Jump to content


Photo

T72 Trials In The Bundeswehr And The Us Army?


  • Please log in to reply
106 replies to this topic

#21 DB

DB

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,584 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hertfordshire, England

Posted 08 October 2015 - 0450 AM

Was that true in 1991?



#22 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

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

Posted 08 October 2015 - 0524 AM

Tell that to the Saudis, or Turks.



#23 Schwarzie

Schwarzie

    Crunchie

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

Posted 08 October 2015 - 0525 AM

IIRC Yes. The Export Models were a far cry of what a normal T72 was capable of. IIRC they were behind in regards to armor and FCS. The ones in Iraq even lacked modern ammunition that would have been capable of defeating the american tanks.



#24 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 08 October 2015 - 0620 AM

T-72M1 had same armor and FCS as "prime version" - T-72A. It was a bit dated in 1981. but not horribly so, considering T-72A was introduced in 1979.

T-72B also did not have any sort of real FCS (and Soviets certainly did not think so, noting it as "ballistic corrector"). Only T-64B, T-80B and T-80U had real FCS, and only last one could be compared to M1 and Leo 2 in terms of theoretical accuracy (FCS error level, stab error level etc).


Edited by bojan, 08 October 2015 - 0620 AM.


#25 methos

methos

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 727 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 October 2015 - 0642 AM

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 The T72M1 is an utterly outdated tank and no credible threat to any modern western tank anymore.


The 105 mm L7/M68 tank gun was even more outdated than the T-72M1. Given the available information about the T-72's armour composition and thickness as well as the available data for the 105 mm ammunition, it seems reasonable to test the M900 APFSDS against the T-72M1.

The original M735 APFSDS was useless against the T-72, the same applies to the M111 Hetz APFSDS... Swiss and German estimations from the early 1980s assume that 105 mm APFSDS can penetrate the T-72 only within a 700-800 m range. The information taken from declassified CIA documents shows that even the M774 was believed being unable to penetrate the basic T-72 at normal combat ranges.

 

So if we assume that the M883 was finally able to penetrate the T-72 reliably at normal combat ranges, it is still very questionable that it could do the same with the T-72A/T-72M1, a tank which has increased armour protection. The M900 was probably designed specifically for defeating the T-72A and T-80B tanks, i.e. the late-1970s tanks.

 

For penetrating a T-72M1M (Obiekt 172M-1-E7), aka the earlier model of the T-72S, with T-72B-like bulging plates armour, a 105 mm smoothbore gun was needed according to claims from Rheinmetall.


Edited by methos, 08 October 2015 - 0643 AM.


#26 Schwarzie

Schwarzie

    Crunchie

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

Posted 08 October 2015 - 0645 AM

 

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


The 105 mm L7/M68 tank gun was even more outdated than the T-72M1. Given the available information about the T-72's armour composition and thickness as well as the available data for the 105 mm ammunition, it seems reasonable to test the M900 APFSDS against the T-72M1.

So basically a practial approach of soldiers who doubted some claims about theire equipment?

@Bojan
It seems i have to read something about the T72 then, so far i was under the impression that even earlier models had something akin to an real FCS.


Edited by Schwarzie, 08 October 2015 - 0647 AM.


#27 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

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

Posted 08 October 2015 - 0927 AM

The Soviets preferred HEAT over APFSDS, but at least with the latter you don't really need a FCS. The projectile has such a short time of flight and thus small small drop that both aiming with deflection and aiming by estimating the range are good enough for a hit on Central European terrain (less than 2 km LOS usually).

Meanwhile, against dismounted forces other than ATGM squads you would have enough time for estimating the range better and even correcting shots, in part by using the machineguns.

True FCS had their breakthrough only with improved night vision and affordable lasers, since estimating ranges through night vision is hard and measuring ranges became easy with lasers.

#28 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

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

Posted 08 October 2015 - 0934 AM

What does a hit on the turret ring of the T-72 series by those otherwise 'ineffective' 105mm rounds do, pray tell?

 

Laboratory measurements don't tell all.



#29 Schwarzie

Schwarzie

    Crunchie

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

Posted 08 October 2015 - 1103 AM

What does a hit on the turret ring of the T-72 series by those otherwise 'ineffective' 105mm rounds do, pray tell?

