Jump to content


Photo

History of Soviet tanks


  • Please log in to reply
6297 replies to this topic

#61 Harkonnen

Harkonnen

    Andrei

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,462 posts

Posted 11 January 2006 - 0934 AM

An article on history of Soviet main battle tanks.
It is in russian, thouse who don't undrsttand may look pictures some of which were already posted here....

Posted Image

http://btvt.narod.ru...ry/_45_2006.htm

Edited by Harkonnen, 11 January 2006 - 0935 AM.

  • 0

#62 Djuice

Djuice

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 791 posts

Posted 11 January 2006 - 0946 AM

It is not o. 187 but it gives basic idea of what it is lokking like.

(model by Konstantin Kim ©)

Posted Image

View Post


The turret looks rather small, i assume it still uses the same autoloader types like on the T-XX series. Therefore wouldnt it have the same similar disadvantages thats the older T-XX have, such has popping turrets, and low crew survivability. Also looks very underarmoured without the ERA placements.
  • 0

#63 Harkonnen

Harkonnen

    Andrei

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,462 posts

Posted 11 January 2006 - 0952 AM

The turret looks rather small, i assume it still uses the same autoloader types like on the T-XX series. Therefore wouldnt it have the same similar disadvantages thats the older T-XX have, such has popping turrets, and low crew survivability. Also looks very underarmoured without the ERA placements.

View Post


It was said rather clear "It is not o. 187 but it gives basic idea of what it is lokking like". The tank is equiped with ERA and other devices like "Shtora"...
It use the same but redesigned for new ammo autoloader. Te protection of hull and turret sides is significantly increased against RPG-type weapons.
  • 0

#64 Davout

Davout

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 418 posts

Posted 11 January 2006 - 1039 AM

Very nice post Harkonnen:


You may want to clear up some of the language.......


"The same story with armor – while the T-64-s and T-80 was equipment with high cost composite armor the T-72 had the simplest possible sand rods and then reflecting plates which were much less valuable than advanced compositions of T-80U …"


I would further elaborate on "sand rods" as a matrix of steel with quartz/sand inserts. I would further change the "relecting plates" to "multiple thin plates of metal and rubber" or perhaps as BDD armor.

I would also perhaps mention that many different versions of the T72 were built. You many want to mention the small number of T72s with corundum/ceramic armor. I would also mention that 72s were rebuilt on a continuing basis and may have a mixture of older hulls and turrets with new features.


Davout
  • 0

#65 Harkonnen

Harkonnen

    Andrei

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,462 posts

Posted 11 January 2006 - 1053 AM

"The same story with armor – while the T-64-s and T-80 was equipment with high cost composite armor the T-72 had the simplest possible sand rods and then reflecting plates which were much less valuable than advanced compositions of T-80U …"

I would further elaborate on "sand rods" as a matrix of steel with quartz/sand inserts.


I don’t know what you understand here under the word “matrix”. Actually the "sand rods" is rather tangled term which corresponds to very simple method of producing a spaced armor with sand filler, used to produce cavities in the process of casting. This cavities very filled with advanced filler on a “primary” tanks like T-64B and T-80B. On the T-72A this sand was just left in the cavity which provided very chip and rather effective protection against cumulative weapon, though having rather limited effect against KE.

I would further change the "relecting plates" to "multiple thin plates of metal and rubber" or perhaps as BDD armor.

Yes, generally it is Bulging armor, the Russian eqivalent is reflective/repulsive plates.

I would also perhaps mention that many different versions of the T72 were built. You many want to mention the small number of T72s with corundum/ceramic armor. I would also mention that 72s were rebuilt on a continuing basis and may have a mixture of older hulls and turrets with new features.


This is similar for all other tanks which may future old hull and a new turret which was done during schedule repair. It is almost impossible to trace all such changes though they are very numerous.
  • 0

#66 Jim Warford

Jim Warford

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,647 posts

Posted 11 January 2006 - 1056 AM

It was said rather clear "It is not o. 187 but it gives basic idea of what it is lokking like". The tank is equiped with ERA and other devices like "Shtora"...
It use the same but redesigned for new ammo autoloader. Te protection of hull and turret sides is significantly increased against RPG-type weapons.

View Post


Harkonnen; can you refresh my memory please...what is the Object 187? Do you mean Object 178?
  • 0

#67 Harkonnen

Harkonnen

    Andrei

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,462 posts

Posted 11 January 2006 - 1104 AM

Harkonnen; can you refresh my memory please...what is the Object 187? Do you mean Object 178?

View Post


I mean Object 187, I constantly mix up them and feel too lazy to correct the table :(

Edited by Harkonnen, 11 January 2006 - 1104 AM.

