Jump to content


Photo

T72 Trials In The Bundeswehr And The Us Army?


  • Please log in to reply
106 replies to this topic

#1 Schwarzie

Schwarzie

    Crunchie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 22 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 06 October 2015 - 0326 AM

Hi,

 

quite a while ago i read about weapon trials of leftover T72 found in the former DDR that werent monkey models and were quite surprisingly well armored. Supposedly there was an article in Janes defense weekly somewhere from 1997.

Can anyone help me out with further information regarding this topic?

 

best regards
Jens



#2 Nikolas93TS

Nikolas93TS

    Thread necromancer and obscure questions

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 803 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Trieste

Posted 06 October 2015 - 0612 AM

It was a fake article. 



#3 methos

methos

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 727 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 October 2015 - 0627 AM

It was a fake article. 

 

No, the article was not fake. The original article from 1997 was published by Jane's and an excerpt of this could be found on their old website. The only fake section was that somebody reposted it - with a date changed to 2007 and fake designations of the ammunition used.

 

Here is an old screen capture.


Edited by methos, 06 October 2015 - 0632 AM.


#4 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,293 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 06 October 2015 - 0636 AM

Rolf Hilmes, a German official (exactly the official who would have run the tests) and part-time author, did not publish the actual test results, but chose to repeat what he called figures from the internet (apparently not oo far off):

against KE
turret front 280-380 mm
upper glacis 400 mm
lower glacis 280 mm

against CE
turret front 490 mm
upper glacis 490 mm
lower glacis 250 mm

Acording to him the T-72M has in the nose monochrome cutaway photo was included)
outer plate 80 mm Panzerstahl (RHA or HHA, translation unclear)
two middle layer, total 105 mm fibreglass
inner layer 20 mm Panzerstahl (most likely rather ductile RHA for less spalling)
sloped by 22° for a line of sight (NOT RHAeq) of 355 mm. 335 mm for turret front.

T-72: 52% mass share for armour structure (Leopard 2: 48%)

He assumed publicly that later versions of the T-72 with reactive armour exceed the protection of a Leopard 2 A1.

source Rolf Hilmes, "Kampfpanzer", 1st ed. 2007



Any claims that deviate much from these protection ratings or describe a different T-72M glacis armour would almsot certainly be incorrect.

#5 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,293 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 06 October 2015 - 0640 AM

double post

Edited by lastdingo, 06 October 2015 - 0640 AM.


#6 methos

methos

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 727 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 October 2015 - 0647 AM

Rolf Hilmes, a German official (exactly the official who would have run the tests) and part-time author, did not publish the actual test results, but chose to repeat what he called figures from the internet (apparently not oo far off):

 

...

Any claims that deviate much from these protection ratings or describe a different T-72M glacis armour would almsot certainly be incorrect.

 

Aside of him writing in his book about the T-72A and Leopard 2, but mixing up lots of data from German tests of the basic T-72 and T-72M. He also writes that the armour protection values are estimations and he made a typo in the text - attributing the turret with 335 mm thickness, whereas his drawing shows 355 mm. Due to the shape of the T-72's turret it cannout be expressed with a single thickness value; measuring done by the CIA has shown that the thickness ranges from about 300 mm at the gun mount to a total of 475 mm at the turret cheeks. Saying the T-72 has a 335 mm or 355 mm thick turret is like saying the Leopard 2 has a 420 mm thick turret - because the gun mantlet has this thickness.


Edited by methos, 06 October 2015 - 0648 AM.


#7 Schwarzie

Schwarzie

    Crunchie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 22 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 06 October 2015 - 0757 AM

Here is an old screen capture.

Thanks a lot, that was what i was searching for.



#8 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,973 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 06 October 2015 - 0834 AM

I doubt such tests would be declassified as of yet.



#9 Nikolas93TS

Nikolas93TS

    Thread necromancer and obscure questions

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 803 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Trieste

Posted 06 October 2015 - 0840 AM

 

It was a fake article. 

 

No, the article was not fake. The original article from 1997 was published by Jane's and an excerpt of this could be found on their old website. The only fake section was that somebody reposted it - with a date changed to 2007 and fake designations of the ammunition used.