 

Laboratory measurements don't tell all.

Is such a precision possible under battlefield conditions?



#30 Marsh

Marsh

    Miserable old git

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,207 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sadly, no longer in God's own county...Yorkshire!.
  • Interests:Tanks. S.F. Photography.Wine, Women and Celtic folk music.

Posted 08 October 2015 - 1136 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.

 

Hi,

I was at that Symposium, which if I remember correctly, was organised by SMi. Leyland Ness's presentation was greeted with scepticism. I shared that scepticism. With the benefit of hindsight, I suspect that Ness was nearer the truth than the bulk of his audience realised.

 

cheers

Marsh



#31 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,420 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 08 October 2015 - 1215 PM


What does a hit on the turret ring of the T-72 series by those otherwise 'ineffective' 105mm rounds do, pray tell?
 
Laboratory measurements don't tell all.

Is such a precision possible under battlefield conditions?
Standard practice is to aim for the turret ring as easily identifiable weak spot. Of course dispersion puts the impact around that point. But a hit there is very possible. Now that I think about it, the turret ring is a line within the circle of dispersion, not a point. Raising the probability to hit it. But calculated probabilities I do not have on hand.

Edited by Panzermann, 08 October 2015 - 1217 PM.


#32 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 08 October 2015 - 1606 PM

...

@Bojan
It seems i have to read something about the T72 then, so far i was under the impression that even earlier models had something akin to an real FCS.

 

Nope, none of T-72s before Russian 2000 modernizations had real FCS. It always had rangefinder (coinc on first model, later laser) and ballistic calculator (mechanical for early T-72, electronic for later). There is no lead calculator, temperature, air pressure, ammo temperature, crosswind etc. There is a basic cant compensator. Some of data can be manually entered into system however.

Compare that to T-64B/80B/80U, Leopard 2, M1 etc that had all those things included automatically...



#33 bd1

bd1

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,756 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:estonia

Posted 08 October 2015 - 1634 PM

how comparable is the m-84?



#34 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,420 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 08 October 2015 - 1650 PM


...
@Bojan
It seems i have to read something about the T72 then, so far i was under the impression that even earlier models had something akin to an real FCS.
 

Nope, none of T-72s before Russian 2000 modernizations had real FCS. It always had rangefinder (coinc on first model, later laser) and ballistic calculator (mechanical for early T-72, electronic for later). There is no lead calculator, temperature, air pressure, ammo temperature, crosswind etc. There is a basic cant compensator. Some of data can be manually entered into system however.
Compare that to T-64B/80B/80U, Leopard 2, M1 etc that had all those things included automatically...


Not to forget the multitude of fire control upgrades developed for T-72 tanks in the blast two decades. There was a market expected obviously.

#35 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 08 October 2015 - 1851 PM

how comparable is the m-84?

Theoretical FCS and stab error is on level of Leo 2A1. FCS was fully automated. Overall big jump from '80s level T-72s.


Edited by bojan, 08 October 2015 - 1852 PM.


#36 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 08 October 2015 - 1852 PM

...

Not to forget the multitude of fire control upgrades developed for T-72 tanks in the blast two decades. There was a market expected obviously.

 

Those were not relevant in 1991.



#37 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

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

Posted 08 October 2015 - 2107 PM

The M84 was used by Kuwait to rearm.



#38 bd1

bd1

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,756 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:estonia

Posted 09 October 2015 - 0327 AM

so yugo-made m84 was the best t-72 one could buy till advent of PT-91 and wave of modernisations in mid-90´s ?



#39 Jim Warford

Jim Warford

    Crew

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

Posted 10 October 2015 - 2232 PM



 



What does a hit on the turret ring of the T-72 series by those otherwise 'ineffective' 105mm rounds do, pray tell?

 

Laboratory measurements don't tell all.

Is such a precision possible under battlefield conditions?

 

 

Yup...sometimes...

 

T-72M1%20KO_OIF_Turret%20Ring_3.jpg



#40 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

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

Posted 11 October 2015 - 0245 AM

Thanks, Jim!

 

In fact, "battlefield conditions" are most likely to produce anomalies not realized in laboratory conditions. Many of these are repeatable, the turret ring hit being more common than not.


Edited by Ken Estes, 11 October 2015 - 0245 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users