T-80/T-90 armor effectiveness

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2

MikkoLn RE:T-80/T-90 armor effectiveness 1/16/2004 7:03:46 AM

In generally my opinion is that current widespread publishations don't give much credit to them - more detailed writings do much more. >"Despite the advances of the most modern versions (Kontakt-5) it's not nearly as good at repelling long rod penetrators as good composite armor is." George W. Herbert, link "... the M829A1, M829A2, M829E3, DM43 and DM53 all postdate that testing, and reportedly all are capable of penetrating what we know of current Russian frontal armor,depending on how effective Kontakt-5 is." Id. Well it depends how you'd like to understand it. It must be remembered that K5 is still applique armour and must have at least some degree of basic armour too, whereas composite armours are equivalents of basic steel structures. ERA blocks can be used to decrease the effectiveness of incoming projectiles, but they very seldom as such work as total protective manner. So in order to guarantee needed protection tank must also have good regular passive protection (though also light armour protection can be enough in certain cases). Thus it can't be directly compared to chobham or equivalents. Composite/laminate armours give much higher degree of overall protection and better protection against KE rounds increasing the best protective capability of new, modern western tank near to 1m in RHA. But, considering that with a considerably less amount of weight main surfaces of the tank can be covered with K5 (weight of this coating is around 2500-3500kg) yet giving additional 250mm of KE protection (a generally accepted estimation of it's protective value in frontal arcs of current soviet tanks though also more is often offered) it's also very effective in "power-to-weight ratio", even much more than composite structures. Considering that the russian tank protection without K5 is vulnerable to fire of 120mm rounds from all arcs it's a major step forward (maiding it with even primitive composite ceramic layers that soviets have done with T90's might also result in a slight increase in protection). The last phrase (correct me if I'm wrong) is saying that western ammo is capable of reportedly penetrating stripped russian tanks' frontal armour (which is - according to all available reports - undoubtly true) so the effectiveness of K5 will mainly be the factor desiding soviet tank's ability to whitstand KE attack. I couldn't get myself to the page the referate is from, but the tests that are being discussed are most likely either from West German/NATO K5 trials of 1996 or US series of tests conducted in late 90's (as the writer mentions the ammo being developed after these incidents) all of which resulted in dismal "kill" record of 120mm APFSDS rounds (even though also T72's were used). >I saw some data suggesting an early estimated 60% reduction in penetrator effectiveness from Kontakt 5. This would, of course, assume that the ERA blocks were properly installed, welded, etc. and that the material itself was up to specs [big assumptions with Russian production]. More significantly, the analysis of Kontakt 5 and the Jane's quote are all dated in 1996-97. DOD obtained Kontakt 5 equipment and subsequently developed the later M829, DM43 and DM53 rounds with improved penetrators [credit to Rheinemetal here]. We cannot determine on public information that added effectiveness of the newer M829 rounds, but it is safe to assume that they were intended to address Kontakt 5. The DM43 and DM53 seem to have been specifically tailored for this threat. Significantly, the GAO 1999 report on antiarmor weapons? effectiveness did not identify any short-comings in tank ammunition then under procurement. Good and possible suggestions (even propable). All in all, it's clear that K5 has been and is success, as it provides otherwise inferior soviet equipment greatly increased chances of survival in the varying conditions of modern battlefield and also grants increased tank vs. tank capability. For me it seems that inferior (i.e. old) overall arrangements inside the tank that makes them vulnerable to damage and less suitable for one-on-one incidents and inferior at-hitting power to western modern tanks are much bigger disadvantages in tank vs. tank battle than their protective means (active and passive). Which brings us again to the point weather at capability is the primary purpose of the tank... A good post though

Quote Reply

mike_golf RE:T-80/T-90 armor - what does a tank do? 1/16/2004 11:33:35 AM

In my opinion we (the military and community of observers) have lost sight of what a tank does, in general. Tanks are heavy cavalry. The purpose of heavy cavalry is not really to kill other heavy cavalry, that's what infantry is for. Several hundred years ago it was infantry with pikes and crossbows. Today it is infantry with ATGM's. The tank's main purpose, just as it was heavy cavalry in the past, is to overrun the enemy, exploit the holes the infantry makes and pursue the enemy in the exploitation phase. If heavy tank units are being used appropriately, their ability to kill other tanks is not as important as their overall firepower, especially vs. infantry and light vehicles, and their mobility.

