table the competitive strugle between Le2 and T-xx designers.

 

[Waylander]

If I understand this facts right both tanks were never to close to being able to penetrate each other at 2km.
And also just by being a little bit smaller the T-80U shall be much better protected than a Leo IIA4 while being nearly 10 tons lighter?

 

[extern]

If I understand this facts right both tanks were never to close to being able to penetrate each other at 2km.
And also just by being a little bit smaller the T-80U shall be much better protected than a Leo IIA4 while being nearly 10 tons lighter?

1) Naturally yes if we speak about cut-edge modifications
2) It's because the armor coefficient of T-80U is better that of Leo-IIA4