 

Here is an old screen capture.

 

 

Thank you, very interesting. 

 

Can I also get a comment on this report from 1999, is it accurate?

 

http://www.timawa.ne...opic=788.0;wap2



#10 jaro

jaro

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 596 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Wargames - Total War series, Steel Panthers (MBT, WW2), Jagged Alliance 1.13 ...etc

Posted 06 October 2015 - 0846 AM


hit placement matters... with T90 they say no Kornet penetrated ERA equipped target, while two Kornets penetrated ERA protected T80U... yet, coverage is 50%, so in this case its quite possible that those Kornets that hit the T80U got through the unprotected area while T90 was more lucky...

Edited by jaro, 06 October 2015 - 0946 AM.


#11 EchoFiveMike

EchoFiveMike

    I offer safe passage through the wasteland

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,483 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:FOB Chitcago
  • Interests:Killing, killing is the solution!

Posted 06 October 2015 - 0942 AM

Are you talking about the ERA/T72-something testing with Manfred Held?  I think that was in IDR.  S/F.....Ken M



#12 jaro

jaro

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 596 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Wargames - Total War series, Steel Panthers (MBT, WW2), Jagged Alliance 1.13 ...etc

Posted 06 October 2015 - 0947 AM

no, about that second link where T80U and T90 were tested by Russians. I think i saw those details also on Vasilii Fofanov page.

#13 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,639 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 06 October 2015 - 1017 AM

Those are fake.



#14 M48A5K

M48A5K

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 543 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bundang, Republic of Korea

Posted 06 October 2015 - 1030 AM

I also heard that the second article is a fake.

#15 TOW-2

TOW-2

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 648 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 October 2015 - 1529 PM

So is the takeaway here that the T72M would have been invulnerable to fire from the M256/L44?



#16 methos

methos

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 727 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 October 2015 - 1626 PM

So is the takeaway here that the T72M would have been invulnerable to fire from the M256/L44?

 

No. The result is that the T-72 - in an unkown version - was immune to the ammunition used by the US army with the M256 and by the German army with their Rh 120 L/44 gun, when fitted with Kontakt-5 ERA. Where the Kontakt-5 ERA came and to which exact version it was applied has not been mentioned by any source I've read.



#17 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,129 posts
  • Interests:tanks. More tanks. Guns. BIG GUNs!

Posted 06 October 2015 - 2120 PM

The only serialized t72 with k5 is the t72b3. Inshallah Mr Putin has sent sone to Comrade Assad for counter-terror work.

Edited by Simon Tan, 06 October 2015 - 2122 PM.


#18 M48A5K

M48A5K

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 543 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bundang, Republic of Korea

Posted 07 October 2015 - 0301 AM

IIRC T-72BM(or T-72B2) is equipped with Relikt. Not only T-72B3 but earlier T-72B obr.1989 and T-72BA are also fitted with Kontakt-5.

#19 Jim Warford

Jim Warford

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,854 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 October 2015 - 2244 PM



I doubt such tests would be declassified as of yet.

 

Ken is exactly right...this info probably won't be released for quite some time. So, we go with the info we have... I heard from a very reliable source, that the folks from the 1st Infantry Division (after the Desert Storm cease fire), did an unofficial live-fire test using M900 against an Iraqi T-72M1. Whatever the result, they learned what they needed to know...

 

 105mm%20M900%20APFSDS_Info_1.jpg



#20 Schwarzie

Schwarzie

    Crunchie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 22 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 08 October 2015 - 0247 AM

 



I doubt such tests would be declassified as of yet.

 

Ken is exactly right...this info probably won't be released for quite some time. So, we go with the info we have... I heard from a very reliable source, that the folks from the 1st Infantry Division (after the Desert Storm cease fire), did an unofficial live-fire test using M900 against an Iraqi T-72M1. Whatever the result, they learned what they needed to know...

What was the reason of this test? The T72M1 is an utterly outdated tank and no credible threat to any modern western tank anymore.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

1 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    M256