Quote Reply

Kozzy RE:T-80/T-90 armor - what does a tank do? 1/16/2004 7:43:33 PM

The passive armor on Russian tanks ain't great, older RPG rounds slice through the front so I have no problem believing that fancy DU slugs will send Ivan crying home to mom. I'll give the Russians props on K5, we should slap our own on Abrams.

Quote Reply

Kozzy RE:T-80/T-90 armor - what does a tank do? 1/17/2004 9:52:11 AM

link Answers a lot of questions

Quote Reply

MikkoL RE:T-80/T-90 armor - what does a tank do? 1/18/2004 6:41:30 AM

Yes, I'm exactly along the same lines with you mike_golf.

Quote Reply

Question RE:T-80/T-90 armor - what does a tank do? 1/19/2004 2:12:49 AM

No western country(like say UK) will be caught dead using russian equipment.ESPECIALLY America.Good composite armor is generally considered superior to basic armor + ERA.Also,its impossible to just put ERA on tanks like Abrams,challenger,etc.The tank wasnt designed to carry extra weight of that kind we are talking about.

Quote Reply

gf0012-aus T-80/T-90 armor - what does a tank do? 1/19/2004 3:08:58 AM

Russian equipment is so bad that Grumman have co-development amd design programmes and projects with Sukhoi, and NASA use Russian Cryo rockets... Ever looked at a Grumman X29 and a Berkut SU-37? Ever wondered where the original design for the trimaran littoral combat ship came from? 2 guesses.

Quote Reply

oldbutnotwise RE:T-80/T-90 armor - what does a tank do? 1/19/2004 7:00:36 AM

two major points 1 the T range of tanks are built from a different view point to the M1s etc they do what the were designed to do, be a spearhead of a armoured push using a conscript crew, simple expendable tanks that will survive long enough to overrun the opfor m1s etc are designed a primary survival tanks, tanks that can withstand major punishment and even when totaled have a good chance of crew survival if this was your aim then the T80/90 arent very good, however if you have the other method inmind then the M1s are overkilland would be too expensive to produce in enough number to do the job. whilst the russian do produce good designs it is often because earlier design had crew safty well down the list of priorities. the rocket motors you give as an example was also developed in the US but was cancelled because of the risk to human life

Quote Reply

gf0012-aus what does a tank do? oldbutnotwise 1/19/2004 7:13:24 AM

[was also developed in the US but was cancelled because of the risk to human life] you're missing the point. what I am hilighting is that there are a number of technologies that the Russians are extrememly competent at. There are a number of current projects that NAVSEA are working on (and have been for a number of years) that are trying to do what the Russians have been doing successfully for almost 12 years - its not an isolated incident. My point is, never assume that the other side is not as competent as you in designing the "whizz bangs". I've dealt with russian and polish ballistics people who make some in the west look absolute amateurs, they make things work even though they haven't had the luxury of a good academic infrastructure etc... at a base level, money doesn't buy a creative spirit and an inventive brain - it can certainly foster it, but its not the APU... BTW, the cryo engines are still used for some satellite launches.

Quote Reply

oldbutnotwise RE:what does a tank do? oldbutnotwise 1/19/2004 8:22:43 AM

I wasnt say they wernt, the soviet bloc had some damn amazing people when you look at some of the conditions they had to work with, no disrespect to these people at all, all i was saying that in certain areas the priorities were different, cost in human life was not the big bar it is in the west, this meant that developement of equipment has a different focus. this is not a put down, you design to meet requirements if your requirements are different your design i s most likely different. plus negative feedback was not encoraged by the soviet command structure. the best designers are not from one country by god given right, wether this country is US,UK,german or cammaroon, if they are allowed to develope then any coutry can produce top people

Quote Reply

1 2