  • 0

#68 Davout

Davout

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 418 posts

Posted 11 January 2006 - 1259 PM

I don’t know what you understand here under the word “matrix”. Actually the "sand rods" is rather tangled term which corresponds to very simple method of producing a spaced armor with sand filler, used to produce cavities in the process of casting. This cavities very filled with advanced filler on a “primary” tanks like T-64B and T-80B. On the T-72A this sand was just left in the cavity which provided very chip and rather effective protection against cumulative weapon, though having rather limited effect against KE.
Yes, generally it is Bulging armor, the Russian eqivalent is reflective/repulsive plates.
This is similar for all other tanks which may future old hull and a new turret which was done during schedule repair. It is almost impossible to trace all such changes though they are very numerous.

View Post


Harkonnen:

Perhaps you are correct about matrix. It perhaps is just a tangled as "sand rods". Perhaps a label of "composite armor of steel with a quartz filler" would be better.

Just to be clear I was giving suggestions to make your post more clear. One of the problems we have on Tank-net is that we assign different meaning to different terms and use jargon that may not be well defined. For instance "sand rods" may be an apt description of the T72A filler. The term however can also be misleading.

When you state "reflective/repulsive plates" you are giving a good description the operation of the armor. The terms however could be misleading to some without further elaboration.

Davout
  • 0

#69 philgollin

philgollin

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,583 posts

Posted 12 January 2006 - 0234 AM

First, thanks for the interesting information.

Secondly, and specifically regarding the T-64, T-64A and T-64B, could you clarify your understanding of the dates for :

1: prototype completion date
2: decision to manufacture
3: first production tank produced
4: first training unit formed
5: first front-line unit operational.


and thirdly, there seems to be lots of "western" sources which believe Soviet tank armour to be inadequate versus western anti-tank weapons. Did the soviets AT THE TIME believe their tank armour to be adequate ?

Thanks
  • 0

#70 Harkonnen

Harkonnen

    Andrei

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,462 posts

Posted 12 January 2006 - 0328 AM

and thirdly, there seems to be lots of "western" sources which believe Soviet tank armour to be inadequate versus western anti-tank weapons. Did the soviets AT THE TIME believe their tank armour to be adequate ?

View Post


Can you name any serious western sourse saying this?
The Soviets first ever made a tank with combined armor in serial production in 1964.
Through all periods it was modernized constantly which allowed significant supiriority over western tanks of the same period.
  • 0

#71 Sebastian Balos

Sebastian Balos

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,145 posts

Posted 12 January 2006 - 0512 AM

I can't accept "copying" arguments, such as that the russian aircraft are just copies of their western counterparts. MiG-25 preceded F-15, but A-5 Vigilante (1958) preceded MiG-25 (1961?). All these aircraft just looked similar, infact, they were very different. The laws of physics are the same for all, it's only the matter of knowhow.

It's the fact that the Soviet tanks were and are somewhat underrated. They were-are very well suited for mass-production, simple to operate and offer comparable armour protection while being 15 t lighter. During Coldwar, these beasts gave NATO a serious headaches, not only because of their numbers, but because their quality too.

Yes, so called sand-rod insert is made as a casting core left into cast turret front-slightly protruding to the side. As far as I know, Yugoslav M-84A doesn't use the regular "beach" sand, but rather crushed granite rock, because it contains a much higher proportion od SiO2 than the regular sand. I don't know if this goes for T-72M1 too. I wonder what protection would a homogenous granite rock offer instead. I bet that KE protection would have been better.

Regards, Sebastian
  • 0

#72 nitflegal

nitflegal

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,778 posts

Posted 12 January 2006 - 1156 AM

First off, a simple thanks to Harkonnen for dredging up his usual great pictures of Soviet/Russian tanks, those development charts are great. Somewhat as an aside, weren't there supposed to be T-95 drawings or prototype photos out there that were going to be posted to the forum? I remember someone mentioning this several months back.

Matt
  • 0

#73 arcweasel

arcweasel

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 595 posts

Posted 12 January 2006 - 1157 AM

Yes, so called sand-rod insert is made as a casting core left into cast turret front-slightly protruding to the side. As far as I know, Yugoslav M-84A doesn't use the regular "beach" sand, but rather crushed granite rock, because it contains a much higher proportion od SiO2 than the regular sand. I don't know if this goes for T-72M1 too. I wonder what protection would a homogenous granite rock offer instead. I bet that KE protection would have been better.

Regards, Sebastian

View Post


I'd not heard this bit about using granite instead of sand. It seems to me that if you want more SiO2 you would use Quartz sand (all SiO2) rather than granite which is a mix of all sorts of things (Feldspars, Quartz, biotite...) but generally not to high a proportion of SiO2.

Perhaps they had access to some specific granite that gave some other advantage?

Some ASTM rock properties can be found at:

http://www.coldsprin...other_build.htm

And more: (This granite number looks more typical)
http://www.engineeri...tentId=41005035

It should be noted that these natural materials show a WIDE variation in properties.

Regards,

Jay

Edited by arcweasel, 12 January 2006 - 1200 PM.

  • 0

#74 pit

pit

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 293 posts

Posted 12 January 2006 - 1224 PM

Harkonen:

Can I post an english-translation of your awesome article here for the delight of non-russian speaker boys?...

I Use Systran 5.0 Multilanguage Translator, think I can do a good job with your article :) :lol:
  • 0

#75 philgollin

philgollin

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,583 posts

Posted 12 January 2006 - 1233 PM

Can you name any serious western sourse saying this?
The Soviets first ever made a tank with combined armor in serial production in 1964.
Through all periods it was modernized constantly which allowed significant supiriority over western tanks of the same period.

View Post


Harkonnen,

That's the reason I asked the other questions. I am a great fan of both the Chieftain and T-64A (and also the Centurion, but....).

As this thread is about Russian tanks, I would like to see some real info on when the decent (and very dangerous) T-64A were really available as the general response seems to be that they were a minor nuisance due to small numbers and late deliveries. I.E. the "gap" in tanks fielded from the late 1960s to, say, 1981, is minimised, whereas I can see a time when the Soviets had both an advantage in numbers and some of the best tanks around.

As far as your actual question goes, I believe most US sources reckon that by the early 1980s the US (and British and German tanks had advantages in both gun/projectile and armour.
  • 0

#76 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,648 posts

Posted 12 January 2006 - 1301 PM

I don’t know what you understand here under the word “matrix”. Actually the "sand rods" is rather tangled term which corresponds to very simple method of producing a spaced armor with sand filler, used to produce cavities in the process of casting. This cavities very filled with advanced filler on a “primary” tanks like T-64B and T-80B. On the T-72A this sand was just left in the cavity which provided very chip and rather effective protection against cumulative weapon, though having rather limited effect against KE.

View Post


I wonder if it was ever thought about replacing the sand just like in T-64 or T-80 with more advanced armour material?
  • 0

#77 Harkonnen

Harkonnen

    Andrei

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,462 posts

Posted 12 January 2006 - 1349 PM

As this thread is about Russian tanks, I would like to see some real info on when the decent (and very dangerous) T-64A were really available as the general response seems to be that they were a minor nuisance due to small numbers and late deliveries. I.E. the "gap" in tanks fielded from the late 1960s to, say, 1981, is minimised, whereas I can see a time when the Soviets had both an advantage in numbers and some of the best tanks around.

Actually until the appearance of M1A1 and Leo-2 western armor had nothing to compare to the T-tanks. USSR had M60-s and some other western tanks for trials after the 1973 war. They are nothing but simple steel hulls like T-54-55… The situation until the beginning of 80-th as so that no western ammo can penetrate the front areas of Soviet tanks of that time. The situation changed after the deployment of M111 class APFSDS (though it can penetrate only hull at ranges of beyond 1500m, the turret was much stronger) and resulted in leap forward in armor technology of the end 80-th tanks.

As far as your actual question goes, I believe most US sources reckon that by the early 1980s the US (and British and German tanks had advantages in both gun/projectile and armour.


Some materials of this period is just funny to read, for example western expert considered that T-64 has all-metal road wheals. In the beginning 80-th the Soviets outclassed every available tank of the west, this situation significantly changed at the end of 80-th and now remains the same.
  • 0

#78 Harkonnen

Harkonnen

    Andrei

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,462 posts

Posted 12 January 2006 - 1349 PM

Can I post an english-translation of your awesome article here for the delight of non-russian speaker boys?...
I Use Systran 5.0 Multilanguage Translator, think I can do a good job with your article


Actually do as you wish, but I suppose the text sometimes is rather complex even for Russian to understand :lol: :D . I don’t believe in robotized translators much, but you can try.

Edited by Harkonnen, 12 January 2006 - 1358 PM.

  • 0

#79 LeoTanker

LeoTanker

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,363 posts

Posted 12 January 2006 - 1424 PM

The F-15 enters production quickly followed by a series of Russian aircraft with similar charasteristics and appearances.

View Post


Are you refering to MiG-25? You must be, since ther is no other Sov/Rus aircraft wich resembles the F-15. Well, then you are wrong. The MiG-25 was built to intercept the XB-70 Valkyrie, but when the bomber was canseled the the Foxbat was allready entering service and Nato had nothing to match its performance, so the F-15 had to be developed to counter this new Sov. fighter.
To put it short: The F-15 was a response to MiG-25, not the other way around! Well, now we are far from tank armor, so let´s drop it...
  • 0

#80 Harkonnen

Harkonnen

    Andrei

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,462 posts

Posted 12 January 2006 - 1428 PM

Somewhat as an aside, weren't there supposed to be T-95 drawings or prototype photos out there that were going to be posted to the forum? I remember someone mentioning this several months back.


I don't think they are availible. Maybe some chieniese 3D models having nothing the same with T-95.
  • 0